1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

It would bring it down a notch by removing front-loaded damage. That would make it possible, but no more beneficial for the shooter than the target. Jump sniping fixed by removing the issue instead of a symptom.

I'm not crying foul, but I am calling you a pompous person now. I defended you when people attacked you for using a low-ELO match to illustrate your "skill", yet you come back days later and tell me to "get better"? Dueling you would be like getting into a bloody knuckles fight with a brick wall... stupid and pointless.

I support that completely. They should definitely build considerable heat, especially when simply walking builds heat.


I don't support ammo reductions, but I support them more than I do ammo caps. That is a bad idea and not grounded in any logic or lore. It doesn't fix the issue (front-loaded damage) and nerfs the ballistic weapons at the same time.

I think we are disagreeing on what the symptom and illness actually is then. I feel that the high use of ballistic pin point weapons is because of there strength with jump sniping. I feel jump sniping is the true illness that must be altered to make those weapons come about into a lesser prominence. This is further increased due to the poor hit reg of srm. Fix srm and change the way jump sniping works and you will see balistic used much less as quick flankers with srm destroy them over and over again.

I am not attacking you. I have not said your name. I am simply using the quote because its a common one. If you feel I am attacking you I apologize. It was not meant to come across that way.

However.

I do feel it is poor to call foul when its something so easily beaten. I feel its a poor misundestanding among the community that when they come across something they feel is strong, instead of finding ways to beat it and then determining its true strength they dont work around it at all and just feel the game should change to accomodate them.

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

I don't support ammo reductions, but I support them more than I do ammo caps. That is a bad idea and not grounded in any logic or lore. It doesn't fix the issue (front-loaded damage) and nerfs the ballistic weapons at the same time.

the main benefit to laser weapons is there perseverence against ballistic. Since we dont have CW it has not yet become apparent though it probly will once that happens... that said..

I think this needs to be evaluated again once CW hits.

[Sandpit]

Wraith05, on 07 January 2014 - 07:22 PM, said:

I understand you disagree with it, but you keep making points that make me feel you don't fully understand the overall picture of what it would do.

You are only concentrating on the ballistic which yes it would mean that when running with a ballistic that THE BALLISTIC can only do X amount of damage, which btw is already the case it just isn't apparent because of the high amount of ammo you can put on. The change is just lowering that X value.

But this is how it would make it more desirable to use other systems to back up your big ballistic punch.

And you could still run a ballistic boat if you wanted, but you would have to use a combination of different ballistics.

The jagers would still be viable, but you'd have to run with more than 1 type of AC.

I understand how it would impact and what you're suggesting, I just don't see it as a good option. You are limiting a mech to a max damage output without any regard to how a player wants to personalize their mech. I don't even think ammo reductions would work.

[Sandpit]

I would also add, I agree wholeheartedly with Varent on this. Too many people get beat by something in the game and want to flail about on the forums raging and ranting in hopes that PGI will nerf something that will make their personal tactic, build, play style, etc. easier to play against others instead of realizing maybe it's just that their particular build, play style, tactic, etc. just sucks against that particular scenario (note I'm not even going into individual skill levels here)

It's honestly one of the reasons I post on things sometimes. I know I don't speak for everyone but I DO speak for more than myself because I do have buddies and people in my unit that agree with me who simply don't visit the forums because, well let's face it, you have to be a bit of a ********* to hang out on here sometimes lol

Ma$ochi$t is censored? lol

Edited by Sandpit, 07 January 2014 - 08:42 PM.

[Wraith05]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

I understand how it would impact and what you're suggesting, I just don't see it as a good option. You are limiting a mech to a max damage output without any regard to how a player wants to personalize their mech. I don't even think ammo reductions would work.

See, when you say things like "limiting a MECHS max damage output" I really don't think you are understanding.

Any mech with an energy hardpoint has a potential max damage output of inifinity.
Any mech without an energy hardpoint already has a limited potential max damage output.

And currently there are only 3 mechs that have a limited potential damage output:

oxide
catapault A1
Catapault a1 (c)

All of which use missles only.

So a cap would NOT reduce a mechs max damage output potential.

Now I respect you not viewing it as a good option, or not supporting it. I was just putting it out there as an idea to debate and talk about, which we have.

[Varent]

Wraith05, on 07 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

See, when you say things like "limiting a MECHS max damage output" I really don't think you are understanding.

Any mech with an energy hardpoint has a potential max damage output of inifinity.
Any mech without an energy hardpoint already has a limited potential max damage output.

And currently there are only 3 mechs that have a limited potential damage output:

oxide
catapault A1
Catapault a1 ©

All of which use missles only.

So a cap would NOT reduce a mechs max damage output potential.

Now I respect you not viewing it as a good option, or not supporting it. I was just putting it out there as an idea to debate and talk about, which we have.

great point. realistically CW should FIX some of this. But until then it would be perhaps a bandaid that CW might cure in regards to balistics. Though that said it would still do very little to effectively stop the Jump sniping meta that is making these weapons feel overpowered. So overall just another band aid still over a gaping wound...

[Sandpit]

Wraith05, on 07 January 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

See, when you say things like "limiting a MECHS max damage output" I really don't think you are understanding.

Any mech with an energy hardpoint has a potential max damage output of inifinity.
Any mech without an energy hardpoint already has a limited potential max damage output.

And currently there are only 3 mechs that have a limited potential damage output:

oxide
catapault A1
Catapault a1 ©

All of which use missles only.

So a cap would NOT reduce a mechs max damage output potential.

Now I respect you not viewing it as a good option, or not supporting it. I was just putting it out there as an idea to debate and talk about, which we have.

I'm not dismissing your idea or putting you down for it, it just isn't something I'd like to see. Plenty of people downright hate my ideas lol
By "max damage" I mean if you put hard cap of AC20 ammo at say 3 tons. That means no matter what, an AC20 will never do more than 21X20 damage. Ever. In any capacity. In any build.
That's what I mean by max damage cap. You're limiting a player who is willing to make a trade-off of weight and slots for another shot with their weapon

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

I would also add, I agree wholeheartedly with Varent on this. Too many people get beat by something in the game and want to flail about on the forums raging and ranting in hopes that PGI will nerf something that will make their personal tactic, build, play style, etc. easier to play against others instead of realizing maybe it's just that their particular build, play style, tactic, etc. just sucks against that particular scenario (note I'm not even going into individual skill levels here)

I speak only for myself and don't even imply that I speak for anyone else. I am also not crying foul about anything. I use these builds myself, more than any energy builds, so I don't think it's crying foul. I get killed by all sorts of opponents, and I don't have a clue what 99% of them are equipped with when they kill me. Shoot, the only thing you even know about your death is the last couple things that hit you and who did the final shot - they could have done 1 single damage with that final shot and just got lucky after someone else nailed the tar out of you. I just know that the RNG hates me with a passion, lol.

I am not basing any of this anti-ballistics arguing on anything that killed me. In fact, it's not anti-ballistics, it's anti-front-loaded damage. The TTK is currently too short, and I think changing front-loaded weapons to duration/spread would fix that the best out of the suggestions made. That doesn't mean I don't support other options - I have agreed with you guys on several things, actually - but I do feel burst ballistics and some sort of spread/duration for PPCs would fix this problem "best". If you still want front-loaded damage, boat some Gauss, as that is the only weapon that lore specifically states as being a solid slug. Let autocannons be the burst weapons they should be and manufacturers can give tons of options for how that is implemented, from half-damage double-rate versions to full auto MG versions.

[Wraith05]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

I'm not dismissing your idea or putting you down for it, it just isn't something I'd like to see. Plenty of people downright hate my ideas lol
By "max damage" I mean if you put hard cap of AC20 ammo at say 3 tons. That means no matter what, an AC20 will never do more than 21X20 damage. Ever. In any capacity. In any build.
That's what I mean by max damage cap. You're limiting a player who is willing to make a trade-off of weight and slots for another shot with their weapon

Oh I know you aren't and are just disagreeing with me. I hope i'm not coming off as a jerk. I don't mean to be.

I just thought you meant "mech" and not "weapon". Limiting a mechs potential output is a big deal where as imo limiting a weapons more than it already is isn't as big of a deal.

[Sybreed]

Varent, on 07 January 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

Define epic? just long drawn out battles arent necesarily as epic as devastating fire power being thrown back and forth.

Personally I like the ac just the way they are. I feel there needs to be a diversity of weapon styles. Besides that will do nothing to stop jump sniping.

ehh, I guess my definition of ACs makes a bigger emphasis on the word "automatic" and increases the ROF a lot, see MW:LL for a good example of how I'd like to see ACs behave.

As for my definition of epic, I guess that just means bigger brawls, less campy jumpy gameplay that we've had for 10 months? Of course, there needs to be some tweaking done so PPCs and Gauss don't become (again) the new meta.

Edited by Sybreed, 08 January 2014 - 09:54 AM.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

I speak only for myself and don't even imply that I speak for anyone else. I am also not crying foul about anything. I use these builds myself, more than any energy builds, so I don't think it's crying foul. I get killed by all sorts of opponents, and I don't have a clue what 99% of them are equipped with when they kill me. Shoot, the only thing you even know about your death is the last couple things that hit you and who did the final shot - they could have done 1 single damage with that final shot and just got lucky after someone else nailed the tar out of you. I just know that the RNG hates me with a passion, lol.

I am not basing any of this anti-ballistics arguing on anything that killed me. In fact, it's not anti-ballistics, it's anti-front-loaded damage. The TTK is currently too short, and I think changing front-loaded weapons to duration/spread would fix that the best out of the suggestions made. That doesn't mean I don't support other options - I have agreed with you guys on several things, actually - but I do feel burst ballistics and some sort of spread/duration for PPCs would fix this problem "best". If you still want front-loaded damage, boat some Gauss, as that is the only weapon that lore specifically states as being a solid slug. Let autocannons be the burst weapons they should be and manufacturers can give tons of options for how that is implemented, from half-damage double-rate versions to full auto MG versions.

I guess I come from a different school of thought. While I do jump snipe I actually dont use ac40 Jager. I dont like them, frankly I feel they are sitting targets and when I see them I chuckle and out maneuver them, pull them out into the open or ignore them. Its for that reason alone I look at it and say. "I dont feel this is op at all" Since I can beat it easily with other weapons and mechs without any trouble. If im specifically NOT using it because I feel other things that dont use that pinpoint damage are more powerful.... well I dunno as I said can only speak for myself and my numbers.. but.. ya..

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 07 January 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

I speak only for myself and don't even imply that I speak for anyone else. I am also not crying foul about anything. I use these builds myself, more than any energy builds, so I don't think it's crying foul. I get killed by all sorts of opponents, and I don't have a clue what 99% of them are equipped with when they kill me. Shoot, the only thing you even know about your death is the last couple things that hit you and who did the final shot - they could have done 1 single damage with that final shot and just got lucky after someone else nailed the tar out of you. I just know that the RNG hates me with a passion, lol.

I am not basing any of this anti-ballistics arguing on anything that killed me. In fact, it's not anti-ballistics, it's anti-front-loaded damage. The TTK is currently too short, and I think changing front-loaded weapons to duration/spread would fix that the best out of the suggestions made. That doesn't mean I don't support other options - I have agreed with you guys on several things, actually - but I do feel burst ballistics and some sort of spread/duration for PPCs would fix this problem "best". If you still want front-loaded damage, boat some Gauss, as that is the only weapon that lore specifically states as being a solid slug. Let autocannons be the burst weapons they should be and manufacturers can give tons of options for how that is implemented, from half-damage double-rate versions to full auto MG versions.

I don't think you're one of "them" lol

But you ahve to see that there are plenty of players that do just that.
Ehr Meh Gerd! Me got killed by (insert whatever shot them here), it MUST be OP!
RANT RAGE NERF NERF NERF!!!! PGI NERF NERF NERF

It happens every day just about lol
I've literally seen 3 separate "(insert weapon here) FotM threads" going on the front page at the same time. I mean really? That defeats the whole purpose of even HAVING a FotM lol

[Dock Steward]

After reading the bit about putting a cap on how much ammo a mech could carry...I've concluded Ballistics are fine.

[Wraith05]

Dock Steward, on 07 January 2014 - 08:32 PM, said:

After reading the bit about putting a cap on how much ammo a mech could carry...I've concluded Ballistics are fine.

my work here is done

[MustrumRidcully]

Almond Brown, on 07 January 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

It has a very short range and may require extra Heat Sinks due to added GH.

You're not supposed to drink two bowls at once. Chain-Drink.

[Craig Steele]

The more I read in forums, the more convinced I am that PGI have got it right.

They seem to have planned on releasing the most awesome game that will appeal to FPS and die hard fans of BT alike, in 2017/18.

In the meantime, they have some hard core players and a F2P model who can fund and test their programming while they run on minimal costs, maximising their return on investment when it is eventually a functioning game.

Where do I buy shares in PGI ??

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 08:23 PM, said:

I don't think you're one of "them" lol

But you ahve to see that there are plenty of players that do just that.
Ehr Meh Gerd! Me got killed by (insert whatever shot them here), it MUST be OP!
RANT RAGE NERF NERF NERF!!!! PGI NERF NERF NERF

It happens every day just about lol
I've literally seen 3 separate "(insert weapon here) FotM threads" going on the front page at the same time. I mean really? That defeats the whole purpose of even HAVING a FotM lol

I totally understand and agree. People that complain about LRMs currently are a good example. There are also a good amount of people that will argue against change regardless of what you suggest just because they like to argue, and even more people that complain just to complain.

It's hard not to take things personally sometimes, like when I blew up at Varent yesterday, because it is often hard to tell whether people are seriously that dumb/naive/egotistical or if they are just really good trolls. I think there are a few people on both sides of this front-load argument that are smart and want the best for the game, but it is hard for even us to compromise because we feel so strongly about the game and have no way to try these ideas out in game. If PGI would just accept that they could use help testing and balancing, we could get the public test server PUBLIC and figure out the best ways for weapons to be balanced as a community.

[Tombstoner]

Varent, on 07 January 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

anyways, not gonna reread 3 more pages to catch up on the thread, just responding from here on out. But that said, anyone else happy about the ac10 and ac20 changes? Makes em more brawler oriented and less jump sniping oriented nice change I feel. Thoughts?

Reduced autocannon sniping potential at the same time they release a Gauss based hero mech... smells funny.
If PGI felt the need to further deign the role of the Gauss as The sniper weapon and boost sales for the hero mech Ok...
Very clumsy implementation.

[Joseph Mallan]

But they didn't take away the Charge mechanic to make a Gauss more effective.

[Tombstoner]

Sybreed, on 07 January 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

I'd rather have all weapons except for the PPC and Gauss be fast firing weapons with their damage calculated so they deal it in a 5 seconds turn. It would make the battles more epic and the game more fun.

For me that needs to come from the map and team play not any changes with weapons...although i think they need a complete rework. i do feel that TTK is still way to low and could stand tweeking up a bit.

[Tombstoner]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

But they didn't take away the Charge mechanic to make a Gauss more effective.

That would enable snap shots with gauss. it would under cut PGI's effort in defining gauss as a sniper and let it return to being bundled with PPC's. As it is i almost never see Gauss anymore. so the next best thing is to lower other autocannon round speeds. i just with the did that with the ac-2.

If your after symmetry with very similar weapons like auto-cannons. Then gauss would need the least lead angle followed by the ac-20 then ac-10, ac-5 and the most lead time should be for the ac-2. lead time meaning slower round speeds. but its actually opposite. round speed decreases from ac-2 to ac-20. weapon ranges made sense in TT but as it is in MWO they seem bizarre. Why is the ac-20 being shoe horned into being a brawler weapon when the ac-2 can function well at all ranges.