1080 replies to this topic

[Gaan Cathal]

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ballistics are not overpowered, they are simply optimal because of how the armor system works. That is not an opinion, that is a fact, since you can accurately place your damage. That doesn't mean lasers are bad, or that SRMs are useless, they are just sub-optimal in comparison since they both have a mechanism intended to spread damage, which ACs lack. The LB10x is one of the few balanced ballistics, and even then it could use a shortened cooldown when compared to its pinpoint cousins.

But, from what I can tell, we can agree to disagree.

Frankly, lasers need a buff to make up for the sizeable advantage heavy-calibre ballistics have. They're weaker weapons due to the lack of pinpoint and swamped with opportunity costs they don't deserve because of the famously mythical 3-second-jenner. Making them more heat efficient would be a good step, you need far more tonnage commitment in terms of weapon+HS for an effective laser than weapon+ammo for a ballistic, meaning you're paying more for a weaker weapon. Simply buffing heatsink dissipation would help here.

SRMs are junk, but it's impossible to say how much of that is because of the jacked hit detection they suffer. They absolutely need to do the same or more damage than SSRMs though, especially with SSRM6 on the horizon, probably by lowering SSRMs to 2 or even 1.5 damage/missile.

The LB-X needs a damage boost, plain and simple. It's a basic rule of FPS weapon design in a multiple-hit-location system that (outside of overwhelming other advantages) if you spread damage over multiple areas, it needs to be boosted slightly - hence the missile damage increases. Buffing the LB-X to 1.2/pellet would probably do the job, definately not more than 1.5/pellet. (Under no circumstances should single-slug modes be available for LB-X weapons, it'd make all other base-ACs obsolete instantly.

[Mcgral18]

Gaan Cathal, on 31 December 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

SRMs are junk, but it's impossible to say how much of that is because of the jacked hit detection they suffer. They absolutely need to do the same or more damage than SSRMs though, especially with SSRM6 on the horizon, probably by lowering SSRMs to 2 or even 1.5 damage/missile.

The LB-X needs a damage boost, plain and simple. It's a basic rule of FPS weapon design in a multiple-hit-location system that (outside of overwhelming other advantages) if you spread damage over multiple areas, it needs to be boosted slightly - hence the missile damage increases. Buffing the LB-X to 1.2/pellet would probably do the job, definately not more than 1.5/pellet. (Under no circumstances should single-slug modes be available for LB-X weapons, it'd make all other base-ACs obsolete instantly.

I tried some SRMs out last night, and when I ran out of 500 missiles, my damage was from 700-950. I also had 3 MGs and a LL, so they are registering respectably, since I'm sure 1/5th of those missiles might have missed. Of course I wouldn't mind trying 2.2 or 2.5 damage, with the lack of splash I think it might be reasonable.

For the LB10x, I think buffing the recycle rate might be the best course of action, but making it 1.1 or 1.2 damage per pellet could work reasonably. The refire rate would really make it shine in a brawl though. 2.0 or 2.2 seconds might be fair, down from 2.5.

[Wildstreak]

Sheesh, take a couple of days off for writing and other things, have to spend a long time playing catch up.

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

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.

‘Many other’ and ‘most’ are incorrect. I have played in other Mechwarrior games and in a lot of them it is burst, I even showed videos you are ignoring, same with novels and other source material I have read. Most material describes burst fire, the only ones firing single shell would be the biggest size within a ‘class’ (2, 5, 10, 20). Since most in one class fire burst, they should have done burst, not taken the biggest size in a class and done that. Good luck on that research, I know you will not find many references to single fire Autocannon but will find many more to burst fire, that is because of what I said, most Autocannon in a damage class are burst.

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

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 nerfing ACs would make things even worse.

Completely false conclusion. If you think dealing all damage to one spot is the only advantage ACs have, this is completely false and overstating AC disadvantages to promote your position. You are beginning to sound like:
- defenders of LRMs when they were overpowered.
- defenders of ECM when it was overpowered.
- defenders of PPCs when they were overpowered.

Same thing every time. Defenders overstate the disadvantages and never acknowledge the advantages actually present. In the case of Autocannon, those are:
- Delivering all damage to one spot over range.
- Low heat.
- Faster cool down allowing more weapon fire than lasers in the same time period.
- Blinding effect in cockpit.
- Affecting what Mechs are brought to a match.

Numbers 1, 4 and 5 are the problems. This does not mean a nerf rather they could be replaced with other advantages though honestly #4 & #5 never belonged in the first place and no one should complain if they are removed. #1 created #5 so it should be changed, does not mean it has to be nerfed but it DOES need to go and be replaced by something else.

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..

No, actually it is not. First I have never said what you listed, I do not know where that comes from. However, the rapid fire of Autocannon due to advantages #2 & #3 do allow several shots to hit the same spot in succession Now add in #1 and you can deliver even a few alphas in one spot that severely damage that part. Thus advantage #5 is created and the wrong Mech weights are being seen more often. #4 prevents return fire and we have what we do now. There is a reason that, if you watch over several games, you will see more Jagers, Phracts, Victors, Highlanders, Shadow Hawks and even Blackjacks (-1 and -1DC) are showing up more (moving slower than expected in the Jackies case) but packing either single large Autocannon or a couple of smaller ones.

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

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..

Burst Autocannon would be able to hit those fast Mechs like lasers can, this is an advantage gained for the loss of #1 I listed. With burst fire, you now can hit the faster Mechs with more weapons.

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

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.

Match type is NOT deciding what people play. There are other games with deathmatchs and they are not dominated by bigger (whatever is equivalent) in those games. I once played a game with deathmatches that had 4 classes similar to the 4 Weight Classes here.
Scout - Lights
Scientist - Mediums
Commanders - Heavies
Brawlers - Assaults
None of those dominated the match type. They used similar weapon systems and no particular class took up most of the teams’ composition. What match we play does not dictate what people are playing, it is something else and it can only be, looking at data AND effects in game, Autocannons with their frontloaded damage.

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

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..

Cannot agree on maps. No matter what maps I play, the big Autocannon users are always making up a good portion of one or both teams, usually the second. After those 6 (Jager, Phract, Victor, Highlander, Shadow Hawk, Blackjack) come the Mechs that combine Autocannon with other weapons. The non-Autocannon users rarely show up except among the Lights that get in but I do not really count them because Lights have difficulty packing Autocannon anyway. Rarely do I see Trebuchets, Centurion, Kintaros, Wolverines, Griffins, Dragons, Quickdraws, etc. The only non-Autocannon user that has some decent play is the Stalker due to the amount of weapons it can carry, being an Assault and variety of configs it can do though when the Battlemaster comes out in January, I figure it will push the Stalker out a bit since 2 of them can use Autocannon.

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

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

The way you dismiss things and what people say makes it harder to take you seriously and honestly for what I said at the first response to your initial statement, you sound more like previous defenders of broken items. Overstating disadvantages and ignoring the full benefits of the system being discussed. You and the person I first referred to even ignored one of the Autocannon benefits I mentioned 2 of my posts ago, the ability to blind people making it harder to return fire. If you are going to blow people off and not take what they say with any credit, why try to have a discussion in the first place?

I am not sold on the, “Woe is me,” bit Autocannon users are trying to sell. They have the 5 advantages I mentioned, not a piddling amount. Ignoring some of those advantages does not make Autocannon defenders right.

[Wildstreak]

Where are these weapon charts looking like spreadsheets from, some app or site?

As for the selector switch bit a couple of people discussed, while it could be done and I put some time into thinking about it (hence part of why I have not posted since my last one), I do not think it is a good idea. There will still be advantage #1 allowed, combining it with #2 and #3 creates #5 that is HORRIBLE. #5 needs to go and for that, something has to change, specifically #1. Changing #2 or #3 will not get rid of #5.

#4 just does not belong either and there is no way to avoid nerfing that.

So #4 needs to be nerfed, #1 changed to the different advantage I mentioned, and #5 needs to go without remorse due to its effect on teams.

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

And does not do anything to change the effect range has on the weapon sets. So you weapon now has a "burst" versus pin point. My weapon has a better range parameter that negates your "burst".

Make all weapons "burst, have the same range and the same damage potential and "Balance" will have been achieved. Perfect balance makes for poor game play as it removes the need for tactics or thought at all.

I know many don't want to have to think to much when playing MWO, but it is actually a rather FUN aspect of the game, when properly applied.

Right now there is not much thinking on the part of MWO players due to Autocannon advantages #1, #4 & #5. You want thinking, get rid of #5. It is lore anyway since we keep making lore references by posters on both sides of this discussion.

Varent, on 29 December 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Could be interesting... a better idea would actually be to institute the different makes and models of the weapons into the game, make some of them cost more, some less, maybe some more durable and some less durable. Though I would say overall there is a lot more pressing matters in the game then that =p

This is a horrible idea, treating each size bore as a separate weapon may seem accurate but picture being in Mechlab trying to scroll through all those Autocannon looking for the right one you need. Even if you spend time offline doing this, it will take up a lot of time. This was the reason Autocannon were lumped into 4 generic categories, less time spent figuring out which one is the best for what you are using, more time playing. It would just overcomplicate the game.

It could only be done for Autocannon anyway, while I am sure some argument could be made to making differences in Laser and Missile types, there was mention of allowing stats on weapons to change with new skill trees and already there is backlash against that.

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Your going to fail miserably if this is your goal.

There will always be a dominant meta. It is part of EVERY mmo.

Just because there will be a dominant meta does not mean the one we have is what it should be. If that were true, we would never have gotten changes to LRMs, ECM or anything else. The meta we should have is defined in lore but not in MWO so there is a problem.

Almond Brown, on 30 December 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

And what most here are proposing is that the Dev fix human nature by making all the weapons have the same range, do the same damage, weigh the same and need the same tonnage of ammo.

Now you are fabricating stories. Quote where anyone said every weapon had the same stats. You know you cannot. Overexaggeration doesn't make you right.

kapusta11, on 30 December 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

If SRMs had no hit registration issues people would call them OP as it's 36 damage per 3xSRM6 launchers with a well placed shot. If lasers could fire as fast as ACs (on cooldown) people would whine about instant continuous no escape damage. You're asking to brake the only viable weapon in order balance it agains other broken ones.

Not true. I am looking to change one thing on Autocannon for a different advantage, thus not braking it, and also change the meta to what it should be.
I still have no idea what this Hit Reg issue is but SRMs spread over distance so when they work, you still don't get full damage at times. No one wanted the spread fixed when they worked.

[Wildstreak]

Cimarb, on 30 December 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

So is telling someone that telling someone that they broke the CoC against the CoC as well? And if I am asking it as a question does me asking if telling someone that telling someone they broke the CoC still against the CoC?...

I so want to make a joke about how we all know the Chair of Command equipment was OP and why PGI will never let us use it.

Varent, on 30 December 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they are. Will be a sad day for mwo and probly the death of it. Most of the major player groups will probly leave at that point leaving them alone in there nice boring 'balanced' world.

Same exact message was said about changes made to:
- LRMs
- ECM
- PPCs (previously)

Game isn't dead.

Zyllos, on 31 December 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

There is only one way to fix this problem but this community doesn't want it because they believe that having weapons deviate is any way leads to luck as the only factor in winning matches...

So this game is doomed to be a repeat of the past.

?????

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Games live and die (longevity wise) on there ability to attract 'pro' and 'elite' gamers willing to stream, do guild wars, compete, etc etc. You may argue that there are plenty of games out there that have longevity. I would argue name a shooter with true longevity (wich mwo is a shooter). Most shooters in todays world rely on simply running around and shooting with very little true skill involved.

You don't know Business 101, do you?

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Direct fire weapons allow skill to show.

Stream weapons do not allow skill to show.

Complete.
Total.
Lie.

Same lie told when LRM changes were discussed.
Same lie told when ECM changes were discussed.

It comes down to what a person calls skill. Direct fire high alpha strikes are not skill, it is all about e-peen Hulk Smashing no matter how you try to claim otherwise. The real skill lies in the meta we don't have that we should.

Assmodeus, on 31 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I hope they don't make any changes.

Has anyone pointed out that you can only mount the PPC and AC combos on bigger, slower mechs, and that gives them their advantage against smaller, faster mechs? Other variables are being ignored, so this is nonsense in the context of the whole.

On a locust, I can mount 5 MLs but cannot mount a PPC and 2xAC/5, yet a locust is fast and very manueverable. Hmmm.....

It is being ignored along with how changing from frontloaded to burst damage would change that meta as it should.

Almond Brown, on 31 December 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Removed as a waste and too much.

One has to assume that based on the fast paced nature of the MWO game play, a burst based ballistic set would simply create a rather new, but ultimately generic weapon set that does between 2 and 20 damage, depending on the situation versus what their name used to imply.

OR

Why not just make Lasers instant hit weapons. Reduce all cool downs another 50% and call it done. I shoot you with a 9 point Laser, I get 9 my points of damage. You use an AC10 and hit, you get 10. Cool downs could be adjusted based on weight crits and Range as they appear to be now.

Because #2 in your choices keeps a meta and lower skill gameplay that should not exist.
#1 in your choices ignores the advantage it gets for sarcasm that ruins any point you think you are making but are not.

Assmodeus, on 31 December 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

And yet I've seen so many people miss my locust with their ACs and PPCs.

No streaming.

And no cones.

This is proof removing frontloaded damage is NOT a full on nerf. It trades one advantage for another.
I have been driving Locusts and an Awesome lately. I know how to avoid the meta users' weapons for a long time in Locusts and am probably driving them to fits of rage. Burst ACs would keep Lights in check among other positive effects. It would not stop Lights from being played but keep them in line.

I do agree no cones, the cone on MGs annoys me enough, I still want it removed.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

The fact that others argue against it is reason enough to believe this is opinion and not fact. Every shooter ever has had at least some weapon system that can do a large amount of damage directly in some form or another. The fact that you just don't like it does not mean its not a valid part of the game.

Not every shooter has a large damage weapon doing frontloaded damage. Yes I have played shooters with large damage weapons, they don't have frontloaded damage.

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Also? You already have burst style ballistics. It's an lbx

LBX is shotgun, not burst unless you think burst is cone, that's wrong.

[Sandpit]

Lbx is the same principle as it spreads damage. I understand what you want. It's the same principle just all in line as opposed to a spread. It's an in line cluster as opposed to cone.
I use lasers almost exclusively and I am saying ballistics are fine. I'm not a meta humper and I disagree with the whole ballistics are op threads

[Varent]

Merchant, on 31 December 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

I have a lot to say and am very opinionated.

We are too. Opinion are very common among gamers. They are opinions not facts.

[Tombstoner]

Gladewolf, on 31 December 2013 - 01:38 PM, said:

This is my issue with the way weapons seem to be tuned in this game, instead of just attempting to maybe shave a little off of beam duration...or lowering heat just a tick, a lot of changes seems to be made at once, making it difficult to get anything to a good place. I'd like to see PGI just buff a single energy weapon a slight amount at a time until people start altering load outs...and then just back it off a touch to that "sweet spot" that wouldn't be hard. Altering everything at once is.

Multiple changes during the same "phase/patch" is fundamentally wrong unless its done as part of a multivariate optimization. What your describing is a step wise optimization. you make a single small incremental change to the system. Then you observe the effects and the magnitude is 100% assignable to the change. The method you use depends on the subject material and ease of experimentation. Multivariate will give you the global optimum for the factor ranges. Step wise can give you the global optimum but you cant be 100% certain.

Science and math seems to have no place in balancing MWO. It's all about the "feel"; how it plays. The very first balance change I saw was about 2 years ago when fire rates where altered... way before armor was doubled.... people talk about LRMageddon... that was nothing. 2 large lasers held on target would clip off an arm. 4 would gut an atlas in seconds.

Fire rates where altered for the much needed pew pewness, but damage values where not scaled down according. Huge warning that somethings gone wrong. i thought it was part of some multi variate strategy.... boy was i wrong... double armor came out shortly after, but time to kill is still way fubared.

PGI is making purely subjective balancing decisions...from what i have seen... everyday.... over the course of 2+ years.

Sad but i had a lot more fun during closed beta then i do now. PGI actually interacted with the forum and then came open beta and the quality of player dropped faster then my pants on prom night.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

We are too. Opinion are very common among gamers. They are opinions not facts.

some opinions are facts and not all facts are opinions.

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 31 December 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

some opinions are facts and not all facts are opinions.

Online gaming and whats best for the community? Ya those are opinons. Not Facts.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Online gaming and whats best for the community? Ya those are opinons. Not Facts.

I like you. You should come check out the space bacon at marik

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

I like you. You should come check out the space bacon at marik

Call it a date.

[Sandpit]

Check out the website I'll be back home this weekend. If you put in an application tell roadbeer I sent you his direction. You can also just check out our team speak server and just hang out.
We run pugs all the way up to 12 mans.
If you're more organized minded there's more formal type units as well and a lot of times we'll run marik civil wars where we shoot each other when we can sync drop against one another
Want a higher priority than ballistics? Get lobbies so we can do stuff like that easily pgi

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

Check out the website I'll be back home this weekend. If you put in an application tell roadbeer I sent you his direction. You can also just check out our team speak server and just hang out.
We run pugs all the way up to 12 mans.
If you're more organized minded there's more formal type units as well and a lot of times we'll run marik civil wars where we shoot each other when we can sync drop against one another
Want a higher priority than ballistics? Get lobbies so we can do stuff like that easily pgi

*snicker* look at my tag good sir. Im a guild leader. But always welcome the opportunity to build more relations and allies and do more drops.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

The fact that others argue against it is reason enough to believe this is opinion and not fact. Every shooter ever has had at least some weapon system that can do a large amount of damage directly in some form or another. The fact that you just don't like it does not mean its not a valid part of the game.

This is MWO, not "every other shooter".

Did you ever play the TT version? Yes PPCs did 10 damage to one location. But if you fired 2 at the same time, you would almost certainly hit 2 different locations. And yes they could be Right Leg and Left Arm.

That's what's broken about the current system. Instant and perfect convergence.

I think ACs should be burst fire and even PPCs could have a very short duration. Yes this might make PPCs the new meta weapon for pinpoint Alphas, but they are already a big part of it, and this would make them less useful.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

*snicker* look at my tag good sir. Im a guild leader. But always welcome the opportunity to build more relations and allies and do more drops.

We take in mercs too lol I saw the tag. We have apps for mercs that want to slum it now and then

[Nick Makiaveli]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

We take in mercs too lol I saw the tag. We have apps for mercs that want to slum it now and then

I have to confess I find it ironic that Marik has one of the best organized House groups around

[Varent]

Nick Makiaveli, on 31 December 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

I have to confess I find it ironic that Marik has one of the best organized House groups around

steiner is pretty organized too, which if you look into lore is even MORE hilarious.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 11:15 PM, said:

steiner is pretty organized too, which if you look into lore is even MORE hilarious.

I think the whole a new Civil War every 3 days bit from Marik history beats out the Steiner lore.....and not just saying that because of the DHB's history with Steiner...there is a reason they hire mercs to get the job done


*edit* to remove double quote????

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 31 December 2013 - 11:22 PM.

[Sandpit]

Nah we are far less as organized good and just overall well thought of than our reputation suggests. I mean it when I say slumming lol

[Cimarb]

Merchant, the spreadsheets are from Google docs (at least mine are, possibly Excel for others?). Just take a screenshot and upload it as an image.

Sandpit and Varent, I'm glad you guys have confirmed your bromance, but let's get back on topic. StJobe and others have brought up great points, yet you two seem intent on the "you're dumb, learn to play" response instead of considering options where ballistics could be brought in line with the rest of the weapons.

In addition to firing bursts of shells instead of single slugs, autocannons need to be balanced with each other, as an AC2 should never out DPS a higher grade AC by their very definition: an AC is categorized by the amount of damage done over a set period, irregardless of caliber or firing rate.