1080 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

YueFei, on 03 January 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

It does solve the problem. There's nothing wrong with an AC/20 putting 20 points of damage into a single panel. It does that in TT and is balanced for that. There's nothing wrong with a PPC putting 10 damage into a single panel.

This has been said multiple times in this thread, but all energy and beam weapons do that in TT. Basically, lasers and MGs were nerfed with durations, and ACs/PPCs/Gauss were not - making them do substantially more damage in comparison.

YueFei, on 03 January 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:

Where things go awry is when your entire stack of weaponry hits the same spot. The TT armor system simply can't handle it. Yeah there's doubled armor, but that merely equalizes with the more-than-doubled firing rates.

Homeless Bill's system causes your shots to de-converge when you fire everything at the same time, akin to most FPS games where your COF grows if you fire as fast as possible (full-auto). Firing an alpha strike in MWO is the same kind of thing, you're firing everything as fast as possible: simultaneously. Homeless Bill's system just puts an accuracy penalty for firing "full-auto" in MWO as it were.

I'm not opposed to a convergence system of some sort, but as I have said many times, it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is front-loaded damage being far superior to all other damage types (spread and duration). A heat system overhaul would likewise be very good for the game, but also doesn't address the issue at hand either.

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 01:42 AM, said:

You get perfect accuracy if you just wait momentarily between shots. That gives the victim time to twist. Most players can reasonably react within half a second of being hit. Lasers have a 1 second duration and players start to react to getting hit by lasers fast enough to spread the damage.

Right now when I watch some of the really good players, they do their best to try to shield damaged sections of their mech. The problem is that the margin for error is razor thin. React even a couple hundred milliseconds late and you eat an entire salvo to the CT. With Homeless Bill's system, either you eat an entire salvo spread across multiple sections of your mech, or your opponent staggers his fire, and you have time to shield damaged areas after taking that first hit.

Adding a (short) burst duration to autocannons will likewise give the victim the time to twist - that is the point. It has the same damage potential as it currently does, but the 0.2-0.6 duration means it will hit multiple hitboxes instead of all in one spot IF the victim reacts correctly.

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 01:42 AM, said:

Why would anyone use ACs and PPCs than? I don't understand..maybe PPCs would have place..based on numbers..

But ACs as beam weapon would be just worse laser, with projectile speed, which weight twice as much and size is 2-3 times bigger, needs ammo, which can explode and kill you... oh..and produce less heat..

if anyone could answer this..and we can somehow ignore fact, that weapon homogenization would make this game boring as hell..than we can talk about some of these ideas.. because up to this point.. I don't see any logic behind these suggestions at all..

St.Jobe answered this quite well. People will use ballistics because they have ballistic hardpoints. The same reason people use lasers and missiles currently.

We are not proposing all weapons be the exact same. We are just wanting to spread the damage slightly to bring them more in line with each other in the damage delivery. Weight, heat and ammo, as well as specific quirks, such as burst duration, range, and shake/blindness/etc. will all still differentiate weapons, just as they do now.

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

And you think this would help? How??

I understand math behind it but in game..it will make no difference... statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon is dealing little damage every ..lets say every MS (like lasers)..or has hidden ticks (3-4 ticks over short period of time)..only thing which is important is "how long you can hold cursor over your target"..if you can hold cursor for 0,5s over your target..damage dealing rate really doesn't matter at all..statistically..
..in very rare situations one weapon system could have edge over another weapon system.. but both are just beam - like weapons .. and in the end.. even with your suggestions .. lasers would be FAR superior to ACs..

not even that would screw balance in other side, you also made weapons mechanically similar..

But it DOES matter how the damage is delivered. Currently, autocannons deliver 100% of their damage for holding your cursor over the target for 0.1 seconds. To get the same damage delivery with a laser, you have to hold it perfectly still for a full 1.0 second and have a stationary target, and there is absolutely ZERO possibility of getting the same damage delivery with any missiles (barring pure dumb luck and amazing RNG).

What is the difference between an AC and a Gauss currently? While they both deliver front-loaded damage, they are amazingly different in feel because of the delay mechanic (which I am not fond of, but respect because it did give a great differentiation). What is the difference between an AC10 and a PPC? They both do exactly the same damage, in exactly the same manner (front-loaded), but they are completely different in most other ways. Even the difference between a LPL and an ERLL is noticable, though they are both quite similar actually.

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 02:59 AM, said:

It's easy to prove... just double the weight of lasers, give them ammo, increase their size, remove their instant-hitting capabilities, allow ammo to explode but decrease heat production

now tell me what would you use.. because..again..statistically ..it really doesn't matter if weapon deal damage within 0,5 sec in 1000, 100, or 10 ticks..

It makes all the difference in the world how it delivers damage, and you are suggesting to change SIX factors of differentiation instead of just a single one like we are.

[Wildstreak]

Cimarb, on 03 January 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Lol, we are so far away from each other it's humorous.

Jump jets had shake added to them - people adjusted and it is still a problem because that was not the issue that needed to be fixed. No change to jump jets, aside of removing them completely, will eliminate jump sniping. Only changing the weapons used will do that.
Ghost heat was added to prevent alphas - people adjusted (2 ERPPCs + 2 PPCs instead of 4 of the same) and it is still a problem because that was not the issue that needed to be fixed. I still do just as well with my AC40 jäger and all I had to do with my HGN was switch from Gauss+2ERPPC to an ERPPC+2AC5 setup to pull the same numbers with it. I'll get into this more below.

All mechs are at a disadvantage in some way. The lighter the mech, though, the less skill it takes to pilot them "adequately". As you gain basic skills, you can find the mech that fits your playstyle better, but the larger mechs give a lot more breathing room for mistakes regardless of skill level. Lighter mechs are at a severe disadvantage in weaponry as well simply because they are not able to mount large weapons like ACs. If they could, the front load damage issue would be even worse. That is what I meant by them being at a disadvantage.

The heat system needs changed. It isn't going to be, simply because PGI loves their horrible system for some reason, but it needs to be. I should not be able to heat my mech all the way up until shutdown without any penalties. I should not be able to gut myself with an alpha fired right at max heat either. There should be penalties for running hot, not "all good until I hit meltdown". I don't want to derail the thread with talk about heat, but it needs fixed separately.

I confused about your Light Mech comments here, first it seems you say a pilot does not need much skill to drive them but then say the opposite.

I do agree there should have been something more to the heat system though that has a more global affect than what is being discussed here and in, what, 10-20 other topics now? Heat affects all weapons, these 10-20 topics are more focused on the effects of one weapon class.

Cimarb, on 03 January 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

All of us want the game to survive. It's how it will survive that we are disagreeing on.

Varent, quit bringing up jump jets! An AC40 jäger is as meta as it gets right now and I haven't found a single place to stuff a jump jet, lol. Same with a Phract (all but one, granted).

The AC/40 K2 also.

[Whatzituyah]

I am enjoying this thread so much but I agree that somethings do need tweaking but not to an extent because things have to be different in order to keep this from being dull like the colors black and white.

[Wildstreak]

mania3c, on 04 January 2014 - 01:42 AM, said:

Why would anyone use ACs and PPCs than? I don't understand..maybe PPCs would have place..based on numbers..

But ACs as beam weapon would be just worse laser, with projectile speed, which weight twice as much and size is 2-3 times bigger, needs ammo, which can explode and kill you... oh..and produce less heat..

if anyone could answer this..and we can somehow ignore fact, that weapon homogenization would make this game boring as hell..than we can talk about some of these ideas.. because up to this point.. I don't see any logic behind these suggestions at all..

There is no homogenization effort, this is a distraction from actual facts of what would happen along with intentional downplaying of the existing AC strengths.

[Cimarb]

Merchant, on 04 January 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I confused about your Light Mech comments here, first it seems you say a pilot does not need much skill to drive them but then say the opposite.

Wow, sorry, that is a typo... I meant the heavier the mech, the easier it is to pilot "adequately" - they are in my opinion the hardest to pilot because they allow the smallest margin of error. Brain fart on my part... I'll fix it.

[Victor Morson]

Spheroid, on 22 December 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

There is no problem. PPCs are slow and hot as hell. AC-20 the only true mech killer has a short range.

I still love how people think the PPC is slow / slow recycle because of past versions of it in other games.

It has the same recycle as the AC/20 and the velocity is faster.

[Wildstreak]

@Joseph Mallan, ya know, I have respected several things you have said over time but here, gotta disagree with you.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 January 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

And as I have countered a few times it is more the problem of convergence than front loaded damage. All our Mechs are equipped with the equivalent of Clan Targeting Computers as everything we fire goes right where we are pointing. That is not normal. There is a bit of spread unless you are firing lasers which should all hit where the crosshairs are pointed.

Why not make a laser front loaded damage just like ACs? That would be a better fix in my eyes. I understand why lasers are the way they are, but you know me St, I want moar damnage nad. Not ashamed to say it either. Stop Nerfing and start buffing instead.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

Matches faster and I get more Kills. Its a win in my book.

Nope because it would just keep encouraging the Hulk Smash meta we have now that does not require much thought or skill. Moar damage is not the answer, neither is getting moar individual kills since this game has team tactics as part of its goals.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 January 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

I don't see front loaded damage as an issue. You cycle your weapons and you are not as likely to hit all your shots on >.< that pixel any more. Chain firing ACs does not put all the shot on one pixel.

We are not hitting pixels, we are hitting areas of a Mechs body bigger than one pixel.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 January 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Yes I am. Its the reason to have an AC20. To obliterate out enemy with heavy weapons fire. Changing convergence stops me from putting 40 damage on one Pixel (or at least limits its occurrence). I have been facing 15 and 20 point weapons for the better part of three decades, with half as much armor.

As to no body saying Lasers are OP... for 6 months you were an ***** to have brought an AC to the field. Give it a few months, if we nerf ACs, Lasers WILL be complained about and requests to Nerf will surface. If we keep going this way we will be feeding a never ending cycle that will only end in every weapon doing 1 damage at 80 meters.

This is an overinflated belief with zero supporting evidence. The whole 'every weapon will become the same' argument is just an illusion with no real proof.

The years spent here, frontloaded damage never got looked at much for 2 major reasons.

1 - There were other items that took precedence in discussion. LRMs the ECM then PPC/LL boats then MGs.

2 - The number of Mechs that could carry more than one big AC were small at first. Phracts and the K2. Then came the Jager. Then people started combining PPC with big ACs or multi-ACs and the number of chassis that could do that increased resulting in where we are now.

Thus came the discussion we have now.

[Scrawny Cowboy]

What about recoil on ballistics and splash on PPC's?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

It's been mentioned that spreading out damage with ballistics would make them worse, but they can still retain a faster burst than lasers, and projectile speeds can still be tweaked also, if there will be more projectiles fired by those weapons.

For example, the longest burst could be an AC/20 firing 10 shots 0.10 seconds apart over a total of 1 second at 2 damage each shot, equaling 20 damage. And instead of going 900 m/s it could be buffed to 1500 to 1700 m/s like AC/5 or AC/2 projectile speeds.

Spoiler

[stjobe]

Merchant, on 04 January 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

The years spent here, frontloaded damage never got looked at much for 2 major reasons.

1 - There were other items that took precedence in discussion. LRMs the ECM then PPC/LL boats then MGs.

2 - The number of Mechs that could carry more than one big AC were small at first. Phracts and the K2. Then came the Jager. Then people started combining PPC with big ACs or multi-ACs and the number of chassis that could do that increased resulting in where we are now.

Thus came the discussion we have now.

Very astute, and don't forget it took them ages to get rid of the ballistic trigger lag as well.

[YueFei]

Cimarb, on 04 January 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

This has been said multiple times in this thread, but all energy and beam weapons do that in TT. Basically, lasers and MGs were nerfed with durations, and ACs/PPCs/Gauss were not - making them do substantially more damage in comparison.

I'm not opposed to a convergence system of some sort, but as I have said many times, it doesn't address the issue at hand, which is front-loaded damage being far superior to all other damage types (spread and duration). A heat system overhaul would likewise be very good for the game, but also doesn't address the issue at hand either.

Under Homeless Bill's system, all lasers could be converted into instant hit weapons with no beam duration as well.

Quote

Adding a (short) burst duration to autocannons will likewise give the victim the time to twist - that is the point. It has the same damage potential as it currently does, but the 0.2-0.6 duration means it will hit multiple hitboxes instead of all in one spot IF the victim reacts correctly.

Adding burst-fire mechanics nerfs individual weapons, though, when trying to fix weapon stacking issues. It is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. And mechs that *can't* boat multiple hard hitting weapons get nerfed. The HBK with a single AC/20? Ends up spraying his damage all over the place.

Homeless Bill's system ensures that the HBK, devoting 14 tons plus ammunition for that devastating weapon, on a frame that is only 50 tons, can deliver those 20 points of damage into a single location, as designed. At the same time, his system would prevent a Victor with an AC/20 and 2 PPCs from delivering all 40 damage simultaneously into a single hit box.

[General Taskeen]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

They would be inbalanced if you did that.

They are in a good place right now.

Prove that it would be imbalanced or which idea is imbalanced.

You can't, because you can't test it in-game. That Simple.


For instance, small example, if a UAC/5 was split between 3 shells in a "clip" (but can't be tested regardless!):

*5 damage or close equivalent, instead split between 3 shells

Example: with 2 Damage Per Shell for the 3 shell burst. That's 6 Damage, instead of UAC/5 (2x5=10)

Second of all, there have been multiple idea's on this subject, including having alternate "manufacturer" type Autocannons, such an AC/5 that behaves how you see it in-game, and another type of AC/5 that fires 5 shell clips (spread out damage to equal 5), but fires faster to account for potential spread, etc.

Multiple solutions - so instead of saying, "nope imbalanced," doesn't generate any sort of idea-theory or discussion. It would be better if people said, "Well maybe, could be over powered, but how about this idea..." I mean what's the harm? Who saying any changes for AC's are going to happen anyways? Its up to the Devs.

AC's in game are inspired idea's from MW:LL (one shell, full damage), but MW:LL also has a different armor system, which works with that method. Instead PGI has TT Armor, with full direct damage models with TT damage, so stuff dies way faster since directly emulating a board game is bound to run into multiple issues in a real-time format.

Edited by General Taskeen, 04 January 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Varent]

General Taskeen, on 04 January 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

Prove that it would be imbalanced or which idea is imbalanced.

You can't, because you can't test it in-game. That Simple.


For instance, small example, if a UAC/5 was split between 3 shells in a "clip" (but can't be tested regardless!):

*5 damage or close equivalent, instead split between 3 shells

Example: with 2 Damage Per Shell for the 3 shell burst. That's 6 Damage, instead of UAC/5 (2x5=10)

Second of all, there have been multiple idea's on this subject, including having alternate "manufacturer" type Autocannons, such an AC/5 that behaves how you see it in-game, and another type of AC/5 that fires 5 shell clips (spread out damage to equal 5), but fires faster to account for potential spread, etc.

Multiple solutions - so instead of saying, "nope imbalanced," doesn't generate any sort of idea-theory or discussion. It would be better if people said, "Well maybe, could be over powered, but how about this idea..." I mean what's the harm? Who saying any changes for AC's are going to happen anyways? Its up to the Devs.

AC's in game are inspired idea's from MW:LL (one shell, full damage), but MW:LL also has a different armor system, which works with that method. Instead PGI has TT Armor, with full direct damage models with TT damage, so stuff dies way faster since directly emulating a board game is bound to run into multiple issues in a real-time format.

Just as you cannot prove the same.

your giving an opinion. Im giving mine. If you want my reasoning scroll up.

you have not said anything anyone else has not.

[mania3c]

Cimarb, on 04 January 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

But it DOES matter how the damage is delivered. Currently, autocannons deliver 100% of their damage for holding your cursor over the target for 0.1 seconds. To get the same damage delivery with a laser, you have to hold it perfectly still for a full 1.0 second and have a stationary target, and there is absolutely ZERO possibility of getting the same damage delivery with any missiles (barring pure dumb luck and amazing RNG).

What is the difference between an AC and a Gauss currently? While they both deliver front-loaded damage, they are amazingly different in feel because of the delay mechanic (which I am not fond of, but respect because it did give a great differentiation). What is the difference between an AC10 and a PPC? They both do exactly the same damage, in exactly the same manner (front-loaded), but they are completely different in most other ways. Even the difference between a LPL and an ERLL is noticable, though they are both quite similar actually.


It makes all the difference in the world how it delivers damage, and you are suggesting to change SIX factors of differentiation instead of just a single one like we are.

You completely mis-read what I wrote

First.. I am not suggesting to change anything.. In Fact.. I think nothing should be changed at this point..

Also I agree that changing ACs from single hit to burst would change weapon in a big way..what I am saying that burst AC and laser..is just ..you know ..bad laser.. it doesn't help balance at all..

But we are running in circles.. I just don't agree with many suggestions here.. and I strongly disagree with changing ACs into burst weapon (without pilot's choice)..IMHO...ACs are not problem here

[Cimarb]

Victor Morson, on 04 January 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

I still love how people think the PPC is slow / slow recycle because of past versions of it in other games.

It has the same recycle as the AC/20 and the velocity is faster.

Not to mention the AC20 has a triple range modifier, so it does more damage farther than it was designed.

mania3c, on 05 January 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

You completely mis-read what I wrote

First.. I am not suggesting to change anything.. In Fact.. I think nothing should be changed at this point..

Also I agree that changing ACs from single hit to burst would change weapon in a big way..what I am saying that burst AC and laser..is just ..you know ..bad laser.. it doesn't help balance at all..

But we are running in circles.. I just don't agree with many suggestions here.. and I strongly disagree with changing ACs into burst weapon (without pilot's choice)..IMHO...ACs are not problem here

Read what you said. You may not be suggesting it, but you offered it as the counter to what I was suggesting, which is the same thing for arguments sake.

[mania3c]

Cimarb, on 05 January 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

Not to mention the AC20 has a triple range modifier, so it does more damage farther than it was designed.


Read what you said. You may not be suggesting it, but you offered it as the counter to what I was suggesting, which is the same thing for arguments sake.

Oh..okey.. I guess it's pointless to write anything there..

if you could quote me, where I suggested/offered it as counter-argument ..it would be great.

it's weird to me that I am for several pages repeating fact that nothing should be changed at all..and somehow now I am suggesting to change several aspects of the ACs..

Edited by mania3c, 06 January 2014 - 02:03 AM.

[Varent]

mania3c, on 05 January 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Oh..okey.. I guess it's pointless to write anything there..

if you could quote me, where I suggested/offered is as counter-argument ..it would be great.

it's weird to me that I am for several pages repeating fact that nothing should be changed at all..and somehow now I am suggesting change several aspects of the ACs..

everyones pushing there own agenda, is what it is man. Sadly.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

everyones pushing there own agenda, is what it is man. Sadly.

shhhhh my plan for world wide domination is almost in place

[Whatzituyah]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

shhhhh my plan for world wide domination is almost in place

But I already have plan in motion!

[Sandpit]

Whatzituyah, on 05 January 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

But I already have plan in motion!

Which is why mine is better. Yours is just in motion, mine is like the deathstar right before it blows up alderaan and before some hotshot pilot who could take down womp rats in a speeder shot 2 torpedoes into the only unprotected exhaust port on the entire station.

Want to talk REAL imbalance? Let's talk about that lol

Seriously guys. Do 2 things to further help out the balance (which is still good where it's at but not perfect)

1.) Try shortening the beam duration a bit for lasers, maybe do a .1 across the board and see what happens
2.) Decrease ballistic effective range to slightly less than what we have now. Keep them higher than beam but have damage decrease dramatically at extreme ranges.

Those two things would make a huge change in the way weapons work and not mess with HOW they work as far as firing a single round, front loaded, etc.