1080 replies to this topic

[Nick Makiaveli]

Cimarb, on 01 January 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

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.

One problem with making ACs the same as lasers, is, well, they would be the same. Heavier, require ammo, less heat, sure but damage wise they would be the same.

As long as we are talking about weapons not outdpsing each other, why do AC/2s out dps MGs? They are basically a very short ranged AC/2, right?

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see various types of ACs, varying the length of the burst so as to match various play styles.

But you can't modify a weapon without expecting unintended consequences. Tweak ACs to no longer do pinpoint instant damage, and PPCs will rule the land, until something is done to them.

[stjobe]

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

One problem with making ACs the same as lasers, is, well, they would be the same. Heavier, require ammo, less heat, sure but damage wise they would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Lasers deal their damage in 8-10 ticks over the beam duration and are hitscan (speed of light and all that). The ACs that I propose would deal their damage in 3-5 projectiles over a 0.5-1.0 second burst, and would still have projectile flight times. A single projectile from an AC/20 would still do almost as much damage as a full beam of a ML, and the AC/10, LBX, and AC/20 would still out-damage any laser (except the LPL).

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

As long as we are talking about weapons not outdpsing each other, why do AC/2s out dps MGs? They are basically a very short ranged AC/2, right?

They should be, but PGI had other ideas for their red-headed stepchild. The AC/2 was deemed a viable weapon and got a 19x damage boost, whereas someone at PGI disliked MGs (or just had no clue as to what a BT MG is) and gave them a 2x damage boost. It's gotten a bit better over the last year, but it's still a shame to see their "crit weapon" malarkey.

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see various types of ACs, varying the length of the burst so as to match various play styles.

Making ACs burst-fire gives two new balancing factors (burst length and projectiles/burst), and gives PGI the possibility of adding "new" weapons without actually breaking lore.

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

But you can't modify a weapon without expecting unintended consequences. Tweak ACs to no longer do pinpoint instant damage, and PPCs will rule the land, until something is done to them.

Which is why I usually couple burst-fire ACs with beam-duration PPCs. Make the PPC a short-duration beam (0.3s? 0.5?) with 5 2-damage ticks during that beam and we're golden.

That would leave the Gauss Rifle as the only instant-damage weapon in the game and I'm actually fine with that, since it's described as such in lore and it has the charge-up mechanic.

Edited by stjobe, 01 January 2014 - 04:41 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

actually it will make more sense to stay on target and avoid torso twisting with this system. Based off the simple concepts of focusing damage and using higher dps weapons alone.

With or without single projectile ballistics, it is important to know the rythm of your enemy and not be looking his way when he's taking the shot and going for your CT.
You don't want to "stream" your enemy while's streaming you, in this situation, you are indeed devaluing your own defensive skills, because you can't use them without compromising your offense. You need to fire at the enemy when he's not firing at you, and then use skill to ensure that you hit the sensitive spots when he hopefully doesn't hit yours when it's "his" turn. It might require a different tactic overall then always going for the direct core-kill (remains to be seen, though), knowing how to disarm your foe and how to protect your important locations.

[MustrumRidcully]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

They have been described as slugs as well. Not just burst fire. That said lasers will have there place once community warefare comes regardless and the lack of need for ammo become more prevalent. 'balancing' a weapon based off damage alone and capabilities is kinda silly they all are designed for different things. And yes, it is from the original game.

1) Where do you get the idea that Community Warfare comes with Repair & Rearm concerns? I haven't seen any clear indication that will happen.

2) Why does ammo not get restored, but armour does? How well do you think will a laser based mech still work if he lost all his armour in a previous match? Will the armour magically regenerate but the ammo-based mech doesn't get his ammo back? This might have been something the table top "theory" of field logistics always ignored - people consume both ammo and armour in a match, it's the nature of using an ablative armour system rather than one based on deflection/penetration.

[PanzerMagier]

The problem is that there's weapons in this game.

[Cimarb]

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 01:35 AM, said:

One problem with making ACs the same as lasers, is, well, they would be the same. Heavier, require ammo, less heat, sure but damage wise they would be the same.

As long as we are talking about weapons not outdpsing each other, why do AC/2s out dps MGs? They are basically a very short ranged AC/2, right?

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see various types of ACs, varying the length of the burst so as to match various play styles.

But you can't modify a weapon without expecting unintended consequences. Tweak ACs to no longer do pinpoint instant damage, and PPCs will rule the land, until something is done to them.

stjobe, on 01 January 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Not necessarily.

Lasers deal their damage in 8-10 ticks over the beam duration and are hitscan (speed of light and all that). The ACs that I propose would deal their damage in 3-5 projectiles over a 0.5-1.0 second burst, and would still have projectile flight times. A single projectile from an AC/20 would still do almost as much damage as a full beam of a ML, and the AC/10, LBX, and AC/20 would still out-damage any laser (except the LPL).


They should be, but PGI had other ideas for their red-headed stepchild. The AC/2 was deemed a viable weapon and got a 19x damage boost, whereas someone at PGI disliked MGs (or just had no clue as to what a BT MG is) and gave them a 2x damage boost. It's gotten a bit better over the last year, but it's still a shame to see their "crit weapon" malarkey.


Making ACs burst-fire gives two new balancing factors (burst length and projectiles/burst), and gives PGI the possibility of adding "new" weapons without actually breaking lore.


Which is why I usually couple burst-fire ACs with beam-duration PPCs. Make the PPC a short-duration beam (0.3s? 0.5?) with 5 2-damage ticks during that beam and we're golden.

That would leave the Gauss Rifle as the only instant-damage weapon in the game and I'm actually fine with that, since it's described as such in lore and it has the charge-up mechanic.

I'm glad I agree with you, St Jobe, because you make great points.

I would prefer PPCs to continue to differ from lasers, so instead of a beam duration I think it would be best if it spread damage like a small-cone LBX or did lightningbolt-like splash damage (6 damage to the main hitbox and 2 damage to 2 adjacent hitboxes, even if it is internal or the opposite section of the main hitbox - rear if front or vice versa, for example). I would be fine with any change that reduces the front-loaded damage, though.

[Noesis]

Quote

That said lasers will have there place once community warefare comes regardless and the lack of need for ammo become more prevalent. 'balancing' a weapon based off damage alone and capabilities is kinda silly they all are designed for different things

Really, balancing a weapon that is designed to do damage isn't sensible? What are weapons designed to do then?

Damage "potential" for lasers in their applied capabilities have been found to be less as compared to ballistics. This when incorporating balance mechanics due to comparing applied use to the various weapon types.

Otherwise if you are simply saying that reducing ballistic ammo potential is one remedy to current game play and will help to enact balance then why don't we make that change now?

----

Edit: Brain fart idea: Ammo has tracer rounds?

How about making every 1 in 5 ballistic rounds (numbers can be changed to protect the innocent) a tracer round? It has a fire trail behind it when fired to help indicate direction but only does 1/10th the damage as a normal round?

Edited by Noesis, 01 January 2014 - 10:26 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 01 January 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

Really, balancing a weapon that is designed to do damage isn't sensible? What are weapons designed to do then?

Damage "potential" for lasers in their applied capabilities have been found to be less as compared to ballistics. This when incorporating balance mechanics due to comparing applied use to the various weapon types.

Otherwise if you are simply saying that reducing ballistic ammo potential is one remedy to current game play and will help to enact balance then why don't we make that change now?

----

Edit: Brain fart idea: Ammo has tracer rounds?

How about making every 1 in 5 ballistic rounds (numbers can be changed to protect the innocent) a tracer round? It has a fire trail behind it when fired to help indicate direction but only does 1/10th the damage as a normal round?

Yes it is. Answer me something real quick.

What is a better weapon. A knife or an assault rifle.

*hint hint* Its a trick question.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:

Yes it is. Answer me something real quick.

What is a better weapon. A knife or an assault rifle.

*hint hint* Its a trick question.

Well if I could finish a Mech of with a single laser strike to the kneck then I would do so. Reality is though that most of the time you have to attrition the Mech down. Lasers strikes to the head exposing you to the potential of being taken out by AC20 round with whatever supplements it to the face or legs and "if" in a more mobile Mech up close needs a good amount of reasonable aiming to do. Hence why there is a preference for the "et tu brute" approach with multiple daggers in the back.

Also assuming that on paper 4 knives = an assault rifle are good "if" you can get close enough to use them by comparison. Reality is though that you need about 6-8 knives to be the same as an assault rifle anyway. Thus I would say it is easier to handle the assault rifle and allows more possibilty for results than the knives.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 01 January 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Well if I could finish a Mech of with a single laser strike to the kneck then I would do so. Reality is though that most of the time you have to attrition the Mech down. Lasers strikes to the head exposing you to the potential of being taken out by AC20 round with whatever supplements it to the face or legs and "if" in a more mobile Mech up close needs a good amount of reasonable aiming to do. Hence why there is a preference for the "et tu brute" approach with multiple daggers in the back.

Also assuming that on paper 4 knives = an assault rifle are good "if" you can get close enough to use them by comparison. Reality is though that you need about 6-8 knives to be the same as an assault rifle anyway. Thus I would say it is easier to handle the assault rifle and allows more possibilty for results than the knives.

The answer is "It Depends"

Range, Ammo, Type of Knife, Type of Assault rifle.

Every weapon has its place and has advantages over others in given situations.

[Noesis]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

The answer is "It Depends"

Range, Ammo, Type of Knife, Type of Assault rifle.

Every weapon has its place and has advantages over others in given situations.

Except that it has been shown that the PGI knife has a slightly dull edge.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 01 January 2014 - 05:23 PM, said:

Except that it has been shown that the PGI knife has a slightly dull edge.

I would take a dull knife over an empty gun

[Noesis]

Varent, on 01 January 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

I would take a dull knife over an empty gun

Not a spoon cousin?

[Varent]

Noesis, on 01 January 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

Not a spoon cousin?

Murder in the First Movie, Cant find a link.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 01 January 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Not necessarily.

Lasers deal their damage in 8-10 ticks over the beam duration and are hitscan (speed of light and all that). The ACs that I propose would deal their damage in 3-5 projectiles over a 0.5-1.0 second burst, and would still have projectile flight times. A single projectile from an AC/20 would still do almost as much damage as a full beam of a ML, and the AC/10, LBX, and AC/20 would still out-damage any laser (except the LPL).


They should be, but PGI had other ideas for their red-headed stepchild. The AC/2 was deemed a viable weapon and got a 19x damage boost, whereas someone at PGI disliked MGs (or just had no clue as to what a BT MG is) and gave them a 2x damage boost. It's gotten a bit better over the last year, but it's still a shame to see their "crit weapon" malarkey.


Making ACs burst-fire gives two new balancing factors (burst length and projectiles/burst), and gives PGI the possibility of adding "new" weapons without actually breaking lore.


Which is why I usually couple burst-fire ACs with beam-duration PPCs. Make the PPC a short-duration beam (0.3s? 0.5?) with 5 2-damage ticks during that beam and we're golden.

That would leave the Gauss Rifle as the only instant-damage weapon in the game and I'm actually fine with that, since it's described as such in lore and it has the charge-up mechanic.

You know I love your suggestions even if I do not agree with them St. You make plenty of sense, I just think having 3 types of damage available to us is a good thing.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 January 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

You know I love your suggestions even if I do not agree with them St. You make plenty of sense, I just think having 3 types of damage available to us is a good thing.

What's the third type?

We have spread damage from missiles, lasers, LBX, MG, and Flamer, and we have instant pin-point damage from ACs, PPCs, and Gauss.

Spread damage simulates the random hit-locations from TT to a degree (but without actual RNG), instant pin-point damage does not.

One of these breaks the armour system, the other does not; guess which one is which.

That's why I'm arguing for a change. It's not BattleTech to have this perfect aim, and since I do want to let people (me included) hit what they aim at, the only other option is to spread their damage out over either space or time so they won't always put all their shots in the same place.

Lasers achieve this with beam duration (which spreads damage over time), missiles with missile spread (which spreads damage over space). ACs, PPCs, and Gauss don't bother with it at all, and that's why they're so effective; that's why they're so popular, and that's why people keep saying "don't change them". Because they don't conform to the same rules and drawbacks as the other 2/3rds of the weapons.

They're simply superior weapons.

Edited by stjobe, 02 January 2014 - 01:05 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

What's the third type?

We have spread damage from missiles, lasers, LBX, MG, and Flamer, and we have instant pin-point damage from ACs, PPCs, and Gauss.

Spread damage simulates the random hit-locations from TT to a degree (but without actual RNG), instant pin-point damage does not.

One of these breaks the armour system, the other does not; guess which one is which.

That's why I'm arguing for a change. It's not BattleTech to have this perfect aim, and since I do want to let people (me included) hit what they aim at, the only other option is to spread their damage out over either space or time so they won't always put all their shots in the same place.

Lasers achieve this with beam duration (which spreads damage over time), missiles with missile spread (which spreads damage over space). ACs, PPCs, and Gauss don't bother with it at all, and that's why they're so effective; that's why they're so popular, and that's why people keep saying "don't change them". Because they don't conform to the same rules and drawbacks as the other 2/3rds of the weapons.

They're simply superior weapons.

LRMs and streaks are true indirect fire damage that you have no true control over. Lasers you have more control over where you hit and where you can focus. Balistic and ppc are more pin point weapons

You need to get over the fact that some things do direct weapon damage, Honestly im starting to think the only reason your against it is because it happens to be good against light mechs (if your a good shot) since a light mech can potentially lose a limb to such things. I will site your forum avatar for an example of that as well as other posts you have made signaling your preferance towards them.

Edited by Varent, 02 January 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[YueFei]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

LRMs and streaks are true indirect fire damage that you have no true control over. Lasers you have more control over where you hit and where you can focus. Balistic and ppc are more pin point weapons

You need to get over the fact that some things do direct weapon damage, Honestly im starting to think the only reason your against it is because it happens to be good against light mechs (if your a good shot) since a light mech can potentially lose a limb to such things. I will site your forum avatar for an example of that as well as other posts you have made signaling your preferance towards them.

It could be his bias, but I've done the math before.... it's not humanly possible to react fast enough and dodge PPC and AC fire on reflex even at PPC range. This makes the life of a light mech pilot difficult, and I can see where he's coming from since I've been driving a Jenner for the last few weeks.

Humans usually feel most stressed by things they cannot control. And the problem is if I get to 500 meters or closer to the enemy to try to scout or harass in my Jenner, I am not the one in control of whether or not I get hit by PPC/AC fire, the enemy shooter is. I can't really dodge his shot. I can only move erratically and pray he misses. And as you go up against better and better pilots, you get hit more often.

The problem is that when scouting, you usually want to maintain line-of-sight for at least a few seconds. And to find multiple enemies, you have to expose yourself to line-of-sight with multiple enemies. A full Lance of enemy Heavies and Assaults with crack-shot pilots in them is a scary thing to expose yourself to in a Jenner, even at 500 meters. Honestly, even with great marksmen, most of their shots will probably miss you at 500 meters, but when they all open up, odds are that you will probably take a hit, and just 1 hit can damn near cripple you, opening up a section of armor that an astute enemy later in the match can use to spell your doom.

But really, Light mechs are not meant to be able to take on Heavier mechs directly and win. They should be the key to use of indirect fire to kill the bigger mechs. The problem is ECM shuts this down pretty hard. You can use TAG, but it requires prolonged exposure, which is very dangerous to the Light mech. Before ECM, a Light mech could pop up, get LOS for a split second to target, run to a nearby spot and pop up again to maintain LOS to hold the target, hide again, while his team's LRMs flew in on the target. The enemy probably couldn't get a clean shot on your Light mech if you played it like that, only exposing yourself a fraction of a second.

Using BAP requires you to be within 150 meters of the enemy to shut off his ECM... totally suicidal for a Light mech to do in front of enemy pilots who can aim.

But we've been through all the complaining about ECM already, and nothing has changed for it. *shrugs*

[Sandpit]

YueFei, on 02 January 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

It could be his bias, but I've done the math before.... it's not humanly possible to react fast enough and dodge PPC and AC fire on reflex even at PPC range. This makes the life of a light mech pilot difficult, and I can see where he's coming from since I've been driving a Jenner for the last few weeks.

Humans usually feel most stressed by things they cannot control. And the problem is if I get to 500 meters or closer to the enemy to try to scout or harass in my Jenner, I am not the one in control of whether or not I get hit by PPC/AC fire, the enemy shooter is. I can't really dodge his shot. I can only move erratically and pray he misses. And as you go up against better and better pilots, you get hit more often.

The problem is that when scouting, you usually want to maintain line-of-sight for at least a few seconds. And to find multiple enemies, you have to expose yourself to line-of-sight with multiple enemies. A full Lance of enemy Heavies and Assaults with crack-shot pilots in them is a scary thing to expose yourself to in a Jenner, even at 500 meters. Honestly, even with great marksmen, most of their shots will probably miss you at 500 meters, but when they all open up, odds are that you will probably take a hit, and just 1 hit can damn near cripple you, opening up a section of armor that an astute enemy later in the match can use to spell your doom.

But really, Light mechs are not meant to be able to take on Heavier mechs directly and win. They should be the key to use of indirect fire to kill the bigger mechs. The problem is ECM shuts this down pretty hard. You can use TAG, but it requires prolonged exposure, which is very dangerous to the Light mech. Before ECM, a Light mech could pop up, get LOS for a split second to target, run to a nearby spot and pop up again to maintain LOS to hold the target, hide again, while his team's LRMs flew in on the target. The enemy probably couldn't get a clean shot on your Light mech if you played it like that, only exposing yourself a fraction of a second.

Using BAP requires you to be within 150 meters of the enemy to shut off his ECM... totally suicidal for a Light mech to do in front of enemy pilots who can aim.

But we've been through all the complaining about ECM already, and nothing has changed for it. *shrugs*

This is a shameless plug but the ideas tossed around in my narc thread would change the whole ecm counter strategy you described.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

This is a shameless plug but the ideas tossed around in my narc thread would change the whole ecm counter strategy you described.

agreed... but I also want to expand on this in general....

I would love light mechs in this game to start ACTING like light mechs...

there is two really huge sides to this game right now that basically a light mech for people to be satisfied with it has to be a brawler.. but thats not what they are actually made for but rather what they are made into because they arent given proper bonuses for actually being a scout... if you fix these things and give them the proper bonuses suddenly they probly (or at least shouldnt) be complaining about other weapon systems that make them fee inferior just because they view there only role as combat.