1080 replies to this topic

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

I will have to have some source on the Urbie's AC being single-shot. AFAIK the only AC/20 being described as possibly single-shot is the UAC/20 on the Cauldron Born.

that was a quote towards it being able to mount an ac20 good sir.

Assmodeus, on 31 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I hope they don't make any changes.

Has anyone pointed out that you can only mount the PPC and AC combos on bigger, slower mechs, and that gives them their advantage against smaller, faster mechs? Other variables are being ignored, so this is nonsense in the context of the whole.

On a locust, I can mount 5 MLs but cannot mount a PPC and 2xAC/5, yet a locust is fast and very manueverable. Hmmm.....

most on this thread kinda want all mech chasis balanced in damage capability it seems >.> sadly very few take that into account. But +1 good sir.

[Tombstoner]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

A dps over time just isn't viable when you have to increase it past a few seconds.

Using an example that requires 20 seconds is irrelevant. I've yet to stand toe to toe with anything out in the open for 20 seconds doing continuous damage.
It's simply not a realistic scenario for this game.
A dps of 20 is better than a dps of 10. There's no amount of math that changes that.
I can front load damage on an energy build by dropping in 7LLs and do a higher alpha or I can drop in 6 and extra hs to have a higher dps and sustainable rate of fire

ok make it 5 seconds, it scales relative to fire rates.
in 5 seconds the ac-2 does 3.2 damage the ac-20 does 1.8 per ton of weapon so the ac-2 is 179% more efficient as a boating weapon then the ac-20. you get way too much for the tonnage invested.

[Almond Brown]

Lykaon, on 30 December 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

I didn't read anyone suggesting that all weapons must be the same in all regards.So that is a trash counterpoint.

And as for "making all same" as the only option for balance this is blatant cop out.

We are not dealing with incriments of 1% or even 10% when comparing effectivness direct fire front loaded pinpoint damage is superior by leaps and bounds beyond all other competing damage mechanics.If we were even dealing with a discrepency of 20% I would be putting an approved stamp on the whole thing since a 20% variance is not insurmountable.if you adjust techniques and tactics.The current situation is that using ballistics and direct fire IS the tactic to achieve high performance with no close second.The next best are so below the capabilities of the front loaded pinpoint damage meta that they may as well not exist.

I agree that the idea of balancing weapons by making them all the same is a waste of time and produces a stale enviorment not worth playing in.

But,this is an alternative right?

Keep all ACs PPCs and LRMs medium or small lasers for "suplimental" weapons when he ammo is gone.
Now remove all chassis that do not incorperate a combination of ballistic and energy hardpoints or those that can't be fitted as LRM boats.Lastly add jumpjets and ECM to everything that is left.Call it balanced then.

Now all mechs are equally OP'd and we have elliminated all the wasted junk like medium mechs,pulse lasers,SRMs,Large lasers and ER large lasers NARCs and BAPs and anything that doesn't contribute to the pinpoint damage meta.

Devs need not be concerned with silly things like information warfare because ECM has removed a need for it to exist in any degree of complexity beyond use ECM.
The Devs will be free of having to create any meanigful role warefare because all mechs will be doing exactaly the same thing with the same weapon combos always.

Actually do nothing the players will gravitate to these mechs and weapons like flies to excrement and eventually we will have a nice and stale meta play enviorment that is also not worth playing.

What everyone suggests is Nerf this nerf that. Where do you think that leads to in the end, to some rose colored Meta? Not likely. The LL and erLL are totally viable weapons in a "Team" based game. Moat players care only for their own stats and could give a rats *** about anyone else. That is why you see so many stepping in front of other already engaged in a fight to steal the kill, unless you really believe they are there to help...

What your final paragraph describes, according to so many, is what is what we have now. So if you also believe that then yes, we have 4 Mechs, 3 weapons and JJ's, the rest is simply a waste.

So just nerf JJ's, the 4 bogus chassis, and the 3 weapons and lets see what happens.

Edited by Almond Brown, 31 December 2013 - 01:52 PM.

[Tombstoner]

Assmodeus, on 31 December 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

I hope they don't make any changes.

Has anyone pointed out that you can only mount the PPC and AC combos on bigger, slower mechs, and that gives them their advantage against smaller, faster mechs? Other variables are being ignored, so this is nonsense in the context of the whole.

On a locust, I can mount 5 MLs but cannot mount a PPC and 2xAC/5, yet a locust is fast and very manueverable. Hmmm.....

And that makes delivering max damage much harder due to beam duration. slow down to deliver it and your vulnerable. where as the ppc and 2xac/5 all hit the same location. over all size and speed is not factored into anything, but it should be. its just too much work.

[Waelsleaht]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

If an AC/5 did a five-burst of 1-damage shots, and an AC/20 did a five-burst of 4-damage shots, you only need hit with two of the AC/20 shots to out-damage the AC/5. And if you're good enough to hit with all five shots, you still do as much damage as you do now - and if you're even better and manage to get all those five shots on to the same section, the weapon works just like today.

Yes. Agin I say yes! AC's should work this way. If regular AC's did what you suggest a 5 round burst over 5 seconds with skill you do the same damage and in my eyes are closer to what I imagine a ac to be. Ultra will do 10 round burst over 5 seconds keeping the double firing rate and if it jams it jams mid burst. Then rotary does 20 round bursts over 5 seconds.

All hypothetical of course. Just trying to brainstorm ideas.

[stjobe]

Here's the thing: The weapons in TT were designed for a random hit location system. Fire four weapons and you're likely to hit four locations. Damage values, heat, weight, slots, and all other balancing factors hinge on this.

In MWO this goes out the window, because here if you fire four weapons they all hit the same spot. This is especially problematic for autocannons, PPCs, and Gauss, who all deliver all their damage in one instant - the dreaded pin-point alpha problem that has been plaguing MWO since its inception.

Missiles, lasers, LBX, flamer, and MG spread their damage naturally and therefore approximate the random hit location nature of TT to a degree, but ACs, PPCs, and Gauss do not - and that's a problem.

It's a fixable problem, but a problem nonetheless. And unless you want to implement random hit locations or a cone of fire (which not many people are fans of, me included) or mess with convergence, the easiest solution to the problem is to make ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam-duration.

And yes, again I'm talking short-duration bursts with a reload time, and yes, weapons would have to be re-balanced if this were to occur to ensure that no weapon gets over- or under-powered.

But it is a (conceptually) easy solution to the pin-point instant-damage problem, and as such I think PGI would do well to give it serious consideration.

[Gladewolf]

Tombstoner, on 31 December 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

And that makes delivering max damage much harder due to beam duration. slow down to deliver it and your vulnerable. where as the ppc and 2xac/5 all hit the same location. over all size and speed is not factored into anything, but it should be. its just too much work.

This is my issue with the way weapons seem to be tuned in this game, instead of just attempting to maybe shave a little off of beam duration...or lowering heat just a tick, a lot of changes seems to be made at once, making it difficult to get anything to a good place. I'd like to see PGI just buff a single energy weapon a slight amount at a time until people start altering load outs...and then just back it off a touch to that "sweet spot" that wouldn't be hard. Altering everything at once is.

[Almond Brown]

So we have narrowed down the suspects to what exactly?

The AC5, the AC10, the AC20 and the PPC's. The Ac2 is for all intense of purposes already a "burst" type weapon.

Give the PPC's a beam time of 1s (or would it be .75s, or .51s) and we get another energy weapon that is equivalent to a LL (+1) for damage, if it hits a completely stationary target)

The AC5 as a burst... 5 x 1 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 1 and 5 damage.

The AC10 as a burst... 5 x 2 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 2 and 10 damage.

The AC20 as a burst... 5 x 4 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 4 and 20 damage.

One has to assume that based on the fast paced nature of the MWO game play, a burst based ballistic set would simply create a rather new, but ultimately generic weapon set that does between 2 and 20 damage, depending on the situation versus what their name used to imply.

OR

Why not just make Lasers instant hit weapons. Reduce all cool downs another 50% and call it done. I shoot you with a 9 point Laser, I get 9 my points of damage. You use an AC10 and hit, you get 10. Cool downs could be adjusted based on weight crits and Range as they appear to be now.

Edited by Almond Brown, 31 December 2013 - 02:10 PM.

[Rhent]

Lasers in MWO:
http://www.youtube.c...bed/fTb1ia5esMA

AC in MWO:
http://www.youtube.c...bed/-22tna7KHzI

Edited by Rhent, 31 December 2013 - 02:12 PM.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 31 December 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

So we have narrowed down the suspects to what exactly?

The AC5, the AC10, the AC20 and the PPC's. The Ac2 is for all intense of purposes already a "burst" type weapon.

Give the PPC's a beam time of 1s (or would it be .75s, or .51s) and we get another energy weapon that is equivalent to a LL (+1) for damage, if it hits a completely stationary target)

The AC5 as a burst... 5 x 1 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 1 and 5 damage.

The AC10 as a burst... 5 x 2 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 2 and 10 damage.

The AC20 as a burst... 5 x 4 over .25s and we get an AC weapon capable of anywhere between 4 and 20 damage.

One has to assume that based on the fast paced nature of the MWO game play, a burst based ballistic set would simply create a rather new, but ultimately generic weapon set that does between 2 and 20 damage, depending on the situation versus what their name used to imply.

OR

Why not just make Lasers instant hit weapons. Reduce all cool downs another 50% and call it done. I shoot you with a 9 point Laser, I get 9 my points of damage. You use an AC10 and hit, you get 10. Cool downs could be adjusted based on weight crits and Range as they appear to be now.

Lasers would be the new op if ya did that. I would love to see the complains about the light mechs then. Would be hilarious. Great points otherwise though. Point being (since I think your being abit sarcastic) it would just make all he wapons all the same yet again.

[Nemesis Duck]

Beam duration has other advantages, like dragging across a target to gets minor, repetitive damage, which creates anxiety in the target. Also, minor hits add your tag to a target. (Marks as +1 to your mechs hits score and enables a target's death sooner. Game favours group efforts: the more players that hit a target, the better subsequent hits are to kill it faster.) Also, I am able to drag my mouse, with some success, against a moving target and increase beam duration on one hit box.

And yet I've seen so many people miss my locust with their ACs and PPCs.

No streaming.

And no cones.

[stjobe]

Almond Brown, on 31 December 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Why not just make Lasers instant hit weapons. Reduce all cool downs another 50% and call it done. I shoot you with a 9 point Laser, I get 9 my points of damage. You use an AC10 and hit, you get 10. Cool downs could be adjusted based on weight crits and Range as they appear to be now.

Please read my previous post, it's the one two posts above yours. Instant-damage breaks the armour system, since it's designed for random hit locations. That's why ACs and PPCs are so popular right now.

Making lasers instant-hit would only break the game more (as well as putting the final nail into the missile coffin) and would require a complete reworking of the way armour and weapons interact.

Much easier to adjust the way ACs and PPCs work.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Please read my previous post, it's the one two posts above yours. Instant-damage breaks the armour system, since it's designed for random hit locations. That's why ACs and PPCs are so popular right now.

Making lasers instant-hit would only break the game more (as well as putting the final nail into the missile coffin) and would require a complete reworking of the way armour and weapons interact.

Much easier to adjust the way ACs and PPCs work.

You cant have one without the other. The system works fine for many of us. That said you should not have no way to have true DIRECT fire in a SHOOTER.

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

Please read my previous post, it's the one two posts above yours. Instant-damage breaks the armour system, since it's designed for random hit locations. That's why ACs and PPCs are so popular right now.

Making lasers instant-hit would only break the game more (as well as putting the final nail into the missile coffin) and would require a complete reworking of the way armour and weapons interact.

Much easier to adjust the way ACs and PPCs work.

You're absolutely correct. Direct damage from ALL weapons doesn't work great on armor systems designed for random hit locations
That's why they doubled armor long before they ever went to ob from cb and it worked very well

[stjobe]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

The system works fine for many of us.

No, you're just happy with the way it breaks.

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

That said you should not have no way to have true DIRECT fire in a SHOOTER.

"Direct fire" does not in any way mean "one single hit".

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

You're absolutely correct. Direct damage from ALL weapons doesn't work great on armor systems designed for random hit locations
That's why they doubled armor long before they ever went to ob from cb and it worked very well

Doubled armour values didn't work well, or you wouldn't have people asking for tripled or even quadrupled armour and internal structure values.

The easiest way to reconcile TT's armour system and damage values with the "hit-where-you-aim" MWO system is to remove the instant-hit mechanic in favour of a system that spreads damage over time or space. Lasers already spread damage over time, and missiles spread damage over space. What's missing is burst-fire ACs and beam-duration (or splash damage) PPCs.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

No, you're just happy with the way it breaks.


"Direct fire" does not in any way mean "one single hit".


Doubled armour values didn't work well, or you wouldn't have people asking for tripled or even quadrupled armour and internal structure values.

The easiest way to reconcile TT's armour system and damage values with the "hit-where-you-aim" MWO system is to remove the instant-hit mechanic in favour of a system that spreads damage over time or space. Lasers already spread damage over time, and missiles spread damage over space. What's missing is burst-fire ACs and beam-duration (or splash damage) PPCs.

The fact that others argue against it is reason enough to believe this is opinion and not fact. Every shooter ever has had at least some weapon system that can do a large amount of damage directly in some form or another. The fact that you just don't like it does not mean its not a valid part of the game.

[Sandpit]

stjobe, on 31 December 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

No, you're just happy with the way it breaks.


"Direct fire" does not in any way mean "one single hit".


Doubled armour values didn't work well, or you wouldn't have people asking for tripled or even quadrupled armour and internal structure values.

The easiest way to reconcile TT's armour system and damage values with the "hit-where-you-aim" MWO system is to remove the instant-hit mechanic in favour of a system that spreads damage over time or space. Lasers already spread damage over time, and missiles spread damage over space. What's missing is burst-fire ACs and beam-duration (or splash damage) PPCs.

Yes you would because there's always someone wanting an easier way.
You could have everyone running around in the same mechs with the same weapons on the same map and there would still be people asking for that kind of stuff

That has nothing to do with it. If it worked as poorly as a few claim no one would use anything but, not because they didn't want to but because they wouldn't be able to. Plain and simple
The fact that they can is in direct contradiction to the thought of ballistics being op

Also? You already have burst style ballistics. It's an lbx

[Mcgral18]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 03:25 PM, said:

Yes you would because there's always someone wanting an easier way.
You could have everyone running around in the same mechs with the same weapons on the same map and there would still be people asking for that kind of stuff

That has nothing to do with it. If it worked as poorly as a few claim no one would use anything but, not because they didn't want to but because they wouldn't be able to. Plain and simple
The fact that they can is in direct contradiction to the thought of ballistics being op

Also? You already have burst style ballistics. It's an lbx

Ballistics are not overpowered, they are simply optimal because of how the armor system works. That is not an opinion, that is a fact, since you can accurately place your damage. That doesn't mean lasers are bad, or that SRMs are useless, they are just sub-optimal in comparison since they both have a mechanism intended to spread damage, which ACs lack. The LB10x is one of the few balanced ballistics, and even then it could use a shortened cooldown when compared to its pinpoint cousins.

But, from what I can tell, we can agree to disagree.

[Sandpit]

Mcgral18, on 31 December 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ballistics are not overpowered, they are simply optimal because of how the armor system works. That is not an opinion, that is a fact, since you can accurately place your damage. That doesn't mean lasers are bad, or that SRMs are useless, they are just sub-optimal in comparison since they both have a mechanism intended to spread damage, which ACs lack. The LB10x is one of the few balanced ballistics, and even then it could use a shortened cooldown when compared to its pinpoint cousins.

But, from what I can tell, we can agree to disagree.

Exactly
Balance is going to be very subjective at this point.
I've actually seen two (only 2 mind you ) ideas when it comes to the whole ballistics vs. energy debate that I thought were good and might add in something without throwing what I consider a good current balance
Shorten beam duration just a tad
Reduce ammo per ton by just a small bit

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 31 December 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Exactly
Balance is going to be very subjective at this point.
I've actually seen two (only 2 mind you ) ideas when it comes to the whole ballistics vs. energy debate that I thought were good and might add in something without throwing what I consider a good current balance
Shorten beam duration just a tad
Reduce ammo per ton by just a small bit

I can get behind that.