1080 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Mr Terribad, on 22 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Wasting your breath mate.

We've been arguing ballistics and their front loaded damage for well over a year now and they've done nothing.

But then again, PGI only has a handful of employees still working there so.. I can't blame them for their snail-paced speed.

I been on here for that whole year, and ACs have only been a issue for about 6 months. PPCs were a joke to begin with, ACs were pointless for months with the exception of Gauss.

I prefer my weapons of destruction to be... you know... Destructive. I am here to fight not throw pillows and harsh words.

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

OR I could read your post that reiterates the other dozen or so threads on the exact same subject that I also disagree with because my opinion doesn't agree with yours.

Weapons are balanced, please don't change them

I like what you are saying but Weapons are not balanced yet. Lasers need a shorter Beam duration. Missiles need to fly faster to targets. That would balance them... better.

[Sandpit]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

I like what you are saying but Weapons are not balanced yet. Lasers need a shorter Beam duration. Missiles need to fly faster to targets. That would balance them... better.

This is just one of the few areas we disagree on. I wouldn't scoff at lasers having their beam duration shortened slightly and scaled to weapon size
SL faster and shorter
ML mediumy and shorter
LL largery and shorter

I just think the balance is in a good place right now.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

I just think the balance is in a good place right now.

The instant-damage weapons (ACs, PPCs, GRs) are absolutely dominating the game right now. Care to guess why?

Because it's simply better (as in, it kills more effectively) to put all your damage into one spot instantaneously than to have it spread over a beam duration or by missile spread.

The LB-10X is 1 ton lighter, 1 slot less, 1 less heat, and has longer range than the AC/10, yet the AC/10 is the superior choice. Why? It doesn't spread its damage around, simple as that.

ACs and PPCs need to be re-made to spread their damage around a bit so balance becomes possible, and the easiest and most non-disruptive way of doing that is to make the ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam weapon.

Edited by stjobe, 22 December 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[Accursed Richards]

stjobe, on 22 December 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

The instant-damage weapons (ACs, PPCs, GRs) are absolutely dominating the game right now. Care to guess why?

Because it's simply better (as in, it kills more effectively) to put all your damage into one spot instantaneously than to have it spread over a beam duration or by missile spread.

The LB-10X is 1 ton lighter, 1 slot less, 1 less heat, and has longer range than the AC/10, yet the AC/10 is the superior choice. Why? It doesn't spread its damage around, simple as that.

ACs and PPCs need to be made spread their damage around a bit so balance becomes possible, and the easiest and most non-disruptive way of doing that is to make the ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam weapon.

Part of the problem is, it's just too easy to hit the CT, and on some mechs who displeased the hitbox gods, it's very hard to not hit it. So the optimum way to play is to simply drill out the centre as quickly as possible, and that's why you regularly see dead mechs with armour everywhere except the front CT.

[stjobe]

Accursed Richards, on 22 December 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Part of the problem is, it's just too easy to hit the CT

That problem would also be alleviated by reworking the instant-damage weapons into burst- or beam-fire. You can twist away from a burst or a beam, but you can't twist away from the current ACs/PPCs.

Edited by stjobe, 22 December 2013 - 04:03 PM.

[anonymous161]

Only burst weapons I know of are srms, ultra cannons, and pulse lasers. Why would a single cannon be a burst? Your logic is beyond reasonable.

The game is unbalanced but not breakingly so. Otherwise no one would play it. Eventually they will give us a high power laser like the assault laser but takes a ton of heat.

[stjobe]

Darth Bane001, on 22 December 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Only burst weapons I know of are srms, ultra cannons, and pulse lasers. Why would a single cannon be a burst?

For two reasons, one of which I've outlined above; that they are currently simply better than any beam-duration or missile-spread weapon. Compare the AC/10 to the lighter, cooler, longer-ranged LB-10X - which one is the better weapon?

The second reason is a lore reason; Autocannons are, and I quote,

Quote

rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun"

Quote

The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 22 December 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

The instant-damage weapons (ACs, PPCs, GRs) are absolutely dominating the game right now.

Again, as always, my energy boats would disagree.

[Lyoto Machida]

Effectz, on 22 December 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

SRMS don't even reg half the time,they're not game breaking because they're broken,its hit or miss with them and are unreliable.If they worked as they should and dished out the damage they're supposed to you would see alot more brawling builds and more variety.

It'll be fixed in about a year.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

Again, as always, my energy boats would disagree.

Just think then what you could achieve with ACs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles.

And I can't help but notice that you wouldn't comment on any of the specifics, you just provided us with an unverifiable anecdote - and as you may know, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Why IS the AC/10 a better weapon than the LB-10X, even though it's one ton heavier, one point hotter, and has 90 m shorter range?

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 22 December 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

Just think then what you could achieve with ACs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifles.

And I can't help but notice that you wouldn't comment on any of the specifics, you just provided us with an unverifiable anecdote - and as you may know, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Why IS the AC/10 a better weapon than the LB-10X, even though it's one ton heavier, one point hotter, and has 90 m shorter range?

what kind of data would you like? A screenshot of my stats in my energy boats?

I have used ballistics. I don't do as well with them. They don't fit my personal play style as well. Just because someone else does well in them doesn't make them op, just because someone else does poorly in energy builds doesn't make them up. I do well in energy builds, I don't do well in ballistic builds. Therefore, for ME, energy builds are "better" than ballistics.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Mr Terribad, on 22 December 2013 - 12:36 PM, said:

Wasting your breath mate.

We've been arguing ballistics and their front loaded damage for well over a year now and they've done nothing.

But then again, PGI only has a handful of employees still working there so.. I can't blame them for their snail-paced speed.

If it's not this thing ****** you it will be something else...can we all assume you will whine about that next 'meta', im thinking we can.

stjobe, on 22 December 2013 - 03:58 PM, said:

The instant-damage weapons (ACs, PPCs, GRs) are absolutely dominating the game right now. Care to guess why?

They are only dominating the game when used by competent pilots. Seen many a pilot failing with these very same so called op builds that so many want to whine about.

Maybe we should have only dot weapons then eh>? Apparently direct fire alphas are to much for people to handle. ;p

***Edit for addition.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 22 December 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Mystere]

Leave the weapons alone. Slow down the rate of convergence instead if you must.

Hell, I probably wouldn't even squeal (not too much anyway) if they totally got rid of it and you had to individually aim each weapon.

Edited by Mystere, 22 December 2013 - 06:30 PM.

[PhyroPhyre]

There is no reason to change how the weapons work. Some weapons need some tweaking, most are working perfectly.
A/Cs are difficult to aim on a moving target to hit the exact component you are aiming for. It is difficult both at range and while brawling.

PPCs have limited effective range (when you shoot someone past this range, it registers a hit and does 1 damage). They also run very hot and make {Scrap} brawling weapons.

I think you should spend some time reevaluating your mech loadouts if you find your load out is not working well for you.
You should get in the habit of locking into targets, checking the enemy load out and playing tactfully accordingly.

PS, my favourite mech at the moment is a BLR with 2 PPC's, 2 A/C5s, 4 Mlas and XL375. So take my advice with salt.

[Scorpion15]

Its unfortunate that the major disadvantage of ballistics does not translate well into MWO. Long term battles. Think in the Battletech universe, Battles were not 5-10 minutes long. Thus bleeding an enemy of ammo is a solid tactic. But when an enemy is allowed a long term engagements worth of ammo in a single 10 minute span, thats brutal.

[Bhael Fire]

This thread is exciting and new!

The fact is, ACs would not be worth their weight, hardpoint and ammo restrictions if they did not offer frontloaded damage.

Autocannons are just fine. If they nerfed them, they would become pointless.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd like to increase weapon variety overall, after missile weapons get improvements with hit reg.

Have full auto and/or burst fire ballistics with reduced damage per shell but keep a high rate of fire, and increase the ammo accordingly.

Then have options that keep the high damage per shot but require a trigger pull to fire each shot (but not adding a charge up like Gauss) with a longer cooldown to reduce the rate of fire on those ballistics and PPCs.

Here's examples of what I'd like to see tested for ballistic weapons.

Spoiler

[xMEPHISTOx]

Bhael Fire, on 22 December 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

This thread is exciting and new!

The fact is, ACs would not be worth their weight, hardpoint and ammo restrictions if they did not offer frontloaded damage.

Autocannons are just fine. If they nerfed them, they would become pointless.

ie. the SRM dilemma. <<< my only weapon complaint in the game at this time.

***Edit for correction.

Edited by xMEPHISTOx, 22 December 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[Sandpit]

Scorpion15, on 22 December 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

Its unfortunate that the major disadvantage of ballistics does not translate well into MWO. Long term battles. Think in the Battletech universe, Battles were not 5-10 minutes long. Thus bleeding an enemy of ammo is a solid tactic. But when an enemy is allowed a long term engagements worth of ammo in a single 10 minute span, thats brutal.

This would be the only thing (aside from SRMs) that I would agree could be looked at.
AC 20 = 5/ton
AC 10 = 10/ton
AC 5 = 15/ton
AC 2 = 30/ton
That right there would make a huge difference
you only get 15 shots for 3 tons in the AC instead of 21 That's 7 rounds lost which means an extra ton would need to be taken to compensate. That alone makes a huge difference.

[Monkey Lover]

My view would be to shorten lasers duration by 50%

Or

Allow us more custom armor options.

Make it so you can't max out everything. If people start putting more on the center and less on the arms/legs you might start seeing people target these. You would be happy to see some slash damage for once.