1080 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

Read above statements. I'm tired of repeating myself in 20 different threads. Feel free to look at my constructive posts in one of the other 20 threads on this same topic.

Well if you don't want to answer a simple question, I'll have to assume you have an incomplete understanding of MWO mechanics.

Edited by Noesis, 25 December 2013 - 01:11 PM.

[Sandpit]

As for "it has great support" argument?

I dare you to find me more than 30 different names heck I'd almost be willing to wager against 20 different names across the twenty or so threads on this subject. Please. That's not a "show of support". That's the same players posting across 20 different threads so it "looks important".

Noesis, on 25 December 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

Well if you don't want to answer a simple question, I'll assume you either don't know or have an incomplete understanding of MWO mechanics.

No, I ahve answered it. Numerous times. YOU want the answer, YOU dig across the twenty duplicate threads to find it. Of course that wouldnt' be an issue if there WEREN'T DUPLICATE THREADS ABOUT THE EXACT SAME SUBJECT

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

As for "it has great support" argument?

I dare you to find me more than 30 different names heck I'd almost be willing to wager against 20 different names across the twenty or so threads on this subject. Please. That's not a "show of support". That's the same players posting across 20 different threads so it "looks important".

Not interested in posting habits, I'm interested in objective discussion.

But if it doesn't have support from lots of interest why should it be a concern for you, why have you previously taken the time to list numerous postings if it has no relevance to the issue, which from my viewpoint is irrelevant other than your helping people to at least see all the relevant content associated with the problem of dominant pinpoint ballistics.

Edited by Noesis, 25 December 2013 - 01:14 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 25 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

.

But if it doesn't have support from lots of interest why should it be a concern for you, .

Because some of us are tired of having to weed through DUPLICATE POSTS to find information on something besides balistics are "op" That's why.

I post my thoughts on the balance because I like PGI to know that not everyone agrees with the 20 or so players that agree with you and continue to start new threads on the exact same subject. That's why.

Normally I'd say it's called common courtesy to the rest of the forum community, but in this community that's non-existent. If it were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But because "my thought on the subject it "special" it deserves its own thread instead of just posting it into a thread that already exists

[Tesunie]

Lykaon, on 24 December 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

I apologize if I came off overly snarky My intended "tone" was light hearted.


I do understand that you were saying improvements to HSR would increase weapon accuracy and bring in line other weapons but,my concern is what we will have is front loaded pinpoint damage as tops and dispersed damage being effective yet not as good as front loaded and all the while mechs will "enjoy" even shorter life spans .



Role warfare? can't happen if there are mechs capable of crippling a mech under 60 tons in a single salvo.The roles are massive alpha striker or food. Again not much room for thought,will I be an effective damage dealer or a less effective target?


Slowed convergence as you described would reduce the poptarting but retain the alpha boating.It will always be better to wait .25 seconds to stick 40 damage into a CT than wait .25 seconds to hose the target all over with lasers and SRMs.If anything slowed convergence would return the gaussboat to the top predators list since you will be waiting for convergence while the gauss charges.

I appologize now for any misspelled words. I just got a new computer and the spell check isn't working at this time.

You came across fine, as the little helped to show you weren't completely serious.

Sometimes it is best to buff instead of nerf. If ACs are working good at this time, then maybe instead of making them work as "bad" as another system, we buff the other systems so they can more easily compete? Instead of streaming AC shots, I think shorter laser beam duration would be a better fix.

However, though you do bring up a point about HSR and HR making damage even better, it should help to bring out the lasers. Right now, I've noticed that sometimes, even when I keep a full beam in one spot, there are times that it seems to do massively less damage than it should. It feels like half the beam vanished and didn't apply it's damage. Once HR gets fixed, this should make all ticks of a lasers damage apply when it should be hitting. Will also fix SRMs and their damage as well, bringing them back into line.

By increasing convergence time, it makes lasers gain a bit of an upperhand, as if you shoot a laser too soon, it can still hone in as the laser is shooting. An AC shot before convergence is fully gained might not even hit the target, or if it does hit wil probably not hit where you want it to. As for just intorducing a waiting before firing, it would make all mechs have to pock out of cover for that little bit longer, which seems to be a large portion of many people's arguments. If a mech now has to expose themselves for 0.25 seonds (or whatever number works, this is a random thrown in number), that gives other players a 0.25 second chance to return fire. The return fire might not be as accurate, as they would have less time to gain their own cerrvergence, but it at least provides the opportunity. Lasers would become better at retalitory fire in this situation, as they can shoot as soon as they see a target, splash some damage over the target that popped out, and it will slowly focus in to where they are aiming.

A slower convergence will introduce more needed skill (and self restraint) before one pulls the trigger. It will make this game even more tactical, require some more skill (increase the learning curve) and should level off all the different weapons. The Gauss rifle would probably be one of the most effictent snipping weapons in the game again with it's charge feature. But, that would be rather fitting as well. Lasers become a better work horse, espesually for "twitch" style shooters, and ACs would require more generlized aiming skills to use to utmost efficiency, which would play into the added advantage of up front burst damage.

Gauss would retain it's "useless" charge feature, but with a slower convergence, it would make the weapon feel even more like a sniper weapon, making it better at range as one can converge as they charge the weapon. It still wouldn't be a weapon for everyone.

(Basically, slower convergence would benefit faster mechs dodging, make the slower twisting of the bigger mechs better for keeping targets under your reticule, would help bring lasers back into the game as a more popular weapon choice, and would keep ACs front damage as a reward for using them with more skill. I hope this is making sense still?)

Edited by Tesunie, 25 December 2013 - 05:51 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Tesunie, on 25 December 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

I appologize now for any misspelled words. I just got a new computer and the spell check isn't working at this time.

You came across fine, as the little helped to show you weren't completely serious.

Sometimes it is best to buff instead of nerf. If ACs are working good at this time, then maybe instead of making them work as "bad" as another system, we buff the other systems so they can more easily compete? Instead of streaming AC shots, I think shorter laser beam duration would be a better fix.

However, though you do bring up a point about HSR and HR making damage even better, it should help to bring out the lasers. Right now, I've noticed that sometimes, even when I keep a full beam in one spot, there are times that it seems to do massively less damage than it should. It feels like half the beam vanished and didn't apply it's damage. Once HR gets fixed, this should make all ticks of a lasers damage apply when it should be hitting. Will also fix SRMs and their damage as well, bringing them back into line.

By increasing convergence time, it makes lasers gain a bit of an upperhand, as if you shoot a laser too soon, it can still hone in as the laser is shooting. An AC shot before convergence is fully gained might not even hit the target, or if it does hit wil probably not hit where you want it to. As for just intorducing a waiting before firing, it would make all mechs have to pock out of cover for that little bit longer, which seems to be a large portion of many people's arguments. If a mech now has to expose themselves for 0.25 seonds (or whatever number works, this is a random thrown in number), that gives other players a 0.25 second chance to return fire. The return fire might not be as accurate, as they would have less time to gain their own cerrvergence, but it at least provides the opportunity. Lasers would become better at retalitory fire in this situation, as they can shoot as soon as they see a target, splash some damage over the target that popped out, and it will slowly focus in to where they are aiming.

A slower convergence will introduce more needed skill (and self restraint) before one pulls the trigger. It will make this game even more tactical, require some more skill (increase the learning curve) and should level off all the different weapons. The Gauss rifle would probably be one of the most effictent snipping weapons in the game again with it's charge feature. But, that would be rather fitting as well. Lasers become a better work horse, espesually for "twitch" style shooters, and ACs would require more generlized aiming skills to use to utmost efficiency, which would play into the added advantage of up front burst damage.

Gauss would retain it's "useless" charge feature, but with a slower convergence, it would make the weapon feel even more like a sniper weapon, making it better at range as one can converge as they charge the weapon. It still wouldn't be a weapon for everyone.

(Basically, slower convergence would benefit faster mechs dodging, make the slower twisting of the bigger mechs better for keeping targets under your reticule, would help bring lasers back into the game as a more popular weapon choice, and would keep ACs front damage as a reward for using them with more skill. I hope this is making sense still?)

I'm all for slower convergence but then watch the forums explode as people complain about their shots not hitting where they put them or shooting off in crazy directions.

[Tesunie]

Lyoto Machida, on 25 December 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I'm all for slower convergence but then watch the forums explode as people complain about their shots not hitting where they put them or shooting off in crazy directions.

That would be the initial out break, wouldn't it? At least till people either adjust to it, or it gets complained about enough that they change it back.

I woudn't mind at least trying it out and seeing it if makes anything feel better...

[Stygian Steel]

can't wait till all weapons get nerfed down to flamer levels then we'll have buff threads and we'll be right back to where we are now with people whining about how weapons in MWO damage mechs and cause wins and loss's untill then everybody do nothing but cap objectives because theres not enough of those threads either, and while were at it how about a new one for the devs not knowing how to program a video game that these same people will not under any circumstance stop playing but will continuously moan and groan about

[YueFei]

Mech durability should be addressed with hitbox changes. Even with pin-point damage, some mechs just survive incoming fire so well when piloted well with defensive twisting and turning. Other mechs have crappy hitboxes and die super fast.

The Victor and Awesome are both 80 tons, but the Victor tanks damage so much better than the Awesome. It's a hitbox issue.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

As for "it has great support" argument?

I dare you to find me more than 30 different names heck I'd almost be willing to wager against 20 different names across the twenty or so threads on this subject. Please. That's not a "show of support". That's the same players posting across 20 different threads so it "looks important".


No, I ahve answered it. Numerous times. YOU want the answer, YOU dig across the twenty duplicate threads to find it. Of course that wouldnt' be an issue if there WEREN'T DUPLICATE THREADS ABOUT THE EXACT SAME SUBJECT

And of course, there are these other 20 posters that constantly argue about how lasers are superior because they are lighter, don't need ammo and are hit-scan weapons in their own "nerf-laser" threads, which clearly shows us that the situation must be perfectly balanced, it's just some people that don't like losing to ballistics or lasers respectively. Right?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 December 2013 - 01:39 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Lasers do not do splash damage. They do pinpoint. damage, they just have a longer duration. You don't hit a LT with a laser and get "splash" damage in other areas.
You're also discounting that for the cost of an AC10 and ammo in terms of crits and tonnage you can drop in heatsinks to offset the heat of the laser as well as get more than one laser. 2 LLs are the same weight and less crit spce than an AC10. Now for every tone of ammo for the AC you drop in a DHS or SHS to compensate for the heat. That's a trade-off. You can have two weapon firing off in chain fire that increases the rate of fire.

You are forgetting to factor in movement.

If I shoot your LT with a LL and we are both moving, it is very likely my crosshair will drift over your other body parts or even over nothing. My 9 damage will not go all to the LT, only part with the rest hitting other areas or missing entirely. That is splash, not pinpoint.

I shoot you with an AC/10, movement does not matter. All 10 damage points go to one spot when it hits, there is no drifting. If movement makes the 'Dirty Harry' shell hit another part, that part gets all 10 damage.

About the other part, let's even it out by tonnage than.
AC/10 + 2 tons ammo (30 shots) = 14
LL equvalent:
LL + 9 DHS. Never heard of it.
2LL + 4 DHS = 14
Despite having 2LL and +4 DHS over the engine 10, you will still overheat worse than the AC users. Some like me with 2LL regulate shots because we do not believe in overheating so a 2LL user will fire less often at times thus not do anywhere near the damage of an AC user. Others will pump out the shots to overheat levels thus reducing their shots due to amount of time spent overheating.

Right now I have an Awesome with 2PPC + 2LL and a lot of heat sinks, about 17 IIRC. AC users STILL shoot more often than I do, there are times I have to back off before overheating while AC users are still firing. I can get good kills with the Awesome but cannot pump out the damage like AC users can.

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

f you notice? In all of the "op, broken, up, etc." threads? It's the same 20 or so players posting the same exact posts over and over and over and over again, with a few new players here and there once in a while giving their opinions.

I am actually with you about multiple threads though I am not one of those posting in all of them or a new player, I even sent Niko a link to one of your posts here that had links to the other threads so he could see them and asked about consolidating everything into either one topic or a few with each focused around a certain weapon group.

I only post in this topic, not the others. Bad for the overall conversation but I have other things to do and other items to put up here such as what I recently noticed about matchmaker. I just don't have the time to spend in multiple topics on the same subject. When I do post here, I tend to put all responses into one post due to time constraints, I cannot sit around in the same topic going back and forth.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 December 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

And of course, there are these other 20 posters that constantly argue about how lasers are superior because they are lighter, don't need ammo and are hit-scan weapons in their own "nerf-laser" threads, which clearly shows us that the situation must be perfectly balanced, it's just some people that don't like losing to ballistics or lasers respectively. Right?

Exactly. I would rather Lasers get a shorter beam duration that see another Nerf. Here's a thought, Buff the weak. I for one am not afraid to die in a swift loud or gratuitous manner IN A GAME! Its all part of winning and losing.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 26 December 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 December 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Exactly. I would rather Lasers get a shorter beam duration that see another Nerf. Here's a thought, Buff the weak. I for one am not afraid to die in a swift loud or gratuitous manner IN A GAME! Its all part of winning and losing.

I don't mind a short beam duration as long as it is balanced with a short ballistics duration as well. Those (most) of us saying ballistics need "changed" aren't saying it needs to be a four second duration burst, or a steady stream like a MG even, but a burst is not a single shot, and an automatic cannon (i.e. AC) should most definitely be a burst.

Make the burst/beam for both lasers and autocannons be the same, even if that is .5 seconds, and they will then only be balanced by heat/tons/crit like they should be.

[Galenit]

Merchant, on 25 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Completely false. I have no idea what is being used to balance Autocannon and Lasers other than comparison by damage value (AC/2 va Small Laser, AC/5 vs Medium Laser, AC/10 vs Large Laser) and that comparison does not work. It leads to false conclusions.

Autocannon also have a range advantage over Lasers. Going from longest MWO range to shortest skipping Max Range:
AC/2 720m
ERLL 675m
AC/5 620m
LL 450m
AC/10 450m
ML 270m
AC/20 270m
SL 90m

...
Basically it comes down to this.

Put two Mechs at range. Give one an AC, the other 1 or more Lasers of similar range. Who does more DoT whether they stay at range or close? The AC player thus he gets crit, weight and ammo penalties because he has heat and cooldown benefits allowing a third benefit, more DoT as they close range together.

3 penalties for 3 benefits.

You cant let out the max. ranges.

Put 1 mech with an ac10 and one mech with a large laser at 1000m walking to each other.
Over 900m only the ac10 can do damage, the laser does nothing.
At 899 m the ac10 do around 5 damage, the ll will do around 0.1 damage, at 450m both will do their max damage. But the ac10 will do the damage on one spot, the ll must be hold on that one spor for 1 second.

If ammo with 6x tt ammo for ballistics is a penaltie is more then questionable.
Not questionable is the range benefit that ballistics get from 3x range.
As the pinpoint benefit is not questionable.

Thats 5 benefits against only 2 penalties for them.

Merchant, on 25 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

ACs do not need a range increase.

Please read again what i wrote, maybe its my bad english, but i think what i posted above this can explain it a way, that you can understand it.
2x range is what lasers have and what ballistics should have, thats no increase, its a reduction.

Merchant, on 25 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Please stop mentioning ammo explosions because we all know it is a meaningless, irrelevant point for 2 reasons.

Ammo in legs - lots pf players do this since most Mechs tend not to get legged so there is less risk of ammo explosions. There was at least one topic on this a while back where a few players advocated legging people to cause ammo explosions, despite the valid argument there is not much legging going on unless it is certain Lights.

CASE - if you do not put ammo in legs, then you run a CASE, it is only half a ton and not that big of a deal.

Those two items reduce the ammo explosion point to pretty much nothing.

Ammoexplosion in leg goes to sidetorso after leg is gone. Thats for sure nothing, if you use an xl ...
Case stops damage, but you still lose sidetorso and arm. Its only a fleshwound man, i will spit in your eyes!

The low random chances makes it meaningless: Randomly critting, then randomly hitting ammo with crit., then 10%. Thats a much to low chance for it to happen and that is what makes ammoexlosions meaningless.

Merchant, on 25 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

ACs are already DoT weapons, so is every other weapon thanks to cooldown.

Seems you are new to computer games?
In games dot means you do the damage of one attack over a period of time and not in one burst at once.
DPS (damage per second), is used to talk about damage over time in games, like you do.


I dont know why i answer to such a post?
In the first part you missed a importend part of the mechanics.
In the second you completly let out a importend part of the mechanic.
And in the third ...

I hope i have not wasted my time to a troll ...

Edited by Galenit, 26 December 2013 - 12:06 PM.

[Abrahms]

Because ACs and PPCs cant do partial damage...

lasers, missiles, etc, are easier to use

lasers are instant

missiles often track or have close range splash

but a ppc or ac5 that misses its mark does nothing

issue? acs and ppcs are better weapons for good players because of the risk to reward balance

if a laser and a PPC were 100% equal in the hands of a pro, then lasers would always be the better choice

you need math and in-game application to balance weapons

generally, ppcs and ACs in yeasrs past were UNDERPOWERED if anything

[Wildstreak]

Galenit, on 26 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

You cant let out the max. ranges.

Put 1 mech with an ac10 and one mech with a large laser at 1000m walking to each other.
Over 900m only the ac10 can do damage, the laser does nothing.
At 899 m the ac10 do around 5 damage, the ll will do around 0.1 damage, at 450m both will do their max damage. But the ac10 will do the damage on one spot, the ll must be hold on that one spor for 1 second.

If ammo with 6x tt ammo for ballistics is a penaltie is more then questionable.
Not questionable is the range benefit that ballistics get from 3x range.
As the pinpoint benefit is not questionable.

Thats 5 benefits against only 2 penalties for them.

I did intentionally ignore max range because it is the same problem though I am not aware off the top of my head about damage dropoff. Still the same result though even if swapping a ERLL for the LL to get the 1000m damage.

I think we said similar things.

Galenit, on 26 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Please read again what i wrote, maybe its my bad english, but i think what i posted above this can explain it a way, that you can understand it.
2x range is what lasers have and what ballistics should have, thats no increase, its a reduction.

2x range, aka doubling range is a benefit. I think you mean half range aka 1/2x range.

I avoid range changes because of all weapon stats, it seems to be the one PGI will change the least. Only weapon I know offhand that got a range change from TT values is the MG, they seem more interested in changing heat, damage, cooldown and other things before range.

Galenit, on 26 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Ammoexplosion in leg goes to sidetorso after leg is gone. Thats for sure nothing, if you use an xl ...
Case stops damage, but you still lose sidetorso and arm. Its only a fleshwound man, i will spit in your eyes!

The low random chances makes it meaningless: Randomly critting, then randomly hitting ammo with crit., then 10%. Thats a much to low chance for it to happen and that is what makes ammoexlosions meaningless.

Very true, I believe like the first point we are agreeing.

Galenit, on 26 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

Seems you are new to computer games?
In games dot means you do the damage of one attack over a period of time and not in one burst at once.
DPS (damage per second), is used to talk about damage over time in games, like you do.

Nope. I know what DoT means, here all weapons can be seen as DoT with different values based partially on the cooldown rate of the weapon. Weapons in other games can also be seen as DoT. DoT is usually reserved though for when 1 attack does several damage points over a time period such as a magic spell in a LotR. I am not really convinved there is an equivalent DoT weapon in MWO but if the term gets tossed out....

Galenit, on 26 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

I dont know why i answer to such a post?
In the first part you missed a importend part of the mechanics.
In the second you completly let out a importend part of the mechanic.
And in the third ...

I hope i have not wasted my time to a troll ...

I think we are agreeing on a couple of things, just misunderstanding.

[Galenit]

Merchant, on 27 December 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

2x range, aka doubling range is a benefit. I think you mean half range aka 1/2x range.

I think we are agreeing on a couple of things, just misunderstanding.

Misunderstanding is the problem ...

Ballistics now have 3x tt-range, i want them to have 2x tt-range like lasers.
Thats a reduction of 1/3 of their maxrange, sometimes 2x can be a reduction.

Edited by Galenit, 27 December 2013 - 02:51 AM.

[Cimarb]

Merchant, you are confusing a couple terms.

Ballistics get a 3x range modifier compared to TT, while energy weapons only get a 2x range modifier. That means, all other things being equal, a ballistic weapon will do damage much farther than the equivalent energy weapon.

Also, a DoT means you click the trigger once, and the attack does damage over time. When you pull the trigger with a laser, it does damage over a one second beam duration, meaning it is a DoT attack. An AC, on the other hand, is a DD (direct damage) attack that does all of its damage at the time the trigger is pulled. An LRM or LBX would be an AOE, in that it affects an area of damage. An AOE can be either DD or DoT, and some DoTs have a DD portion either front loaded or upon the last tick of the DoT, but that is getting too complicated for this discussion.

[Tombstoner]

Cimarb, on 26 December 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

I don't mind a short beam duration as long as it is balanced with a short ballistics duration as well. Those (most) of us saying ballistics need "changed" aren't saying it needs to be a four second duration burst, or a steady stream like a MG even, but a burst is not a single shot, and an automatic cannon (i.e. AC) should most definitely be a burst.

Make the burst/beam for both lasers and autocannons be the same, even if that is .5 seconds, and they will then only be balanced by heat/tons/crit like they should be.

I think we should have both versions for energy weapons... .beam and ultra short .1 s burst. same for auto cannons.

Then let players use what they like. the lore supports this.... my atlas uses the uberwhack ac-20, it fires a single shell for max pinpoint damage......well my ac-20 avenger will spit out 2000 .01 damage projectiles in a single burst. same damage one is focused the other spread..... all is happy in the world with minimal dev time on PGI's part.

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think we should have both versions for energy weapons... .beam and ultra short .1 s burst. same for auto cannons.

Then let players use what they like. the lore supports this.... my atlas uses the uberwhack ac-20, it fires a single shell for max pinpoint damage......well my ac-20 avenger will spit out 2000 .01 damage projectiles in a single burst. same damage one is focused the other spread..... all is happy in the world with minimal dev time on PGI's part.

technically that is supposed to be a major difference with pulse lasers and regular lasers as well but was never implimented properly.

Lore wise your completely right with the auto canon as well. Two options. The lb-x on the other hand was suppose to have the advantage of being able to alternate between the shells you choose so you werent stuck into one type.