675 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Cimarb, on 06 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

Make that BFG kick like a BFG and knock you on your arse!

I'd pay good money to see that!

Ahem... I don't really want to deprive ol' Joe of his Big Hammer either, but I see little choice; as I said, something has to give somewhere if we want real weapon balance - and making Joe's Big Hammer into Joe's Big Jack-Hammer is the most effective way of accomplishing that goal.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 06 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

I blame my min-maxing addiction as a teenager on my German heritage, then, not any sort of fault of my own!


I have the Tech Manual description for it and will post it as soon as I can (it's on my home computer). Basically, though, while it does say it can "tear an enemy 'mech's head clean off at more than half a kilometer," it doesn't specifically say how the "inert nickel-ferrous projectile" does it, though the singular phrasing would lead me to believe it can do that with a single projectile, not some burst sawing approach. Screenshot incoming "soon".


I totally respect that, and I hope you see that from my posts. I also agree with StJobe, though, that something has to be done to balance the two. If that means a bigger recoil effect for larger shells, then so be it. Make that BFG kick like a BFG and knock you on your arse!

Something does. Slowing down the Cyclic rate a touch could be a good way. My AC20 should be a slower reload time than a Lasers cool down by a mile, and the fact I can match an AC in damage profile at Longer ranges (ie over 270m) is unacceptable as well. As ranges work right now, the two tons extra for an AC20 is a bargain.

But all ACs doing the same level of damage as an AC20 in the same 4-5 seconds make all the ACs an AC20 that have different weights and volume. AC10s should throw 10-15 (Id be happy with 10) damage in 4-5 seconds. AC5 5-7 in 4-5 seconds and AC2 2-4 in 4-5 seconds. That duplicates the whole AC10 X fires a Cassette of 10 rounds and AC10 Y fores a 3 round burst. Bigger the damage per shell slower it shoots. Slowest being once every 4-6 seconds.

I missed the recoil Nerf... Beautiful idea!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2014 - 09:11 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 06 February 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I'd pay good money to see that!

Ahem... I don't really want to deprive ol' Joe of his Big Hammer either, but I see little choice; as I said, something has to give somewhere if we want real weapon balance - and making Joe's Big Hammer into Joe's Big Jack-Hammer is the most effective way of accomplishing that goal.

Oh I agree, And I would not complain about the effect either. It would be a negative I'd either accept, or work around by lightening my Caliber if the effect affects my fun to much.

Sorta like how I am not a fan of the Fire delay on Gauss as a "Sniper weapon" But I am fine with it as a way to give Gauss a Minimum range! The fire delay makes Gauss a long range weapon, but ruins it as a Sniper weapon.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Something does. Slowing down the Cyclic rate a touch could be a good way. My AC20 should be a slower reload time than a Lasers cool down by a mile, and the fact I can match an AC in damage profile at Longer ranges (ie over 270m) is unacceptable as well. As ranges work right now, the two tons extra for an AC20 is a bargain.

But all ACs doing the same level of damage as an AC20 in the same 4-5 seconds make all the ACs an AC20 that have different weights and volume. AC10s should throw 10-15 (Id be happy with 10) damage in 4-5 seconds. AC5 5-7 in 4-5 seconds and AC2 2-4 in 4-5 seconds. That duplicates the whole AC10 X fires a Cassette of 10 rounds and AC10 Y fores a 3 round burst. Bigger the damage per shell slower it shoots. Slowest being once every 4-6 seconds.

I missed the recoil Nerf... Beautiful idea!

In the whole ballistics argument, I had to learn to pick my battles. I think the most unbalancing parts of autocannons currently are, in this order: normalization, range, FLD. I will compromise on FLD, at least temporarily, if it means I can get support for the first two.

Normalization is the biggest one, as you illustrated. Currently, all autocannons do (roughly) AC20 equivalent damage, but have the weight, size, heat and range of much more advantageous, smaller class ACs. This is the biggest issue in my opinion.

The normalization issue is compounded, and slightly obscured in some ways, by the range issue. Because of the x3 range, every autocannon is hitting for more damage at greater distances, to where the Ac20 is reaching far, far beyond where it should. If the AC20 was hitting the same range as an SRM, for instance, I don't think there would be nearly as much complaining about it - if I get that close to an AC40, for instance, it's my own fault, but 810 meters is a long ways away!

Joseph Mallan, on 06 February 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

Oh I agree, And I would not complain about the effect either. It would be a negative I'd either accept, or work around by lightening my Caliber if the effect affects my fun to much.

Sorta like how I am not a fan of the Fire delay on Gauss as a "Sniper weapon" But I am fine with it as a way to give Gauss a Minimum range! The fire delay makes Gauss a long range weapon, but ruins it as a Sniper weapon.

I am not a fan of the Gauss delay either, and I think 90% of the populace thinks the delay should have been on the PPC instead, but I do think it is a pretty unique way to handle it. Why they didn't just give it a minimum range like a PPC, I don't know, but they probably thought it was better to desync them from PPCs instead of just giving a minimum.

Has there ever been a recoil effect? I would love that...

[Mark Brandhauber]

I didn't read the entire thread, but i find the current meta (PPC+AC5 or AC20+jump jets) certainly supports a view of ballistics bettering beams, one easy solution would be to reduce the beam duration on all lasers (both pulse and standard) the reduction doesn't need to be a huge amount to be successful. Many energy reliant mechs notably the heavier mechs like awesome and quickdraws would become more competitive and as such more used by the general community.

[Cimarb]

Mark Brandhauber, on 27 February 2014 - 05:12 PM, said:

I didn't read the entire thread, but i find the current meta (PPC+AC5 or AC20+jump jets) certainly supports a view of ballistics bettering beams, one easy solution would be to reduce the beam duration on all lasers (both pulse and standard) the reduction doesn't need to be a huge amount to be successful. Many energy reliant mechs notably the heavier mechs like awesome and quickdraws would become more competitive and as such more used by the general community.

While that is true, it would decrease the TTK even more, which is counter-productive. We want fights to last longer and be more strategic, not quicker slugfests. Instead, I think we should reduce the front-loaded damage (FLD) of ballistics by making them fire in bursts. If 99% of the weapons did 1-5 damage per hit, the damage would be spread out much more and ballistics would be balanced much easier with beams.

[Mcgral18]

Could Joe have his BFG AC20 if it fired once every 6-7 seconds? VS the 4-5 of the burst fire AC20s, it would certainly have a disadvantage in a facehugging circle, but better for something faster running in hitting then backing out....and jumpsnipers.

But it's enough of a difference to potentially counter the FLD, and it would no longer be an AC70.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 27 February 2014 - 05:32 PM, said:

While that is true, it would decrease the TTK even more, which is counter-productive. We want fights to last longer and be more strategic, not quicker slugfests. Instead, I think we should reduce the front-loaded damage (FLD) of ballistics by making them fire in bursts. If 99% of the weapons did 1-5 damage per hit, the damage would be spread out much more and ballistics would be balanced much easier with beams.

th this is not necessarily true. I like the shorter matches myself. Keep in mind many of us with families kids etc. Can't afford to be glued to a monitor for more then 15 minutes. You could however make a different match type with a drop ship mode or some such that let's you bring more mech to a fight. But that would have to be a separate mode. Otherwise I'm willing to bet you will have alot of people ask half way through a match.

Mcgral18, on 27 February 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

Could Joe have his BFG AC20 if it fired once every 6-7 seconds? VS the 4-5 of the burst fire AC20s, it would certainly have a disadvantage in a facehugging circle, but better for something faster running in hitting then backing out....and jumpsnipers.

But it's enough of a difference to potentially counter the FLD, and it would no longer be an AC70.

we already discussed this on another thread. Put both in the game. They are easy to balance. Even pgi wants to do it.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

we already discussed this on another thread. Put both in the game. They are easy to balance. Even pgi wants to do it.

True, but if the cooldowns are too similar, the burst version will never be used, because it's simply inferior to FLD.

I haven't heard different weapon variants from PGI in months, did they say something recently?

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 27 February 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

True, but if the cooldowns are too similar, the burst version will never be used, because it's simply inferior to FLD.

I haven't heard different weapon variants from PGI in months, did they say something recently?

nothing super recent. But it's on the table. I believe it was even listed as things in development long term wise. And alot of things could be played with really. Cooldown. Ammo. Time to hold on target. Spread. Range. Heat. Critical rate. Size. Weight. Etc etc etc.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 06 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

In the whole ballistics argument, I had to learn to pick my battles. I think the most unbalancing parts of autocannons currently are, in this order: normalization, range, FLD. I will compromise on FLD, at least temporarily, if it means I can get support for the first two.

Normalization is the biggest one, as you illustrated. Currently, all autocannons do (roughly) AC20 equivalent damage, but have the weight, size, heat and range of much more advantageous, smaller class ACs. This is the biggest issue in my opinion.

The normalization issue is compounded, and slightly obscured in some ways, by the range issue. Because of the x3 range, every autocannon is hitting for more damage at greater distances, to where the Ac20 is reaching far, far beyond where it should. If the AC20 was hitting the same range as an SRM, for instance, I don't think there would be nearly as much complaining about it - if I get that close to an AC40, for instance, it's my own fault, but 810 meters is a long ways away!


I am not a fan of the Gauss delay either, and I think 90% of the populace thinks the delay should have been on the PPC instead, but I do think it is a pretty unique way to handle it. Why they didn't just give it a minimum range like a PPC, I don't know, but they probably thought it was better to desync them from PPCs instead of just giving a minimum.

Has there ever been a recoil effect? I would love that...

FLD I understand the dislike that some have of it. I do! I am just THAT guy. The SWTOR Commando Blasting away with the heavy cannon killing groups with BFGs. Or the Hulk in the Avengers. Caramon from DragonLance.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 27 February 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

th this is not necessarily true. I like the shorter matches myself. Keep in mind many of us with families kids etc. Can't afford to be glued to a monitor for more then 15 minutes. You could however make a different match type with a drop ship mode or some such that let's you bring more mech to a fight. But that would have to be a separate mode. Otherwise I'm willing to bet you will have alot of people ask half way through a match.

we already discussed this on another thread. Put both in the game. They are easy to balance. Even pgi wants to do it.

The match length would still be the match length, but this addresses each persons TTK, not the length of the match. Currently, the only time a match goes the full duration is if both teams hunker down and refuse to attack, or if an ECM Spider is in it. Most matches are a quick 6-8 minutes, max, and a large portion of the destruction is in the first two minutes after engagement. I would actually LOVE to see some metrics on this, btw, to see if my estimates are accurate!

I have a full time job, a needy wife, and three kids, so I completely understand the time constraints. That is exactly why I love PUGing in MWO, as I know the maximum amount of time I will ever be locked down is 15 minutes at a time. It is the one thing I am hesitant about with the implementation of CW, as I worry that it will take a lot more time investment and actually grouping to accomplish anything worthwhile.

Joseph Mallan, on 28 February 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

FLD I understand the dislike that some have of it. I do! I am just THAT guy. The SWTOR Commando Blasting away with the heavy cannon killing groups with BFGs. Or the Hulk in the Avengers. Caramon from DragonLance.

Ah, Dragonlance, the books that first start my fall into nerdism... It has been so long that I don't even remember most of the stories, but I always identified with Raistlin and pretty much any of the Knights at one point or another of my childhood. I wish there was a way to play a tank in MWO, lol. Maybe Cap from the Avengers, or a Jugg from SWTOR (though I prefer Rage since I never got into raiding in that game).

Regardless, I am all for giving you the option you want as long as it is balanced. I have an AC40 jäger I play daily, and I enjoy it while understanding completely that it is not OP in that chassis - devastating and scary, yes, but not OP. That being said, there are reasons we have never been given an assault with the ability to mount two large ballistics like that, because that WOULD be OP in a chassis that can take a ton of punishment. I also dislike ghost heat immensely because I cannot even chain fire my ACs in that mech without ghost heat somehow still punishing me. I would much prefer to balance ballistics so that ghost heat was not needed, as overheating with ballistics is completely contrary to the entire purpose behind ballistics - low heat, high ammo and weight. Give me a Gatling gun version that just drills the crap out of anyone I point at and I will be ecstatic! (And I don't mean an AC2 drilling, I mean a Jesse Ventura in the Predator drilling from each arm)

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 28 February 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

The match length would still be the match length, but this addresses each persons TTK, not the length of the match. Currently, the only time a match goes the full duration is if both teams hunker down and refuse to attack, or if an ECM Spider is in it. Most matches are a quick 6-8 minutes, max, and a large portion of the destruction is in the first two minutes after engagement. I would actually LOVE to see some metrics on this, btw, to see if my estimates are accurate!

I have a full time job, a needy wife, and three kids, so I completely understand the time constraints. That is exactly why I love PUGing in MWO, as I know the maximum amount of time I will ever be locked down is 15 minutes at a time. It is the one thing I am hesitant about with the implementation of CW, as I worry that it will take a lot more time investment and actually grouping to accomplish anything worthwhile.


Ah, Dragonlance, the books that first start my fall into nerdism... It has been so long that I don't even remember most of the stories, but I always identified with Raistlin and pretty much any of the Knights at one point or another of my childhood. I wish there was a way to play a tank in MWO, lol. Maybe Cap from the Avengers, or a Jugg from SWTOR (though I prefer Rage since I never got into raiding in that game).

Regardless, I am all for giving you the option you want as long as it is balanced. I have an AC40 jäger I play daily, and I enjoy it while understanding completely that it is not OP in that chassis - devastating and scary, yes, but not OP. That being said, there are reasons we have never been given an assault with the ability to mount two large ballistics like that, because that WOULD be OP in a chassis that can take a ton of punishment. I also dislike ghost heat immensely because I cannot even chain fire my ACs in that mech without ghost heat somehow still punishing me. I would much prefer to balance ballistics so that ghost heat was not needed, as overheating with ballistics is completely contrary to the entire purpose behind ballistics - low heat, high ammo and weight. Give me a Gatling gun version that just drills the crap out of anyone I point at and I will be ecstatic! (And I don't mean an AC2 drilling, I mean a Jesse Ventura in the Predator drilling from each arm)

funny enough was talking about that and cw with a friend. Our own idea would be that they keep the pug matches but allow players to sign up for longer extended matches. Possibly with different rules. Mechanics. Or amount of mech etc. Please both crowds that way.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 28 February 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

funny enough was talking about that and cw with a friend. Our own idea would be that they keep the pug matches but allow players to sign up for longer extended matches. Possibly with different rules. Mechanics. Or amount of mech etc. Please both crowds that way.

Private matches will have the ability to set time limits and lots of options, and double premium private matches will be able to set 1v1 and all sorts of weird setups.

[Foxfire]

Ballistics will remain better than beams until either beams have instant damage or ballistics have their shots broken up into smaller chunks.

Instant damage will always remain better than duration damage in a game of this nature for the simple fact that a duration based stream weapon like the Laser will give the defender the ability to distribute damage.

Edited by Foxfire, 28 February 2014 - 06:32 PM.

[Varent]

Foxfire, on 28 February 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

Ballistics will remain better than beams until either beams have instant damage or ballistics have their shots broken up into smaller chunks.

Instant damage will always remain better than duration damage in a game of this nature for the simple fact that a duration based stream weapon like the Laser will give the defender the ability to distribute damage.

Read above, lots of good options there. Best option is to give options for both lasers, ballistics and misses, etc etc so they each have quirks with give different value in different situations. That said. I really really wish a gm or someone would look at this and give it the thumbs up or down so we actually know we are talking and they are listening to some degree

[Nik Van Rhijn]

We are the island that speaks an unknown language most of the time.

[Cimarb]

Quote

Jump Jet Fixes and Updates:

Jump Jets will now have slower turning rates based on the class of Jump Jets equipped and the 'Mech's base turning speed.
Heavies and Assaults will notice this the most as they will not be able to snap turn as fast as they used to.
Medium 'Mechs will barely notice the change.
Light 'Mechs will not notice any change.
There is now a significant difference between bringing full Jump Jets and 1 Jump Jet and there is a linear scale to them based on the number equipped to the 'Mech.
The issue of 1 Jump Jet providing nearly the same amount of thrust as 3 Jump Jets is no longer the case.

Varent, you got your Jump Jet fix! Now let's get ballistics fixed finally and we should be in a good place!

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 04 March 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

Varent, you got your Jump Jet fix! Now let's get ballistics fixed finally and we should be in a good place!

You have no idea... how happy and sad I am all at once. Im on hotel internet for the next two weeks. I logged into game, experimented and shot around and that's all I could really do on the internet.... LOVE THE CHANGES... but I wont be able to use them for... 2 weeks and enjoy the brawling..... crai.... realistically if they take the suggestion of multiple weapon types it 'probly' wont be fixed till cw.... so... dunno Im actually hoping on more changes to pulse lasers first before that.... but... well see? I mean at least they are doing stuff though. Its a good direction so im trying to remain hopeful.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 01:00 AM, said:

You have no idea... how happy and sad I am all at once. Im on hotel internet for the next two weeks. I logged into game, experimented and shot around and that's all I could really do on the internet.... LOVE THE CHANGES... but I wont be able to use them for... 2 weeks and enjoy the brawling..... crai.... realistically if they take the suggestion of multiple weapon types it 'probly' wont be fixed till cw.... so... dunno Im actually hoping on more changes to pulse lasers first before that.... but... well see? I mean at least they are doing stuff though. Its a good direction so im trying to remain hopeful.

The more I see post-UI2.0, the more hopeful I am. I'm not saying it's all good choices - still not sure how the MM changes are going to work (or not) - but the rate they are doing things has been drastically improved at least.