675 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 01 January 2014 - 12:21 AM, said:

I wanted to point this one out because you actually make some good suggestions. The flamer part especially. I would love yo see more constructive posts like this.


And less like this... You start out good, but after the first few sentences, you go right back to saying anyone that disagrees with you lacks any skill and runs around like an id10t. (Can't believe that's a "bad" word...)

Have you considered im jaded and tired of arguing and having to come up with something constructive when I would much rather spend that time with my wife, guild or friends? Frankly im tired of arguing and ive already stated im mostly just here on this section of the forums to help try to offer a cautionary word. That said, vast majority of argument simply are the same way. I see no reason to argue to the same level that is represented here.

Edited by Varent, 01 January 2014 - 12:32 AM.

[SirLANsalot]

game modes like Respawn (aka Attack/Defend) and significantly longer fights will be the downfall of ballistics. This is because those weapons need ammo which is there drawback.


For the meantime, something like reducing the ammo per a ton for ballistics across the board would be one way to keep them in check, without actually touching the guns themselves. You could start out with cutting ammo down by 1/2 (rounding up) on everything below the AC20 (which is fine where it is in ammo per a ton for an already massive gun). Directly nerfing or buffing a guns RoF or damage will be too much either way on the nerf/buff scale. However, doing indirect nerfs/buffs to guns is a better way to balance things out without going overboard (something that CCP have never learned in EvE even). Doing a Buff or a nerf is constant work, but it needs to be CONSTANTLY revised after 2 weeks or a month of the changes (another thing CCP never did or took years to come back to).

[Shakma]

It would be an easy change to reduce ballistics max range from 3x to 2x of the optimal range and then see how things evolve from there. This should put the percentage of their delivered dps closer to those of beam weapons.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 12:29 AM, said:

Have you considered im jaded and tired of arguing and having to come up with something constructive when I would much rather spend that time with my wife, guild or friends? Frankly im tired of arguing and ive already stated im mostly just here on this section of the forums to help try to offer a cautionary word. That said, vast majority of argument simply are the same way. I see no reason to argue to the same level that is represented here.

Then spend time with them. If you aren't making constructive posts, why bother wasting our time, let alone your own?

I welcome healthy debate. I think there have been a lot of suggestions made on how things could be balanced. Unfortunately, until PGI decides to actually try to fix the problem, none of these threads matter either way...

[Noesis]

I would like people to step back and take a few moments to better understand the premise of this study in the first place. It may offer a better perspective of the value of this data.

Player skill is a consistent factor in this study as it is comparative. It also incorporates all the operating and balance mechanics in the process since it incorporates these things as part of understanding of the real applied gaming data. The stats reflect on the actual operational use of the weapons.

What I would like people to understand and remember is that despite player skill or mechanics (either in use of that weapon type or to those inherent to their balance) the findings even if they are very much a factor as to why the weapons operate like they do is they the stats indicate the final "damage potential" able to be garnered from their application.

In other words, the weapons have been utilised to best effect, but irrespective of skill or tactics and considering that the mechanics are incorporated the conclusions are that this is how much can be squeezed from these weapons over a significant sample.

There will be situational occasions where weapons have better application even if other weapons with range or application or use of tactics may be better. But "overall" the findings indicate that even with best attempts with the above or in the use of these weapons this is how they fair in the "big picture".

So whilst discussing skill, tactics, situations on and on to review the merits of weapons under all the various situations and how they could be applied "pro and con" we still arrive back at the more holistic view as how they actually perform using this COMPARATIVE process of actual DAMAGE potential in comparison to what the factory figures suggests. This doesn't mean that the situational use of weapons are not valid to a discussion of balance about them but the underlining statistics still show how each of these weapons perform as applied in real gaming use.

So whilst lasers may have the occasional situation or application in some cases where they perform well, OVERALL the damage potential found in their use are overall worse than ballistics as indicated by the amount of applied damage or effective damage found from these weapon types when compared against each other. That is why I'm able to say that "overall" ballistics are better than beams.

The other issues concerning pinpoint application, range, DPS, alpha, heat issues, inappropriate relative Mech sizes, double armour, engine restrictions, fitting restrictions or capabilities, larger Mech preferences for damage output and defensive capabilities or longevity, gaming rewards, blob over mobility, face time, low ammo explosions, other useless tech not in the Meta, focus and dominance in terms of the go to Meta choices, HSR, lack of tonnage restrictions etc. etc. etc. then all relevant factors and reasons why ballistics may be more preferable to use and generate better figures than other weapon types etc. but at the end of the day despite all the above the damage potential disparity is there to see.

The funny thing is. Is that the damage potential disparity may only need a small subtle change to alleviate the differences as identified and being subtle won't be a change in how the game works as to how we appreciate its essence or be a paradigm shift to MWO. At least this is what the 5% - 10% in terms of difference reflects.

This is why originally for this issue I was simply concerned with applying 3.5 heat just to MLs instead of their current value of 4 (BT 3) and maybe look at MPLs. Since it would be a small enough kind of change that would allow more sustainable use. This since it would help these weapons that appear to be under performing "slightly", wouldn't change other weapons, it would allow the AC hammer to remain as it was with the scalpel as a laser having more longevity to perform over time whilst allowing a better opportunity to the under valued short game in the meta. Well that and SRM HSR fixes. I wasn't even thinking about LL's and other weapons as they seemed to compare quite well in the scheme of things. Although the AC20 does operate rather too well and stands head a shoulders above everything else in terms of potential.

However, it may be more viable now to address the root problem by shortening beam duration and increasing the recycle time to maintain the overall cool down time for heat balance for the ML. This as it at least remedies the potential identified issue?

Interestingly given that there are so many factors that could elude to this disparity as explained I may not be wise to even suggest what the best solution to the issue is and just leave it as an exercise that overall a disparity exists and let the player base and ultimately PGI decide on the best solution for it?

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 01 January 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

Then spend time with them. If you aren't making constructive posts, why bother wasting our time, let alone your own?

I welcome healthy debate. I think there have been a lot of suggestions made on how things could be balanced. Unfortunately, until PGI decides to actually try to fix the problem, none of these threads matter either way...

See my original post. Im here to be a voice of reason and a counterpoint.

1. Because several of my guild wanted me to post on there behalf.
2. So that there is a counter argument among those that would quite possible ruin a game I enjoy.
3. Because I have alot of free time and I might as well spend it here.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 01 January 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:

Then spend time with them. If you aren't making constructive posts, why bother wasting our time, let alone your own?

I welcome healthy debate. I think there have been a lot of suggestions made on how things could be balanced. Unfortunately, until PGI decides to actually try to fix the problem, none of these threads matter either way...

Unless pgi agrees with those of us that say the weapons are well balanced now

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 01 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Unless pgi agrees with those of us that say the weapons are well balanced now

<3

[Nik Van Rhijn]

So far it seems mostly down to the two of you supporting your (and maybe PGIs) preferred gamestyle.

[Varent]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 01 January 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

So far it seems mostly down to the two of you supporting your (and maybe PGIs) preferred gamestyle.

actually there is more then that. There are about.. 4-5 very prevalent posters on either side.

[Sandpit]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 01 January 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

So far it seems mostly down to the two of you supporting your (and maybe PGIs) preferred gamestyle.

Ironic since it's currently about the same on both sides at this point, not to mention this is what ALL these threads degrade into.
Most post in the first 2-3 pages of the first 2-3 duplicate threads. They say what they feel they need to say and are done.
Then the next 10 pages and duplicate threads are the same handful of posters on both sides talking about how the other side is wrong
Your statement is simply not true though. Feel free to research all of the duplicate threads and it's quite clear that there are plenty who share the opinion that things are well balanced now.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

That said the current 'dominant meta' at least takes skill. I have trouble appreciating a meta that just makes brawlers gods and neuters any other possibility, which that would do.

No, it really, really wouldn't. It would allow alternatives to sniping/poptarting, which the current meta does not.

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

Gaan Cathal, on 31 December 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

And what's the timeframe to core out a cockpit with your chainfired LLs?

On average? If I'm having a good game I can do it in one salvo easy with 5 LLs
More usually? About 6-7 shots at 400+ meters

I think you missed the part where he asked about how long it takes with chainfire. The answer is at least 3.6 seconds (15 IS + 18 armour / 9 damage per LL * 1 second beam duration = 3.67 seconds), so let's say 4 seconds (you're a great shot). That's roughly 3 seconds longer than you'd need to do it with an alpha (the full 45-point burn takes 1 second, so the 33 points needed to destroy the head takes roughly 0.75 seconds) , and roughly 4 seconds longer than an AC/40 Jager would need to do the same ("boom" - "gg close").

Now imagine how much more survival skills and strategies that can be utilized by a target that has 1, 3, or even 4 seconds in which to execute them. Having just 1 second to react makes a huge difference for the target, as that's enough to start twisting to spread the damage over several hit boxes.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 01 January 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

No, it really, really wouldn't. It would allow alternatives to sniping/poptarting, which the current meta does not.

Yes, it really would. I survive in the meta primarly brawling. Im over a 2.0 kill to death ratio. I play in a high ELO. So... ya...

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 01 January 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

No, it really, really wouldn't. It would allow alternatives to sniping/poptarting, which the current meta does not.


I think you missed the part where he asked about how long it takes with chainfire. The answer is at least 3.6 seconds (15 IS + 18 armour / 9 damage per LL * 1 second beam duration = 3.67 seconds), so let's say 4 seconds (you're a great shot). That's roughly 3 seconds longer than you'd need to do it with an alpha (the full 45-point burn takes 1 second, so the 33 points needed to destroy the head takes roughly 0.75 seconds) , and roughly 4 seconds longer than an AC/40 Jager would need to do the same (&quot;boom&quot; - &quot;gg close&quot;).

Now imagine how much more survival skills and strategies that can be utilized by a target that has 1, 3, or even 4 seconds in which to execute them. Having just 1 second to react makes a huge difference for the target, as that's enough to start twisting to spread the damage over several hit boxes.

Uhm ok? You also don't take into account that for all their hype ballistics are hit or miss. You miss the head when you click the button and that's it.
Lasers don't have that problem by the very nature of having a beam duration.
What you're asking for would actually buff ballistics by giving them that same advantage

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

[/size]

Yes, it really would. I survive in the meta primarly brawling. Im over a 2.0 kill to death ratio. I play in a high ELO. So... ya...

The biggest issue is that the current long range weapons work just as well from 600 M to 50M, PPC 90M min being the exception. In fact they work even better since you can aim for the specific components.

I took my SRM Shaq hawk out and finally found a decent meta player, and while I sandblasted his armor, twisted he waited until I had to turn, then hammered my CT with his AC ERPPC loadout, coring me within 3 alphas while my SRMs didn't even turn his armor orange in the same time frame. To brawl, you need the pinpoint weapons. Not the brawling ones (AC20 aside).

[Sandpit]

Mcgral18, on 01 January 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

The biggest issue is that the current long range weapons work just as well from 600 M to 50M, PPC 90M min being the exception. In fact they work even better since you can aim for the specific components.

I took my SRM Shaq hawk out and finally found a decent meta player, and while I sandblasted his armor, twisted he waited until I had to turn, then hammered my CT with his AC ERPPC loadout, coring me within 3 alphas while my SRMs didn't even turn his armor orange in the same time frame. To brawl, you need the pinpoint weapons. Not the brawling ones (AC20 aside).

If you're "brawling" in a SRM mech you're doing it wrong. That kind of design is simply not a brawler. It's a skirmisher. Or a light hunter. Or a nasty crit seeker on mechs that have already been damaged by your team's brawlers
Just because a weapon doesn't work as well in a situation doesn't make the other one "op"

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 01 January 2014 - 03:09 PM, said:

The biggest issue is that the current long range weapons work just as well from 600 M to 50M, PPC 90M min being the exception. In fact they work even better since you can aim for the specific components.

I took my SRM Shaq hawk out and finally found a decent meta player, and while I sandblasted his armor, twisted he waited until I had to turn, then hammered my CT with his AC ERPPC loadout, coring me within 3 alphas while my SRMs didn't even turn his armor orange in the same time frame. To brawl, you need the pinpoint weapons. Not the brawling ones (AC20 aside).

your doing it wrong, anyone running that should be fairly slow, keep circling, keep turning properly and using your own arms to shield, use your increase maneuverability to make him miss and or fail to hit properly.

Play smarter not harder.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

your doing it wrong, anyone running that should be fairly slow, keep circling, keep turning properly and using your own arms to shield, use your increase maneuverability to make him miss and or fail to hit properly.

Play smarter not harder.

No, big XL engine, lots of weapons and a smart player with a pinpoint alpha will win every time, unless you also have a pinpoint weapon to take their XL out. If SRMs were 2.5 and with better registration, they might work.

As it is, boating some lasers and ACs/AC20 is the best option for optimal aimable weapon alpha. Cataphracts can be very fearsome with a STD engine. My Shaqs can stick to boating AC2s. The Dakka outweights the fact they aren't optimal.

[Varent]

Felt the need to post this as an example.

4 medium lasers, 2 srm 6 with artemis and 2 machine gun.

So apparently medium lasers and srm are broken or bad and balistic is the only feasible thing huh?

and yet lasers and srm are the primary weapons on this mech.

I beg to differ with many people assertions.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Felt the need to post this as an example.

4 medium lasers, 2 srm 6 with artemis and 2 machine gun.

So apparently medium lasers and srm are broken or bad and balistic is the only feasible thing huh?

and yet lasers and srm are the primary weapons on this mech.

I beg to differ with many people assertions.

Oh, I've gotten over 900 quite a few times. That damage spread all over your target, doing nothing.

Arn't SRMs to be good at brawling? They are suboptimal with current ballistic implementation.