1080 replies to this topic

[Noth]

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think we should have both versions for energy weapons... .beam and ultra short .1 s burst.

And lasers instantly become the absolute best weapon in the game. Laser are hitscan, have no travel time. Making them such a short burst would make them exactly what PGI wanted to avoid (hitscan burst damage)

[Cimarb]

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I think we should have both versions for energy weapons... .beam and ultra short .1 s burst. same for auto cannons.

Then let players use what they like. the lore supports this.... my atlas uses the uberwhack ac-20, it fires a single shell for max pinpoint damage......well my ac-20 avenger will spit out 2000 .01 damage projectiles in a single burst. same damage one is focused the other spread..... all is happy in the world with minimal dev time on PGI's part.

0.1s is pretty short and I don't think it would make a difference. 0.5 is much more feasible as a fix, as it is half-way between the instant ballistic and 1-second laser we currently have. It is long enough for torso twisting and movement to factor in, but short enough to put a good portion of the damage where you want it.

Now, I don't have a problem with giving options, as long as they are balanced. According to Sarna, which I realize isn't the only source, they state "the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each 'round' or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are the 185mm ChemJet Gun Autocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle...or the 203mm Ultra Autocannon/20 mounted on the Cauldron Born". Further, "An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per 'round' while the ChemJet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell."

Using those descriptions: If the Crusher does 10 shells per burst at 150mm for 20 damage total (2 damage per shell), having the ChemJet do 5 shells for 4 damage per shell is already doing twice the damage per shell with only a 23% larger shell size. Upping it to 10 damage per shell by firing only two rounds per burst is getting 250% damage out of a 23% larger shell, which is crazy, and a single shot version would be getting a 500% increase in damage for that same size difference - that is an amazingly efficient 35mm increase! Regardless of sense, I think having it do 2 shells, or even more preferably 5, per burst is well within reason. Make that burst of 2/5 shells happen in 0.5 seconds, or just split the duration 2/5 ways, and I think it would be much more in line with how it should be.

Also, according to what I just read, autocannons are not based upon the size of the shell, but the amount of damage over any given time period. That should mean that an AC2 does 2 damage in the time that an AC20 does 20 damage, with 5/10 falling in respectively, and an AC2 should never out dps any of the others. PGI is definitely doing autocannons wrong, that's for sure!

Noth, on 27 December 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

And lasers instantly become the absolute best weapon in the game. Laser are hitscan, have no travel time. Making them such a short burst would make them exactly what PGI wanted to avoid (hitscan burst damage)

Exactly - that is too quick of a duration. I think 0.5 for both systems would work best, but see above.

[Tombstoner]

Cimarb, on 27 December 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

0.1s is pretty short and I don't think it would make a difference. 0.5 is much more feasible as a fix, as it is half-way between the instant ballistic and 1-second laser we currently have. It is long enough for torso twisting and movement to factor in, but short enough to put a good portion of the damage where you want it.

Now, I don't have a problem with giving options, as long as they are balanced. According to Sarna, which I realize isn't the only source, they state "the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each 'round' or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are the 185mm ChemJet Gun Autocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle...or the 203mm Ultra Autocannon/20 mounted on the Cauldron Born". Further, "An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per 'round' while the ChemJet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell."

Using those descriptions: If the Crusher does 10 shells per burst at 150mm for 20 damage total (2 damage per shell), having the ChemJet do 5 shells for 4 damage per shell is already doing twice the damage per shell with only a 23% larger shell size. Upping it to 10 damage per shell by firing only two rounds per burst is getting 250% damage out of a 23% larger shell, which is crazy, and a single shot version would be getting a 500% increase in damage for that same size difference - that is an amazingly efficient 35mm increase! Regardless of sense, I think having it do 2 shells, or even more preferably 5, per burst is well within reason. Make that burst of 2/5 shells happen in 0.5 seconds, or just split the duration 2/5 ways, and I think it would be much more in line with how it should be.

Also, according to what I just read, autocannons are not based upon the size of the shell, but the amount of damage over any given time period. That should mean that an AC2 does 2 damage in the time that an AC20 does 20 damage, with 5/10 falling in respectively, and an AC2 should never out dps any of the others. PGI is definitely doing autocannons wrong, that's for sure!


Exactly - that is too quick of a duration. I think 0.5 for both systems would work best, but see above.

all a short duration pulse does is turn lasers into ppcs with different graphics. assuming ppcs dont do splash damage and if they do, splash is over all a dumb idea.

i like that you dug into the lore for concrete examples i was thinking along the lines of the avenger cannon from the a-10 warthog. its 20mm and could be considered 20 BT damage or a single 200mm tank round

Your right in thinking that smaller caliber rounds can do the same if nor more damage then larger caliber rounds. That was one design difference between US and German tanks in WWII. tiger tanks was awesome for it time but its size being dominant on the battle filed gave production fits. Then the US just out produced Germany.

auto cannons are completely broken.
ac-2 got a 1926% damage buff relative to TT. the ac-20 got 250% and people think this is balanced.

over all the game needs new types of weapon for tuning. other wise its all front end loaded alpha strikes.
also i would make burst weapons fire as long as the trigger is pulled, same for pulse lasers. with damage and heat scaled for an equivalent duration as the beam version or single shot damage.

[Noth]

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

all a short duration pulse does is turn lasers into ppcs with different graphics. assuming ppcs dont do splash damage and if they do, splash is over all a dumb idea.

i like that you dug into the lore for concrete examples i was thinking along the lines of the avenger cannon from the a-10 warthog. its 20mm and could be considered 20 BT damage or a single 200mm tank round

Your right in thinking that smaller caliber rounds can do the same if nor more damage then larger caliber rounds. That was one design difference between US and German tanks in WWII. tiger tanks was awesome for it time but its size being dominant on the battle filed gave production fits. Then the US just out produced Germany.

auto cannons are completely broken.
ac-2 got a 1926% damage buff relative to TT. the ac-20 got 250% and people think this is balanced.

over all the game needs new types of weapon for tuning. other wise its all front end loaded alpha strikes.
also i would make burst weapons fire as long as the trigger is pulled, same for pulse lasers. with damage and heat scaled for an equivalent duration as the beam version or single shot damage.

No matter how you change it there will always be the best weapon type. It is as simple as that. All that happens is a changing of the meta and cries for the new meta to be nerfed.

Edited by Noth, 27 December 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Varent]

Noth, on 27 December 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

No matter how you change it there will always be the best weapon type. It is as simple as that. All that happens in a changing of the meta cries for the new meta to be nerfed.

Amen.

[Wildstreak]

Galenit, on 27 December 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Misunderstanding is the problem ...

Ballistics now have 3x tt-range, i want them to have 2x tt-range like lasers.
Thats a reduction of 1/3 of their maxrange, sometimes 2x can be a reduction.

Cimarb, on 27 December 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Merchant, you are confusing a couple terms.

Ballistics get a 3x range modifier compared to TT, while energy weapons only get a 2x range modifier. That means, all other things being equal, a ballistic weapon will do damage much farther than the equivalent energy weapon.

Well, that clarifies things though I have never honestly looked at Max Range compared to TT.

Should be mentioned whenever I play (don't know about anyone else), I have notice Energy users tend to usually avoid firing Lasers outside Range (not Max Range) except some ML fire while AC and PPC users will gladly fire all the way up to Max Range. Even ERLLs do not usually see firings up to their Max Range.

Cimarb, on 27 December 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Also, a DoT means you click the trigger once, and the attack does damage over time. When you pull the trigger with a laser, it does damage over a one second beam duration, meaning it is a DoT attack. An AC, on the other hand, is a DD (direct damage) attack that does all of its damage at the time the trigger is pulled. An LRM or LBX would be an AOE, in that it affects an area of damage. An AOE can be either DD or DoT, and some DoTs have a DD portion either front loaded or upon the last tick of the DoT, but that is getting too complicated for this discussion.

Oh, I know the difference. Not trolling, I am just more of a literate person than most and thus don't like the application of DoT since any weapon can be literally but I will not go on about it.

However using MMO terms from LotR where I first heard of it, DoT is like spells where they hit and do a small amount of random damage several times over a period of time. No weapon really does that even Lasers, they do Splash damage since the weapon fires and Splashes over different areas based on movement. Your description of Lasers as DoT is incorrect, that is more like a Burst beam spell that shoots in a direction, the target can dodge and thus only take partial damage.

An actual MWO DoT weapon would be the Man Portable Flamer that shoots a flaming jelly at the target. The jelly hits and goes on fire doing small amounts of damage to the area hit and heat over time.

Edited by Merchant, 27 December 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[Greyboots]

Noth, on 27 December 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

No matter how you change it there will always be the best weapon type. It is as simple as that. All that happens is a changing of the meta and cries for the new meta to be nerfed.

Although it could certainly be closer than it is currently.

Look, this isn't just all down to Pinpoint damage. There's a lot of silly things going on that shouldn't even be viable. We all know it. I prefer buffs to other weapons instead of nerfs to pinpoint weapons but in any case, as soon as ACs aren't so clearly in front there will be a river of tears.

Which is precisely why it's never going to happen.

Found a good way to show what's going on here:

My newest mechs:

• THUNDERBOLT TDR-5S 1.80 K/D 1.84 W/L 28 matches.
  
• THUNDERBOLT TDR-5SS 0.64 K/D 1.25 W/L 23 matches.
  
• THUNDERBOLT TDR-9SE 1.50 K/D 1.42 W/L 20 matches.

TDR 5S which I run with an AC5, AC2, and 3 x ML and a STD 260 engine.
The TDR 5SS I run with 2 x PPCs, 4 Medium Lasers, LRM 10, XL 280 engine (The XL is the reason it runs so poorly)
The TDR 9SE runs 1 ER Large, 3 Medium Lasers, 2 x LRM 5 and a STD 360 engine.

The 2 PPCs are going on the 5SS. This was my last attempt at a viable PPC build and they are now only worth pairing with Auto Cannons as far as I'm concerned.

But still; same player, basically the same 3 mechs vastly different outcomes. Just goes to show ya.

Edited by Greyboots, 27 December 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[Noth]

Greyboots, on 27 December 2013 - 03:37 PM, said:

Although it could certainly be closer than it is currently.

Look, this isn't just all down to Pinpoint damage. There's a lot of silly things going on that shouldn't even be viable. We all know it. I prefer buffs to other weapons instead of nerfs to pinpoint weapons but in any case, as soon as ACs aren't so clearly in front there will be a river of tears.

Which is precisely why it's never going to happen.

It's closer than it has ever been before. The only place you only see pinpoint damage only is in competitive play (and tryhards). Outside of that the variety is better than in any other MW game.

Edited by Noth, 27 December 2013 - 03:49 PM.

[Greyboots]

Cimarb, on 27 December 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Also, according to what I just read, autocannons are not based upon the size of the shell, but the amount of damage over any given time period. That should mean that an AC2 does 2 damage in the time that an AC20 does 20 damage, with 5/10 falling in respectively, and an AC2 should never out dps any of the others. PGI is definitely doing autocannons wrong, that's for sure!

"Wrong" is a little harsh. Would you pay 6 tons for a weapon doing 2 damage in the same time a 5 ton large laser can do 9? I certainly wouldn't. Changes had to be made from TT and anyone saying any different is just too much of a purist when reality dictates that change is needed.

Translations needed to be made on fronts like that.

The truth is that turn-based gameplay provided certain controlling factors that aren't present in an FPS style game. You wouldn't get a twin AC20 jager in the TT because there's no pinpoint damage. It all spreads everywhere. Secondly, there's little point in carrying 5 tons of AC-20 ammo. That's over 10 rounds of firing both ACs in a turn-limited game. Lastly, critical hits hurt things like Actuators and joints. Weapons were treated independantly and one AC20 with no damaged joints or actuators required a different "to hit" roll than one with damaged actuators and joints. Torso mounted weapons were highly desirable not because they were better protected but because they didn't suffer from damaged joints and actuators.

It was simply possible to have a mech with no "missing limbs" and still be 3 tenths of useless anyway. Engine hits generated extra hits, gyro hits required piloting skill rolls. A target standing in woods required a higher "to hit" roll. There came a point where you sort of had to stay still to actually hit anything with more than one of your weapons.

MWO is a brain-dead shooter in comparison. Not because it's a bad product but because translations had to be made to turn a TT game into a viable shooter.

All this "but in the TT" stuff is, essentially, empty rhetoric. It needs to be enough like BT/MW to be recognizable but after that? a fun and functional game should matter more.

Which is not to say ACs are "fine", they aren't, but it needs to be understood that sometimes straight comparisons are quite irrelevant.

Noth, on 27 December 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

It's closer than it has ever been before. The only place you only see pinpoint damage only is in competitive play (and tryhards). Outside of that the variety is better than in any other MW game.

We're closer than ever before to a cure for cancer too. Does that mean it's good enough and we should just stop?

And if you're trying to say there's no AC40 jagers in general play... Well, we'll all comment on that after we can pick ourselves up off the floor from laughing so hard.

Edited by Greyboots, 27 December 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Noesis]

Noth, on 27 December 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

No matter how you change it there will always be the best weapon type. It is as simple as that. All that happens is a changing of the meta and cries for the new meta to be nerfed.

Then why have a balance forum at all, or even attempt to make the game balanced?

Just because your incapable of working towards or seeing ideal goals does not mean it isn't worth pursuing. Nor does it mean that the AC20 could not remain the most effective weapon. In some cases it may just need subtle shifts to encourage other play styles to be on a par or at least as viable, which incorporate a whole host of issues and mechanics other than just looking at weapon use anyhow.

I personally see that it is capable of allowing more diversity in the game play and that gaming balance is worthwhile to have multiple game play styles. And from PGI/IGPs perspective this would help to encourage more options for different players/customers as well as making the game less predictable due to having dominant roles.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 27 December 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Then why have a balance forum at all, or even attempt to make the game balanced?

Helps people sleep better at night.

[Noth]

Noesis, on 27 December 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

Then why have a balance forum at all, or even attempt to make the game balanced?

Just because your incapable of working towards or seeing ideal goals does not mean it isn't worth pursuing. Nor does it mean that the AC20 could not remain the most effective weapon. In some cases it may just need subtle shifts to encourage other play styles to be on a par or at least as viable, which incorporate a whole host of issues and mechanics other than just looking at weapon use anyhow.

I personally see that it is capable of allowing more diversity in the game play and that gaming balance is worthwhile to have multiple game play styles. And from PGI/IGPs perspective this would help to encourage more options for different players/customers as well as making the game less predictable due to having dominant roles.

The thing is, people seem to look at the competitive top percentage of players for balance. At that level the very nature of play means that there is always a better weapon weapon. No amount of balancing will change that. When you look at the mid level, there is a surprising amount of variety. As a mid level player I only see a couple of the 'meta' builds a night and many that I do see are easily dealt with. As I get higher I do see more however it is no where as common as what these types of threads would lead people to believe.

It is one thing to work towards balance, it is another to think that things can actually be balanced without a dominant meta. There are things that could be better balanced, but many changes would be so severe it would throw the game further out of balance in another way or make things more homegenized which is bad for variety of play.

Edited by Noth, 27 December 2013 - 08:04 PM.

[Cimarb]

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

all a short duration pulse does is turn lasers into ppcs with different graphics. assuming ppcs dont do splash damage and if they do, splash is over all a dumb idea.

A 0.5 second laser would require pulse lasers to also be adjusted down, but bringing all of them closer is good in my opinion. Maybe make lasers 0.75 duration, pulse 0.6 (same) and ballistics 0.5. I could live with that range.

For PPCs, I believe the best approach would either be a charge (like the gauss) or even better have it function like a small funnel LBX. Either would give it a distinct feel.

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

i like that you dug into the lore for concrete examples i was thinking along the lines of the avenger cannon from the a-10 warthog. its 20mm and could be considered 20 BT damage or a single 200mm tank round

I wondered where you got those names, but figured you were just making them up with the "uberwhacker" or whatever, lol. The recoil on the A10s cannon is enough to stop it mid-flight if held too long, so I imagine a single-shot version would be very...hazardous... To the pilot as well as the plane itself.

I really think recoil should be implemented in MW:O, with the bigger ACs causing bigger recoil and would love if an AC40 jäger would actually flatten on its back if both were fired at the same time - it is one of my favorite builds, but that would be hilarious! Overheating with ACs is such a lame way to balance them....

Tombstoner, on 27 December 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Your right in thinking that smaller caliber rounds can do the same if nor more damage then larger caliber rounds. That was one design difference between US and German tanks in WWII. tiger tanks was awesome for it time but its size being dominant on the battle filed gave production fits. Then the US just out produced Germany.

auto cannons are completely broken.
ac-2 got a 1926% damage buff relative to TT. the ac-20 got 250% and people think this is balanced.

over all the game needs new types of weapon for tuning. other wise its all front end loaded alpha strikes.
also i would make burst weapons fire as long as the trigger is pulled, same for pulse lasers. with damage and heat scaled for an equivalent duration as the beam version or single shot damage.

That is all great stuff and I agree completely. Autocannons are broke entirely, and I use them a lot myself so it's not like I am biased against them. If you aren't using them, you don't want to do well, and that is sad.

All weapons could do incremental heat the longer they are fired - that would be a better implementation of ghost heat than the current version...

[MustrumRidcully]

Greyboots, on 27 December 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

"Wrong" is a little harsh. Would you pay 6 tons for a weapon doing 2 damage in the same time a 5 ton large laser can do 9? I certainly wouldn't. Changes had to be made from TT and anyone saying any different is just too much of a purist when reality dictates that change is needed.

Translations needed to be made on fronts like that.

The truth is that turn-based gameplay provided certain controlling factors that aren't present in an FPS style game. You wouldn't get a twin AC20 jager in the TT because there's no pinpoint damage.

No, I think you might see Twin AC/20 Jagermechs in a TT game if it was possible (and no UACs are available.) There is a reason the King Crab exists. Such a mech would be devestating at close range and be excellent for urban scenarios or other scenarios with lots of cover. It's bad at long range, of course.

There is a reason a single AC/20 plus its heat sinks and ammo (12+8+2 tons of ammo= 22 tons) is more expensive than 4 Medium Lasers and their heat sinks (4+12 = 16 tons)in the table top game. The 20 point to a single random location is still worth more than 5 points to four random locations. On many mechs, 20 points in one location is simply crippling, it doesn't even matter what that location is.
With non-random locations, the benefit might be even higher, but there is a benefit even with random hit locations.

---

Anyway, we shouldn't tweak the laser beam durations down. That will just make the problems of convergence, boating and pinpoint precision worse, not better. We don't need that.

[stjobe]

Greyboots, on 27 December 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

"Wrong" is a little harsh. Would you pay 6 tons for a weapon doing 2 damage in the same time a 5 ton large laser can do 9? I certainly wouldn't. Changes had to be made from TT and anyone saying any different is just too much of a purist when reality dictates that change is needed.

Changes had to be made, yes, and changes were made. Some good, some bad, and some weren't done even though it probably would have been better to do them. I love the way PGI translated lasers to beam-duration weapons, and I just wish they hadn't stopped there but made ACs and the PPC burst-fire as well. It would so help the armour system if they did, raising the TTK and generally making a better balance between weapon types.

As for the AC/2 vs the LL; that choice was a no-brainer in TT, just like in MWO (only it was the other way around, nobody in their right mind would mount an AC/2 if they could mount a LL). Perhaps we could try to make it so that it is NOT a no-brainer? Or at least that the AC/10 vs PPC vs LL isn't such a no-brainer if you think the AC/2 and LL shouldn't be compared as equals?

Cimarb, on 27 December 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

The recoil on the A10s cannon is enough to stop it mid-flight if held too long, so I imagine a single-shot version would be very...hazardous... To the pilot as well as the plane itself.

This is a very popular myth, but it is still a myth.

[Klaus]

It's really simple to change how the game is now, but they just don't wanna do it.

Option 1) Change convergence.

I think it's a bad idea because it adds a huge element of luck with direct fire weapons which is just stupid. It would put the 733c in the garbage can and people would look for new things that they could abuse.

Option 2) Have scaling heat generated for ALL WEAPONS FIRED.

By this I mean you wouldn't be able to fire an AC/20/2x UAC/5 with 2 PPCs without getting hit by a heat penalty in some way. This would limit people into only being able to do so much pin-point damage over such a range. People would most likely go back to using 4 PPC Stalkers and firing in 2 bursts OR just fire their AC/20 (or other ACs) in a similar manner.

Either way, it would bring some massive changes to the table. They could just always nerf JJs into the dirt again but I know they won't, probably would make the Stalker too OP again because of high mounted hardpoints. But really I think they just said **** it and are going to wait for clan weapons to come out, screw up the game 10 times more, then try and fix it. The reason I say that is because their hasn't been a weapons changes in 2 or 3 months sadly. If they think the game's weapon are balanced the way they are then that's just sad. I'm not one to complain because I been jump sniping with Highlands since day 1, but honestly this meta is just boring and unfun now.

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 December 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

There is a reason a single AC/20 plus its heat sinks and ammo (12+8+2 tons of ammo= 22 tons) is more expensive than 4 Medium Lasers and their heat sinks (4+12 = 16 tons)in the table top game. The 20 point to a single random location is still worth more than 5 points to four random locations. On many mechs, 20 points in one location is simply crippling, it doesn't even matter what that location is. With non-random locations, the benefit might be even higher, but there is a benefit even with random hit locations.

---

Anyway, we shouldn't tweak the laser beam durations down. That will just make the problems of convergence, boating and pinpoint precision worse, not better. We don't need that.

Except that in practice this 5 damage you want to apply to a ML is more like 2.5 - 3 actual damage that could be spread over multiple hit boxes due to the beam mechanic effects. So comparing 4 ML to an AC20 is in fact incorrect and just a spreadsheet warrior fallacy since 4 ML are more equivalent to an AC10 in real game play terms.

[MustrumRidcully]

Noesis, on 28 December 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

Except that in practice this 5 damage you want to apply to a ML is more like 2.5 - 3 actual damage that could be spread over multiple hit boxes due to the beam mechanic effects. So comparing 4 ML to an AC20 is in fact incorrect and just a spreadsheet warrior fallacy since 4 ML are more equivalent to an AC10 in real game play terms.

I was comparing the weapons in the context of the table top game and explaining why large damage per hit was still important, even if the location that was hit was random. I think my spreadsheet warrioring worked just fine there, because if an ML hits in TT, it definitely deals 5 damage to one location, no more, no less.

[Noesis]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 December 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

I was comparing the weapons in the context of the table top game and explaining why large damage per hit was still important, even if the location that was hit was random. I think my spreadsheet warrioring worked just fine there, because if an ML hits in TT, it definitely deals 5 damage to one location, no more, no less.

And yet you then managed to draw an incorrect conclusion about laser beam mechanics for MWO using the TT comparison. Hence the relevance and need of understanding "actual" gaming mechanics.

[mania3c]

oh..and community proves again, they want fix what is not broken while ignoring main part of the problem..

Let's nerf ACs ...so all weapon systems are broken.. perfectly balanced..I see