1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 24 December 2013 - 01:50 PM, said:

What do you think all those matches have been?.... unless you are talking about training grounds, which is a horrible gauge of a weapon. About the only thing that is good for it testing your trigger button - yup, it works...

Usually I go to the back of a map with a friend as long as its large enough, find some cover to fight around and me and him will go back and forth trading blows, and fighting each other in as many ways as we possibly can conceieve to find the strengths and weaknesses of builds. But thats me.

Numbers lie, especially dps based numbers in a non dps system.

Personal Experience and familiarity with a weapon does not.

Edited by Varent, 24 December 2013 - 01:59 PM.

[Sandpit]

http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/
http://mwomercs.com/...w-with-weapons/
http://mwomercs.com/...rs-misslewaste/
http://mwomercs.com/...weapon-balance/
http://mwomercs.com/...r-jumpjet-ppcs/
http://mwomercs.com/...27-gauss-rifle/
http://mwomercs.com/...-of-ac-weapons/
http://mwomercs.com/...vs-ecm-balance/
http://mwomercs.com/...-jump-ppc-jump/

That's without even doing a search, just looking at the front page

If you want all the thoughts on ballistics well here they are. Feel free to argue across a dozen threads.

[Lyoto Machida]

Praetor Shepard, on 24 December 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

I don't remember my engine off hand, but I have 2 ALRM15 in the arms, 2 ALRM 10 in torso, TAG, BAP, LPL and ML with Endo and a mix of DHS and ammo, maybe ~1000 missiles?

I use the arms Launchers when I have direct LOS, they can get caught up on terrain.

The 10s clear very well, and can be chained to have opponents seek cover too. Due to slots and tonnage, I just stuck whatever I could in the energy slots.

Almost the same build except I run 3 MLs instead of the LPL/ML and the 360 for speed (75.5 kph aint too shabby for an LRM boat assault). I only have a backup 2 button mouse right now so I use the LRMs on button 1 and TAG on button 2. Keyboard key 3 for MLs and I switch between chainfire and alpha on the LRMs depending on heat, distance, size of mech and situation. Pretty similar builds we run in any case.

[Lykaon]

Tesunie, on 23 December 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

I, too, played from MW2 and on. I played MW3 and 4 online a little bit. Let me say, MWO is much better than MW4(online). It got a little tiresome having no heat and no ammo all the time. It also got tiresome having people snipe your head as soon as it popped over a ridge and you weren't even on their sensors yet (aimbot). Also having to shoot 3-4x the damage at someone just to get their armor to turn yellow was annoying (invincibility hack). Nothing by assaults (Novacat) with 4-6 large lasers with no heat... (Me and my brother where exceptions. We ran Shadowcats with AC20s, heatsinks and ammo, and did well for the most part still.)

The other MW titles had additional problems that MWO doesn't have. However, some problems inherent to a game of this style will probably always be a problem. Individual hit locations is what makes this game different from just any other shooter game. It's a BT thing, and thus also a BT problem.

As for MW3-4 and their hard point system, I can say I'm not the only one who hated that system. I'm happy PGI didn't place it into this game. Couldn't make half the mech customs that you should have been able to make in those games.

However, despite the nostalgia of this talk, knowing this still doesn't overly help this conversation. We can make comparisons between the titles but it isn't talking about MWO. There are a lot of differences between MW4 and MWO, and MWO can't be made like MW4. Microsoft said no to that. There is a reason this game runs off Cryengine and not the old MW programing that was already in existence.

I think once HSR and HR are corrected that many of our problems will probably diminish with weapons and their balance. Fix this and then we can get a more clear image of what might be wrong. Of course, this is my opinion.

Well A+ for missing context

The quoted posting was in reply to someone else mentioning that previous Mechwarrior titles used similar armor mechanics.

My reply was to make the statement that those titles also had the same issues with pinpoint alpha strikes breaking the armor mechanics.

Now how this relates to MWo is these developers (PGI) did what those developers (microsoft/Activision) did and it's still broken as it was then with the added "bonus" of advances in technology reducing latency issues and by doing so increasing the problems with MWo.

And in your closing statements you say further improving the lag compensating technology would be an improvement.

And improvement like how gasoline improves fire?

What we need is a solid foundation to build weapon balance on.Until further support mechanics are considered and implimented any weapon that frontloads pinpoint damage will be superior always!

I really feel the solution is in devising supporting mechanics to improve the armor system's functionality is the answer.

The question in my mind is what supporting mechanics?

All I know now is what mechanics I don't think are suitable ones like random hit locations or cones of fire remove player skill at aiming from the equation and also remove rewarding skill with results.So those I don't feel are on track.

[Tesunie]

Lykaon, on 24 December 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Well A+ for missing context

For the record, I was mostly agreeing with you. But I think some of this is just going to always be a part of any computer version of Battletech. It's just kinda an inherent flaw. But, in relation to weapons and their balance, I think once hit registry is corrected and working properly, SRMs will become viable, ticks from a laser beam will no longer disappear (making them more viable) and ACs really wont be overly effected from my experience (I'm sure someone can disagree with me here).

Overall, once HSR and HR become fixed, it should help bring all the weapons into better alignment with one another. However, that will also improve the pin point damage as well, making the component destruction more likely. Though, being able to destroy (and remove weapons) has always been an option in MW (and BT).

I feel that, though some tweaking can be done to the weapons, once HSR and HR are fixed most weapons wont need any more changes, and they should feel better in line. They will still require skill to use on each end. I think that, if any weapon changes are to be made, making laser beam durations shorter would be the better option. However, to play right into your own statement about being able to target accurately a single component too easily, I still feel one of the best options would be to just slow down convergence so it doesn't happen so quickly.

By slowing down convergence, it will still require skill to shoot in the game (you now need to keep the reticule till all weapons are converged), which would "hinder" AC direct burst damage. Lasers could gain a bit of ground here, as they could be fired before full convergence, and they would hone in the longer your reticule is on target. The slower convergence would also help spread "snap shots" damage around more, making it hit unintended components if one doesn't shoot with skill. (I would advise that the reticule would change to a gold color when convergence is good.)

All I think we could use is to slow convergence so it takes 0.15-0.25 seconds to gain convergence. This would solve several problems in the game, including some of the "wonky" arm shots I've seen from my Dragon (and some other mechs) where it instantly converges somewhere else just before I fire, or just as I pull the trigger (I hope you know what I mean). It would also make jump shooting even more difficult, something that has come up several times in this thread from my understanding.

Though I wouldn't mind trying out a streaming AC (would have to have a very fast bullet release), I don't think it would solve any problems we are currently seeing in the game. It would make everything almost laser like then. I want to say I do understand the concept behind the thought, I just don't think that it would solve the problem. Concept is good. Implementation in the real game I think would be poor (as in, I don't think it would work well even though it seems great in the head or on paper).

[YueFei]

Pin-point damage isn't so bad if defensive piloting can protect wounded parts of your mech. Some mechs have hitboxes that make sense, like the Victor, and those things are so damn tough to kill even in this environment of pin-point damage. Other mechs have crappy hitboxes and die super fast.

They just need to follow Carrioncrow's suggestion. Make arms and legs take up more of the mech's geometry. Skinny CTs. Then you'll see mechs getting arms and legs ripped off of them, and shoulders getting torn off, before dying, if the pilot moves defensively.

If a pilot just sits there taking it he deserves to die quickly.

[Lightfoot]

That's the way the different weapons work and you want varience in area damage and point damage for game depth. You don't want all weapons just spewing applesauce with a different graphic applied.

The problem with MWO is that in an interactive game the Mechs need higher armor in the areas players shoot at than they do in a table top board game version controlled by 6-sided dice. Well, duh! Don't expect anything to change though.

[Lyoto Machida]

Tesunie, on 24 December 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

For the record, I was mostly agreeing with you. But I think some of this is just going to always be a part of any computer version of Battletech. It's just kinda an inherent flaw. But, in relation to weapons and their balance, I think once hit registry is corrected and working properly, SRMs will become viable, ticks from a laser beam will no longer disappear (making them more viable) and ACs really wont be overly effected from my experience (I'm sure someone can disagree with me here).

Overall, once HSR and HR become fixed, it should help bring all the weapons into better alignment with one another. However, that will also improve the pin point damage as well, making the component destruction more likely. Though, being able to destroy (and remove weapons) has always been an option in MW (and BT).

I feel that, though some tweaking can be done to the weapons, once HSR and HR are fixed most weapons wont need any more changes, and they should feel better in line. They will still require skill to use on each end. I think that, if any weapon changes are to be made, making laser beam durations shorter would be the better option. However, to play right into your own statement about being able to target accurately a single component too easily, I still feel one of the best options would be to just slow down convergence so it doesn't happen so quickly.

By slowing down convergence, it will still require skill to shoot in the game (you now need to keep the reticule till all weapons are converged), which would "hinder" AC direct burst damage. Lasers could gain a bit of ground here, as they could be fired before full convergence, and they would hone in the longer your reticule is on target. The slower convergence would also help spread "snap shots" damage around more, making it hit unintended components if one doesn't shoot with skill. (I would advise that the reticule would change to a gold color when convergence is good.)

All I think we could use is to slow convergence so it takes 0.15-0.25 seconds to gain convergence. This would solve several problems in the game, including some of the "wonky" arm shots I've seen from my Dragon (and some other mechs) where it instantly converges somewhere else just before I fire, or just as I pull the trigger (I hope you know what I mean). It would also make jump shooting even more difficult, something that has come up several times in this thread from my understanding.

Though I wouldn't mind trying out a streaming AC (would have to have a very fast bullet release), I don't think it would solve any problems we are currently seeing in the game. It would make everything almost laser like then. I want to say I do understand the concept behind the thought, I just don't think that it would solve the problem. Concept is good. Implementation in the real game I think would be poor (as in, I don't think it would work well even though it seems great in the head or on paper).

The thing is...convergence wasn't always so pinpoint in closed beta. Somewhere along the way, the made it instantaneous...which also made one of the elite unlocks completely useless.

[Lykaon]

Tesunie, on 24 December 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

For the record, I was mostly agreeing with you. But I think some of this is just going to always be a part of any computer version of Battletech. It's just kinda an inherent flaw. But, in relation to weapons and their balance, I think once hit registry is corrected and working properly, SRMs will become viable, ticks from a laser beam will no longer disappear (making them more viable) and ACs really wont be overly effected from my experience (I'm sure someone can disagree with me here).

Overall, once HSR and HR become fixed, it should help bring all the weapons into better alignment with one another. However, that will also improve the pin point damage as well, making the component destruction more likely. Though, being able to destroy (and remove weapons) has always been an option in MW (and BT).

I feel that, though some tweaking can be done to the weapons, once HSR and HR are fixed most weapons wont need any more changes, and they should feel better in line. They will still require skill to use on each end. I think that, if any weapon changes are to be made, making laser beam durations shorter would be the better option. However, to play right into your own statement about being able to target accurately a single component too easily, I still feel one of the best options would be to just slow down convergence so it doesn't happen so quickly.

By slowing down convergence, it will still require skill to shoot in the game (you now need to keep the reticule till all weapons are converged), which would "hinder" AC direct burst damage. Lasers could gain a bit of ground here, as they could be fired before full convergence, and they would hone in the longer your reticule is on target. The slower convergence would also help spread "snap shots" damage around more, making it hit unintended components if one doesn't shoot with skill. (I would advise that the reticule would change to a gold color when convergence is good.)

All I think we could use is to slow convergence so it takes 0.15-0.25 seconds to gain convergence. This would solve several problems in the game, including some of the "wonky" arm shots I've seen from my Dragon (and some other mechs) where it instantly converges somewhere else just before I fire, or just as I pull the trigger (I hope you know what I mean). It would also make jump shooting even more difficult, something that has come up several times in this thread from my understanding.

Though I wouldn't mind trying out a streaming AC (would have to have a very fast bullet release), I don't think it would solve any problems we are currently seeing in the game. It would make everything almost laser like then. I want to say I do understand the concept behind the thought, I just don't think that it would solve the problem. Concept is good. Implementation in the real game I think would be poor (as in, I don't think it would work well even though it seems great in the head or on paper).

I apologize if I came off overly snarky My intended "tone" was light hearted.


I do understand that you were saying improvements to HSR would increase weapon accuracy and bring in line other weapons but,my concern is what we will have is front loaded pinpoint damage as tops and dispersed damage being effective yet not as good as front loaded and all the while mechs will "enjoy" even shorter life spans .

I suppose my point is the line the weapons would be brought up to is the problem.Front loading damage weapons are too good now and the closer other weapon come to that line the worse off the game will be.

I don't really care for playing some COD reskin with robots where you die in seconds and respawn to die in seconds again and again.

I want that "thinking man's shooter" they sold me on back in 2012 when I first entered beta.There is no time to formulate any thought if all you are really doing is lining up your next 40 point alpha or hiding under a rock until you can shoot off your load in reply to someone else's 40 point alpha.

Role warfare? can't happen if there are mechs capable of crippling a mech under 60 tons in a single salvo.The roles are massive alpha striker or food. Again not much room for thought,will I be an effective damage dealer or a less effective target?

The upcoming weight limits for matches...

Do you think that in organized play we will not be seeing teams composed of lights and assaults with poptart heavies as filler.
Do you not think that puggies will not be bitching on the forums in droves because they can't get into matches in their assault mechs.

Ultimatley weight limited drops will create 3 classes of mech.

1) lights with enough speed to use evasion instead of armor.Thus less vulnerable to alphas.
2) Alpha strikers like highlanders we see now.
3) food.


Slowed convergence as you described would reduce the poptarting but retain the alpha boating.It will always be better to wait .25 seconds to stick 40 damage into a CT than wait .25 seconds to hose the target all over with lasers and SRMs.If anything slowed convergence would return the gaussboat to the top predators list since you will be waiting for convergence while the gauss charges.

I am in agreement with the concept of "streaming ACs" as I don't think that shoe horning weapons to emulate the least effective weapons is a direction we should be looking to balance.Who wants to have all our guns "balanced" to suck equally?

[Lykaon]

Lightfoot, on 24 December 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

That's the way the different weapons work and you want varience in area damage and point damage for game depth. You don't want all weapons just spewing applesauce with a different graphic applied.

The problem with MWO is that in an interactive game the Mechs need higher armor in the areas players shoot at than they do in a table top board game version controlled by 6-sided dice. Well, duh! Don't expect anything to change though.

I was not thinking about just slapping on armor until mechs need more and more 40 point alphas to kill them.This idea could lead to problems with high evasion mechs that use mobility as defense and armor more for wiggle room to absorb the occational failure to dodge.

We do not need light mechs with 80 armor on legs running around laughing off 4 AC20 hits.

Although maybe moving from 2X table top values to 2.5 would help bring in line weapon rate of fire compared to armor absorbtion capability.Not all that important since there is not a direct translation in mechanics but, Table top uses ten second turns where each weapon may be fired once.MWo has many weapons firing 2.5 times in ten seconds.


What I was thinking was vastly increasing internal structure values and component hit points while also adding in more structural components to be damaged when armor is breached.

Shifting the dynamic away from armor as our first and last line of defense over to armor provides defense from degraded performance from internal damage.

What we have now is mechs take armor damage until armor is depleted followed by significantly less damage to outright destroy the internal structure and usually kill the mech.

What I propose is mechs take armor damage until internal components are exposed to damage.Subsequent hits taken to an unarmored location result in random component damage that degrades the mech's performance.Once all structure is destroyed that body location is also destroyed.By increasing the hitpoints of components and structure the mech can soak more damage before being destroyed but valuable components are destroyed reducing combat effectivness.

The situation we have now is a player rounds a bend and is hit by three enemy mechs,all three are of course built to frontload so his mech is cored in .5 seconds or so badly crippled with damage a stiff breeze will kill him.Not much fun not very tactical since all the thought went to how to build a frontloading damage mech and press fire once or twice.
If things keep going this way eventually most games will be decided by who rounds the bend and who gets to pull the trigger or,a coin toss.

Now with increased internals and randomly hit components the round the bend situation plays out like this.

Round the bend take a CT hit striping armor,a second CT hit removes the remaining armor and deals it's damage that is in excess of the remaining armor distributed 50/50 to structure and a random component.This time we lost a heatsink.Third alpha strike hits zero armor so it's all damage distributed 50/50 structure and a random component this next shot hits and damages a gyro.now when moving the reticules wiggle (like jumpwobble) BUT...the mech isn't destroyed and we get out of the death trap and fall into a rear support possition since our mech's engine and gyro are hanging out in the breeze.

Aiming still matters and all the damage is meaningful but mech survival duration is exstended long enough to correct a bad choice or bad luck.This leaves some time to devise a plan of action you know ...think about the battle some.

[anonymous161]

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

Again, as always, my energy boats would disagree.

I too mostly use energy weapons. I try to use a ac20 or 10 if possible but ive had great success with er larl lasers.

[Sandpit]

Darth Bane001, on 24 December 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

I too mostly use energy weapons. I try to use a ac20 or 10 if possible but ive had great success with er larl lasers.

If you know how to use them and realize they aren't going to out brawl and go toe to toe with dedicated brawlers at short range, they're VERY effective. A teammate and I ran a stalker and bmaster with 12 LLs between our two mechs. We coordinated and focused on one target together. The other team never stood a chance. We had 8 kills just between the two of us and that was everything from Atlas to AC40 Jagers.
They do just as much pinpoint damage if you know what you're doing. They're also more accurate because even if you're aim is off when you fire you can walk the beam in. You can also rack up easy assists. If you round a corner and there's 5 mechs clumped together, just rake those beams across all 5 and that's 5 easy potential assists.

[Wildstreak]

Bhael Fire, on 23 December 2013 - 02:49 PM, said:

No, that's not at all what it's like saying. You are not quite grasping what I am saying. ACs weigh more, take up more crit space and have limited ammo. Why would anyone take an AC if it behaved exactly like a laser?

They would need to lower the weight and crit space stats and increase ammo if they removed frontloaded damage on ACs...And even then, ACs would lose much of their flavor.

Right now, lasers and ACs are balanced fairly decently for two different styles of play.

Completely false. I have no idea what is being used to balance Autocannon and Lasers other than comparison by damage value (AC/2 va Small Laser, AC/5 vs Medium Laser, AC/10 vs Large Laser) and that comparison does not work. It leads to false conclusions.

Autocannon also have a range advantage over Lasers. Going from longest MWO range to shortest skipping Max Range:
AC/2 720m
ERLL 675m
AC/5 620m
LL 450m
AC/10 450m
ML 270m
AC/20 270m
SL 90m

A LL hits for near the same damage as an AC/10 but the LL generates more heat and has a longer cooldown, this allows the AC/10 to be fired more often so it generates MORE damage within the same range. Thus the AC/10 gets crit, weight and ammo penalties. Within a 7.5 second period, the AC/10 shoots 3 times for less heat and more damage where the LL shoots twice for less damage and more heat even factoring in dissipation. Add in the AC does frontloaded damage all to one spot with each shot, the Laser splashes.

An AC/20 hits like 4 MLs but only for about the same heat as 1! That is a big advantage, then factor in the cooldown being nearly the same, hell yes it needs crit, weight and ammo penalties. Again the AC hits one spot for everything, the lasers splash.

Ac/2s and AC/5s had no comparison before ERLL. Even with the extended range, over time due to cooldown and heat the light Autocannons can be fired more often yet the longest range lasers that come close STILL have crit penalties (1 crit space for AC/2 and 5 vs 2 for ERLL) along with heat and constant fire problems.

Basically it comes down to this.

Put two Mechs at range. Give one an AC, the other 1 or more Lasers of similar range. Who does more DoT whether they stay at range or close? The AC player thus he gets crit, weight and ammo penalties because he has heat and cooldown benefits allowing a third benefit, more DoT as they close range together.

3 penalties for 3 benefits.

Now MWO gives frontloaded damage? That is a benefit NOT needed. And some people wonder why ACs are a go to weapon? This is on top of those who complain ACs need a buff, yeah, OK, and I have a secret MWO tactical nuke. You overstate AC penalties.

Galenit, on 23 December 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Thats why i promote 2x range and only 1/2 tt ammo for them.
They will still be the pinpoint high damage weapons they are now, but for burstdamage and not at all ranges.
You have to make your shoots count!

ACs do not need a range increase.

Bhael Fire, on 23 December 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

have limited ammo (that can explode),

Please stop mentioning ammo explosions because we all know it is a meaningless, irrelevant point for 2 reasons.

Ammo in legs - lots pf players do this since most Mechs tend not to get legged so there is less risk of ammo explosions. There was at least one topic on this a while back where a few players advocated legging people to cause ammo explosions, despite the valid argument there is not much legging going on unless it is certain Lights.

CASE - if you do not put ammo in legs, then you run a CASE, it is only half a ton and not that big of a deal.

Those two items reduce the ammo explosion point to pretty much nothing.

Haji1096, on 23 December 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

This meta is stale, but I don't like the idea of changing ACs and PPCs to DoT weapons.

ACs are already DoT weapons, so is every other weapon thanks to cooldown.

Sandpit, on 23 December 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Ammo is OP

Command Console is the most OP thing in game.

[Sandpit]

Merchant, on 25 December 2013 - 12:04 PM, said:

A LL hits for near the same damage as an AC/10 but the LL generates more heat and has a longer cooldown, this allows the AC/10 to be fired more often so it generates MORE damage within the same range. Thus the AC/10 gets crit, weight and ammo penalties. Within a 7.5 second period, the AC/10 shoots 3 times for less heat and more damage where the LL shoots twice for less damage and more heat even factoring in dissipation. Add in the AC does frontloaded damage all to one spot with each shot, the Laser splashes.

Lasers do not do splash damage. They do pinpoint. damage, they just have a longer duration. You don't hit a LT with a laser and get "splash" damage in other areas.
You're also discounting that for the cost of an AC10 and ammo in terms of crits and tonnage you can drop in heatsinks to offset the heat of the laser as well as get more than one laser. 2 LLs are the same weight and less crit spce than an AC10. Now for every tone of ammo for the AC you drop in a DHS or SHS to compensate for the heat. That's a trade-off. You can have two weapon firing off in chain fire that increases the rate of fire.

[Sandpit]

f you notice? In all of the "op, broken, up, etc." threads? It's the same 20 or so players posting the same exact posts over and over and over and over again, with a few new players here and there once in a while giving their opinions.

PGI, please just know that not everyone (and judging by just about every single poll these players posting this kinda stuff have ever posted) agrees that the isn't balanced

Lasers = good place right now
ballistics = good place right now
heat = good place right now
SRMs = could use a look at hit registration

The game, overall, is very well-balanced at the moment. Please do not continue implementing easy buttons for those that simply cannot or will not adjust. Those of us that actually look for a challenging game appreciate where the game is now.

[Noesis]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

Lasers do not do splash damage. They do pinpoint. damage, they just have a longer duration. You don't hit a LT with a laser and get "splash" damage in other areas.
You're also discounting that for the cost of an AC10 and ammo in terms of crits and tonnage you can drop in heatsinks to offset the heat of the laser as well as get more than one laser. 2 LLs are the same weight and less crit spce than an AC10. Now for every tone of ammo for the AC you drop in a DHS or SHS to compensate for the heat. That's a trade-off. You can have two weapon firing off in chain fire that increases the rate of fire.

Yet an AC10 will do pinpoint damage at the value of 10 to the point it impacted. A LL will likely spread this damage over a Mech especially with any relative translational movement and/or speed to effectively reduce this damage. This due to the beam effect that then has the potential to spread this damage over numerous hit boxes also. The net effect being that the LL could only be doing 50% damage spread over a Mech in some cases. This very much that you cannot expect every encounter to be both you and your target standing still with free aim (especially with out ranging ballistic shake also).

5 damage spread over hit boxes as opposed to 10 pinpoint does not seem in any way as effective to me.

Same applies for the ML and other lasers.

When you then consider that the likes of medium Mech platforms have limited choice in weapon configurations and tonnage, are over sized and need speed to be able to apply any effective tactical use, it simply compounds problems for these roles. Yet if they had more maneuverability (remove some engine restrictions) where not over sized (thus easily hit and in crucial pinpoint locations) there would be more opportunity to this game play style being a faster insurgent counter to snipers.

Lasers have heat balance, Ballistics have tonnage. They both have their own balancing characteristics, yet overall the applied effectiveness we see for lasers is much worse than ballistics and is certainly not pinpoint all the time.

With SRMs being fubbared and ML an issue as above it also limits some brawler configs to be as effective when they get into range, remembering of course that they need to do this under dominant sniper suppression in the first place with pinpoint damage attrition to prevent this game play somewhat.

This is why we see the current dominant Meta with sniper ballistics and yet people still want to argue against the idea of at least allowing opportunity in other game play styles.

Tactics is not a valid argument either, since all things being equal, snipers can still use good tactics also.

We will continue to play Mech Sniper Online until balance is restored to encourage other game play styles, but the catch being not generating FOTM like the current game play we have with direct fire support sniping with ballistics.

Lets see some subtle changes to restore confidence in the short game at least, which doesn't need to be a nerf for ballistics (though pinpoint could be helped with burst mechanics). Heat, beam timings and other balancing characteristics like Medium Mech sizes as well as fixing SRMs could all be used to help afford other game play options in such a way to help encourage game play diversity.

Edited by Noesis, 25 December 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 25 December 2013 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yet an AC10 will do pinpoint damage at the value of 10 to the point it impacted. A LL will likely spread this damage

And yet you never stop to acknowledge ot accept that the people arguing against your other "testing methods" like the balance where it's at now. It couldn't possibly be that simple right?

Also, if an LL does what you claim and only does 50% damage to one point then what I say about mouting 2LLs as opposed to one AC10 has even more advantage. Not ONLY are you doing 100% of the AC10 on one point but now you're also doing 100% damage to otehr areas as well. So you trade off 8 points (2LLS) in one location for another 8 into another location as opposed to 10 damage in one location and done.
That's using your example of 50% while ignoring that you can mount to LLs btw.

[Noesis]

There is contra evidence supporting this, not only with pretty graphs and science but the actual empirical evidence of the predominant game play observed in matches.

Otherwise are you stating that a LL will in all cases do an instant 10 damage if in range to the first hit box location it hits and that these beam mechanics PGI uses has in no way any value in helping to curb their effectiveness as a result?

[Sandpit]

Noesis, on 25 December 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

There is contra evidence supporting this, not only with pretty graphs and science but the actual empirical evidence of the predominant game play observed in matches.

Otherwise are you stating that a LL will in all cases do an instant 10 damage if in range to the first hit box location it hits and that these beam mechanics PGI uses has in no way any value in helping to curb their effectiveness as a result?

Read above statements. I'm tired of repeating myself in 20 different threads. Feel free to look at my constructive posts in one of the other 20 threads on this same topic.

[Joseph Mallan]

The Flaw with the weapons is that they are to weak!