1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

mania3c, on 28 December 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

oh..and community proves again, they want fix what is not broken while ignoring main part of the problem..

Let's nerf ACs ...so all weapon systems are broken.. perfectly balanced..I see

and then they wonder why pgi ignores them, thankfully.

[Tesunie]

Klaus, on 28 December 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Option 1) Change convergence.

I think it's a bad idea because it adds a huge element of luck with direct fire weapons which is just stupid. It would put the 733c in the garbage can and people would look for new things that they could abuse.

Please explain, by your understanding, why a slower convergence would make direct fire weapons gain an "element of luck"? As far as I see it, a slower convergence (which use to be in the game but was problematic and wasn't working correctly, hence a lot of people complained about things like Dragon arm convergence, but if it was working correctly back then) would add more (another lay of) skill into the game. The longer you can hold your reticule over a target, the better your convergence. More advanced players (better mechwarriors/veterans/officers) would gain better accuracy as they would wait for convergence to align their weapons. Snap shots could still hit, but they might not be converged at the correct distance. However, that doesn't mean that they will miss either (if you know how to predict where your weapons are focused).

They could even add some ease, and better match lore, by having the reticule (the arm and torso cross hairs) turn from red to gold (or some other color or indicator) when you have convergence at your given target under your reticule. (Also, ACs producing a short stream of bullets and/or a single shot are each lore correct, depending upon who made the AC and how it was designed to function, so either way would still work for me, depending upon how it is achieved and functions in the game of course.)

The "worse" thing I can see coming out of a slower convergence (which doesn't need to be slowed too much, and could be adjusted by small increments easy enough) is with fast mechs, hitting them and being hit by them. Fast mechs tend to not be able to keep a single target (skill dependent) under their reticules, which means that the fast mech will probably hit several different spots at one shooting. Same would go in reverse, as fast mechs are harder to get under the reticule as well when targeting.



The effects that I can predict with a slower convergence change (as I can think of them):
- Lasers would gain a role as a more "response" and "fast shooting" weapon, as you can start to shoot them without full convergence and lean them into a target. Their splash damage will give them an edge in faster paced battles.
- ACs would become a higher skill weapon, as one would have to wait for convergence before they fire if they wish for it to accurately hit anything.
- Missiles would probably stay the same, but become slightly more valuable, as many missile weapons are semi-guided. SSRMs would probably gain a larger advantage, but could then probably have damage reduced back to TT standards of 2.0 damage a missile? Then again, they do spread their damage out a lot...
- Jump shooting would become even more difficult (a commonly made point in at least this thread about ACs), as you wouldn't have a lot of time to gain convergence. However, one could still shoot with low convergence and probably still hit their target, just with no reliability about where they will hit.
- Torso twisting to block damage would become a little harder, as when you twist you will lose convergence. You would have to make a choice between defense and offense a little more. More skill would be required for one to know when to twist, and when to stay locked on and shooting more accurately. (Twisting damage isn't lore based anyway, but makes sense in a game like this.)
- The "poke and shoot, then hide again" tactic would require more know how, and would be slowed down if one wishes to be more accurate. This would also correct the common complaint I see, at least in this thread, with ACs and counter attacks.
- Gauss charging mechanic would gain even more sense, and would be more of a help to Gauss accuracy than it currently is. This would help to enforce the idea that a Gauss is a sniper weapon, and not a brawling weapon even more.
- PPCs could drop the hard "no damage within 90m" and instead could gain a "longer convergence time within 90m", making it match the TT 90m minimum range better, as it could still do damage but was harder to land a shot with. But this is a question of "lore" vs "TT" vs "First person shooter". Lore says a PPC shot too close has a chance to damage itself and possibly the mech shooting the PPC too close. TT says it gets less accurate (instead of more like other weapons), which explains the 90m minimum range. (AC2s could also gain a slower convergence at close range, to simulate it's minimum range as well...?)
- This also opens up the opportunity to have convergence speed being the balancing option against boating, making Ghost heat removable. Keep the same numbers, but instead of extra heat, it takes longer to converge the extra weapons. (EX: If you have 2 LLs, they will converge as fast as anything else. If you have 3, the first 2 LLs will converge like normal, and the third one will take a little more time to converge. If you have 4 LLs, two will converge quickly, third one will take a little longer, and the fourth one would take a little longer than the third laser. This could be applied to all current weapons (except LRMs). Two AC20s, one would line up quick, second one would take longer to properly align.)

Though, I would also like to say, seen as we are talking about balance, I feel that engine size shouldn't effect your twist rate, etc. This forces the concept that one needs to have the largest engine possible to have the fastest twist, so that they can better target and hit opponents, especially when fighting fast mechs. (Just an add on idea.)

I'm sure a slower convergence could/would effect other things I am not thinking of at this given time, but I think it might be able to also open up other doors of possibility we currently don't have for balance.

EDIT: For the record, I'm just stating my thoughts and opinions. I do seriously want to hear your side of the concept, and why you think the way you do on the subject. What would make you think it would make things based on "luck"?

Edited by Tesunie, 28 December 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[Wildstreak]

stjobe, on 28 December 2013 - 03:43 AM, said:

As for the AC/2 vs the LL; that choice was a no-brainer in TT, just like in MWO (only it was the other way around, nobody in their right mind would mount an AC/2 if they could mount a LL).

Good thing I am not in my right mind!
Honestly, I know more Locust pilots who choose LL or ML & MGs over the AC/2 version. However, the bigger Ballistic Mechs especially the Highlander, Jager & Phract seem to show up in almost every match. There's a valid question in there.

mania3c, on 28 December 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

oh..and community proves again, they want fix what is not broken while ignoring main part of the problem..

Let's nerf ACs ...so all weapon systems are broken.. perfectly balanced..I see

If you 'know' the 'main part of the problem' then come out and say it.
I am open to several changes mentioned so I am not limited to nerfing ACs but they have more advantages than disadvantages else I would not see teams with 1/3 to 1/2 of them made up of the big Ballistic users.

[mania3c]

Merchant, on 28 December 2013 - 08:41 PM, said:

If you 'know' the 'main part of the problem' then come out and say it.
I am open to several changes mentioned so I am not limited to nerfing ACs but they have more advantages than disadvantages else I would not see teams with 1/3 to 1/2 of them made up of the big Ballistic users.

There were many suggestions to just nerf ACs based on pretty twisted facts..ACs are super heavy, need ammo, more slots and are ticking bomb inside your mech.. I can't count how many times I was screwed by ammo explosions.. yet..people still suggests just to nerf these weapons to the ground..

Core problem always was and always is heat system. I am not saying heat system is completely wrong.. yet I believe tuning heat system would balance weapon systems more than any number tweaking with different weapons..why??

Did you ever noticed how energy based builds are perfectly viable and really dangerous on cold or even mid temperature maps? Hell, my most successful builds are energy based.. Yet..many of these builds are nearly unplayable on hot maps...disadvantages of energy based weapons are stacking while advantages are almost wiped out.. People just don't see that playing with numbers within weapon systems will just lead from one FOTM to another.. also adding just another disadvantage to ACs would just cause that every single weapon system sucks.. I believe we are in good spot if we are talking about weapon diversity... all weapons have distinct advantage and disadvantage.. but proper balance is not there because of core systems faults...

[MustrumRidcully]

Noesis, on 28 December 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

And yet you then managed to draw an incorrect conclusion about laser beam mechanics for MWO using the TT comparison. Hence the relevance and need of understanding "actual" gaming mechanics.

The laser part in my discussion was not based on the table top part, that's why I put a few dashes between it to clarify that this was a different topic.

But I stand by this: If you lower the beam duration of lasers, the result will be that people will have increased pinpoint precision with lasers and we still have the problem that boating will be the best way to get the best performance of your weapons. Maybe you can manage to get ballistics and lasers to compete, but you haven't solved our pinpoint precision problems and the default approach will still be to pack the highest number of identical weapon and alpha strike at the CT ideally after you popped out of cover and returning immediately afterwards (with or without jump jets.)

[Noesis]

I can concede that the alternative viewpoint to correct problems with the game is to reduce pinpoint effectiveness.

This then already avoided by lasers that would otherwise need correcting due to laser beam mechanics.

I guess the immediate consideration to apply some equality to this might be to consider burst fire mechanics for ballistics as the balancer for this issue. Though how this would be tuned I don't really have a feel for and could be a rapid burst. At least this model allows for more of a skill increase than penalising with a random spread.

Other concerns with the convergence model if applied to all weapons is it would further penalise the already affected beams due to their mechanic. But also a slightly increased spread due to convergence would make you apply weapons more like a shotgun and then in those instances more weapons would be more effective overall, hence more boating or larger Mechs having better build potentials still.

Burst fire, convergence, cone fire all have issues where based on optimum conditions then still allow for pinpoint accuracy either due to expected improvements to performance at shorter ranges or situationally improved against slower, larger or stationary targets so wouldn't in theory remove this issue completely. But I like them as corrective moves to the long range meta atm.

I do however prefer the burst fire model as it at least helps to improve the skill curve in the game than appearing to reduce it or apply random effects.

There could however be a number of factors tweaked for Ballistics based on existing mechanics that could apply similar effects or at least remove effectiveness at range:

• Reduce range.
  
• Reduce projectile travel speeds and have different timings for each type.
  
• Reduce ammo per ton.
  
• Increase ammo explosion chances for ballistic ammo.
  
• Reduce effectiveness of Zoom module.
  
• Increase weapon cycle times.

And then of course there could be indirect changes to improvements elsewhere as mentioned to give greater choice and diversity in game play:

• Tonnage restrictions may encourage a change in tactics. But Sniper (Assault/Heavy DFS) and Light mix still a possibility.
  
• Help improve the overall short game like SRMs, ML etc to encourage other play styles.
  
• Correct other issues like mediums (size and mobility) to offer better counters to the existing meta.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

However it may seem that any changes are on hold (except for bugs that can't be left?) until they have implemented UI2.
Unless of course they don't hit sales targets on Clan mechs.

[Lykaon]

Praetor Shepard, on 24 December 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I think that there needs to be a mix of equipment tweaked.

. Part of that is looking into burst fire on ballistics, with also looking at our high rate of fire and heat generation/dissipation and capacity.

Why would ballistics need to be altered to burst fire? Well the answer is to spread out the damage right?

Instead of looking at burst fire weapons as an answer maybe look at why damage needs to be spread out.

As far as I can tell following the argument to adapt ballistics to burst fire is the need to spread damage out to increase survival times of mechs.

So if survival times is the issue then what makes Ballistics OP'd now?

Ballistics are OP'd now because Mechs die to fast to concentrated damage.

If this is the correct line of thinking we get on to the next question.

What makes concentrated direct fire damage so superior to other types of damage?

As far as I can tell the reason for the dominance of high damage pinpoint strikes is this is the best way to overcome the armor mechanics.

So now we can go from an initial question discussing Ballistic weapons and strip it down to the actual mechanics issue and that is interactions of damage application to armor.

If burst fire and lasers are OK (the argument for altering ballistics to burst fire is based on this) then what makes direct fire not OK?

There are two angles of attack for this problem.

1) alter as many weapon systems to emulate damage dealing characteristic to an acceptable mechanic.Like lasers and burst fire ACs. This addresses a symptom of armor mechanics interacting with concentrated damage.This also makes a great deal of our variety go poof.There will be no tactical difference in aply damage between a laser or an AC both will require remaining exposed to a target for the duration of the weapons damage cycle.Snap fire is gone and replaced with hitscan mechanics.

So we lose some variety with option 1 but it does potentially address an armor mechanics issue.

2) We examine how weapon types inflict damage and alter the receiving end of the equation.We alter how damage is applied when a weapon hits.This leave identifying characteristics of a weapon type intact.

The trick is I am strugging to provide a well rounded and elegant solution by using method 2.But I still think that after analyzing the issue method 2 is the direction to take.

Edited by Lykaon, 29 December 2013 - 02:46 PM.

[Wildstreak]

mania3c, on 28 December 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

There were many suggestions to just nerf ACs based on pretty twisted facts..ACs are super heavy, need ammo, more slots and are ticking bomb inside your mech.. I can't count how many times I was screwed by ammo explosions.. yet..people still suggests just to nerf these weapons to the ground..

Core problem always was and always is heat system. I am not saying heat system is completely wrong.. yet I believe tuning heat system would balance weapon systems more than any number tweaking with different weapons..why??

Did you ever noticed how energy based builds are perfectly viable and really dangerous on cold or even mid temperature maps? Hell, my most successful builds are energy based.. Yet..many of these builds are nearly unplayable on hot maps...disadvantages of energy based weapons are stacking while advantages are almost wiped out.. People just don't see that playing with numbers within weapon systems will just lead from one FOTM to another.. also adding just another disadvantage to ACs would just cause that every single weapon system sucks.. I believe we are in good spot if we are talking about weapon diversity... all weapons have distinct advantage and disadvantage.. but proper balance is not there because of core systems faults...

There were suggestions about other things too, there are so many sometimes it seems there are 3-6 conversations going on at once. Then add the multiple topic problem that I asked a mod to fix, I may have to send to another one.

I think all topics, though I have not read them all, are at a point where every suggetion would have to be on a list someone or group keeps track of so people don't get lost or too focused on one item.

I keep hearing all the same disadvantages to ACs by their users but never their advantages. Rapid fire ability to dish out damage, all damage going to one spot, there is even one never mentioned that should be.

Blinding.

I have played matches even recently where ACs hit and they have a blinding effect on the cockpit view thus making it harder to fire back.
Lasers hit, you might get some type of aura in a small part of your view, practically no shaking.
Missiles hit, some shaking, not much in effects.
ACs hit, cockpit shakes like nobody's business and there are explosions going off that blind you as if multiple grenades were going off in your face.
The only other weapon with a blinding effect is the Flamer, I can excuse that given how poorly it works in game and it provides no cockpit shake.

I can have one Jager or Phract with 2-3 ACs especially the rapid firing light ones shoot me in an Awesome that has one of the best views in the game and blind me making it near impossible to shoot back. Being able to neutralize an enemy's ability to return fire is a BIG advantage that outweighs several AC disadvantages and this happens at any range. Very deadly if zoomed in at 3x or 4x but even a problem in 1x view, the zoomed view is also harder if you are trying to return fire over long range.

Honestly, I shoot one or more real bullets at someone, there is no Big Spectacular Explosion. So who the heck decided ACs need these big explosive Hollywood effects? Personally I think it was people who compared this game too much to WoT, completely different shooter with different weapons. ACs are NOT tank guns and never should have been compared to them.

Energy builds do get some advatage on cold maps but ACs work great on any map, another plus for them.

I don't get how you would want to tune heat though I understand the point. But it still does nothing about the blinding effect I described.

I don't get why ACs are hitting with Hollywood effects while Lasers and Missiles do meh to affect the target's view so they can still shoot back.

[Wildstreak]

One thing I will never give up on is making Autocannons work as they should.

They should NOT be Dirty Harry guns firing like tank cannons, one shot per firing. They should fire a stream of ammo, each shot doing less damage, a collected stream of several shots doing full damage.

THIS is how Autocannon should look and sound like, also the Ultra and LBX are shown.



THIS is how an AC/10 worked before.



THIS is dual Ultra AC/20.



THOSE are Autocannon, not what we have in this game.

[Varent]

Merchant, on 29 December 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

One thing I will never give up on is making Autocannons work as they should.

They should NOT be Dirty Harry guns firing like tank cannons, one shot per firing. They should fire a stream of ammo, each shot doing less damage, a collected stream of several shots doing full damage.

THIS is how Autocannon should look and sound like, also the Ultra and LBX are shown.



THIS is how an AC/10 worked before.



THIS is dual Ultra AC/20.



THOSE are Autocannon, not what we have in this game.

Many other autocannons in other mechwarrior based games do not support your hypothesis. Nor does most battletech wikis. They can be a stream OR a solid shell.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Lykaon, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Spoiler

Why would ballistics need to be altered to burst fire? Well the answer is to spread out the damage right?

Instead of looking at burst fire weapons as an answer maybe look at why damage needs to be spread out.

As far as I can tell following the argument to adapt ballistics to burst fire is the need to spread damage out to increase survival times of mechs.

So if survival times is the issue then what makes Ballistics OP'd now?

Ballistics are OP'd now because Mechs die to fast to concentrated damage.

If this is the correct line of thinking we get on to the next question.

What makes concentrated direct fire damage so superior to other types of damage?

As far as I can tell the reason for the dominance of high damage pinpoint strikes is this is the best way to overcome the armor mechanics.

So now we can go from an initial question discussing Ballistic weapons and strip it down to the actual mechanics issue and that is interactions of damage application to armor.

If burst fire and lasers are OK (the argument for altering ballistics to burst fire is based on this) then what makes direct fire not OK?

There are two angles of attack for this problem.

1) alter as many weapon systems to emulate damage dealing characteristic to an acceptable mechanic.Like lasers and burst fire ACs. This addresses a symptom of armor mechanics interacting with concentrated damage.This also makes a great deal of our variety go poof.There will be no tactical difference in aply damage between a laser or an AC both will require remaining exposed to a target for the duration of the weapons damage cycle.Snap fire is gone and replaced with hitscan mechanics.

So we lose some variety with option 1 but it does potentially address an armor mechanics issue.

2) We examine how weapon types inflict damage and alter the receiving end of the equation.We alter how damage is applied when a weapon hits.This leave identifying characteristics of a weapon type intact.

The trick is I am strugging to provide a well rounded and elegant solution by using method 2.But I still think that after analyzing the issue method 2 is the direction to take.

I would like to add burst fire ballistic weapons to accompany the current AC's that also have a too high rate of fire for their snap shot capacity, to increase the available weapons we can use and provide more trade-offs in how we setup our builds. Then from there further balance them out.

So balance-wise, there can be a mix of the weapon variants available; so for example, something that could be explored is have the K2, Shadowhawks and Jagers only be able to mount burst fire variants, while the Hunchback 4G and all Atlas' able to mount the big single shooters for example as a means to maintain viable mech diversity and keep the system open.

[PhyroPhyre]

Rhent, on 23 December 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

The only mechs that are hard to hit with AC's are light mechs going at 125+ KPH that are serpentining at 750M+ out. I have little to no problems hitting all mechs with AC's, and frankly with the vast preponderance of AC's to me would make me thing that the vast bulk of players in MWO have no issues firing AC's and connecting. If AC's were such truly hard to hit with, then they would be used significantly less than they are now.

Unfortunately you misread my post.

No one has trouble hitting mechs with ballistic weapons. People have difficulty hitting the exact component they intend to hit at range. AC20 you wouldn't notice it since you are within 200m or so. Guass is the only ballistic that is easy to hit headshot at 500m.

On a side note, Twin-guass Jager > AC40 Jager. Try it out.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

They can be a stream OR a solid shell.

No, they can't:

Quote

An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun"

Quote

With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

Edited by stjobe, 29 December 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[Nick Makiaveli]

stjobe, on 29 December 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

No, they can't:


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

A couple of points.

First it's a Wiki so it's not infallible.

Second the text you quote says none have been stated to be a single shot, which is not the same as saying they have all been stated to be a single shot.

Third you left off the following text that comes right after what you quoted: Probable exceptions are the 185 mm ChemJet GunAutocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle and Monitor Surface vessel or the 203 mm Ultra Autocannon/20 on the Cauldron Born A BattleMech

So it's never been stated to be that they are all burst weapons, and there are at least two "probable" exceptions.

*edit* Removed the color tags

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 29 December 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 29 December 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

No, they can't:


http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon

reread

Caliber

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

there is no specification. for an ac20 for example it could be one shell doing 20 or 20 shells doing one.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

reread

Caliber

Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire.

there is no specification. for an ac20 for example it could be one shell doing 20 or 20 shells doing one.

Now I will say that the grammar could be parsed so that it meant that every AC had a caliber and number of shells specified and none of them said 1 single shell.

However, when I played BT (and I remember Battledroids) it was understood by all that different ACs fired different amounts and that it didn't really matter if it was 100 rounds, 10 rounds or 1 single round.

[mania3c]

Merchant, on 29 December 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

I keep hearing all the same disadvantages to ACs by their users but never their advantages. Rapid fire ability to dish out damage, all damage going to one spot, there is even one never mentioned that should be.

So..by this logic..way to fix balance is to remove only advantage ACs have over energy based weapons (or guided missiles)
This is exactly advantage of ACs..and it should stay that way. Keep in mind..I am quite pro-nerf guy. I agree that nerfing is most of the time better than buffing. I understand power creep issues.. but in this case nerfinc ACs would make things even worse.

Lasers has beam duration but hit instantly..ACs has traveling time/projectile speed but put damage into one spot.. Anyone saying "I have no problem to hit every single shot with ACs into same spot even on moving target" and at the same time is saying "beam duration is causing spreading damage over whole mech body" is hypocrite and we should just ignore these people altogether .. in fact, it's same system working in different way..

However..there is one big issue why ACs seems to be better.. heat..we already said that... but everyone is playing huge and relatively slow mechs..it's very easy to hit these mechs even on the run.. But it's pretty simple.Not too long ago I had game when enemies had like 5 really fast lights and mediums. My ACs were most of the game useless.. I just couldn't keep track with them.. However my 3 backup ML did most of the job in this match.. and this is exactly what we need..to fix weapons, we need more opportunities to use advantages of these weapons..but this lead to another problem..

why everyone is playing huge slow mechs? Because every single mode in the game is just glorified deathmatch.. it's all about that.. firepower..and stay alive as long as possible.. and you have it..heavies and assaults are kings..because we don't need to care about convoys, bases, infantry and tanks..and maps are so ******** smal that even my slow highlander can be almost anywhere in time.

Again.. nerfing ACs are no go in this situation.. you said you never see anything about ACs advantage ..yet.. noone is also writing about beam advantages and missile advantages..and there is many situations where these weapons can shine..sadly current meta, maps and heat issues are causing these wrong assumptions that there is something wrong with ACs..

Is not..and I just hope PGI have better analytic skills that many people on these forum..

[Noesis]

mania3c, on 29 December 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

Lasers has beam duration but hit instantly..ACs has traveling time/projectile speed but put damage into one spot.. Anyone saying "I have no problem to hit every single shot with ACs into same spot even on moving target" and at the same time is saying "beam duration is causing spreading damage over whole mech body" is hypocrite and we should just ignore these people altogether .. in fact, it's same system working in different way..

Not a hypocrite at all:

Ballistics Bettering Beams

The above is an applied and objective study of weapons using actual game data that compares weapon effectiveness in a real way over 1000's of matches that incorporates mechanisms and balance mechanics as a part of that process since it is looking at applied use in game and not on a spreadsheet with virtual baseline numbers.

And this is before seeing real game observations that demonstrate beam spread and other more obvious observations concerning the more prevalent and dominant ballistic meta.

Edited by Noesis, 29 December 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[mania3c]

Noesis, on 29 December 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Not a hypocrite at all:

Ballistics Bettering Beams

The above is an applied and objective study of weapons using actual game data that compares weapon effectiveness in a real way over 1000's of matches that incorporates mechanisms and balance mechanics as a part of that process since it is looking at applied use in game and not on a spreadsheet.

than you didn't understend me..

Now make same "objective" study ..when enemies are filled with fast light and medium mechs..

Than we can cry to nerf beam weapons..

in short: There is nothing objective on this study..

Edited by mania3c, 29 December 2013 - 07:29 PM.