1080 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Four pages in and no one has figured out what the actual problem is?


PGI's choice to pull the armor mechanics directly from the Battletech table top game while at the same time failing to place that mechanic into a an enviorment designed to support it's functioning.

Here is a description of the Table top game armor mechanics (and by the way MWo's armor system as well)

Armor values are specific to individual mech body location,a mech's leg armor only effects the armor value of that specific leg.The armor on the leg has no bearing on the armor values of any other location.

The maximum armor values that can be applied to any given location are base on the internal structure value for that location.The internal structure values increase proportionaly as mech weight increases, a 20 ton mech has the lowest structure values a 100 ton mech has the highest.

Once armor has been depleted on a specified location the internal structure and any components carried in that body location are vulnerable to damage.If the structure value is also depleted the body location is destroyed.

The formula used for max armor per location for table top is structure value x 2 = max armor value MWo uses structure value x 4 = max armor value. This is the only variance in the armor mechanics used for MWo.

Fundamentaly these are the rules that govern how our mech's armor functions.


But how are these mechanics failing for MWo when they work fine for table top?

The answer is simple the table top game uses the armor mechanics in conjunction with several support mechanics.When taken as a whole the armor and support mechanics creates a functional system.

Some of the supporting mechanics are...

Heat generation used to limit the volume of damage produced.

Heat scale penalties causing damage in access of the heat generation mechanics limits to become increasingly inaccurate or difficult to apply (heat penalties for TT are accuracy and movement debuffs)

Escalating target numbers for hitting targets: The target numbers for hitting a mech in TT are based on a core value equal to the mechwarrior's gunnery skill.This value is then modified by distance to target,movement of the shooter,movement of the target and any enviormental conditions like partial cover,smoke or other obstructions.This mechanic leads to fewer shots connecting with targets.This translates as another means of limiting the damage applied to the armor over a single turn.

Individual to hit rolls for each distinct weapon: If a mech has 10 medium lasers it is rolling to hit for each,that's ten to hit rolls there is no group fire mechanic in TT.This leads to less overall damage being applied to a target in a single turn.

Random hit locations: Each weapon that does hit is also randomly assigned a location that it's damage is applied to.This is probably the single most important support mechanic for the armor system.The use of random hit location prevents intentional concentration of damage onto singular mech body locations.

After reviewing my incomplete list of support mechanics it becomes evident that MWo lacks all of them with exception of using heat as a damage limiter.

It also becomes evident that not only are supporting mechanics neccissary for the armor mechanics to function missing but conditions that those same mechanics were designed to prevent are present in MWo.

We can consistantly aim at desired body locations with group fired concentrations of damage in a very short period of time.All conditions that the Table rules try to prevent.

Our problem stems from the use of the table top armor system without sufficent supporting mechanics to allow that armor system to function.

Why are people complaining about PPCs and ACs all the time? Because these weapons can be grouped together to apply large amounts of concentrated damage to specific body locations in very short time frames.These weapons create situations that the armor mechanics as they exist in MWo can not handle.

Why are people complaining that Lasers and SRMs are under powered? Because these weapons best emulate the missing support mechanics.Lasers produce damage over longer durations causing dispersed damage patterns while also generating high heat (with heat as our only support mechanics lasers are more effected by this mechanic) Missiles also have dispersed damage patterns lacking the ability to apply concentrated damage to specific body locations with ease.

No amount of weapon tweaks or ghost heat will alter the core cause of the problem.

The trick is how do we repair the armor mechanics since it is far to late to replace them we are pretty much stuck with the core mechanic of X armor value on Y body part.

Many of the table top support mechanics simply do not translate to MWo.

We can't use to hit rolls

We can't use random hit locations

What can we do?

It's not that we didn't find it. I have been saying this for a while now. There is a HUGE mismatch between the armor mechanics and aiming/firing mechanics.

The armor mechanic is assuming that damage is distributed in some fashion while the aiming/firing mechanic assumes all weapons hit directly where the crosshair is pointed at.

This mismatch between the systems leads to some weapons "winning" and others "losing". SRMs are a prime example of this. For their weight, they are very respectable but feel extremely weak in this game, regardless of hit registration. Lasers, while still breaking the overall mechanic by converging, have a duration, which usually leads to spreading of damage. The only weapons that do not have an inherent "randomness" or "duration" is the AC and PPC (excluding the LBX).

And this makes you wonder why the AC and PPC feels so much stronger than other weapons?

[MustrumRidcully]

Things to do...

• Low Heat Threshold, High Heat Dissipation, ideally with some form of heat penalties (speed reduction, torso and arm movement slowdowns, flickering HUD, rate of fire reduction. No need to introduce RNG effects like unstable crosshairs or random ammo explosions)
  
• Most pinpoint weapons turned into burst fire weapons (Auto-Cannons mostly)
  
• No Group Fire for pinpoint weapons (PPC, Gauss might stay pinpoint, but their high energy drain disallows group-firing them), ensuring that they pay for this perk in Damage/Tonnage or Damage/Heat Efficiency.
  
• Armor values redistributed* under the assumption of people generally being more likely to hit where they want to hit then elsewhere and follow the strategy of the fastest way to defeating the enemy and minimizing his ability to fire back. (That basically means that critical locations like the CT need more armour points, at the expense of non-critical ones like arms - people should ideally consider shooting off arms equally viable or even a bit more viable then going for CT kills...)

*) You can do this even without having to throw out stock mechs, if you're worried about that. First, figure out the ratios that you want between arm, leg, side torso and CT (I would keep the head at the current, fixed values). Then, take any stock mechs total armor points and distribute them across the locations by this ratio. You won't be able to retain any unique strengths or weaknesses these mechs might have had (say, a mech might have had maxed out arm armor but low leg armor), but that's usually not crucially important. If that is still too bothersome, just adjust the max ratings up where necessary and limit the changes otherwise to internal structure, perhaps hincreasing internal structure across the board to make the effect more pronounced in actual gameplay..

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 23 December 2013 - 11:42 AM.

[Tesunie]

Mcgral18, on 23 December 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Didn't they change the mid air correction after people were making the missiles turn 90-180 degrees to fire from behind cover/very large rock?

And to my knowledge the only artemis bug is with Streaks, getting ton free lock on bonus.

They can still turn in mid air, just not at sharp angles anymore. You can no longer break lock, and regain it at the last moment and have LRMs turn suddenly and hit your target. You also need to relock the same target that the LRMs originally where launched against, otherwise they don't track anymore. However, it can still be shot out from cover like a direct fire weapon, if you know how to do it. Is it as easy as an AC? No. Is it as effective as other weapons doing this (direct fire weapons)? No. But it can be done is all I'm saying.
(If I don't seem to be understanding what you are saying, please clarify. We could be talking about two different things, but I think I understand what you mean.)

Artemis is having a bug where it is always applying it's bonuses to any target of LRMs, direct line of sight or not. That's in part because they have Artemis effect the flight path of the LRMs for their entire flight. This effects their spread when they do hit, even if you can't see your target.

Artemis speeds up any lock on time. SSRMs and LRMs share the same lock on systems, so yes, Artemis still speeds up SSRM lock on times. However, no other bonus is provided to SSRMs.

Haji1096, on 23 December 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

With regards to bad hit detection,

Why would it effect only SRMS ? If hit detection is bad for SRMs, then it should be bad for LRMs and the LBX. All weapons consist of multiple projectiles spread over an area.

Maybe we are only noticing it because you fire LRMs from further away...same with the LBX. We expect LRMS to do less damage because of range, cover, enemy having AMS. Could it be masking hit detection problems for LRMS ?

IMHO, Ballistics are the only weapons that are working correctly. Energy Weapons are borked by ghost heat and missles don't reliably hit.

All missiles are having bad hit detection. I see it with my LRMs, but with LRMs you usually send out so many that the volume hides the bug a little more than with SRMs. SRMs are also not guided, which means HSR makes far more of a difference with them than with guided missiles (SSRMs and LRMs), and most of the HR problems are being caused by HSR from my understanding.

Energy weapons are also being effected by HR and HSR issues, but not as badly as missiles are. The hit scan effects of them seems to be having some pieces of a beams duration become "lost", even though it probably should be hitting. This does not mean that energy weapons can't be used, but it can cause them to do less damage than they should. (I've commonly seen it with some of my 6 med laser builds, where I use to be able to do lots of damage with them, now I've been seeing full beams dealing almost no damage from time to time. I'm not including sweeping or partial beam hits with these observations, and it isn't all the time.)

I've also noticed a problem with HSR having more of a problem when targets are closer than compared to when they are farther. This probably has to do with several factors, which are hard to explain in text...

kapusta11, on 23 December 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

How can you adequately compare ACs with anything that generates heat, they are the only viable weapons.

First fix ... hit detection, until then any discussion on the matter of convergence, pinpoint or anything else is pointless.

Something I think a lot of you who are comparing numbers aren't looking at is weight. Yes, ACs are better damage, rate of fire, and heat. However, look at the weight of those weapons. Then compare with weight of lasers. Replace the missing weight of the AC to laser with heat sinks, and don't forget to include ammo with this. For a shorter burst of damage, lasers can do far more damage quicker (you can get more of them easier), but ACs will out pace the lasers in a more drawn out fight, leaving lasers hurting fairly quickly in many fights. (Basically, lasers can get punch, but rarely enough of a punch to kill before they suffer from heat, then the AC, over time, out paces the lasers and kill the laser mech as they are overheating.)

Then you have the pin point damage of the AC, already discussed. These two problems roll together to make lasers seem less effective than they can be. Lasers do still have their place, and they are a different flavor of weapon compared to ACs.


I can agree (sorry about chopping the last paragraph up) with this. Once hit detection/HSR is corrected, then we should see where mechs and weapons stand. Heat scale could use some tweaking in my opinion, but it isn't too bad right now. It's very playable. I do agree that insta-convergence is a bit of an issue, making damage to pin point. I think the system could use to have convergence slowed down a bit, making it more rewarding to hold your reticule over a target compared to "twitch shooting". It's how it's described in the books (lore), and it would be nice to see this implemented in here.

This would, however, give lasers a new advantage, as you can shoot them before you have perfect convergence, and they could still hit and slowly converge as they are shooting. A spread shot is better than a no hit shot.

PS: By slower convergence, I'm saying instead of as fast as it is now, making it take 0.5-0.25 seconds for your weapons to align to whatever is under your reticule. This will hurt hitting fast mechs (giving SSRMs an advantage as well as lasers splash damage) as much as it would hurt fast mechs hitting other mechs (they are moving so fast it's hard to keep that reticule on target for too long). This, by itself, might actually be enough to make lasers and SSRMs (and LRMs as well to some extent) more effective than they currently are.

If I could, I'd love to give a slower convergence a try and see how it fairs. I wouldn't want to change the game to it without seeing if it would work right. It might not even work as I think it would, but in theory, it sounds like a good idea.

[Khobai]

Quote

There's a lot that think weapons are very well balanced in their current form.

If you say so. But all I see are Streaks, PPCs, Autocannons in high level play. SRMs are non-existent due to hit registration issues and low damage. LRMs are non-existent due to ECM brokeness. Lasers, with the exception of medium and large lasers, are again almost non-existent. The weapons are very poorly balanced if you ask me.

Worse yet it is the complete lack of items to effect the metagame. Why dont we have blue shield, reflective armor, ablative armor, etc...? items which exist to counter specific weapons and would allow the game to slowly evolve out of slumps where one weapon is completely dominant. Instead were stuck in a pit where autocannons and PPCs are better than everything else, and theres nothing we can do about it, except wait till PGI patches it.

This is how a healthy metagame would look:

1) PPCs are dominant
2) Players respond to PPC dominance by using blue shield
3) PPCs stop being the dominant weapon, another weapon becomes dominant instead
4) Players stop using blue shield because no one is using PPCs anymore
5) Player start using PPCs again and the cycle renews

Thats how PGI should balance weapons. Because its what battletech did to prevent one type of weapon from dominating the game. Instead of trying to balance every single weapon they should just give us the canon equipment which counters those weapons and let the metagame take its course naturally. We dont need perfect weapon balance, we just need the tools to prevent one weapon from becoming the best.

in case anyone was wondering::
http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper

Edited by Khobai, 23 December 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[Zyllos]

I have been trying to come up with mathematical formulas to allow weapons to fire in the patterns they are equipped on a mech in. Then add a CoF mechanic that takes into account the range of the weapon and utilizing actions to modify the overall value.

Interestingly, most of the work can be done upfront with constants based on the mech configuration and only a bit of calculation needs to be done to do most of this.

[Almond Brown]

Antonio, on 22 December 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

So I'm not going to say whether ACs and PPCs should be instant damage or not but if that is a problem then I think this is a solution:

• ACs fire stream of bullets.
  
• PPCs splash damage across a few adjacent hitboxes.

I chose splash for PPCs instead of DoT because that would make them pretty much same as Lasers

OK, let's see if we can beak this down to a finer grit.

• ACs fire stream of bullets.

The AC2 already fire a stream of bullets. To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself. The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC2/erPPC. Both require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC2 from the OP's complaint list.


The AC5 fires 1 shell every 1.5 seconds. To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself for 3+ seconds. To carry 2 you have to use the same weight as a Gauss Rifle (+ ammo). The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC5/AC2/Gauss/erLL/erPPC (x X). 5 points of damage, per unit, with 1.5 second exposure for 2 shots, for pin-point damage. All require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC5 from the OP's complaint list.

The AC10 fires 1 shell every 2.5 seconds To do any appreciable damage with one, you have to expose yourself for 5+ seconds. The response weapon of choice is another *AC10/AC2/AC5/LBX10/UAC5/erPPC/Gauss/erLL/LL/PPC (x X). 10 points of damage, per unit, with 5 second exposure for 2 shots, for pin point damage. It requires a steady hand to apply the 10 max. damage against a moving target. This removes the AC5 from the OP's complaint list.

The AC20 is THE heavy hitter of the Ballistics group and pays for it with weight/slots and a lack of ranged punch. To do max. damage with one, or 2, you have to expose yourself to your enemy for 8 seconds for 2 shots and do so at near point blank range. The response weapon(s) of choice is another *AC20/erPPC/erLL/LL/Gauss//LPL/PPC (x X). 20 (x 2) points of damage per unit, for pin point damage. All require a steady hand to apply max. damage against a moving target. The AC20 at 500m is basically an very heavy AC10. This removes the AC20 from the OP's complaint list.

P.S. *Response weapons have = or > range(s) out to Optimal range. Use it....

What was the complaint again?

Edited by Almond Brown, 23 December 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[Tesunie]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

The formula used for max armor per location for table top is structure value x 2 = max armor value MWo uses structure value x 4 = max armor value. This is the only variance in the armor mechanics used for MWo.

Actually, they went "Armor x2", which also made "Structure is 1/2 armor, with armor x2 = Structure x2". We have twice the health in this game of armor AND structure. Don't believe me? Test it in the testing grounds. Take a low damage weapon, like an AC2 for example, and find a target. Look at that stock configurations armor values in a given location. Then, take the max value and divide that by 2. As your figured structure with the stock armor. Now, count how many rounds it takes (one at a time) to punch through armor. Log that number. Then, count how many shots it takes to destroy that component. Log that number. Add the two numbers together, multiply the total shots by damage of weapon per shot. In the case of the AC2, x2. This should equal (or be real close) to the armor and structure data you already projected. (If you find some other result, please let me know as it will be news to me. Last time I did this, the math worked out to x2 armor and x2 structure.)

As for the rest, I'd like to just point out that most every other MW game has had hit locations like what you see on MWO, with very similar armor values as well (each section having a certain amount of health). Other than that, your analogy and facts seem correct from what I can read. (I will admit, I only glanced through your long post. Sorry. But it all looked right to me.)

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

Many of the table top support mechanics simply do not translate to MWo.

We can't use to hit rolls

We can't use random hit locations

What can we do?

Changes to armor will only take us so far, then adjustments with convergence have some unknowns and issues overall it seems.

So as many have brought up, the best we can do for now is simply simulate hit rolls and random hit locations by reducing the upfront damage of ballistic weapons and PPCs.

I'd say test out keeping ballistics fully auto as they currently are, but reduce damage per shot, decrease cooldown, decrease heat, increase ammo per ton and reset ranges to BT values (could maybe even add min ranges).

Otherwise make ballistics and PPCs burst fire, where looking at the PPC, instead of one hit for 10 damage within 540 m, have two separate hits at 5 damage each within 540 m for example.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 23 December 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

If you say so. But all I see are Streaks, PPCs, Autocannons in high level play. SRMs are non-existent due to hit registration issues and low damage. LRMs are non-existent due to ECM brokeness. Lasers, with the exception of medium and large lasers, are again almost non-existent. The weapon are very poorly balanced if you ask me.

Worst yet it is the complete lack of items to effect the metagame. Why dont we have blue shield, reflective armor, ablative armor, etc...? items which exist to counter specific weapons and would allow the game to slowly evolve out of slumps where one weapon is completely dominant. Instead were stuck in a pit where autocannons and PPCs are better than everything else, and theres nothing we can do about it, except wait till PGI patches it.

This is how a healthy metagame would look:

1) PPCs are dominant
2) Players respond to PPC dominance by using blue shield
3) PPCs stop being the dominant weapon, another weapon becomes dominant instead
4) Players stop using blue shield because no one is using PPCs anymore
5) Player start using PPCs again and the cycle renews

Thats how PGI should balance weapons. Because its what battletech did to prevent boating from dominating. Instead of trying to balance every single weapon they should just give us the canon equipment which counters those weapons and let the metagame take its course.

Some of this tech is not invented at this time in the story (time line). Never heard of "blue shield", but there was Reactive and Reflective armor that is invented way down the time line, like my Thunderhead LRMs I'd love to use. Reactive reduced ballistic damage and Reflective armor reduced energy damage by half, but doubled damage of their other partner for the most part.

We also have Stealth armor, Null Signature, X-Pulse, Plasma guns, etc that aren't going to be around for a long time by the time line set for MWO. We just got the clans invading, lets not push to the Fedcom civil war yet...

[Khobai]

Quote

Some of this tech is not invented at this time in the story

Yeah and IS mechs arnt supposed to be easily customizable either, but weve already broken away from canon, so im fine with tech existing a few years early. Especially if it improves the state of the game, which it would.

Blue shield was invented in 3051, its basically a shield that reduces PPC damage by half.

Edited by Khobai, 23 December 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[Fut]

Lykaon, on 23 December 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

What can we do?

Increase the number of hitboxes on each Mech, while reducing the sizes of these hitboxes.
The results will be targets that are an appropriate size for our pixel-perfect aiming capabilities.

This will mitigate the massive amounts of damage being done to people in multi-alpha attacks, because the ability to hit the exact same hitbox in quick secession will be very difficult.

[Tesunie]

Khobai, on 23 December 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Yeah and IS mechs arnt supposed to be easily customizable either, but weve already broke from canon, so im fine with tech existing a few years early. Especially if it improves the state of the game, which it would.

Blue shield was invented in 3051, its basically a shield that reduces PPC damage by half.

Actually, mechs could be customized in lore, however it was very expensive and could sometimes cause flaws in the mech that wasn't there before hand. Look up the Stalker, where it was having structural problems and techs ripped out an LRM system to reduce weight to save the mech from becoming scrap, or the many refits and alterations done to the Yen-lo-wang in it's long life, upgraded to an AC20, then upgraded to Endo steel, double strength fibers, FF, Heavy Gauss... then was altered AGAIN to have a shield and other changes... It was considered something that only the rich went with, as the techs had to work weeks or months on refitting a mech to a new custom. Very expensive. We don't see half the expense it should be in the game, as they want to encourage freedom of fun in the game. (Plus, MW has always permitted customizing of some sort for as long as I can recall, which was from MW2 and on.)

Ah... Blue Shield. Never used in any books I read, which was why I didn't know about it (Love the BT wiki!). Apparently it wasn't used much at all in lore? Then again, we also don't have MASC in the game yet... and isn't the year 3050? I keep forgetting what year it is now in the game...

Personally, if we want to talk about dream equipment we'd love to see in the game, I'd love to have a LAM unit. That sounds like it'd be fun... if I don't blast myself out of bounds with it of course...


What I'm trying to say is, I agree with some of what you say. I wouldn't mind some of these advanced tech in the game, however, I can see some thinking would need to be done on PGI's end to figure out how to exactly implement it in game, how much will it cost, etc.

[Ghogiel]

Haji1096, on 23 December 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

With regards to bad hit detection,

Why would it effect only SRMS ? If hit detection is bad for SRMs, then it should be bad for LRMs and the LBX. All weapons consist of multiple projectiles spread over an area.

Maybe we are only noticing it because you fire LRMs from further away...same with the LBX. We expect LRMS to do less damage because of range, cover, enemy having AMS. Could it be masking hit detection problems for LRMS ?

IMHO, Ballistics are the only weapons that are working correctly. Energy Weapons are borked by ghost heat and missles don't reliably hit.

iirc it's to do with the HSR implementation on SRMs that make them have inconsistent hit detection. I can't remember how much they fixed on that part of missiles HSR but I remember it being an acknowledged issue for months and still seems to be the case. Making it still ping relative>visual discrepancy between what you are aiming at and what you will hit. Low ping players probably have less issues with them.

The hit detection on LRMs and SSRMs is ok because they track and lock on. It never matters about you aiming or ping as the visual representation and lag won't affect the software tracking the target for you.

However there still also known hit detection errors lashed on top of all weapons fire so nothing is without problems, just SRMs have their particular problem atm.

[Noth]

Khobai, on 23 December 2013 - 11:41 AM, said:

If you say so. But all I see are Streaks, PPCs, Autocannons in high level play.

The higher the level of play you play in the less weapons you will see. It is the simple nature of competitive play. People will always gravitate towards what is considered better. When ACs get nerfed, it will be something else that you see more often. At mid levels of play you see far more variety than any other time in this game's life.

[Khobai]

Quote

Actually, mechs could be customized in lore

Not really. The majority of house units and merc companies didnt have access to the facilities or resources to customize their mechs. You basically had to pilot what was given to you.

[Malzel]

Skimmed the thread, same old arguments.

Large lasers weigh 5 tons and deal 9 damage in a "stream". Turn ACs and PPCs into "stream" weapons, and a PPC would suddenly become a 7-ton Large Laser with more heat. An AC/10 suddenly becomes a 12-ton large laser that requires ammo. An AC/20 weighs 14 tons to deal 20 damage, but two large lasers would weigh 10 tons and deal 18 damage at nearly twice the range. Not to mention the PPC and ACs have to lead their targets. LLs are instant-hit weapons.

If you turn ACs and PPCs into burst fire or "stream" weapons, you simply invalidate them. The game would become the "Large Laser meta", and no other weapon could compete, because the LL is pretty efficient all-around. Even if you argue that they will be better than LLs because their "stream" or "burst" will still be shorter in duration, you're just turning them into pulse lasers, and we already know how useful those are. (Not useful)

Someone else already said that competitive play always distills any game down to the "best" two or three weapons. Precision weapons always rule over spray-and-pray options, so stop trying to "fix" what isn't broken and has existed in every shooter ever. At least our precision weapons come with disadvantages like PPCs' high heat and AC's high tonnage. In most shooters, getting the "best" weapon is just a matter of standing over it and holding "X".

Edited by Malzel, 23 December 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[DeadlyFred]

Rhent, on 22 December 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Or, now just hear me out, OR, you change AC and PPC to do streaming damage just like lasers. All of a sudden you no longer need to worry about front loaded damage and poptarts and hill cresting is no longer an effect tactic. Lasers, even with ghost heat becomes more competitive. Everyone is now forced to aim and expose themselves when they are dealing damage.

Which completely defeats the purpose of having different types of weapons.

[Kaijin]

Khobai, on 23 December 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Not really. The majority of house units and merc companies didnt have access to the facilities or resources to customize their mechs. You basically had to pilot what was given to you.

Which is why I had long advocated for stock mechs in CW, with limited customization available at higher ranks, and full customization only on Solaris. But since CW is vaporware, what we've got is Solaris, in all but name.

Edited by Kaijin, 23 December 2013 - 01:07 PM.

[Wildstreak]

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Why do we need thread #2349983750942 on ballistics? Why couldn't this have been posted in one of these?

Then it is time for a collected Feedback thread just like when ECM and MGs got one, Pinned to the top. AC + PPC Balance Feedback, Weapon Balance Feedback, whatever it should be called.

Rhent, on 22 December 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

Before ghost heat, the meta was a 4PPC stalker. The devs put in ghost heat to deal with pin point alphas. Now, the 4 PPC Stalker (40 damage pin point), was replaced with:
Misery: 2 PPC + AC/20
Highlander: 2 PPC + 2 AC/5
Jagger: 2 AC/40

AC/80 Jager?
Is it as deadly as the 6MG Locust & Spider?
Nothing personal, I take my humor where I find it even on accident.

Kin3ticX, on 22 December 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

They nerfed the 4 PPC meta and now we have the Autocannon/PPC meta. I dont think their is much they can do besides buff SRMs/Pulse/and LRMs.

There are options besides buffing other weapons.

Rhent, on 22 December 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Or, now just hear me out, OR, you change AC and PPC to do streaming damage just like lasers. All of a sudden you no longer need to worry about front loaded damage and poptarts and hill cresting is no longer an effect tactic. Lasers, even with ghost heat becomes more competitive. Everyone is now forced to aim and expose themselves when they are dealing damage.

ACs should do streaming damage, they were made to fire multiple shots over a period of time to do their damage thus should get splash effects just like Lasers. ACs should be firing like MGs with greater range and different damage & heat values minus the cone of fire.

PPCs would either need the Gauss charging or a splash similar to LBX. I think there was a past MW game that treated them that way, hitting for a localized splash effect due to the charge spreading across nearby areas of the hit.

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

OR you leave it where it is because it's balanced now

You're funny considering PPCs and ACs are ALWAYS mentioned as the go-to weapons for the high end games I keep reading about.

Sandpit, on 22 December 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

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.

I have been in the same position, doing better with Energy + Missile more than PPC & Ballistic. However, while my personal preference is one thing, that does not mean I discount the other.

I have recently made an Awesome-8Q with 2x PPC & 2x LPL, since using it to improve PPC fire, I have noticed a strange ability to really hurt and scare people just with 2x PPC compared to other Mechs I ran. Why does 2x PPC intimidate people so much and is more effective than past builds I ran?

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.

False argument, that is like saying all Lasers are worthless because they do not do frontloaded damage. If that is what you are saying, then you are admitting ACs are stronger than Lasers thus making the point of imbalance.

[Rebas Kradd]

You'd be amazed at what not standing still can do for your chances vs PPC/ballistics.