675 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Lightfoot, on 10 December 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Yes, I have known since they HAD to change DHS to DHS 1.4 that MWO would not support the Clan Invasion, I think I told PGI this the day DHS 1.4 HAD to be used for Inner Sphere's junky DHS. Nerfing a MechWarrior game with only heat nerfs is never going to work. Now they have to re-make every Clan Tech item and I sure that will be completely headache-free with no forum rants about "New MetA Must Stop NOW!!!!".

Exactly. Instead of balancing energy weapons (high heat, low space) with ballistics(low heat, high space), they opted for the insane heat balance system they currently have, where they are trying to balance ballistics with heat penalties instead of making them function as duration/burst weapons like they should be. Now, instead of fixing the root issue (instant, pinpoint damage), they are adding in all sorts of other adjustments to try to make clan tech fit the current mold without breaking it - even though the mold is already broke...

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Exactly. Instead of balancing energy weapons (high heat, low space) with ballistics(low heat, high space), they opted for the insane heat balance system they currently have, where they are trying to balance ballistics with heat penalties instead of making them function as duration/burst weapons like they should be. Now, instead of fixing the root issue (instant, pinpoint damage), they are adding in all sorts of other adjustments to try to make clan tech fit the current mold without breaking it - even though the mold is already broke...

except there are disagreements on this in general. You cant say this is the root problem.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

except there are disagreements on this in general. You cant say this is the root problem.

I can say it is the root problem all I want, especially because it is. I realize there are disagreements, as you and I are discussing it in maybe three(?) threads, currently, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Pinpoint, instantaneous damage, such as that done by autocannons and PPCs, is the reason alpha strikes are so deadly right now: being able to put all of your damage into a single hitbox instantly. Remove the "instantly" part and you have now opened the door for movement on both sides to dramatically reduce the pinpoint damage. Remove the convergence, instead, and you get random locations, which fixes the alpha in large groupings of smaller weapons, but any individual weapon still does all of its damage to a particular hitbox, so instead of that AC40 jäger putting 40 points into one section, it has instead put 20 points into 1-2 sections, but only when fired together - firing individually is unaffected (just like ghost heat works...or doesn't...actually).

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

I can say it is the root problem all I want, especially because it is. I realize there are disagreements, as you and I are discussing it in maybe three(?) threads, currently, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Pinpoint, instantaneous damage, such as that done by autocannons and PPCs, is the reason alpha strikes are so deadly right now: being able to put all of your damage into a single hitbox instantly. Remove the "instantly" part and you have now opened the door for movement on both sides to dramatically reduce the pinpoint damage. Remove the convergence, instead, and you get random locations, which fixes the alpha in large groupings of smaller weapons, but any individual weapon still does all of its damage to a particular hitbox, so instead of that AC40 jäger putting 40 points into one section, it has instead put 20 points into 1-2 sections, but only when fired together - firing individually is unaffected (just like ghost heat works...or doesn't...actually).

Honestly. The major issue I have with this line of thinking is that I view this as taking the easy way out. There are players that do GREAT with this system, using all types of weapons. So obviously they have found this system to work... or they would not be playing.

Instead of learning from them though and how they play within this system. You do not like it and find you die alot? (I guess) so you want it changed.

So instead of gaining more skill to play and be better....

you want the system to go easy mode....?

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Honestly. The major issue I have with this line of thinking is that I view this as taking the easy way out. There are players that do GREAT with this system, using all types of weapons. So obviously they have found this system to work... or they would not be playing.

Instead of learning from them though and how they play within this system. You do not like it and find you die alot? (I guess) so you want it changed.

So instead of gaining more skill to play and be better....

you want the system to go easy mode....?

lol, you are extremely good at ignoring any actual discussion about topic and sticking to the insults, aren't you? Going to challenge me to a duel again?...

I do quite well for as poor of a pilot as I am, and good pilots can do great regardless of how bad the system is. Are you saying that anyone that complains about 3PV, ECM, ghost heat, or any of the other "hot topics" over the last year are also unskilled losers?

Quit derailing threads with your insults and topic-less posts so we can discuss this peacefully.
/endofftopicargument



On Topic:
It is difficult to look at the stats and compare them, even if you take damage per hit, because the damage for autocannons/Guass and PPCs are all done to only one hitbox, whereas lasers and missiles are applied all over the target, thereby making any spread damage less effective than the exact same pinpoint, instant damage.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

lol, you are extremely good at ignoring any actual discussion about topic and sticking to the insults, aren't you? Going to challenge me to a duel again?...

I do quite well for as poor of a pilot as I am, and good pilots can do great regardless of how bad the system is. Are you saying that anyone that complains about 3PV, ECM, ghost heat, or any of the other "hot topics" over the last year are also unskilled losers?

Quit derailing threads with your insults and topic-less posts so we can discuss this peacefully.
/endofftopicargument



On Topic:
It is difficult to look at the stats and compare them, even if you take damage per hit, because the damage for autocannons/Guass and PPCs are all done to only one hitbox, whereas lasers and missiles are applied all over the target, thereby making any spread damage less effective than the exact same pinpoint, instant damage.

so you instead want to make every weapon spread damage.

Because?

[Gaan Cathal]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

Honestly. The major issue I have with this line of thinking is that I view this as taking the easy way out. There are players that do GREAT with this system, using all types of weapons. So obviously they have found this system to work... or they would not be playing.

Instead of learning from them though and how they play within this system. You do not like it and find you die alot? (I guess) so you want it changed.

So instead of gaining more skill to play and be better....

you want the system to go easy mode....?

Wow, I know I've been away a while but...wow.

High-elo/competitive/whatever players have a history in MWO of favouring the highest frontload of pinpoint damage they can get, whilst minimising exposure to similar damage. This is because it's better. You put all your damage into the CT as fast as possible, producing the shortest TTK whilst extending your opponent's TTK on you as much as possible. That is the most efficient way to kill an opposing mech. There is no possible argument about this, that is just..a fact. If you don't do that, you damage areas other than the CT. On a non-XL mech, that's pointless, wasted damage. That damage achieved nothing.

The problem, the real problem, with PPCs/Gauss wasn't really the guns. It was the high-frontload meta, combined with the ridiculously easy to target diapers that count(ed) as CT on all mechs. The problem with lasers is that your opponent can dictate, to a degree, where the beam hits him. This means he can spread damage, an AC/20, PPC or UAC/5 doesn't let you do that.

If you're doing well, I mean really well, with an LB-X/SRM/Laser build, then you're not playing good opponents. You're just not, those weapons are functionally, categorically, inferior at killing mechs and have a higher opportunity cost.

[Varent]

Gaan Cathal, on 30 December 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Wow, I know I've been away a while but...wow.

High-elo/competitive/whatever players have a history in MWO of favouring the highest frontload of pinpoint damage they can get, whilst minimising exposure to similar damage. This is because it's better. You put all your damage into the CT as fast as possible, producing the shortest TTK whilst extending your opponent's TTK on you as much as possible. That is the most efficient way to kill an opposing mech. There is no possible argument about this, that is just..a fact. If you don't do that, you damage areas other than the CT. On a non-XL mech, that's pointless, wasted damage. That damage achieved nothing.

The problem, the real problem, with PPCs/Gauss wasn't really the guns. It was the high-frontload meta, combined with the ridiculously easy to target diapers that count(ed) as CT on all mechs. The problem with lasers is that your opponent can dictate, to a degree, where the beam hits him. This means he can spread damage, an AC/20, PPC or UAC/5 doesn't let you do that.

If you're doing well, I mean really well, with an LB-X/SRM/Laser build, then you're not playing good opponents. You're just not, those weapons are functionally, categorically, inferior at killing mechs and have a higher opportunity cost.

Agreed? Im not sure what your getting at. But yes thats about the top end elo.

[Gaan Cathal]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Agreed? Im not sure what your getting at. But yes thats about the top end elo.

What I'm getting at is that the general point of the OP is that some weapons are trash compared with ballistics. Your response to that is that some people do 'fine' with trash weapons, so OP just needs to get better. If he got better he'd be playing in tiers where the non-ballistics are even less viable, reinforcing his point.

[Cimarb]

It's not just the top end ELO. The top end ELO just exemplifies what is currently out of balance in the game in its current state.

Front-loaded damage is so far out of whack compared to everything else it is ridiculous. Just because you like it doesn't mean it is right or balanced.

Until the front-loaded issue is fixed, no amount of ghost heat, armor boosting, internal structure boosting, or convergence changes will fix things. They are just bandaids on an infected wound...

[Varent]

Edit - Its not worth it.

Enjoy your game of "Brawlers Online" That is what its gonna head towards real quickly with most of the changes proposed on this forum. Might as well truly turn it into call of duty then.

Edited by Varent, 30 December 2013 - 07:08 PM.

[Profiteer]

Lasers - lol.

2x PPC + AC20 = smash your face while drinking a beer.

GG Ghost heat.

[MustrumRidcully]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

so you instead want to make every weapon spread damage.

Because?

The weapons don't spread damage. The user does, because he isn't a perfect shot. And if every weapon comes with a similar challenge in term of aiming, then no weapon grants undue benefits.

Maybe there would be an alternative - if statistics show that a 1.0 second beam duration leads to roughly 20 % less damage utilization than a single-damage projectile, then we need to buff the damage output of all beam duration weapons by 20 %.
We can apply the same statistic method to determine the damage bonus LBX or SRMs (after fixed hit registration) need.

Of course, that's not yet looking at other things like the heat sytem's influence on weapon viability, or how useful boating is, or how projectile vs beam has advantages for sniping.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 December 2013 - 03:24 AM.

[Voidsinger]

Okay, time and again PGI have shown serious issues with doing any form of balance. Here's a few of the problems:

- No standard to balance against. All weapons are balanced helter skelter. What should have happened was the single most common weapon (the medium laser) should have been left untouched, and all other weapons balanced with RoF, Damage, Heat, ammunition.

- Heat. We failed to get DHS due to anecdotal evidence (Garth coring a stationary Atlas from behind in a Jenner F). What should have been done was full dissipation, and a lowering of the heat cap. The problem is PGI is too proud of their variant dissipation system to tinker with something shown to be broken. This high cap without penalty up to 100% resulted in the high Alpha meta, and disadvantages massively the concept of heat balanced builds.

- No idea of basic mechanics. Spash Damage. Completely broke the way armour worked in Battletech, and made a heavier mech have effectively more armour per ton allocated than light mechs. Took 8 months before a player presented them with irrefutable evidence that this was insanely broken.

- Pandering to the user base. The lowest common denominator loves their dacca. Weapons are balanced against this, not objective values. People love their big mechs with big boomguns. PGI obliges. It is this way with a great deal of things, attempting customer retention of the most fickle customers at the expense of the loyal. See also the lack of Repair & rearm, and the everybody wins situation.

- Meta of the month syndrome. Weapons aren't balanced against each other (standard issue), but in isolation. This leads to a nerf/buff cycle.

- Lack of longterm commitment. Russ admitted it, we've had to live it. Maybe this will change.

[Shakma]

It should be also mentioned that for some reason ballistic weapons max range is two times their optimal range opposed to the max range of energy weapons.

For example the ML and the AC20 both have an optimal range of 270m, which translates to a max range of 540m for the ML and 810m for the AC20. Between those two values the dmg decreases linearly. So at (270m +540m)/2 = 405m the ML does 100% *(1- 1/2) = 50% of it's max dmg. However the AC20 at this range does 405m/(270m+810m)=3/8 --> 100% *(1- 3/8)= 62.5% of it's max mdg.

So they do better delivering a bigger fraction of their max possible DPS onto the target on the battlefield.

[Cimarb]

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

Okay, time and again PGI have shown serious issues with doing any form of balance. Here's a few of the problems:

- No standard to balance against. All weapons are balanced helter skelter. What should have happened was the single most common weapon (the medium laser) should have been left untouched, and all other weapons balanced with RoF, Damage, Heat, ammunition.

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

- Meta of the month syndrome. Weapons aren't balanced against each other (standard issue), but in isolation. This leads to a nerf/buff cycle.

I generally agree with these two points and, since they are close to the same thing, wanted to clump them together.

"Balancing" seems to be very isolated when done. They aren't balancing This vs That. Instead, they are balancing This because something happened they didn't like. I assume squeaky wheels in the forums cause a lot of the changes, but it is hard to tell because so little of what is complained about actually changes.

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

- Heat. We failed to get DHS due to anecdotal evidence (Garth coring a stationary Atlas from behind in a Jenner F). What should have been done was full dissipation, and a lowering of the heat cap. The problem is PGI is too proud of their variant dissipation system to tinker with something shown to be broken. This high cap without penalty up to 100% resulted in the high Alpha meta, and disadvantages massively the concept of heat balanced builds.

Amen. I don't particularly care the exact number used for DHS, but the heat system itself (high cap low dissipation) is completely broke and they are trying to use bandaids when it needs a tourniquet.

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

- No idea of basic mechanics. Spash Damage. Completely broke the way armour worked in Battletech, and made a heavier mech have effectively more armour per ton allocated than light mechs. Took 8 months before a player presented them with irrefutable evidence that this was insanely broken.

When you say splash damage, do you mean when LRMs did splash damage? I have heard the stories and don't want to go back to that, but I do think splash damage would be a good way to disperse the front-loaded damage from PPCs. It just needs to be like an actual lightning bolt, where it does maybe 6 points to the main hit location and a couple damage to two areas near it.

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

- Pandering to the user base. The lowest common denominator loves their dacca. Weapons are balanced against this, not objective values. People love their big mechs with big boomguns. PGI obliges. It is this way with a great deal of things, attempting customer retention of the most fickle customers at the expense of the loyal. See also the lack of Repair & rearm, and the everybody wins situation.

I will be glad to see how this all changes once weight limits are put in place - I really have high hopes for the game after that point, as we should see a lot more diversity in weights and roles than currently.

Voidsinger, on 31 December 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

- Lack of longterm commitment. Russ admitted it, we've had to live it. Maybe this will change.

They have a long term commitment (through 2020 or something), but it does seem like they are very lackadaisical about getting things done short term. Maybe it is they have TOO long term of a commitment...

Shakma, on 31 December 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

It should be also mentioned that for some reason ballistic weapons max range is two times their optimal range opposed to the max range of energy weapons.

For example the ML and the AC20 both have an optimal range of 270m, which translates to a max range of 540m for the ML and 810m for the AC20. Between those two values the dmg decreases linearly. So at (270m +540m)/2 = 405m the ML does 100% *(1- 1/2) = 50% of it's max dmg. However the AC20 at this range does 405m/(270m+810m)=3/8 --> 100% *(1- 3/8)= 62.5% of it's max mdg.

So they do better delivering a bigger fraction of their max possible DPS onto the target on the battlefield.

That is working as intended, unfortunately. All ballistics have x3 range instead of x2 like energy weapons do. It's one of the things us "nerf ballistics" people have been complaining about for a long time...

[Shakma]

Cimarb, on 31 December 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

That is working as intended, unfortunately. All ballistics have x3 range instead of x2 like energy weapons do. It's one of the things us "nerf ballistics" people have been complaining about for a long time...</p>

Sure it's working as intended. It's just another reason  why balistic weapons do better on the battlefield and something which directly correlates with the numbers about DPS in the graphs of the OP. A reason which was unmentioned so far in this thread.</p>

Edited by Shakma, 31 December 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Edit - Its not worth it.

Enjoy your game of "Brawlers Online" That is what its gonna head towards real quickly with most of the changes proposed on this forum. Might as well truly turn it into call of duty then.

Yes and no. Brawling would become viable again in the metagame, you could actually get within 270M without getting your torso blow open by multiple 40 pinpoint alphas.

Currently, the pinpoint meta is pretty much easy mode, you can fire and twist immediately. Hitting a particular component is not hard on anything heavier than 50 tons, so don't try to say it takes very much skill. It is the most effective way to play, hence the whole meta craze. Sure, you can use SRMs to get high damage, but its all spread over multiple components.

My opinion is that the removal of pinpoint weapons would make the game much more enjoyable, with brawling being practical and torso twisting required and efficient. Gauss is the only thing that bugs me. Perhaps it just gets a higher cooldown, but keeps its frontload?

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

Yes and no. Brawling would become viable again in the metagame, you could actually get within 270M without getting your torso blow open by multiple 40 pinpoint alphas.

Currently, the pinpoint meta is pretty much easy mode, you can fire and twist immediately. Hitting a particular component is not hard on anything heavier than 50 tons, so don't try to say it takes very much skill. It is the most effective way to play, hence the whole meta craze. Sure, you can use SRMs to get high damage, but its all spread over multiple components.

My opinion is that the removal of pinpoint weapons would make the game much more enjoyable, with brawling being practical and torso twisting required and efficient. Gauss is the only thing that bugs me. Perhaps it just gets a higher cooldown, but keeps its frontload?

Enjoy Brawlers Online then. It will not make them more prevalent, It will make them THE Meta.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Enjoy Brawlers Online then. It will not make them more prevalent, It will make them THE Meta.

No more than the SRM splash meta.

Although ballistics will still have their 3X range...there will be plenty of sniping still, just as there are ERLL boats currently. Are you imagining a different kind of burst AC? They will have the same stats, just not frontloaded. Shorter bursts than lasers on top of that.