675 replies to this topic

[Myomes]

this game managed to get knockdowns, heat, armor and other issues right. When you have past games to get inspiration from, how hard could it be?

I can still remember going 20 and 6 in a lasers only match, with the next closest person being 12 kills. Everyone uses shadow cat ML boats back then. use a PPC/laser cauldron born, all armor to front, 90+ speed, and just backpedal all game long, as swarms of shadowcats are all shooting at me trying to be the ones to get kills. Was hilarious busting their energy metacats with a heavy by just running backwards and shooting them. The aiming system was also much easier and more intuitive and useful, as well.

Edited by Myomes, 05 January 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Varent]

Myomes, on 05 January 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

this game managed to get knockdowns, heat, armor and other issues right. When you have past games to get inspiration from, how hard could it be?

It wasn't an online shooter, different beast.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The trouble is the game engine that they were able to get can't seem to handle the basic mechanics required. They've had to rewrite much of it from scratch.

[Allen Ward]

I did that check myself today and guess what? Although I am a Missile/Laser player I perform best with ACs... makes me think. Med Laser and LPL is high on damage, too, as I have been using them for a long time (before Ghost Heat) and had very high accuracy.
Only Ac20s I have been using is one on an Atlas DDC (for probably 5 months now) and a twin AC20 Jager for about 2 weeks now. Damage to Fired Shots ratio just going through the roof and I am a really bad shooter. I have less than 20 fps usually and play on lowest settings possible on a notebook screen.
Kills / Death 2,457 / 2,302
Experience Points 2,692,236
Wins / Losses 1,877 / 2,164
Kill / Death Ratio 1.07
Accumulative C-Bills Per Match 93,264.20
Avg. XP Per Match 666.23

https://www.dropbox....8y/diagram1.png

https://www.dropbox....kt/diagram2.png

Something has to be done to ACs/PPCs or better the whole weapon system/damage calculation.

Edited by Allen Ward, 05 January 2014 - 02:18 PM.

[Cimarb]

Allen Ward, on 05 January 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Edit: dammit, how to I post a google docs image/diagram here?

You can take a screenshot of it and upload to a public folder on Dropbox. That's what I do. Lightshot is a good screenshot extension, since it lets you define the screenshot area before saving.

[Allen Ward]

Cimarb, on 05 January 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

You can take a screenshot of it and upload to a public folder on Dropbox. That's what I do. Lightshot is a good screenshot extension, since it lets you define the screenshot area before saving.

Thank you.

[Sandpit]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

discuss

[Allen Ward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

discuss

I don't like it. It sounds a lot like game mechanics to bring something back in line that has been done wrong elsewhere. Why should several independent weapons block each other from shooting in a fast sequence? We have penalties in game already for boating large caliber guns. Heat, weight, ammo limitation, range limits... The problem is that damage rate is way too high to compensate by these drawbacks. Actually I don't care if I get AC20ed within 0.1, 0.3 or 0.5 seconds, I still get killed by these monsters too fast. Compared to TT (yes, I know...) MWO AC20 does 50 points of damage! That is the problem, as other weapons didn't get a damage multiplier like that - they got nerfed (laser beam duration), despite an additional point of damage for Large Laser for instance (the time it takes to deliver all 9 points to the enemy, and I am not talking one location here, is 1 second of cooldown for his next AC20 shot).

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

discuss

This wouldn't affect Ballistic plus Energy Alphas, which seem to be the biggest complaints right now, next to AC/40's, of course. So while this idea nerfs the AC/40, the others remain relatively unaffected. Well, actually, 2PPC/2Ac5 builds suffer a bit of a nerf with this, but people can just substitute an AC/10 for the two 5's. Also, this nerfs Dual AC/10 build's. Do they need a nerf?

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

discuss

goodbye ilya. If your comfy with that sure.

[Sandpit]

Every single complaint I've seen on ballistics is a matter of multiple ballistics firing into the same pinpoint location at the same time. All of them. Without changing how the weapons work this would stop that entirely. Using a mix of ballistics and energy to do good damage and aiming skill to place your damage where you want it?
well that's just as the sentence implies. Skill and using balanced loadouts with a mixture of weapon types

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Every single complaint I've seen on ballistics is a matter of multiple ballistics firing into the same pinpoint location at the same time. All of them. Without changing how the weapons work this would stop that entirely. Using a mix of ballistics and energy to do good damage and aiming skill to place your damage where you want it?
well that's just as the sentence implies. Skill and using balanced loadouts with a mixture of weapon types

I guess my point is, what would this really change? Neuters 2 AC/40 builds that arguably need it, and then neuters a slew of builds that really don't.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

goodbye ilya. If your comfy with that sure.

I still don't see a .1 second delay for something miniscule like that killing off any designs. Just allows a target mech the opportunity to torso twist when rounding a corner into builds like that AC40 that everyone seems to be so keen on using as an example and basis for when it comes to complaints.
Essentially it is a convergence nerf without changing the core of how ballistics work.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I still don't see a .1 second delay for something miniscule like that killing off any designs. Just allows a target mech the opportunity to torso twist when rounding a corner into builds like that AC40 that everyone seems to be so keen on using as an example and basis for when it comes to complaints.
Essentially it is a convergence nerf without changing the core of how ballistics work.

its because your focusing on the ac40 builds. the ilya usually use ac5 and specifically uac5. or are you leaving uac5 out of that delay pool?

[Allen Ward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Every single complaint I've seen on ballistics is a matter of multiple ballistics firing into the same pinpoint location at the same time. All of them. Without changing how the weapons work this would stop that entirely. Using a mix of ballistics and energy to do good damage and aiming skill to place your damage where you want it?
well that's just as the sentence implies. Skill and using balanced loadouts with a mixture of weapon types

I am not complaining about multiple ballistics in one spot. I am complaining about the whole damage rating model PGI used, especially on ballistics compared to the difficult damage delivery of lasers. I don't think that any such mechanics, although smart ideas, won't solve the known issues. A simpler solution would be better mech/hardpoint models: a mech with 2 or more ballistic hardpoints should be rare and not allow to boat AC20s so easily (by limiting slots - see Battlemaster). But the problem occurs with AC2s alike - Battlemaster with 3 AC2s is pure terror. If AC2 were a weapon like in TT (same damage as MG) nobody would complain.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

I guess my point is, what would this really change? Neuters 2 AC/40 builds that arguably need it, and then neuters a slew of builds that really don't.

Well since this is a ballistics better than beam thread? A lot I would think

I don't get it. This brings ballistics closer to beams, it doesn't change core mechanics of how weapons work, it stops multiple pinpoint convergence of big caliber ballistics.

If you're not complaining about ballistics what are you really wanting changed?

If you're really concerned with ballistics and beams this would be a huge change.

If you're concerned with "he hit me in the left torso with all of his weapons and they all hit me there" well that's called skill and aiming, that's not a weapons imbalance

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 02:36 PM, said:

its because your focusing on the ac40 builds. the ilya usually use ac5 and specifically uac5. or are you leaving uac5 out of that delay pool?

The delay scales down for smaller ballistics.
AC2 would have no delay
AC5 maybe a .05
AC10 .1
AC20 .2

[Sandpit]

BUT
if you fired an AC5 or UAC5

you would have a delay before firing a larger caliber next

[Allen Ward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Well since this is a ballistics better than beam thread? A lot I would think

I don't get it. This brings ballistics closer to beams, it doesn't change core mechanics of how weapons work, it stops multiple pinpoint convergence of big caliber ballistics.

If you're not complaining about ballistics what are you really wanting changed?

If you're really concerned with ballistics and beams this would be a huge change.

If you're concerned with "he hit me in the left torso with all of his weapons and they all hit me there" well that's called skill and aiming, that's not a weapons imbalance


The delay scales down for smaller ballistics.
AC2 would have no delay
AC5 maybe a .05
AC10 .1
AC20 .2

I get your point. Actually you suggest to introduce something pretty similar to lasers for ballistics, the result would be that it is very likely that several ballistic slugs will hit different locations, even when fired "together". Still, I think it's the wrong end to find a solution, if you compare how PGI adapted daamage ratings from TT into MWO you will see that they did it inconsistently. And ballistics with PPC are the winners.

Another idea: get rid of laser beam duration. This will equal out a lot more than putting in delays for ballistics.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Well since this is a ballistics better than beam thread? A lot I would think

I don't get it. This brings ballistics closer to beams, it doesn't change core mechanics of how weapons work, it stops multiple pinpoint convergence of big caliber ballistics.

If you're not complaining about ballistics what are you really wanting changed?

If you're really concerned with ballistics and beams this would be a huge change.

If you're concerned with "he hit me in the left torso with all of his weapons and they all hit me there" well that's called skill and aiming, that's not a weapons imbalance


The delay scales down for smaller ballistics.
AC2 would have no delay
AC5 maybe a .05
AC10 .1
AC20 .2

Take away the uac 5 delay and im all for it. I dont really see a reason to put a delay on those but the ac10... I dunno I mean its so underused... I use it but not many do. AC20 I think would be good with it myself.

[Allen Ward]

But then again, we will have threads about "laser boating OP".