1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

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.

Like and Like. I would say you could go a step further with the large pulse laser, not sure what but something. the larger laser weapons are the ones that need the love really, not the mediums and smalls.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Like and Like. I would say you could go a step further with the large pulse laser, not sure what but something. the larger laser weapons are the ones that need the love really, not the mediums and smalls.

If ballistics were less effective at long ranges it would have a huge impact on game play in general. That AC20? Not so great at 500 meters now. I really think range effectiveness should be just about universal and is the main culprit behind effectiveness between the various weapon types.
Lasers drop off dramatically outside of "effective" range
Missiles have hard distances and won't work at all outside of those ranges whether they be min or max ranges
Ballistics? Well An AC20 is effective due to initial damage way outside its "effective" range. It is just as effective as an AC10 at 500 meters but twice as such as you continue to close.

[Marcus Cvellus]

Playerbase already gave dozens of solutions to the matter, but PGI is either unwilling or unable (due to being short on staff, cant blame them) to implement it.

[Sandpit]

Marcus Cvellus, on 05 January 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:

Playerbase already gave dozens of solutions to the matter,

Dozens does not equate to feasible, good, or "right" though.

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Dozens does not equate to feasible, good, or "right" though.

Well, the least favoured option would probably be a cone of fire. They already have one implemented for the MG and LB10, so they could throw that in. They also have Ghost Heat, which can tell how many weapons are being fired...combine the two? Fire more than X damage and you get X cone of fire on your reticule?

It solves the pinpoint issue I don't enjoy, and would drown the forums in tears.

[Sandpit]

Mcgral18, on 05 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well, the least favoured option would probably be a cone of fire. They already have one implemented for the MG and LB10, so they could throw that in. They also have Ghost Heat, which can tell how many weapons are being fired...combine the two? Fire more than X damage and you get X cone of fire on your reticule?

It solves the pinpoint issue I don't enjoy, and would drown the forums in tears.

Once again, that just isn't an idea I like. Pinpoint is pinpoint. It's not hard to counter but it serves its purpose. The only actual adjustments I would make would be the ones I pointed out above.

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Once again, that just isn't an idea I like. Pinpoint is pinpoint. It's not hard to counter but it serves its purpose. The only actual adjustments I would make would be the ones I pointed out above.

Let me correct myself, massed pinpoint damage instantly applied. But that is a feasible idea that could be implemented if PGI doesn't want to touch the weapon balance itself. Certainly not my first choice, but you dont want burst fire ballistics.

[Sandpit]

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

Acceptable, now let PGI know, so they can ignore it and implement ghost delay instead. Fire them together and increase the cooldown by X.

[Cimarb]

Mcgral18, on 05 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well, the least favoured option would probably be a cone of fire. They already have one implemented for the MG and LB10, so they could throw that in. They also have Ghost Heat, which can tell how many weapons are being fired...combine the two? Fire more than X damage and you get X cone of fire on your reticule?

It solves the pinpoint issue I don't enjoy, and would drown the forums in tears.

I am behind any changes they actually TRY in the hopes that we eventually get things fixed better, though I don't think that would necessarily be it.

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

I like that idea. I don't know if it would be enough, but I definitely like it as a suggestion.

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..

I did quote you in my post, but here is the post you made that I was responding to: http://mwomercs.com/...st__p__3047596. Count the number of things you want to change about lasers to make them the "same" as ballistics. All I am suggesting is make ballistics fire a burst over 0.2-0.6 seconds for the same amount of damage they currently do.

[Sandpit]

Well the more I think about it the more it would accomplish the biggest gripe from those calling for nerfs on ballistics and placates those that gripe they're good where they're at.

It wouldn't affect a single firing weapon but it would affect multiple pinpoints hitting the same location. I would only apply it to ballistics and only when firing another ballistic of the same or larger caliber before the first one had cooled down. Using the cool down as the affect wouldn't prevent you from firing an AC5 immediately after an AC 10 or 20 but would prevent the vice versa

It would also help give more value to UACs, RACs, etc. that will eventually be implemented. It could be interesting and the numbers used for the affect could be tweaked as needed to ensure they weren't nerfed into oblivion but also effective at preventing an AC40 pinpoint alpha into the same location.

This would also prevent future mechs that could be implemented such as the Anni from creating a huge imbalance.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 05 January 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Well, the least favoured option would probably be a cone of fire.

It solves the pinpoint issue I don't enjoy,

and you wonder why its not implimented?

Its an opinion and something that is least favoured.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

The only thing I could think of would be having a slight hesitation between ballistics firing. So in exmaple

The higher the caliber the bigger the hesitation
AC20 you could do a .2 hesitation before another AC20 were fired. This prevents both weapons from firing at the exact same time. This would also have implications to things like targeting computers and advanced gyro. Those upgrades, modules, etc. could reduce that time but not completely negate it.
AC10 you could do a .1 hesitation
AC5 .05
AC2 none

That means you can still boat those bigger calibers, you'll still hit where you aim, but you wouldn't be able to put all 40 of it in the exact same spot all without changing the mechanics of how a weapon works.

this would neuter a few builds horribly. Ilya would die in a day. I would be against it for that alone. You dont want to institute something that destroys a whole mech group.

[Sandpit]

Ok so I'm thinking and reading and looking

Shorten Beam Duration:
.1 seconds across the board

Pulse Lasers:
Decrease number of beams and reduce beam duration as stated above

Ballistics:
Have the hesitation mechanic I mentioned above and reduce their max range effectiveness (That's really what makes them above average in my opinion)

This doesn't change the dynamic of how any weapon works (which means it's both feasible AND practical for PGI to consider/implement) while bringing them more in balance of having pros and cons for one or the other

SSRMs = stay the same
SRMs = could use a little love in hit registration

PPCs would stay the same as offering a mix of pin point and energy.

LRMs = same

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

this would neuter a few builds horribly. Ilya would die in a day. I would be against it for that alone. You dont want to institute something that destroys a whole mech group.

I don't see how it would neuter anything as long as the forced hesitation was kept minimal. Surely a .1 second delay in being able to fire a second AC10 or 20 isn't going to neuter a mech?

Essentially it would be a few milliseconds longer than it would take a player to click their mouse button twice instead of hitting both buttons simultaneously or alpha striking

Edited by Sandpit, 05 January 2014 - 02:27 PM.

[Dock Steward]

I think Alpha Striking should always be an option, though they could add some multiplier into heat when doing it. Make it so an Alpha over X is basically an auto shutdown. Just a thought.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Ok so I'm thinking and reading and looking

Shorten Beam Duration:
.1 seconds across the board

Pulse Lasers:
Decrease number of beams and reduce beam duration as stated above

Ballistics:
Have the hesitation mechanic I mentioned above and reduce their max range effectiveness (That's really what makes them above average in my opinion)

This doesn't change the dynamic of how any weapon works (which means it's both feasible AND practical for PGI to consider/implement) while bringing them more in balance of having pros and cons for one or the other

SSRMs = stay the same
SRMs = could use a little love in hit registration

PPCs would stay the same as offering a mix of pin point and energy.

LRMs = same


I don't see how it would neuter anything as long as the forced hesitation was kept minimal. Surely a .1 second delay in being able to fire a second AC10 or 20 isn't going to neuter a mech?

Essentially it would be a few milliseconds longer than it would take a player to click their mouse button twice instead of hitting both buttons simultaneously or alpha striking

Answer, the ilya usually uses uac. This is a weapon that is best used in tandem with other uac and is designed for quick firing with high risk high reward of jam. Take that out an put in the delay and you might as well be running ac5. And at that you might as well be running larger mixed weapons wich is fine.. but you destroy all the fire support ilya out there.

Dislike.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

I think Alpha Striking should always be an option, though they could add some multiplier into heat when doing it. Make it so an Alpha over X is basically an auto shutdown. Just a thought.

In my opinion ghost heat already does a good job of that. That's specifically what ghost heat hits. Chain firing doesn't engage ghost heat if you're disciplined with firing. Although I could get on board with an across the board "heat penalty" exclusively for alpha strikes where when a mech fires off every single weapon in its loadout at the same time they get a slight additional heat penalty

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

In my opinion ghost heat already does a good job of that. That's specifically what ghost heat hits. Chain firing doesn't engage ghost heat if you're disciplined with firing. Although I could get on board with an across the board "heat penalty" exclusively for alpha strikes where when a mech fires off every single weapon in its loadout at the same time they get a slight additional heat penalty

I agree, Ghost Heat does do a pretty good job there. This proposed delay, though, would make it flat-out impossible to Alpha Strike with any ballistics (AC/2 excluded). This is the part I don't like. Make it harder, sure, but don't take it away completely.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 05 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

I agree, Ghost Heat does do a pretty good job there. This proposed delay, though, would make it flat-out impossible to Alpha Strike with any ballistics (AC/2 excluded). This is the part I don't like. Make it harder, sure, but don't take it away completely.

No you could still alpha strike. Alpha strike could easily negate the penalty. If you shoot them all in an alpha strike then there's no penalty. That's the point of an alpha strike and should be relegated to last ditch effort status

[Dock Steward]

Sandpit, on 05 January 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

No you could still alpha strike. Alpha strike could easily negate the penalty. If you shoot them all in an alpha strike then there's no penalty. That's the point of an alpha strike and should be relegated to last ditch effort status

Okay then. I support the delay then. I just don't see how the delay will effect 2 AC/10's firing but not 2 AC/10's and 2 medium lasers (merely one example). Would it be strictly a programming thing? Hit the button for "Alpha Strike" and then it ignores the delay?

Then I have to map in that function instead of just setting a weapon group to do it...ah, well, small price, I guess...

Edited by Dock Steward, 05 January 2014 - 03:03 PM.