1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 11:13 PM, said:

Whatever makes you happy.. I see I am just wasting time with your non-sense..I am just glad people like you are not making any decisions..

Sadly I wouldn't be surprised if eventually they are. Will be a sad day for mwo and probly the death of it. Most of the major player groups will probly leave at that point leaving them alone in there nice boring 'balanced' world.

[DeadlyFred]

I think having some AC weapons function differently would actually be good... I mean the Ultra AC 5 is essentially the same thing as the regular AC5 only with a potentially higher fire rate and irritating jamming mechanic, why not just make it a completely different style weapon than the regular ACs, and fire in bursts?

[mania3c]

DeadlyFred, on 31 December 2013 - 12:27 AM, said:

I think having some AC weapons function differently would actually be good... I mean the Ultra AC 5 is essentially the same thing as the regular AC5 only with a potentially higher fire rate and irritating jamming mechanic, why not just make it a completely different style weapon than the regular ACs, and fire in bursts?

I like Ultra AC mechanics ..but you are right there is space for better diversity.. I am not so geeky about battletech ..but aren't there more AC types? like Rotary ACs for example?

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 30 December 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

I posted my stats in another thread, so I may as well post them here as well:



Effective damage for ballistics is just shy of 50%, for energy it's about 5% lower - and I'm one of those pilots Varent was talking about earlier:


I don't exclusively pilot lights with energy weapons, but you can see for yourself in the "matches" column what I prefer. 820 matches with medium lasers, 65 with AC/20.

I would actually not keep things quite as general as you, but compare more on a weapon by weapon basis, since there are more differences between weapons then DOT vs Projectile.

The AC/2 for example has a rate of fire of 0.5 seconds. To hit reliably with this weapon you need to aim very often and fast, also taking shots that might be less than ideal.
Like the AC/2, the Gauss Rifle and the PPCs in turn are very long range weapons - an aiming error is more likely to lead to a complete miss against a target 500m away then a target 250m away.

So I would try to group weapons in different range and ROF categories and compare them long those lines, too.
The difference between AC/20 and Medium and Large Laser are more pronounced then the differences between LL/ER LL and Gauss or AC/10, for example.

[Lykaon]

stjobe, on 30 December 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

I posted my stats in another thread, so I may as well post them here as well:



Effective damage for ballistics is just shy of 50%, for energy it's about 5% lower - and I'm one of those pilots Varent was talking about earlier:

Effective damage is not the same as damage applied.Your chart is showing damage applied.

I could hose down a mech with lasers destroying 90% of it's armor yet not killing it and put up high damage numbers (that this chart calls effective) or I could fire my twin 20s twice through it's side torso and kill it while only putting up 80 damage.

Clearly the 80 damage making the kill is effective.

Edited by Lykaon, 31 December 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Varent]

Lykaon, on 31 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Effective damage is not the same as damage applied.Your chart is showing damage applied.

I could hose down a mech with lasers destroying 90% of it's armor yet not killing it and put up high damage numbers (that this chart calls effective) or I could fire my twin 20s twice through it's side torso and kill it while only putting up 80 damage.

Clearly the 80 damage making the kill is effective.

This.

[stjobe]

Lykaon, on 31 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Effective damage is not the same as damage applied.Your chart is showing damage applied.

I could hose down a mech with lasers destroying 90% of it's armor yet not killing it and put up high damage numbers (that this chart calls effective) or I could fire my twin 20s twice through it's side torso and kill it while only putting up 80 damage.

Clearly the 80 damage making the kill is effective.

Effective can mean different things, I used the word it in its prenominal sense, as in e.g. "effective income after deductions", not in its adjectival sense as in "productive".

The damage after taking accuracy and portion of beam hitting into account is about 45% for my energy weapons. Taking accuracy into account for my projectile weapons the effective damage is about 50%.

I.e. that's what portion of the listed damage I do per shot on average with those weapons. With beam weapons I hit more often but the damage per hit is roughly half the listed value, whereas every hit I make with ballistics do their full damage. I don't hit as often as with energy weapons though, since it's all or nothing.

In the end, even though I prefer energy weapons and use them way more than ballistics, the numbers above serve to show that ballistics are more effective (in the "they do more damage" sense) than energy weapons for me.

[MustrumRidcully]

Lykaon, on 31 December 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

Effective damage is not the same as damage applied.Your chart is showing damage applied.

I could hose down a mech with lasers destroying 90% of it's armor yet not killing it and put up high damage numbers (that this chart calls effective) or I could fire my twin 20s twice through it's side torso and kill it while only putting up 80 damage.

Clearly the 80 damage making the kill is effective.

Do you think that if you deal only 30 % of the potential damage with weapon X and 50 % of potential damage with weapon Y, that with weapon X, you are more likely to hit the exact right spot on the target then with the weapon Y? On what basis?

I think a miss is basically hitting the wrong hit location - it happens to be a hit location that isn't even on the target. So if you are more likely to waste damage with a laser on empty air, you are also more likely to waste damage with a laser on hit locations that didn't help you defeat the enemy.

[Zyllos]

There is only one way to fix this problem but this community doesn't want it because they believe that having weapons deviate is any way leads to luck as the only factor in winning matches...

So this game is doomed to be a repeat of the past.

[mania3c]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Effective can mean different things, I used the word it in its prenominal sense, as in e.g. "effective income after deductions", not in its adjectival sense as in "productive".

The damage after taking accuracy and portion of beam hitting into account is about 45% for my energy weapons. Taking accuracy into account for my projectile weapons the effective damage is about 50%.

I.e. that's what portion of the listed damage I do per shot on average with those weapons. With beam weapons I hit more often but the damage per hit is roughly half the listed value, whereas every hit I make with ballistics do their full damage. I don't hit as often as with energy weapons though, since it's all or nothing.

In the end, even though I prefer energy weapons and use them way more than ballistics, the numbers above serve to show that ballistics are more effective (in the "they do more damage" sense) than energy weapons for me.

May I have question for you?

If you are talking about effective damage, do you talk about damage value or percentage? Just reading through table, it seems that percentage wise, weapons are pretty much balanced..and Large pulse laser (who would said that..right?) seems to be beating most of the direct damage weapons..

and if you are talking about damage values.. are you taking damage per ton into consideration? Just asking..

[Tombstoner]

Zyllos, on 31 December 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

There is only one way to fix this problem but this community doesn't want it because they believe that having weapons deviate is any way leads to luck as the only factor in winning matches...

So this game is doomed to be a repeat of the past.

Are you referring to a repeat of MW4 multiplayer?

Also that luck factor really only comes into play with shots made at near max range. Odd that it invokes such powerful opposition. The rage they must feel when playing other game with a RNG COF must be overwhelming.
they must have found releaf in MWO. A game that finally lets them show off there uber L337 skills with boated alpha strikes.
My shots land where i aim them... the heavens open up and light shines through. I have found the promised land where skill is rewarded.

yea your skill in the mech bay to cookie cut a min max pop tart build you found online.

[Varent]

Tombstoner, on 31 December 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Are you referring to a repeat of MW4 multiplayer?

Also that luck factor really only comes into play with shots made at near max range. Odd that it invokes such powerful opposition. The rage they must feel when playing other game with a RNG COF must be overwhelming.
they must have found releaf in MWO. A game that finally lets them show off there uber L337 skills with boated alpha strikes.
My shots land where i aim them... the heavens open up and light shines through. I have found the promised land where skill is rewarded.

yea your skill in the mech bay to cookie cut a min max pop tart build you found online.

No, hes legitimatly worried.

Here is why.

Games live and die (longevity wise) on there ability to attract 'pro' and 'elite' gamers willing to stream, do guild wars, compete, etc etc. You may argue that there are plenty of games out there that have longevity. I would argue name a shooter with true longevity (wich mwo is a shooter). Most shooters in todays world rely on simply running around and shooting with very little true skill involved.

You can argue all you want about "pop tarts" but the fact remains the people using them at higher elo are very skilled players.

Direct fire weapons allow skill to show.

Stream weapons do not allow skill to show.

At least not to the same level.

So the question is this. Why would you want to do something that would kill off the skill cap level in the playerbase?

To make it more... fair? Do we want to make sure little johnny who came in 7th place gets a trophy too? Or do we instead want to teach little johnny how to get better at the game as a whole?

My prediction is that if they truly make ac and ppc into stream weapons and take away all true direct fire from the game then it will turn into call of duty.

A few people logging in for some quick laughs before the entire community dies in about a year. There is a reason they come out with a new call of duty every year or so... They need to because people get bored and leave.

Personally id rather not see that happen to mwo but sure... go ahead guys... work towards that 'balance' and kill off the true high end skill cap just so the lesser players can feel better about themselves and 'think' they are good when in fact the overall skill cap was simply lowered to accomodate them. The death of mwo right there....

[stjobe]

mania3c, on 31 December 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

are you taking damage per ton into consideration?

No, not damage per ton, not heat per second or damage per second, or damage per crit slot, or anything like that. Just how much damage each hit does on average. I originally made the table to show that - for me at least - ballistic weapons on average produce more damage per hit than energy, when said damage is adjusted for accuracy and portion of beam that hit.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

Direct fire weapons allow skill to show.

Stream weapons do not allow skill to show.

How is it less skilful to aim and hold to do full damage to one location than to aim and click to do full damage to one location?

Edited by stjobe, 31 December 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

How is it less skilful to aim and hold to do full damage to one location than to aim and click to do full damage to one location?

Multiple actions going on at once.

The action of torso twisting quickly and efficently is a hard skill to learn in and of itself isnce every mech has different arm heights that demand you turn just a little differently. Taking that time to instead hold on target takes this out entirely since you basically just sit there absorbing blows.

I think a better action is how does holding on target exhbit more skill then doing true multitasking and micro actions all at once?

[Cimarb]

mania3c, on 30 December 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

In the end...you and people like you may be right.. ACs may be indeed overtuned..problem is..we can't prove it yet..not with current data we have and surely not with analysis you and some other people are trying to do.. We need different data for this..and I believe only PGI has that. Unless they will provide us these data, we are just guessing. or we could try organize light/medium matches.. and test it for ourselves ..but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

What different data are you looking for? It would be great if it was broke down by mech, which I think may be what you are talking about, but making the best use out of the data at hand is what you have to do until more data is available. You can't discount results based upon data just because you think it should be broken down more.

mania3c, on 31 December 2013 - 02:02 AM, said:

I like Ultra AC mechanics ..but you are right there is space for better diversity.. I am not so geeky about battletech ..but aren't there more AC types? like Rotary ACs for example?

There is the "standard" autocannon, rotary (multi-barrel, like a Gatling gun), LBX (known for being able to fire both HEAP and cluster rounds, like a shotgun can), and ultra.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

No, hes legitimatly worried.

Here is why.

Games live and die (longevity wise) on there ability to attract 'pro' and 'elite' gamers willing to stream, do guild wars, compete, etc etc. You may argue that there are plenty of games out there that have longevity. I would argue name a shooter with true longevity (wich mwo is a shooter). Most shooters in todays world rely on simply running around and shooting with very little true skill involved.

Halo and the CoD/MW games have been around for a very long time. While I don't play them (my son does), there is a very high level of skill involved whether you are new or veteran. The learning curve is steep in multiplayer and you will have competition from beginning to end. The fact that they have made many sequels to each of these games, with virtually the exact same "content" as every other online shooter before it shows that there is a huge player base that cares about the action and challenge, not so much the content. I'm not one of those people, but they have quite a bit of longevity and success despite my feelings for the playstyle.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

You can argue all you want about "pop tarts" but the fact remains the people using them at higher elo are very skilled players.

Direct fire weapons allow skill to show.

Stream weapons do not allow skill to show.

At least not to the same level.

So the question is this. Why would you want to do something that would kill off the skill cap level in the playerbase?

To make it more... fair? Do we want to make sure little johnny who came in 7th place gets a trophy too? Or do we instead want to teach little johnny how to get better at the game as a whole?

It takes more skill to get the same amount of damage from a laser than it does from a front-loaded weapon like an AC/PPC. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Front-loaded weapons require very little skill, actually, as they are fire and forget - what you point at gets the full damage to that section in one hit. Beam weapons, on the other hand, not only require that point and click skill, but they also require a steady hand and compensation for continued movement from both parties for the entire beam duration. It is virtually impossible to get 100% of the beams damage in the same hitbox unless both parties are standing still, which will happen in the training grounds often enough, but almost never in an actual match.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 08:38 AM, said:

My prediction is that if they truly make ac and ppc into stream weapons and take away all true direct fire from the game then it will turn into call of duty.

A few people logging in for some quick laughs before the entire community dies in about a year. There is a reason they come out with a new call of duty every year or so... They need to because people get bored and leave.

Personally id rather not see that happen to mwo but sure... go ahead guys... work towards that 'balance' and kill off the true high end skill cap just so the lesser players can feel better about themselves and 'think' they are good when in fact the overall skill cap was simply lowered to accomodate them. The death of mwo right there....

Think of it this way: back in my day, the big shooter was 007: Goldeneye. It was the first time you could have FOUR friends playing the same game, and it was tons of fun. The problem was there were some really annoying powerful weapons available, including the Golden Gun itself, that made playing it pretty pointless if you didn't have one yourself. So, you either raced to get the one super gun before everyone else and racked up as many kills as you could before you finally got overwhelmed by everyone else, or you changed the game mode to not include those weapons. It was actually what ruined the game longevity wise, because other, more balanced games came out soon after that.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Multiple actions going on at once.

The action of torso twisting quickly and efficently is a hard skill to learn in and of itself isnce every mech has different arm heights that demand you turn just a little differently. Taking that time to instead hold on target takes this out entirely since you basically just sit there absorbing blows.

I think a better action is how does holding on target exhbit more skill then doing true multitasking and micro actions all at once?

Lol, that's funny. You think having to hold on target longer between torso twists and other micro actions means it takes less skill. In actuality, it takes more skill because you have a much longer time on target, making every shot you fire that much more dangerous for yourself.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 31 December 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Halo and the CoD/MW games have been around for a very long time. While I don't play them (my son does), there is a very high level of skill involved whether you are new or veteran. The learning curve is steep in multiplayer and you will have competition from beginning to end. The fact that they have made many sequels to each of these games, with virtually the exact same "content" as every other online shooter before it shows that there is a huge player base that cares about the action and challenge, not so much the content. I'm not one of those people, but they have quite a bit of longevity and success despite my feelings for the playstyle.


It takes more skill to get the same amount of damage from a laser than it does from a front-loaded weapon like an AC/PPC. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise. Front-loaded weapons require very little skill, actually, as they are fire and forget - what you point at gets the full damage to that section in one hit. Beam weapons, on the other hand, not only require that point and click skill, but they also require a steady hand and compensation for continued movement from both parties for the entire beam duration. It is virtually impossible to get 100% of the beams damage in the same hitbox unless both parties are standing still, which will happen in the training grounds often enough, but almost never in an actual match.


Think of it this way: back in my day, the big shooter was 007: Goldeneye. It was the first time you could have FOUR friends playing the same game, and it was tons of fun. The problem was there were some really annoying powerful weapons available, including the Golden Gun itself, that made playing it pretty pointless if you didn't have one yourself. So, you either raced to get the one super gun before everyone else and racked up as many kills as you could before you finally got overwhelmed by everyone else, or you changed the game mode to not include those weapons. It was actually what ruined the game longevity wise, because other, more balanced games came out soon after that.

I know only a handful of people that play the previous call of duties, they usually survive for a year or two before the player base deteriorates to a point that it would render a game like mwo fairly null. Considering the fact that most people that play mwo despise that playstyle as well it would probly move even faster.

Your frogetting the concept of micromanging actions, This includes torso twisting and managing multiple weapon groups that fire at different rates so your not literally jsut a stream of damage holding down a trigger. You can argue all you want that 'it takes more skill to hold on target' while I would argue that it takes more skill to effectively torso twist and avoid damage. If you want to argue that it takes skill to hold on target doew it not take equal skill to really seek out weak points and aim effecticely? I have a hard time believing that is equal skill.

Golden eye was not a tactics based game. The golden gun im pretty sure would have a very different story line if it was groups of 12 on 12 going against one another using an assortment of tactics to defeat the opposing team.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Multiple actions going on at once.

The action of torso twisting quickly and efficently is a hard skill to learn in and of itself isnce every mech has different arm heights that demand you turn just a little differently. Taking that time to instead hold on target takes this out entirely since you basically just sit there absorbing blows.

I think a better action is how does holding on target exhbit more skill then doing true multitasking and micro actions all at once?

None of the things you mention are exclusive to ballistic weapons; they apply to energy weapons as well - using energy weapons does in no way eliminate the need for proper torso twisting.

But since you brought it up, that's another point in favour of ballistics: You can twist away as soon as your shot is fired whereas with an energy weapon you need to stay exposed for up to one second.

Think of it this way: What is simpler on the gunnery range, a single shot on a moving target's inner ring, or five shots rapid-fire all hitting the moving target's inner ring?

Making ACs burst fire (and the PPC beam duration) makes them harder to do full damage with, increasing the skill needed to utilize them properly - just like currently energy weapons are harder to do full damage with than ballistics.

It would be a raising of the skill floor, not a lowering.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

None of the things you mention are exclusive to ballistic weapons; they apply to energy weapons as well - using energy weapons does in no way eliminate the need for proper torso twisting.

But since you brought it up, that's another point in favour of ballistics: You can twist away as soon as your shot is fired whereas with an energy weapon you need to stay exposed for up to one second.

Think of it this way: What is simpler on the gunnery range, a single shot on a moving target's inner ring, or five shots rapid-fire all hitting the moving target's inner ring?

Making ACs burst fire (and the PPC beam duration) makes them harder to do full damage with, increasing the skill needed to utilize them properly - just like currently energy weapons are harder to do full damage with than ballistics.

It would be a raising of the skill floor, not a lowering.

actually it will make more sense to stay on target and avoid torso twisting with this system. Based off the simple concepts of focusing damage and using higher dps weapons alone.

It will turn the game into 'who has the higher dps' instead of who actually can aim and use there weapons better.

If all weapons are stream, then everyone will simply use the highest dps weapon out there, you do understand that right?

Which will then lead to people complaining about how high dps that weapon is... which will then lead to another nerf... and then everyone will just use the next highest dps weapona nd forum firing lines and focus people down.

You will elimininate a gigantic portion of this games playerbase with a change like this.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

If all weapons are stream, then everyone will simply use the highest dps weapon out there, you do understand that right?

I wonder if you've even taken the time to consider how this could be implemented, or if you're just seeing red at the mere mention of something threatening the current imbalance.

People already are using the highest DPS weapons out there. The average ballistic weapon has a DPS of 3.6 (from 2.5 for the PPC to 5.0 for the AC/20), whereas the average energy weapon has a DPS of 1.7 (from 1.0 for the SL to 2.75 for the LPL).

Making ACs burst-fire - and I'm talking about max 1 second bursts here, and 3-5 projectiles per burst - would do two very good things for the game:
1. It would mitigate the issue with instant-damage weapons being better simply because they're more effective at punching through armour - there's no lore- or gameplay reason why ballistics should be superior in this regard.
2. It would make the weapon types easier to balance against each other, leading to a more balanced game where it's not what you mount but how you use it that makes the biggest difference.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

You will elimininate a gigantic portion of this games playerbase with a change like this.

Hardly. The game would have a chance of becoming balanced, which means more varied, which means people don't get bored as easily.

I'm sure some would leave; some people can't stand well-balanced games where skill and not equipment is the deciding factor.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I wonder if you've even taken the time to consider how this could be implemented, or if you're just seeing red at the mere mention of something threatening the current imbalance.

People already are using the highest DPS weapons out there. The average ballistic weapon has a DPS of 3.6 (from 2.5 for the PPC to 5.0 for the AC/20), whereas the average energy weapon has a DPS of 1.7 (from 1.0 for the SL to 2.75 for the LPL).

Making ACs burst-fire - and I'm talking about max 1 second bursts here, and 3-5 projectiles per burst - would do two very good things for the game:
1. It would mitigate the issue with instant-damage weapons being better simply because they're more effective at punching through armour - there's no lore- or gameplay reason why ballistics should be superior in this regard.
2. It would make the weapon types easier to balance against each other, leading to a more balanced game where it's not what you mount but how you use it that makes the biggest difference.


Hardly. The game would have a chance of becoming balanced, which means more varied, which means people don't get bored as easily.

I'm sure some would leave; some people can't stand well-balanced games where skill and not equipment is the deciding factor.

Actually the ac2 and uac5 (especially in bulk) are much greater weapons at dps. Furthermore you will just promote the prevalance of more firing lines wich used to be quite popular. And fairly boring since its littlerally just a duck shoot. Why would you use a low dps weapon like the ac10 or ac20 when you could just use the ac2 or 5 or uac5? Explain to me this good sir.

And no, you would elimininate people that dont want to play another call of duty game, Wich is what this game will become under those circumstances. Alot of weapons which basically all act the same.

I for one actually enjoy playing my missle laser machine gun jager.... I like teh differences in how the weapons perform.... I also like playing my uac, lbx, laser machin gun jager... I like the changes inthe two mechs alot and how they vary....

I might as well jsut run lasers in general under that system since everything will be stream regardless....