675 replies to this topic

[Allen Ward]

Almond Brown, on 06 January 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:

The current AC20 has a 4 second CD. Now if extrapolate your 5 second based CD a bit, that is 12 shots per minute versus the current MWO's 4 second CD providing an additional 3 total shots per minute of game play.

Not seeing how that is really all that "buggered" at all given 2X armor values.

BT AC/20 fires 1 shot per 10 second round (it fires several projectiles in fast sequence so they actually hit the same location)
That makes 20 points of damage per 10 seconds or 2 points of damage per second.

MWO AC/20 theoratically fires 2.5 shots per 10 seconds. Although this is not possible in gameplay, it can be used for comparing the potential damage delivery over time.
That makes 50 points of damage per 10 seconds or 5 points of damage per second.

So it is not slightly close to BT damage ratings at all. 2 DPS for AC/20 in MWO would feel right. Which way to achieve this is to be discussed. If all weapons in MWO had a DPS 40% higher than in BT, things would be less difficult. But they all have seen a different buff/nerf, either to their damage rating, to heat, or by limiting mechanics like ghost heat, beam duration, gauss loadup and so on. That makes it unbalanced. No longer terribly, but still not satisfying.

I miss my 4 LPL Catapult so much. Before Ghost heat it was as good as any AC40 Jager is now. Now it's collecting dust.

[LuInRei]

Mcgral18, on 06 January 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

Well, stock armor, AC20 does 4 damage and a 2 second cooldown, its an AC20 since it does 20 damage in 10 seconds. That's one option that comes to mind.

With PGI's system, the AC2 is the most severe change, with 10x TT damage. AC20 is only 1.25 for comparison. I think PGI made a mistake by taking the same damage and heat values, but making them fire faster.

That's the whole point why I think PGI's heat balancing is flawed. They wanted to translate TT values into MWo with minimal changes in values, but they changed the heat system itself. The end result was they took weapons which were roughly balanced in one environment, tore them out and placed in another one with completely different rules.

Then of course we had hit registration issues to deal with and binary nature of PGI's ACs, so they compensated it with buffs to the rate of fire, which made AC2 a joke weapon. On the other hand AC20 not beeing buffed as much is a solid pick, just as solid as boating AC5.

Edited by LuInRei, 06 January 2014 - 11:57 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Dornhal, on 06 January 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think its hilarious that none of you anti-ballistics bring up the fact that the weapons your talking about take 3x more tonnage then their laser equals.

Sadly, the anti-Ballistics you speak of would require 4 erPPC's to equal the same damage and at the same weight of the AC40 and when pulling the trigger to get that 40 damage and will generate 4X the Heat...

Anti-Ballistics indeed?

[Allen Ward]

divinedisclaimer, on 06 January 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

You aren't good enough at the game to juggle 4 Large Lasers. The fact that you would choose a Catapult to do it in attests to that fact.

I eat Jesters and their like for dinner. That's how good their pilots are or how much that matters. Sorry pal.

[Almond Brown]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

yes


no

lol cutting off weapons fire while JJs are engaged has a much larger global impact over and above wanting to "fix" a small issue like poptarting (which I don't really consider an "issue" myself but I digress)

No guns when JJ'ing was in ref to TT. Some want TT bad, but then bach when told they can Fire and Jump, weird eh...

[Sandpit]

Almond Brown, on 06 January 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

No guns when JJ'ing was in ref to TT. Some want TT bad, but then bach when told they can Fire and Jump, weird eh...

I see where you're coming from but in TT JJs also allowed a lot more movement with them. You couldn't fire while in the air in TT because by it's very nature you had to have movement done. All of these things were happening simultaneously but it was impossible to do by the very nature of being turn-based.

[Khobai]

Quote

No guns when JJ'ing was in ref to TT

Quote

You couldn't fire while in the air in TT because by it's very nature you had to have movement done.

You can fire after jumping in TT its just a +3 penalty. Dunno where people get this nonsense.

Edited by Khobai, 06 January 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

You can fire after jumping in TT its just a +3 penalty. Dunno where people get this nonsense.

after jumping isn't the same as during jumping though.
All PSR's are irrelevant since we don't have PSRs in MWO. I cite them as counter points sometimes when a player wants to use certain TT rules as examples but forget to cite all of the rules surrounding the example.

Jumping was both horizontal and vertical in TT. You could move up, across, or turn direction facing, all at the cost of a JJ movement point. You also generated +1 heat per hex, height, or facing adjustment used in your JJ movement. You gained a +1 modifier to be hit subject to non-JJ movement (IE running or walking) but automatically incurred a +3 modifier to your to-hit regardless of how many hexes moved.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

after jumping isn't the same as during jumping though.
All PSR's are irrelevant since we don't have PSRs in MWO. I cite them as counter points sometimes when a player wants to use certain TT rules as examples but forget to cite all of the rules surrounding the example.

That's the thing - when you translate from a turn & dice based board game into a real time & mouse aiming shooter/simulation you have to carefully consider the effects your changes have on the balance assumptions in the original game.

Jump Jets being usable to jump over cover, fire, and immediately retreat, is a pretty good power up. That doesn't mean that you can't have it in your real time game at all, but it means you need to consider how to balance out that power up.

But that is one of the key flaws in the whole MW:O conversions.... Not thinking about the implications of the changed rules. What does convergence and alpha strikes cause for weapon and build balance? What does the lack of heat penalties change about the weapon balancement adjustments, what is the effect of diverging fire rates? What is the conquence of hit probabilities not being dice based but player choice and mouse aim (or joystick aim, or steering wheel aim) skill?

Of course, there is one thing to note - in the table top, things were hardly perfectly balanced. But once Battle Value was devised, you could figure out what was underpowered and what was overpowered and you could tweak stats accordingly (something that wasn't so easy done in the table top game because the designers apparently wanted to retain backward compatibility of the mech record sheets, and of course, if you can't play around with stuff like rate of fire or burst/beam lengths, you have less options to tweak stats, too)

[Sandpit]

I think screenshake and loss of convergence while going up with the JJs now is a good balance though. I am able to shoot at a target while going up AND down while they're only able to shoot accurately on the way down.

Also this really has to do with a specific tactic and not beams and ballistics. I firmly believe you can't balance an entire system based on a niche tactic. It really is a niche to me because outside of 12mans and maybe upper tier ELO you don't see it as prevalent

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

after jumping isn't the same as during jumping though.
All PSR's are irrelevant since we don't have PSRs in MWO. I cite them as counter points sometimes when a player wants to use certain TT rules as examples but forget to cite all of the rules surrounding the example.

Jumping was both horizontal and vertical in TT. You could move up, across, or turn direction facing, all at the cost of a JJ movement point. You also generated +1 heat per hex, height, or facing adjustment used in your JJ movement. You gained a +1 modifier to be hit subject to non-JJ movement (IE running or walking) but automatically incurred a +3 modifier to your to-hit regardless of how many hexes moved.

also current pop tarting is done when your at the apex of the jump arc when you basically stationary... on the way up you select target. when the knock stops you fine tune the shot and fire. current mechanics dont have a negative to hit.

What should happen is fall damage scales faster with mech tonnage. That way you need to control your jump by having power for a controlled decent.

[Dock Steward]

Almond Brown, on 06 January 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

What about designs made specifically for certain Heavy Ballistics? The HBK-4G moves to mind immediately. Are we adding Quirks to those?

I see no reason to not add quirks to this proposed mechanic that will never be implemented

[Varent]

Vyx, on 06 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

Honestly, this is really easy to fix, and I am sure it's been mentioned before:

• Simply increase the chance for ammo to explode on a critical hit

As it stands, ammo explosions occur 10% of the time on a critical hit. Up it to 50% and it would silence this issue in a heartbeat.


It would make lasers the safer, more reliable weapons - just hot. Ballistics would be just as they are: strong, pinpoint dps, with minimal heat - but hit the volatile ammo and it'll ruin your day. Missiles would fill in the gap: specialized, splashy dps (long and indirect, or short and brutal) - but once again with the ammo drawback (maybe lowered to 25% - but still a threat).

If this were considered by the developers, it would also make sense to add this extra bit of code in as well:

• If an ammo-driven weapon is the last of it's type on-board to be destroyed, then automatically dump all remaining ammo for that weapon

No sense in carrying dangerous ammo if there is no weapon to fire it. Might make the voice say "dumping ammo" or something relevant, just to be cool.


Anyway, my 2Cbills.

Like and like. Although I will say depending on what weapon you use and how smart the players you play against are... there is alot of ammo explosions. When I play my machine gun using mechs I get them alot every game for example. a good one or 2 of my kills are caused by them.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

This is because I truly feel it's not a "ballistics are op" or "ballistics are better than energy" thing

It's a "front-end damage" thing which means people don't complain about the smaller calibers because they don't do quite as much damage. It becomes more apparent the further the debate goes.

I agree with you. Ballistics are the primary offender in this problem, but PPCs are a very close second. The only reason they are secondary at all is because they have already been hit with the ghost heat bat and are not used as much as they were 6 months ago.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 06 January 2014 - 05:01 PM, said:

I agree with you. Ballistics are the primary offender in this problem, but PPCs are a very close second. The only reason they are secondary at all is because they have already been hit with the ghost heat bat and are not used as much as they were 6 months ago.

I just don't see ballistics as being that big of a problem though. I've run cheese builds just to see what the fuss is all about (main reason I even have a 733C and had a prhact and a jager) and still run my energy boats. I understand I might be in a minority but I honestly think if I can (because i'm far from a great player, I'm honestly probably a bit better than average) run energy boats as effectively as I do then anyone can.

Ghost heat destroyed a lot of peoples' views on energy boats simply because they can't pew pew pew with impunity™ anymore. You have to use some firing discipline and strategy when using them but they really are just as effective as any other weapon currently in the game. They aren't bad, they're just different.

I mean seriously, I can run a 7LL Bmaster and not overheat. How much more effective in energy boating can you possibly get? The only upside ballistics have to beams is the front loaded damage and lower heat values. That's it.
Well that and range, but I've said long ago that I agree ballistic effective ranges are one of the main culprits to them being called "op" and is the only thing about them that I feel IS a bit "op" in comparison to the ranges of other weapons.
If they followed the same drop off in damage as lasers they'd be less so.

Keep PPCs as a 3 time range killer and that brings all three of those weapon types really in together as far as being more equally balanced. Other than that the balance currently in place really is good in my opinion. I offer up other ideas sometimes because contrary to popular belief I do care that other players obtain enjoyment and fun out of the game just as I do. That equates to a more successful game which in turn means I get to play it that much longer. I hope we can carry on our griping and moaning about each others' ideas for a decade.

That doesn't mean that I agree with a lot of the common ideas as to what's "op" and such though. I see a lot of the ideas to "fix" things as being an easy button and that would just sour the taste of the game in just as many in the gaming group as going the opposite direction of the suggestions. What we have now is not perfect but it is pretty good overall. Small tweaks and fine tuning to a few things here and there but things like making drastic changes to how weapons function? I just don't see it as being a "good" thing.

That doesn't mean PGI will agree with me but I do like to think (and for the most part this holds true for most of us on here) that we all understand this is all about exchanging ideas to make the game even better. Sometimes that means agreeing with one another but most often it means I'm merely giving my ideas and opinions to PGI as well because I enjoy a specific thing as it is, not just to be a douche noodle and argue.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

I just don't see ballistics as being that big of a problem though. I've run cheese builds just to see what the fuss is all about (main reason I even have a 733C and had a prhact and a jager) and still run my energy boats... I've said long ago that I agree ballistic effective ranges are one of the main culprits to them being called "op" and is the only thing about them that I feel IS a bit "op" in comparison to the ranges of other weapons.

I made my AC40 for the same reason - to see what the hype was about.

I think changing the range multiplier would be a great start - I definitely agree with you there. Then make the autocannons scale by classification as they should (AC2 < AC5 < AC10 < AC20) and get some testing on firing rate options to see how they feel.

[Wildstreak]

Almond Brown, on 06 January 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

I would agree but with a small caveat. Can we reduce the smoke some. The shake is doable but the smoke... its is just over the top...

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

The screen shake is annoying but not a deal breaker especially when firing back with lasers. That's a huge perk to lasers in my opinion. My screen goes all oobly doobly™ on me but I cna walk in laser fire and not worry about missing with the initial shot still putting damage back on my attacker. I think the smoke is over the top though. You already deal with screen shake, why the need for smoke as well?

I agree on the effect of smoke, it blinds the target too much and I doubt I am just referring to myself. Neutralizing the target's ability to return fire is too good a bonus.

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

Also I think lasers should wreak havoc with the vision modes to help bring them into the loop. They produce heat and light which should cause issues with thermal and night vision modes

I cannot agree with adding effects from lasers, again it neutralizes the return fire from the target. I also recall from BT novels reading pilots could polarize their cockpit glass to reduce glare, that suggests they could do it to eliminate any effects I keep seeing suggested for Energy though I could see something with PPCs, they were described as lighting dancing on that target and similar. That is why I thought PPCs could do some damage on target and a lesser amount in a spread caused by the lightning.

Vyx, on 06 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

If this were considered by the developers, it would also make sense to add this extra bit of code in as well:

• If an ammo-driven weapon is the last of it's type on-board to be destroyed, then automatically dump all remaining ammo for that weapon

No sense in carrying dangerous ammo if there is no weapon to fire it. Might make the voice say "dumping ammo" or something relevant, just to be cool.

People including me keep trying to get PGI to add ammo dumping. If they considered it, I am guessing it must be low priority. Half ton lots for MG ammo would be neat too.

[Wildstreak]

While considering things, I got the idea to see how close any real Autocannon came to BT ones. Turns out there are some that fit in the caliber range and still around. I noted Sarna contradicts itself saying on one page the lowest caliber is 30mm, on another 25mm. I looked for 30mm and up though 25mm exists. To my knowledge, any of the following can be siimilar to any class of Autocannon.

50cal Mk211 Raufoss, 30mm bore, single shot.


Smoke is created from the ground and dissipates very quickly so no chance of blinding a target if it hit a BattleMech as I see it.

Bofors 40mm both single shot and automatic fire.


Bofors 57mm on various targets single shot and auto. Again, smoke effects are cause by hitting the ground and still dissipate a lot quicker than what is in game right now.

[Sandpit]

Merchant, on 06 January 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

I cannot agree with adding effects from lasers, again it neutralizes the return fire from the target. I also recall from BT novels reading pilots could polarize their cockpit glass to reduce glare, that suggests they could do it to eliminate any effects I keep seeing suggested for Energy though I could see something with PPCs, they were described as lighting dancing on that target and similar. That is why I thought PPCs could do some damage on target and a lesser amount in a spread caused by the lightning.


People including me keep trying to get PGI to add ammo dumping. If they considered it, I am guessing it must be low priority. Half ton lots for MG ammo would be neat too.

I'm not talking about adding effects to cockpit glare, just to those vision modes. If you hit thermal on Therma you see what heat does to that vision mode. So when a player is in that vision mode if I get lucky enough to get a shot in the cockpit area it would give like a flare effect for a second while the computer "normalizes" the view so you'd get like a "pop" or a "flash" for a second that would affect it much like cockpit shake and smoke does now for LRMs SRMs Ballistics, etc.
It would do similar in night vision mode because lasers are light, so a shot in and around that cockpit area would do the same thing for a brief second.

Ammo dumping and half ton ammo loadouts would be great but I agree and don't think they're high on the priority list unfortunately and I can live with that for now. I'd rather see CW and such first.

[Cimarb]

Merchant, on 06 January 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

I cannot agree with adding effects from lasers, again it neutralizes the return fire from the target. I also recall from BT novels reading pilots could polarize their cockpit glass to reduce glare, that suggests they could do it to eliminate any effects I keep seeing suggested for Energy though I could see something with PPCs, they were described as lighting dancing on that target and similar. That is why I thought PPCs could do some damage on target and a lesser amount in a spread caused by the lightning.

I don't think glare would be very good, but the heat-generating side effect of energy weapons is in several books (most I think) and would be a good benefit. It could only cause heat on internal damage, similar to the crit bonuses of machine guns and LBX, and would be a percentage of their damage?

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I'd rather see CW and such first.

I think we ALL agree on that...