675 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Thorqemada, on 03 January 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

A burst of 0.2 to 0,6 is to short, it would need 0,2s for AC2 to 2s for AC20s.

If the Change does not work out and ACs become weaker (which they should become bcs they are KING) the Players will do what they allways do and switch to other Mechs and Weapons.
For the Weapon/Mechswitch alone it would be a positive change (if only temporal)!

Probably the LBX becomes suddenly popular bcs it does no burstfire but a clustershot.

Autocannons should all fire basically the same burst, though the specifics aren't that important to me. What matters is that they fire a burst of rounds and that they do damage appropriate to their classification. An AC2 should do 2 points of damage in the same time that an AC5 does 5 points of damage, an AC10 does 10 points of damage, and an AC20 does 20 points of damage. They shouldn't ALL do roughly 20 points of damage in the same time period...

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 03 January 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Varent, Sandpit and Co., I really respect you guys and your opinions. I don't agree with you, but I have enjoyed arguing about this regardless. I just wish we could try some things out, even if it was convergence, crazy jump jet lockups, or making lasers into light sabers and LRMs into 20-point howitzer rounds, lol.

seconded

[Noesis]

Cimarb, on 03 January 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

That is really the crux of this issue and why it really doesn't matter: PGI isn't going to start testing stuff publicly like this no matter how long we debate it.

Varent, Sandpit and Co., I really respect you guys and your opinions. I don't agree with you, but I have enjoyed arguing about this regardless. I just wish we could try some things out, even if it was convergence, crazy jump jet lockups, or making lasers into light sabers and LRMs into 20-point howitzer rounds, lol.

[cynical]But it would be a "pointless waste of time" as according to the "Cult of Mindless Panic for Stompy Robots" they believe that making any changes to eliminate any identified issues will simply make more issues by people gravitating to other things or simply having the potential to completely eliminate game play.

Change is then a bad sin and should never be done to try and rectify these issues as a result, you should know this by now. In fact the balance forum is a house of extravagance and needless questioning so why invest time conscientiously investigating these things if it is against the tenants of their faith not to do these things even if it is for the betterment of MWO? It also goes against their other tenants of "assumption, speculation, denial of facts and sanctimonious hypocrisy" to name a few. But I guess this list does allow some inconsistency and dissonance with their presented ideas so I guess they can change their minds as they see fitting to "their" interests.[/cynical]

Seriously, the Public Test server is under utilised and could be used more to investigate or explore popular themes or ideas. It certainly could help to demonstrate confidence to some that subtle changes could be palatable and less feared. And it would hopefully in theory encourage more people to be more representative to these things.

Edited by Noesis, 03 January 2014 - 08:29 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 03 January 2014 - 08:27 PM, said:

Seriously, the Public Test server is under utilised and could be used more to investigate or explore popular themes or ideas.

yup

[Myomes]

How do you people know "stream damage would be better"?
Have you played a game like that yet?
This isn't "SuperSoakerWarrior online".
Why does "living longer = better"?

Double armor and all that simply allows a larger force a much easier time dealing with a smaller one. 1 vs 2, in BT you could possibly be a very lucky winner. That's simply not possible here unless you lagshield and abuse hit detection flaws. At the very least, you could take one down with you.

If people want to live longer as a measure of skill or something, then what about taking armor back down to it's original battletech values, and increasing cooldown time between weapons, while reducing the max heat threshold back down to battletech values, and instituting a heat system that makes weapons less accurate, slows you down, and eventually causes random ammo explosions, all like battletech original?

That's one of the other issues, I suppose. People aren't risking ammo explosions by being 80-90% heat and even firing into shutdown, provided they have the heat sinks to dissipate. Yet dissipate we must be able to do, so the only option is to make ammo explosions prevalent in the overheat range before the shutdown range.

[stjobe]

Myomes, on 04 January 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

what about taking armor back down to it's original battletech values, and increasing cooldown time between weapons, while reducing the max heat threshold back down to battletech values, and instituting a heat system that makes weapons less accurate, slows you down, and eventually causes random ammo explosions, all like battletech original?

Sounds great, but it also sounds rather complex; a rebuild of the whole game, basically. Making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam-duration is a very much simpler operation, one that won't require a complete re-write of the game, but still addresses several of the large issues MWO has.

[Sug]

Roadkill, on 03 January 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

If I had my druthers, I'd boost lasers in some way to make them a little more competitive. Not a lot... but since ballistics got an ammo boost one of their few detractions no longer applies.

Forgot about that ammo boost. Might be time to take it away.... Would probably be the easiest way to add a little counterbalance.


Another band aid would be to lower the duration of all normal lasers to 0.5 making them act more like ballistics. That's really one of the main issues, dealing the full damage from a ballistic shot to one spot is just way stronger than a beam weapon.

Then cut the cooldown of pulse lasers in half for a high dps, high hps, weapon.

[Sug]

Myomes, on 04 January 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

People aren't risking ammo explosions by being 80-90% heat and even firing into shutdown, provided they have the heat sinks to dissipate.

Not only that but there's barely a risk of explosion from crits : / Give ammo slots 1 hp instead of 10.

Did they double internal structure along with armor? Can't remember. If it's the same as TT even with nothing in your torso but a slot of ammo there's still a better chance your torso will get destroyed before your ammo blows.

[stjobe]

Sug, on 04 January 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

Not only that but there's barely a risk of explosion from crits : /

Which is why anyone using ammo explosions as a negative for ballistics is rather disingenuous.

Sug, on 04 January 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

Did they double internal structure along with armor?

Yes, they did.

[MustrumRidcully]

AFAIK, SRMs and LRMs have a max range equal to their normal range. Of course, LRM range is longer than it was in Battletech, but SRMs seem to really lose out here.

Of course,SRMs used to be good one time, when they had a hefty splash damage that probably always effectively multiplied their damage, even before the massive splash damage apocalypse.

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 January 2014 - 03:50 AM, said:

AFAIK, SRMs and LRMs have a max range equal to their normal range.

Yep.

Missiles: Max range = optimal range.
Energy: Max range = 2x optimal range.
Ballistics: Max range = 3x optimal range.

Which has some really weird side-effects, like the AC/20 out-damaging the AC/10 at 500m (if ballistics had the same 2x optimal range, the AC/20 would do about 2 damage at 500m instead of 11).

Furthermore, it's interesting that the basically speed-of-light weaponry has a (much) shorter effective range than the fire-a-projectile weapons, but that's perhaps straying a bit too close to reality

[Shakma]

stjobe, on 04 January 2014 - 04:36 AM, said:

Yep.

Missiles: Max range = optimal range.
Energy: Max range = 2x optimal range.
Ballistics: Max range = 3x optimal range.

Which has some really weird side-effects, like the AC/20 out-damaging the AC/10 at 500m (if ballistics had the same 2x optimal range, the AC/20 would do about 2 damage at 500m instead of 11).

Furthermore, it's interesting that the basically speed-of-light weaponry has a (much) shorter effective range than the fire-a-projectile weapons, but that's perhaps straying a bit too close to reality

And again I think lowering ballistics max range to 2x their optimal range would help balancing them alot, while being an easy change to implement.

[Black Ivan]

They should take the CBT ranges without any longer range effects and basta.

[Reitrix]

All weapons except Missiles should only travel half their listed range as additional range. Example:
PPC deals damage out to 1080 meters.
vs
PPC deals damage out to 810 meters.

It now deals damage (Lessening between 540 - 810) up to the base range of the ER PPC, which would have a range cap of 1215. It's rather stupid on Maps like River City to start in Upper City, spawn near the river edge of the platform, immediately look the entire length of the map AND damage people who've barely made it off the base square.

Ballistics need much more severe bullet drop effects, as well as a m/ps cut beyond listed ranges. An AC20 firing at a target 500 Meters away, the shell would arc downwards rapidly from around 300. Especially given that each shell is 143kg.

The differing factor for weapons is that a Ballistic could still deal damage well beyond its intended range if the pilot is good enough to compensate for bullet drop and speed cuts while factoring in the target's movement.

As it stands, the Medium Laser will deal damage all the way out to just under 600. This from a weapon stated as a 'close in weapon'

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 04 January 2014 - 04:36 AM, said:

Yep.

Missiles: Max range = optimal range.
Energy: Max range = 2x optimal range.
Ballistics: Max range = 3x optimal range.

Which has some really weird side-effects, like the AC/20 out-damaging the AC/10 at 500m (if ballistics had the same 2x optimal range, the AC/20 would do about 2 damage at 500m instead of 11).

Furthermore, it's interesting that the basically speed-of-light weaponry has a (much) shorter effective range than the fire-a-projectile weapons, but that's perhaps straying a bit too close to reality

Balistic max range should not be triple. Double is good enough.

[Cimarb]

Myomes, on 04 January 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

...reducing the max heat threshold back down to battletech values, and instituting a heat system that makes weapons less accurate, slows you down, and eventually causes random ammo explosions, all like battletech original?

That's one of the other issues, I suppose. People aren't risking ammo explosions by being 80-90% heat and even firing into shutdown, provided they have the heat sinks to dissipate. Yet dissipate we must be able to do, so the only option is to make ammo explosions prevalent in the overheat range before the shutdown range.

I am 100% for a heat system overhaul and it being just like in TT - penalties included. I think the faster rate of fire and {scaled to compensate} armor increase are needed for the switch to FPS, though.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 04 January 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I am 100% for a heat system overhaul and it being just like in TT - penalties included. I think the faster rate of fire and {scaled to compensate} armor increase are needed for the switch to FPS, though.

With the exception that we cannot have an increase in cyclic rate without a increase in heat disipation. By the time the "average" weapon recycles heat should be almost vented.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 January 2014 - 10:00 AM.

[Artgathan]

What if we implemented Burst-Fire ACs with a "Clip"?

What I mean by this is that we'd essentially change ACs in automatic rifles found in any modern FPS - you can unload the entire clip in one burst by holding down the trigger, or only fire off part of the clip. Give the AC shots a high ROF and decent damage per pellet and we've got ourselves a game mechanic!

The "reload" time between clips would be the ACs cooldown. We'd also need a reload mechanic (for if you wanted to load a new clip before you'd exhausted your current one).

This would make the AC mechanic significantly different from the Laser mechanic.

[Mcgral18]

Cimarb, on 04 January 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

I am 100% for a heat system overhaul and it being just like in TT - penalties included. I think the faster rate of fire and {scaled to compensate} armor increase are needed for the switch to FPS, though.

Although had PGI cut the damage and heat by the recycle rate, we wouldn't have needed doubled armor, and SHS heatsinks wouldn't be horrible, since they would be producing the same heat over the 10 second period, not 2.5-20 times the intended heat.

This would lead to useless AC2s, but they could have played around with those weapons.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 January 2014 - 09:59 AM, said:

With the exception that we cannot have an increase in cyclic rate without a increase in heat disipation. By the time the "average" weapon recycles heat should be almost vented.

Very true. I forgot to include that. Basically, if they change one thing, all related systems should be adjusted to compensate.

Artgathan, on 04 January 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

What if we implemented Burst-Fire ACs with a "Clip"?

What I mean by this is that we'd essentially change ACs in automatic rifles found in any modern FPS - you can unload the entire clip in one burst by holding down the trigger, or only fire off part of the clip. Give the AC shots a high ROF and decent damage per pellet and we've got ourselves a game mechanic!

The "reload" time between clips would be the ACs cooldown. We'd also need a reload mechanic (for if you wanted to load a new clip before you'd exhausted your current one).

This would make the AC mechanic significantly different from the Laser mechanic.

I am all for that. Very good idea for differentiation. While an energy weapon is waiting to recharge, the AC is reloading. They could even make a similar system for lasers where you could hotcycle them at exponentially worse heat buildup.

Mcgral18, on 04 January 2014 - 10:26 AM, said:

Although had PGI cut the damage and heat by the recycle rate, we wouldn't have needed doubled armor, and SHS heatsinks wouldn't be horrible, since they would be producing the same heat over the 10 second period, not 2.5-20 times the intended heat.

This would lead to useless AC2s, but they could have played around with those weapons.

AC2s should be extreme range MGs, so their worth should be equivalent - you trade size for range. The heat system definitely should be fixed, I agree.