116 replies to this topic

[3endless8oogie]

So far i think ac2 and the lbx10 are ok.

But ac5, ac10 are realy the easymode weapons. A jaegermech with 2 ac5 and 1 ac10 and you are guaranteed to get kills, if you run out of ammo you have atleast 3-4 kills with around 700 (or more) damage.

Especialy on maps with high temperature, other mechs shutdown due to overheating and you can just go on firing till your ammo is depleted.


Ac20 does to much damage to 1 spot in 1 shot.

...and don´t pretend "you have to aim with ac´s" because it´s just not the case.

More heat on ac 5 ac10 .
Make all ac´s burstweapons. After that maybe a few tweaks to cooldown and bulletspeed and it will be ok

Edited by 3endless8oogie, 13 December 2013 - 05:42 AM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

akpavker, on 12 December 2013 - 06:35 PM, said:

there should be no more nerfing in this game!!!!! im all ready growing board of MWO due to multiple nerfs (after launch) and lack of content if the nerfs keep pooring in ill be likely to say screw it and go play something else. honestly if AC's are so powerful then buff the other farken weapons and be done with all this BS. im so sick of this game having "fun stuff" nerfed because some **** that cant play the game dies and then runs to the forums and cry's!! it needs to stop!!!

Really? Remember Splatcats? Lurmageddon? 6PPC Stalkers? Why do we need a patch every two weeks? The game isn't finished and has balance issues, that's why! People whine when their favorite OP build gets the nerf bat, but sometimes it has to happen for the good of the game, or everyone either uses the same thing or they get wrecked. When everybody and their grandmother's dog is using a certain mech or weapon setup it is usually too good and gets adjusted. Right now it's autocannons. In my opinion the AC20 is fine. It has a good range limitation for it's damage output. The AC2, AC5, and AC10 are the ones that need adjusting. A range drop just means you won't be able to cross-map people using PPCs, gauss rifles, or ERLLs. They will be just as effective as they were before except for that. Sounds very practical to me.

[Joseph Mallan]

3endless8oogie, on 13 December 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

So far i think ac2 and the lbx10 are ok.

But ac5, ac10 are realy the easymode weapons. A jaegermech with 2 ac5 and 1 ac10 and you are guaranteed to get kills, if you run out of ammo you have atleast 3-4 kills with around 700 (or more) damage.

Especialy on maps with high temperature, other mechs shutdown due to overheating and you can just go on firing till your ammo is depleted.


Ac20 does to much damage to 1 spot in 1 shot.

...and don´t pretend "you have to aim with ac´s" because it´s just not the case.

I don't think aiming is what you think it is, putting crosshairs on a target and clicking a mouse is not a problem. An AC20 is already doing half the effect as on TT I do not want to see it made weaker.

AC20 is this

not this

[Tombstoner]

When does magical levels of accuracy start to undermined "SKILL".
Answer - as soon as you start using grouped weapons.

[3endless8oogie]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

I don't think aiming is what you think it is, putting crosshairs on a target and clicking a mouse is not a problem.

Sry but in most cases , in mwo, it is exactly this.

[Mindwipe]

I'm not really convinced AC's are OP'd or low skill but more diversity in Mech loadouts should be encouraged. One easy way to do it, like many potential fixes in this game, is to simply use the TT rules. AC 5 and 2 both have minimum ranges much like the PPC. Taking the extreme that PGI used for the PPC it would make the AC 5 and 2 useless in close, making those weapons not be the perfect all around weapon.

It would likely bring epic amounts of rage but suddenly those AC5/PPC mechs are completely helpless within 90m. I know my Jenner would have a field day with that. It wouldn't change the AC20/PPC or AC10 versions as those are what they are in both TT and MWO. The triple distance for ballistics always felt wrong to me as well. Dropping that down to 2x would at least make the long range weapons a bit more equal.

I'd also like more chance of ammo explosions. I might be wrong but doesn't MWO check for an ammo explosion when the section ammo is in is destroyed? If that were removed and only have ammo blow on a hit it would increase the care that ammo mech use in placement and engine type to mitigate that risk without making ammo mechs absolute deathtraps.

[kapusta11]

Ballistics require no skill? May I ask how high your accuracy stat with ACs?

Edited by kapusta11, 13 December 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

3endless8oogie, on 13 December 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

Sry but in most cases , in mwo, it is exactly this.

It is this with all weapons... except lasers have to actually track on target to to get full damage. That's reflex more than skill... eye hand coordination and all that. But skill is not required for most of combat in this game. Killing is very very easy. Making it hard is just silly.

[Mc JR]

I beg to differ, when using a ac weapon you have to lead the target and account for drop over fight. also unlike lasers we run out of ammo, so there is risk at becoming useless to our team when that happens. But really the AC 10/20 does not have the range to do what your talking about, at lest with full damage to target. and the AC 2 doesn't carry the punch at all. So the AC 5 is the best all around AC. But there is skill and a risk that need to me looked at and understood.

[Joseph Mallan]

I don't know Mc. This is my first FpS type game in over 12 years, It does not feel like skill to me. Its point and click to me.

[AlmightyAeng]

I'm so glad someone found the courage to post about this.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ghost Badger, on 13 December 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

I'm so glad someone found the courage to post about this.

This is a new and exciting post too.

[Grits N Gravy]

AC's in table top use a singular hit location, only the Rotary and UAC use the cluster table. So the lore argument doesn't hold a lot a water. The real issue is that beam mechanics suck in a server authenticated game. Caching, HSR or whatever you want to call it is a band aid solution with very real limitations as to what can be achieved by these means. While the current system is better than what we had in closed beta, it's not great. You want to make energy builds more viable compared to AC builds, cut the beam durations by 75%.

The real reason why you can't have effective lasers is the fear of a repeat of Laser Armageddon. I don't think we ever really got to a good place of balance in closed beta. We'd have a much better game if there were much shorter beam durations, balanced by around 4-5 times TT armour values (roughly double to what we have now) and Ammo counts per ton upped by 25%. You basically net out to where we are now, with more effective but not OP laser weapons.

Anyway, if you really want to reduce the effectiveness of the current AC meta, just reduce ammo counts by 65%. Now the danger of running out of ammo is much more real. Get rid of the 200 ammo count AC 5 builds and a couple backup medium lasers look a lot more attractive, when compared to 10 rounds AC 5 rounds. It's the ammo count that lets one lean on the skill biasing of the weapon more than anything. As it negates the largest downside, limited ammo.

Edited by Grits N Gravy, 13 December 2013 - 09:04 AM.

[stjobe]

The biggest problem with ACs (and the PPCs and Gauss as well) is that instant-damage to one location is so, so much more effective than damage spread over a beam duration or a flight of missiles that there's simply no comparison.

I get that people want different weapon types, but look at it this way:
* lasers spread their weapon over their beam duration (0.5 - 1.0 s).
* missiles spread their damage over the, well, missile spread.
* ACs, PPCs, and GR don't spread their damage.

Currently this means that ACs, PPCs, and GR are superior to all other weapons. They are quite simply more efficient to kill with. Personally, I don't think this should be so; that one type of weapon is so much more effective that any 'mech that can mount them do, to the exclusion of all other weapon types.

There's two solutions to this problem that present themselves rather easily:
1. Make ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam-weapon so all weapons spread their damage to some extent (except perhaps the GR, which actually was a one-projectile weapon in lore).
2. Buff, buff, and buff lasers, SRMs, LRMs, Flamer, MG, LBX so that the ACs, PPCs, and GR are no longer the no-brainer choice for killing stuff.

While I have been known to advocate the first of these repeatedly and probably obnoxiously, I could go with either one at this point.

[Joseph Mallan]

I'd rather buff than Nerf StJobe. Bring other weapons up to ACs. Bringing good down to bad is just stupid logic to me.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'd rather buff than Nerf StJobe. Bring other weapons up to ACs. Bringing good down to bad is just stupid logic to me.

But lowering damage over all increases life expectancy and lets players recover from simple mistakes with out getting gored to fast.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

I'd rather buff than Nerf StJobe. Bring other weapons up to ACs. Bringing good down to bad is just stupid logic to me.

Ideally (for me, I appreciate not everyone shares this ideal) ACs would be made burst-fire and the PPCs beam-weapons, and THEN we would balance them all out so that there are actual choices to be made in what weapon to go with.

I just don't think MWO can handle instant-damage weapons. The armour location system wasn't built with that in mind, and it's showing the cracks already with the doubled armour values and very low TTK. That's one of the reasons I advocate burst-fire ACs.

[Joseph Mallan]

Tombstoner, on 13 December 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

But lowering damage over all increases life expectancy and lets players recover from simple mistakes with out getting gored to fast.

Not my problem or concern. If I screw the pooch in battle drop me like a hot potato. If I don' learn from the experience it's my fault. I have n interest in increasing life expectancy, the longer you stay a live the greater the chance I will fall. And that works both ways just in case you wanna take that route.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Not my problem or concern. If I screw the pooch in battle drop me like a hot potato. If I don' learn from the experience it's my fault. I have n interest in increasing life expectancy, the longer you stay a live the greater the chance I will fall. And that works both ways just in case you wanna take that route.

BattleTech - the word doesn't conjure images of fast-paced instant-death, does it? For me at least, it conjures images of ponderous, lumbering war machines, slowly chipping away at each other with massive fire-power and massive amounts of armour, until one finally falls, and the victor slowly hobbles away in his all-but-destroyed 'mech.

I want a higher TTK.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 December 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Not my problem or concern. If I screw the pooch in battle drop me like a hot potato. If I don' learn from the experience it's my fault. I have n interest in increasing life expectancy, the longer you stay a live the greater the chance I will fall. And that works both ways just in case you wanna take that route.

o i agree game play trumps balance issue. still over all i think life expectancy is too low.