1080 replies to this topic

[Rhent]

Myomes, on 23 December 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

lol, I cant believe what I just read.

Weapons in TT had even MORE strict ranges and limitations than here. you already have decaying or falloff damage that doubles weapon ranges from TT so you can do a little damage at great range. In TT or prevous mechwarriors, if they were out of your weapons range, that was it. you had nothing until your piloting skill learned to take advantage of terrain or teammates to ferry enemies into your short range jaws.

The alternative is to build mechs like you see in stock TT; put multiple ranges on it to handle anything.

You replied to a post discussing how if AC's and PPC's did streaming damage how it would force mechs to be out in the open while doing damage and exposing them to damage and you talked about range limitations and TT. How is that anywhere related to what was posted?

[Tesunie]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

The previous MW games PvP did have the exact same issues with pinpoint alpha strikes and over whelming damage routienly aimed to desired locations the difference was the tech was not up to the challenge so latency was a balancing factor.

Take my word for it I played MW2-3 on dial up.

I, too, played from MW2 and on. I played MW3 and 4 online a little bit. Let me say, MWO is much better than MW4(online). It got a little tiresome having no heat and no ammo all the time. It also got tiresome having people snipe your head as soon as it popped over a ridge and you weren't even on their sensors yet (aimbot). Also having to shoot 3-4x the damage at someone just to get their armor to turn yellow was annoying (invincibility hack). Nothing by assaults (Novacat) with 4-6 large lasers with no heat... (Me and my brother where exceptions. We ran Shadowcats with AC20s, heatsinks and ammo, and did well for the most part still.)

The other MW titles had additional problems that MWO doesn't have. However, some problems inherent to a game of this style will probably always be a problem. Individual hit locations is what makes this game different from just any other shooter game. It's a BT thing, and thus also a BT problem.

As for MW3-4 and their hard point system, I can say I'm not the only one who hated that system. I'm happy PGI didn't place it into this game. Couldn't make half the mech customs that you should have been able to make in those games.

However, despite the nostalgia of this talk, knowing this still doesn't overly help this conversation. We can make comparisons between the titles but it isn't talking about MWO. There are a lot of differences between MW4 and MWO, and MWO can't be made like MW4. Microsoft said no to that. There is a reason this game runs off Cryengine and not the old MW programing that was already in existence.

I think once HSR and HR are corrected that many of our problems will probably diminish with weapons and their balance. Fix this and then we can get a more clear image of what might be wrong. Of course, this is my opinion.

[Tesunie]

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Take some time and read the post I replied to. He stated that I should go back to Table Top and that I must mot have much experience with the MWO franchise. He tried to pull the experience card and it failed on him. I highly suggest that you send the poster an email and help him on posting etiquette rather than attempt to correct someone who simply stated basic facts.

I read that (though I didn't realize that was what you were responding to, I shall admit). However, just because he was rude doesn't mean you needed to respond in a rude way as well. (Mostly about the last pharagraph you posted, about a game I honestly haven't heard of till now. Man, I missed a lot more MW games than I thought...)

Also, I was mostly asking for everyone to try and be more civil. That remark wasn't just aimed at you. Sorry about that confusion... We all can get hot headed from time to time...

PS: This thread has been moving so fast, it's getting hard to keep track of who's arguing what...

[Rhent]

Bhael Fire, on 23 December 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Yes...because it's the correct line of reasoning with regard to balancing autocannons in this game.

If they nerfed AC's nobody would waste their time with them and many ballistic-based mechs would become largely useless....pretty much like the A1 did when they nerfed SRMs.

If they removed front-loaded damage from ACs and made them operate like lasers (i.e. damage over time DPS weapons), the weight, crit space, limited ammo, and risk of ammo explosions would largely make them inferior to lasers — even with the fact that they run hotter than ballistics, lasers can fire indefinitely without risk of exploding if they get hit.

So, again I assert that unless they lowered the weight and required crit space, as well as increased ammo per ton for ballistics, nerfing frontloaded damage would pretty much make them useless.

I want you to go to Smurfy Mechlab and then look at the weapons lab. The AC + 3 LL build is ahead of the 5 LL laser build on overall DPS and heat. You would see that trend for almost all builds where they equip 1 or 2 AC's in addition to energy weapons. The big bonus of AC's is that you can unload your energy weapons + AC's and once you get to overheat range, you can continue your AC's that generate almost no heat but do tremendous damage.

Changing AC's and PPC's to stream does nothing to their damage, the only change it makes is it forces you to open yourself up for return fire. It also makes cresting and poptarting significantly less good.

Of course if you want to see the cookie cutter 2 PPC + 1-2 AC builds + JJ's that are the current game, then by all means ignore the math I've laid out for you below.

AC/20 3 LL
Max DPS 11.35
Sustained DPS: 5.56
Time to Overheat: 0:22

5 LL build
Max DPS 10.59
Sustained DPS: 5.51
Time to Overheat: 0:21

[Rhent]

Tesunie, on 23 December 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

I read that (though I didn't realize that was what you were responding to, I shall admit). However, just because he was rude doesn't mean you needed to respond in a rude way as well. (Mostly about the last pharagraph you posted, about a game I honestly haven't heard of till now. Man, I missed a lot more MW games than I thought...)

Also, I was mostly asking for everyone to try and be more civil. That remark wasn't just aimed at you. Sorry about that confusion... We all can get hot headed from time to time...

PS: This thread has been moving so fast, it's getting hard to keep track of who's arguing what...

The thread is moving fast because front load damage is just as bad as the Splat Cat's of closed Beta. Its a game breaking mechanic and a lot of people want to keep it in place. AC + PPC's are what makes poptarting so good and to a lesser extent cresting. If they switched front load damage to stream, there would be a lot more builds and ultimately a growing user base.

[Tesunie]

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

5LL
Time to Overheat: 0:21

And of course, this doesn't include if you shoot all 5 of them at once, gaining you even more heat. (Unless you did include the Ghost heat penalty if they where alphaed to overheat...)

I can't say I'd be thrilled with a stream of bullets from an AC, but I wouldn't be opposed to giving it a try and seeing how it feels. If they can keep them shooting close enough together to make them very little spread, I might be for it... though I do have to admit I do like how the ACs feel right now with a single burst of damage.

What I would rather see personally is, instead of changing the ACs to a short stream of damage, I'd rather see convergence have more effect, meaning that those PPC + AC configurations (this would also effect lasers too) spread a little more, especially for quick aim shots. This would make the AC20 the "limb" ripper it's suppose to be still, but would make it so you are harder pressed to get that high pin point alpha. Like 6 PPCs shot together would not equal 60 damage in one spot, but might spread out more. Unless you have the skill to keep your reticule on target for a few moments to let your weapons all converge into that one pin point spot.

Reduced convergence speed would also force people to stay out in the open for longer, which seems to be the deriving response why people want the ACs to stream their damage. If one has to stay out from cover longer to get their weapons to converge right, it will permit return fire easier.

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 03:51 PM, said:

The thread is moving fast because front load damage is just as bad as the Splat Cat's of closed Beta. Its a game breaking mechanic and a lot of people want to keep it in place. AC + PPC's are what makes poptarting so good and to a lesser extent cresting. If they switched front load damage to stream, there would be a lot more builds and ultimately a growing user base.

I can see that possibility. It's a hot topic appearently. Just like ECM was... (is?)

I never had too much trouble with splat cats or streak cats. I engaged them at range with my LRMs whenever I could. Of course, ECM wasn't here yet back them, making my LRMs a bit more effective... Different story. Different thread. Different opinion from AC damage type/output.

[Bhael Fire]

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

AC/20 3 LL
Max DPS 11.35
Sustained DPS: 5.56
Time to Overheat: 0:22

5 LL build
Max DPS 10.59
Sustained DPS: 5.51
Time to Overheat: 0:21

There's all kinds of reasons why both those builds are viable, but for two very different styles of play.

The slight (almost miniscule) nudge in sustained DPS is marginal considering the fact that the AC build is susceptible to ammo explosions and limited ammo, not to mention its limited range with the AC/20.

And this doesn't address the fact that ACs would become (perceived as) useless if they nerfed frontloaded damage and made that AC/20 deliver its 20 points of damage over the course of 1-2 seconds, PLUS a cooldown and travel speed with ballistics drop.

Without changing the weight, crit space, ammo limitations, and many other stats on ballistic weapons....I still maintain that nobody would bother to use them anymore if they nerfed them.

But hey, if they DID lower weight, reduce required crit space, increase ammo capacity, lower the risk of ammo explosions, adjust cooldowns to compensate for fire duration, and speed up projectile speeds...then sure, I could get on board with getting rid of frontloaded damage. Until then...no thanks.

[Sandpit]

Ammo is OP

[Rhent]

Bhael Fire, on 23 December 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

There's all kinds of reasons why both those builds are viable, but for two very different styles of play.

The slight (almost miniscule) nudge in sustained DPS is marginal considering the fact that the AC build is susceptible to ammo explosions and limited ammo, not to mention its limited range with the AC/20.

And this doesn't address the fact that ACs would become (perceived as) useless if they nerfed frontloaded damage and made that AC/20 deliver its 20 points of damage over the course of 1-2 seconds, PLUS a cooldown and travel speed with ballistics drop.

Without changing the weight, crit space, ammo limitations, and many other stats on ballistic weapons....I still maintain that nobody would bother to use them anymore if they nerfed them.

But hey, if they DID lower weight, reduce required crit space, increase ammo capacity, lower the risk of ammo explosions, adjust cooldowns to compensate for fire duration, and speed up projectile speeds...then sure, I could get on board with getting rid of frontloaded damage. Until then...no thanks.

You keep ignoring what drives MWO. What is the one thing that drives every single build in the game? Is it front loaded damage? Is it cover? Is it ECM? Is movement? Is it sniping?

NO, Its heat. AC's are the most heat efficient weapon in the game. Putting in ghost heat has made heat efficiency the #1 criteria for mech design. Everyone is trying to figure out how to do the most amount of damage in the shortest period of time and be most heat efficient.

1 AC/20 = 20 damage for 6 heat = 3.3 pt damage per 1 unit heat
2 PPC = 20 damage for 20 damage = 1 pt damage per 1 unit heat

AC's are the most heat efficient weapon family in the game. If you don't understand heat and its ramifications to the game, then you might want to do some reading.

[Trauglodyte]

The thing is, it could be argued that the DPS on ACs is already too high. What other weapons out there are both front loaded AND do 4 DPS. Yes, DPS isn't the statistic that is the best upon which to judge a weapon. But, you're still able to put out a great deal of damage in one location at a high rate of fire. The PPC and the AC10 both do the same amount of damage. The only down side to the AC10 is its weight, size, and ammo reliance.

[Rhent]

Trauglodyte, on 23 December 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

The thing is, it could be argued that the DPS on ACs is already too high. What other weapons out there are both front loaded AND do 4 DPS. Yes, DPS isn't the statistic that is the best upon which to judge a weapon. But, you're still able to put out a great deal of damage in one location at a high rate of fire. The PPC and the AC10 both do the same amount of damage. The only down side to the AC10 is its weight, size, and ammo reliance.

The AC/10 fires at 2.5 secs and the PPC fires at 4 secs.

[Trauglodyte]

I'm well aware. That's the point. The damage is the same but the AC has a higher rate of fire at a much lower heat cost and its only drawback is that it weighs 12 tons and takes up 7 critical slots. The PPC weighs 7 tons and takes up 3 slots but requires extra weight and possible crit slots for added heat sinks. The AC only requires added tonnage and crit slots for ammo. While the PPC will ultimately be lighter in the end, it still lacks the range of the AC and will always be faster.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 23 December 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

You keep ignoring what drives MWO. What is the one thing that drives every single build in the game? Is it front loaded damage? Is it cover? Is it ECM? Is movement? Is it sniping?

NO, Its heat. AC's are the most heat efficient weapon in the game. Putting in ghost heat has made heat efficiency the #1 criteria for mech design. Everyone is trying to figure out how to do the most amount of damage in the shortest period of time and be most heat efficient.

1 AC/20 = 20 damage for 6 heat = 3.3 pt damage per 1 unit heat
2 PPC = 20 damage for 20 damage = 1 pt damage per 1 unit heat

AC's are the most heat efficient weapon family in the game. If you don't understand heat and its ramifications to the game, then you might want to do some reading.

I'm not ignoring anything; I already addressed heat and how it factors into this equation. I run all kinds of builds/platforms; energy, ballistic, missile, and everything in between without any problem with heat because I know how to build around heat to get the most from any weapons platform. Most experienced players do.

Even though ballistics run cooler, they weigh more, take up more crit space, have limited ammo (that can explode), and they have slower travel velocities and ballistics drop — which affects their performance greatly when compared to the instantaneous contact speed of lasers.

I think that counterbalances any benefit from cooler temps fairly well.

But on the topic of autocannons and your example above, you forgot to mention range and damage fall-off; 2XPPCs will outperform an AC/20 at longer ranges.

There's much more to weapons balance than just heat and DPS. It's far more holistic than you are realizing.

[Haji1096]

This meta is stale, but I don't like the idea of changing ACs and PPCs to DoT weapons. Then the only play style choice would be LRMs vs. direct fire. The new meta would become which ever weapon has the shortest DoT and jump jets.

Since PGI is not addressing convergence maybe they can balance it through a game play mechanic:

LRMS have max range of 2000 meters and pop tart mechs get auto targeted for LRMs for 10 s. Not saying its a good or well thought out idea, but the point is that there should be an element of paper rock scissors with different play styles. Not AC+PPC kills everything.

[Jaguar Prime]

Here's my $0.02.

The only time I see a possible issue with the current convergence mechanic is when shots are taken under 350m. With the different travel times for each weapon the farther out a target is, it becomes less of an issue. (unless you have to stand still to shoot, then it is a player issue.) With that in mind, adding a small cone of fire would be devastating to players who like to shoot from more than 700m out.

In case no one has noticed, ghost heat has virtually killed long range high pinpoint alphas. (and no, 550m is not long range....)

As for front loaded weapons being the meta...... Given that the maps provide cover, it is common sense that players migrated to front loaded weapons. AC's are no more powerful than they have ever been. PPC's are gimped compared to their past incarnation.

I wish people would understand that because you cant win with your playstyle or you get dominated with your chosen mech and loadout, doesn't mean there is a problem with the game. This game does have issues. But a lot of what is complained about, is not. Learn to play all play style at all ranges and with all weapons before you come here complaining. Once your view of the game is expanded to encompass all aspects. You will see that most of the issues you are complaining about are petty in the bigger view. Look at the big picture.

[MustrumRidcully]

Almond Brown, on 23 December 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

OK, let's see if we can beak this down to a finer grit.

• ACs fire stream of bullets.

The AC2 already fire a stream of bullets. To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself. The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC2/erPPC. Both require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC2 from the OP's complaint list.

I actually agree here - the AC/2 ROF is so high and damage per shot is so low that I don't think it needs an adjustment there.

Quote

The AC5 fires 1 shell every 1.5 seconds. To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself for 3+ seconds. To carry 2 you have to use the same weight as a Gauss Rifle (+ ammo). The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC5/AC2/Gauss/erLL/erPPC (x X). 5 points of damage, per unit, with 1.5 second exposure for 2 shots, for pin-point damage. All require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC5 from the OP's complaint list.

The AC10 fires 1 shell every 2.5 seconds To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself for 5+ seconds. The response weapon of choice is another *AC10/AC2/AC5/LBX10/UAC5/erPPC/Gauss/erLL/LL/PPC (x X). 10 points of damage, per unit, with 5 second exposure for 2 shots, for pin point damage. It requires a steady hand to apply the 10 max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC5 from the OP's complaint list.

The AC20 is THE heavy hitter of the Ballistics group and pays for it with weight/slots and a lack of ranged punch. To do max. damage with one, or 2, you have to expose yourself to your enemy for 8 seconds for 2 shots and do so at near point blank range. The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC20/erPPC/erLL/LL/Gauss//LPL/PPC (x X). 20 (x 2) points of damage per unit, for pin point damage. All require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. The AC20 at 500m is basically an very heavy AC10. This removes the AC20 from the OP's complaint list.

It depends on how long you need to aim for each shot, but you can probably deal 40 damage in less than 5 seconds. Leave cover, aim, shoot the first time, torso twist, take aim again shortly before cooldown is over, fire again, go into cover. A Laser in the same scenario would steal you 2 seconds of potential torso twisting time, and in that time you need to maintain your aim to deal damage where you want to do it.

But your scenarios also omit one important aspect: If you actually are in cover and can get back there, there isn't necessarily a reason to fire more than one shot at all. Sure, it's not much damage, but once you dealt damage, it's not going away, and if you keep your exposure very short, you are less likely to take return fire.
Only when you get yourself into a situation where you can't take cover you will want to shoot on cooldown. But even there, you can spend much shorter periods of time facing your enemy if you don't need to maintain 1 second long beams.

[Kyle Wright]

They could set ballistics up in such a way along with PPC's where you have to get a target lock on a enemy mech component to fire a pin point shot. If you do not acquire a lock the reticle is unstable when moving and increases the risk of a miss.

[MustrumRidcully]

DeadlyFred, on 23 December 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

Which completely defeats the purpose of having different types of weapons.

What is the purpose of having different types of weapons?

For that purpose, wouldn't it be good if we had some kind of weapon that would one-shot any type of mech? And another type of weapon that shuts a mech down for a few second with every hit?

Just because a weapon is unique or different doesn't mean it's good for the game.

Even as "bullet lasers", ballistics still are viable weapons and are different from normal lasers, simply because they are high weight, ammo-dependent but low heat.
A "PPC Laser" would still have the EMP effect going for it, and it would have a different range from standard lasers and ER Lasers, also setting it apart.

Distinctions as range, weight, heat, rate of fire, ammo are still important and if the weapons don't have unique, imbalancing properties, there are plenty of viable builds.
And not to forget, in the table top, that are all the distinction that exist (at least among direct-fire weapons). Lasers, Auto-Cannons, they all deal their damage in a single hit, there is no distinction there, and it was never needed.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 December 2013 - 12:42 AM.

[Galenit]

Sandpit, on 23 December 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Ammo is OP

6 times ammo for sure and thats what the ballistics have without random hit locations and 1.5 times tt shells.
No, i dont miss the double armor in this game, 6 times comes after 1/2 because of double armor.

Bhael Fire, on 23 December 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Even though ballistics run cooler, they weigh more, take up more crit space, have limited ammo (that can explode), and they have slower travel velocities and ballistics drop — which affects their performance greatly when compared to the instantaneous contact speed of lasers.

You missed some pros for them:
They have pinpointdamage and more dps, shake, range and they have 6x ammo compared to 1.5 times for missiles and only 1.4 dhs for energy.

Ammoexplosion? You mean after armor is gone, if a random crit happens and that random crit hits randomly ammo, then there is a 10% random chance for it?



2x range would bring them in line with other weapons:

Gauss and ERPPC for long range pinpoint damage
AC2 and ERLL for long range dotdamage
Missiles for hitting the hills at longranges and spreaddamage at midranges.
In the midranges we have the ac5, ac10, uac5, ppc for pinpointdamage and LL/ML for dot damage and the lbx for spreaddamage.
Shortranges: SRM for spreaddamage, AC20 for pinpointdamage and ML/SL/MG/Flamer for dotdamage.


1/2 tt ammo for ballistics would bring them in line with the other weapons:

1/2 TT ammo for ballistics is 2x tt ammo if you take the randomhitlocations and armor into the math, missiles have only 1.5x tt ammo and laser have less then 1x tt ammo because of the not double dhs.


Ammoexplosionchance for all ammo of 35% would bring a real risk.
10% after a random crit and randomly hitting ammo is not enough for case, its nearly nothing.


In the end the ac-line would have pinpoint high burst damage but you have to make your shoot counts and cant use them all at all ranges all the time.

Then we would have 3 different weaponsystems with its own advantages and disadvantages and a better balance over all 3 systems.


Sure they can make ballistics dot too or work on convergence.
But after what i have seen until now, i dont want pgi to make that.
I hope they choose the easy, change some numbers in the xml, version i promote.
It does not need any programming and gives not that much room for another strange illogical solution that does not work, like ghost heat.

Edited by Galenit, 24 December 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[Varent]

Rhent, on 22 December 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

The main flaw with weapons in MWO is:
-Focused instantaneous damage

Lasers, LRM's and SSRM's are implemented in a way that they are not game breaking.

However, PPC's and AC's are game breakers. No if's, and's or butt'. Why? It allows a player to do damage without exposing themselves to return damage. When you are firing a Laser, you have to expose yourself for a second to do concentrated fire, meanwhile you yourself are opened for concentrated fire. Meanwhile, with a PPC or AC, you locate an enemy mechs target signature, pop up in the air for 1 second, fire, then immediate hire OR you crest a hill and fire for a second.

All that has to be done to fix this broke game is to force AC and PPC's to do stream damage. The other solution is to force a charge up time like Gauss.

It sounds like you are simply upset with a facet of this game. Thats fine but what you would suggest would completely destroy a specific player section that play. That may make you happy but it would upset a whole other group. PPC and AC are fine as they are currently. The current problem with the game is not the weapons its the fact that its simply too easy to mount those weapons onto jump capable mechs wich causes an abundance of one playstyle. The playstyle would change should you make it harder to use weapons while jumping. At the same time you cant do it in a way wich would completely destroy jump Sniping. My own suggestion has always been to increase the amount of jump jets needed to fire effectively in the air. This would limit the overall weight you could put towards weapons, especially in heavier mechs whos jump jets weigh abit.