1080 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Honestly im starting to think the only reason your against it is because it happens to be good against light mechs (if your a good shot) since a light mech can potentially lose a limb to such things. I will site your forum avatar for an example of that as well as other posts you have made signaling your preferance towards them.

Oh, it's no secret I'm a light pilot by preference, that's no big revelation. Anyone who's read a number of my posts know this. I love my Commandos, but I own more mediums than any other weight class.

And either way, I'm not arguing for a change to ACs and PPCs as a way to make lights more viable (I argue for Role Warfare for that), I argue this change to make the game better and closer to its BattleTech roots.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't even given much thought as to how making burst-fire ACs would affect light 'mechs; but at first glance I don't really think it'll be a buff to them. They'll take more damage as AC bursts that would have missed can be walked in just like lasers - but then again they might take less since AC bursts can partially miss and don't do the full damage they would have. It'll probably be a wash then.

[YueFei]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

agreed... but I also want to expand on this in general....

I would love light mechs in this game to start ACTING like light mechs...

there is two really huge sides to this game right now that basically a light mech for people to be satisfied with it has to be a brawler.. but thats not what they are actually made for but rather what they are made into because they arent given proper bonuses for actually being a scout... if you fix these things and give them the proper bonuses suddenly they probly (or at least shouldnt) be complaining about other weapon systems that make them fee inferior just because they view there only role as combat.

I've done spotting for my buddy's LRMs in my Jenner before. Very satisfying to me, because I don't care about XP or C-Bills, I just care about winning the match. When there's no ECM around it worked fine. I'm hopping up and down here and there holding a lock and the enemy Assault mech is getting pelted by LRMs. Then an enemy Streakhawk comes barreling in my direction and I run away screaming like a little girl. =P

Hey that sounds like Role Warfare! What the heck?

[Varent]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

To be perfectly honest, I haven't even given much thought as to how making burst-fire ACs would affect light 'mechs; but at first glance I don't really think it'll be a buff to them. They'll take more damage as AC bursts that would have missed can be walked in just like lasers - but then again they might take less since AC bursts can partially miss and don't do the full damage they would have. It'll probably be a wash then.

It would quite heavily buff them. LBx are great because they spread out, making it so that you can hit still a good amount of the shot. Making it a stream would make it just like a laser and make it completely inefective against a light mech. So you would have a major gigantic light mech buff with the only weapons capable of taking them then being lbx (maybe srm) and streaks.

So the most op brawlers in groups in the game and crazy wolf packs would become even more ridiculous.

[Noesis]

Except that lasers are "supposedly" recognised as being more effective against lights due to their accuracy even if the beam effect can mean the damage walks across the model or hit boxes or misses at times due to their mobility. At least when moving fast at an angle and also if at distance. And the more heavier ballistics at times having to rely on a good leading aim or a lucky shot to damage the light. Though of course the effects more impacting here when it does connect.

As such fast moving Mechs both as the target and/or firer already help to escalate or compound the issue here for laser beam mechanics and if anything are the most likely source of skewing the damage down, especially more so at shorter range with more obtuse angles needing to be maintained, so what would be the issue with making this more similar for ballistics?

This is why imho MLs are showing as being less effective than their larger counterparts as they are used in more closer environments and by Mechs that utilise these weapons whilst also using fast mobility. But this is another reason why then it is a more significant debilitation to lighter Mechs and more so when they have limited choices with weapon selections and ranges more recognised for their use with the likes of MLs than ballistics etc.

So whilst it does not mean that ballistics should have burst fire against lights, it does help to demonstrate that the close quarters game and mobility will effect MLs due to them having the MWO beam mechanics. The more range you have and the more acute the angle the easier then it is to hit as the variance in aim is less and also less effected by mobility. So being able to stand still at range and shoot before the light can get into range to use its "blunt knifes" is a distinct advantage. But of course part of the lights job is not to approach so obvious to give these opportunities either and use that mobility to try and break that stalemate. And they certainly shouldn't be trying these things against a blob where enemies can support each other to remove any close angle advantages the light can gain in close proximity.

The annoying thing however is that with SRMs broken with HSR and ML's being adversely effected with their beam mechanics and mobility it doesn't leave as much confidence with their recognised weapon sets. So lighter Mechs are by comparison more effected by the beam issues effecting weapon potential than others.

And please don't say, well this isn't the lights role as they should be underpowered against Assaults as this still is the case as their tonnage and other balancing issues with engines, heat sinks, endo and FF etc, all add up to ensure that their effective build options are maintained for that role. If anything build options do tend to rise in a linear fashion with tonnage.

Thus the biggest gripe that Light and Medium pilots can say is that even staying within their parameters of the roles and build limitations that they are better designed for their tech and "potential use" is suffering in comparison to other tech. Not by much, but it will effect them more due to their already limited best options being limited more by the associated firing mechanics.

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2014 - 02:34 PM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 02 January 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

Except that lasers are "supposedly" recognised as being more effective against lights due to their accuracy even if the beam effect can mean the damage walks across the model'***** boxes or misses at times due to their mobility. At least when moving fast at an angle at distance. And the more heavier ballistics at times having to rely on a good leading aim or a lucky shot to damage the light. Though of course the effects more impacting here when it does connect.

As such fast moving Mechs both as the target and/or firer already help to escalate or compound the issue here for laser beam mechanics and if anything are the most likely source of skewing the damage down, especially more so at shorter range with more obtuse angles needing to be maintained, so what would be the issue with making this more similar for ballistics?

This is why imho MLs are showing as being less effective than their larger counterparts as they are used in more closer environments and by Mechs that utilise these weapons whilst also using fast mobility. But this is another reason why then it is a more significant debilitator to lighter Mechs and more so when they have limited choices with weapon selections and ranges more recognised for use with the likes of MLs than ballistics etc.

So whilst it does not mean that ballistics should have burst fire against lights, it does help to demonstrate that the close quarters game and mobility will effect MLs due to them having their beam mechanics. The more range you have and the more acute the angle the easier then it is to hit as the variance in aim is less and also less effected by mobility. Thus being able to stand still at range and shoot before the light can get into range to use its "blunt knifes" is a distinct advantage. But of course part of the lights job is not to approach so obvious to give these opportunities either and use that mobility to try and break that stalemate. And they certainly shouldn't be trying these things against a blob where enemies can support each other to remove an acute angle advantages the light can gain.

The annoying thing however is that with SRMs broken with HSR and ML's being adversely effected with their beam mechanics and mobility it doesn't leave as much confidence with their recognised weapon sets. So lighter Mechs are by comparison more effected by the beam issues effecting potential than others.

And please don't say, well this isn't the lights role as they should be underpowered against Assaults as this still is the case as their tonnage and other balancing issues with engines, heat sinks, endo and FF all add up to ensure that their effective build options are maintained for that role. If anything build options do tend to rise in a linear fashion with tonnage.

Thus the biggest gripe that Light and Medium pilots can say is that even staying within their parameters of the roles they are better designed for their tech and potential use is suffering in comparison to other tech. Not by much, but it will effect them more due to options being limited.

Lasers are the most effective at damaging lights in general. But the difference would be effective damage vs overall damage there. Honestly (and I will admit this is an opinion largerly based on battletech lore). Light mechs should not go anywhere near larger mechs. They should be terified of them. However, right now they are not. In fact most lights easily take on assaults. Now it gets a little different vs fast moving heavies who can maneuver well enough to fight them but most assault lose badly to light mechs. This I foresee as a problem already.. however there isnt a very good answer to it other then sadly (get to be a better pilot. I will say that as an assault pilot your saving grace at times is having a large caliber direct fire weapon like an ac10, ppc, or gause rifle that you can 'maybe' get a lucky shot out of and leg or horribly cripple a light mech. There isnt much else they can use besides maybe a few streaks they ahve manages to sticky on.

You can have all the lasers in the world and yes you may be able to get some damage on them but with constant circling and movement and the ponderous nature of the assault mech they will leg you or take out your center rear before you can kill them. My issue would then be why would you take a weapon (that in my own opinon is just fine for its weight and other limitations, though yes it could use a few other tweaks) and make it into a stream weapon... (therby making there pretty much only two types of damage... and negating its larger bonuses) and hence forth pretty much let all light mechs run about with impunity.

That said I feel I need to address this even further and say... I honestly dont get what is so wrong with instant direct damage, being that the only reason its over powered at the moment it he jump jet meta? Take away or change jump jets and you no longer have that issue at all and you instead have people playing smart with the weapons shielding firing and micromanaging correctly. It would only take a few small tweaks to that one item and the main issues people gripe about would be gone.

That is unless of course you jsut want to play stand and shoot and make every weapon into a stream to... I dunno.. make games last longer? Make survivability more?

I fail to see what all of that can accomplish.... why not just have players learn to survive instead of making it easy mode for them and taking away higher skill cap weapons.

[Nick Makiaveli]

stjobe, on 01 January 2014 - 04:39 AM, said:

Not necessarily.

Lasers deal their damage in 8-10 ticks over the beam duration and are hitscan (speed of light and all that). The ACs that I propose would deal their damage in 3-5 projectiles over a 0.5-1.0 second burst, and would still have projectile flight times. A single projectile from an AC/20 would still do almost as much damage as a full beam of a ML, and the AC/10, LBX, and AC/20 would still out-damage any laser (except the LPL).


They should be, but PGI had other ideas for their red-headed stepchild. The AC/2 was deemed a viable weapon and got a 19x damage boost, whereas someone at PGI disliked MGs (or just had no clue as to what a BT MG is) and gave them a 2x damage boost. It's gotten a bit better over the last year, but it's still a shame to see their "crit weapon" malarkey.


Making ACs burst-fire gives two new balancing factors (burst length and projectiles/burst), and gives PGI the possibility of adding "new" weapons without actually breaking lore.


Which is why I usually couple burst-fire ACs with beam-duration PPCs. Make the PPC a short-duration beam (0.3s? 0.5?) with 5 2-damage ticks during that beam and we're golden.

That would leave the Gauss Rifle as the only instant-damage weapon in the game and I'm actually fine with that, since it's described as such in lore and it has the charge-up mechanic.

Either I'm really tired, or you made a good point. I think I am going to go with the former

[Dock Steward]

Someone once explained the relationship between mech weight classes to me as such:

Light<Medium<Heavy<Assault<Light

While the final step does seem a bit counter-intuitive at first, after thinking about it, I decided it made sense to me from a balancing standpoint. It made the relationship circular and therefore everything had a counter, instead of Assaults being the end-all-be all. I have a feeling, however, that many people do not agree with this equation?

Edited by Dock Steward, 02 January 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[Sandpit]

Dock Steward, on 02 January 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Someone once explained the relationship between mech weight classes to me as such:

Light&lt;Medium&lt;Heavy&lt;Assault&lt;Light

While the final step does seem a bit counter-intuitive at first, after thinking about it, I decided it made sense to me from a balancing standpoint. It made the relationship circular and therefore everything had a counter, instead of Assaults being the end-all-be all. I have a feeling, however, that many people do not agree with this equation?

A bit simplified but essentially that's a good equation IMHO

[Noesis]

Assaults from Lore weren't a Swiss army knife though and needed support from other lighter Mechs to help combat threats. Assaults should ideally be in very limited numbers when fielded and have a "pivotal" role. The key word being pivotal. In that other Mechs rotate around the Assault in support of trying to get it into place on the field to do what it needs to do.

As such I don't have any complications with any assault being taken down by the wolf pack if it wanders away from support. And tbh just like other roles interplay should be encouraged and Assaults should not be engineered as a one stop shop or the go to platform for every situation, it should have its role more orientated towards dishing fire out against larger targets or installations etc. at least in essence whilst being able to mitigate incoming fire with its armour. And from a gaming perspective just like other roles limitations should help to encourage team work, and or more importantly allowing other roles to have opportunities and purpose.

Also even though a minor point Varent sometimes you use the lore argument to give weight to your posts, sometimes you dismiss BT rulings from other players so would be nice to have consistency here with your opinions on lore use for discussion. However I'm not concerned with these opinions or preferences as ultimately MWO wont be a BT copy and that rules and lore will only be used by PGI/IGP as precedents to gaming mechanics to ensure the flavor of BT is maintained. This since the TT game can never sensibly fully translate to a FPS simulation.

I'm not fully convinced that Burst fire would being the saviour from ballistic dominance as there could be other more subtle changes applied both indirect as well as tweaking existing weapon mechanics to help to encourage other game play. But I can understand why a number of people identify with pinpoint ballistics be a root cause to current problems. Sometimes the elephant in the room needs to be addressed?

Burst fire would increase the skill curve for ballistic users. Which for me is more preferable than other suggestions than simply reducing applied skill or applying randomised effects with convergence or cone mechanics which would make things more a game of averages than skill. And ultimately under various conditions wont remove all occasions of direct pinpoint fire, but might help the range issue. Either way if further applied to beams in a similar way the disparities may still simply exist. But overall these mechanics could help to reduce some longer range dominance. Not that other existing mechanics like effective ranges, bullet speed and/or cycles times couldn't be tweaked to achieve similar results.

For myself I'd like to explore tweaks in various places (both direct and indirect) in existing mechanics to see if a subtle shifts would first help improve diversity before completely changing the game with new mechanics that would need developing and supporting by PGI. It would also be the best approach for continuity with players as a less dramatic change (well at least dependent on how much burst fire would be tuned I guess).

Edited by Noesis, 02 January 2014 - 03:12 PM.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Making it a stream would make it just like a laser and make it completely inefective against a light mech.

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Lasers are the most effective at damaging lights in general.

One of these quotes must be wrong? Lasers can't both be "completely ineffective against a light 'mech" and "the most effective at damaging lights in general" at the same time, can they?

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

I honestly dont get what is so wrong with instant direct damage

It breaks the armour mechanic.

It can't be that hard to understand, I've explained it quite a few times already. But I'll do it again:

The values for damage, armour, weight, heat and everything else concerning how 'mechs deal and take damage is taken from BattleTech, a game that has a random hit location system. As such, those values are balanced for random hit locations, i.e. the damage a 'mech does to another 'mech is intended to be spread across randomly chosen hit locations.

Now we don't want random hit locations in MWO, we want to hit what we aim at. But we have damage and armour values that are designed for random hit locations, and when the damage from a full alpha gets instantly applied to a single armour section of a 'mech, that is simply more damage than the system was ever intended to handle.

Lasers don't have this problem because they simulate the random hit location system from TT to some degree by spreading their damage during their beam duration, either by the firer failing to hold aim on one location, or the target managing to move so the firer cannot hold on one location. As such, lasers spread their damage over time.

Missiles and LBX don't have the problem either because they spread their damage over space - for missiles it is done with missile spread, and with the LBX it's done with a cone of fire. That means any damage done will naturally spread over several hit locations.

But ACs, PPCs, and Gauss don't spread their damage at all - all of it is applied in an instant to the same location. There is no action on the firer's part that can spread the damage over several locations, and there's no action on the target's part that can either; all damage is always instantly applied to a single location.

A good example is the AC/10 vs the LB-10X - which is the better weapon? The LB-10X is a ton lighter, takes one slot less, generates 1 point less heat, has longer range, and does the same 10 points of damage, yet is still a worse weapon - why? Because it - like most of the other weapons in MWO - spreads it damage out (in the LBX's case, it spreads over space).

So even before talking about convergence, ballistics have a great advantage over lasers and missiles in that they have zero spread; neither in time nor in space. This is hard enough to balance, but it gets even worse when we add in MWO's convergence system that allows every single weapon on a 'mech to hit the same spot - making two AC/20s into what effectively is an AC/40, and three PPCs into a 30 damage mega-PPC.

Edited by stjobe, 02 January 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[Sandpit]

We don't have tt armor
We have doubled armor values

That was implemented for the exact thing you're talking about jobe

[Varent]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

One of these quotes must be wrong? Lasers can't both be "completely ineffective against a light 'mech" and "the most effective at damaging lights in general" at the same time, can they?


It breaks the armour mechanic.

It can't be that hard to understand, I've explained it quite a few times already. But I'll do it again:

The values for damage, armour, weight, heat and everything else concerning how 'mechs deal and take damage is taken from BattleTech, a game that has a random hit location system. As such, those values are balanced for random hit locations, i.e. the damage a 'mech does to another 'mech is intended to be spread across randomly chosen hit locations.

Now we don't want random hit locations in MWO, we want to hit what we aim at. But we have damage and armour values that are designed for random hit locations, and when the damage from a full alpha gets instantly applied to a single armour section of a 'mech, that is simply more damage than the system was ever intended to handle.

Lasers don't have this problem because they simulate the random hit location system from TT to some degree by spreading their damage during their beam duration, either by the firer failing to hold aim on one location, or the target managing to move so the firer cannot hold on one location. As such, lasers spread their damage over time.

Missiles and LBX don't have the problem either because they spread their damage over space - for missiles it is done with missile spread, and with the LBX it's done with a cone of fire. That means any damage done will naturally spread over several hit locations.

But ACs, PPCs, and Gauss don't spread their damage at all - all of it is applied in an instant to the same location. There is no action on the firer's part that can spread the damage over several locations, and there's no action on the target's part that can either; all damage is always instantly applied to a single location.

A good example is the AC/10 vs the LB-10X - which is the better weapon? The LB-10X is a ton lighter, takes one slot less, generates 1 point less heat, has longer range, and does the same 10 points of damage, yet is still a worse weapon - why? Because it - like most of the other weapons in MWO - spreads it damage out (in the LBX's case, it spreads over space).

So even before talking about convergence, ballistics have a great advantage over lasers and missiles in that they have zero spread; neither in time nor in space. This is hard enough to balance, but it gets even worse when we add in MWO's convergence system that allows every single weapon on a 'mech to hit the same spot - making two AC/20s into what effectively is an AC/40, and three PPCs into a 30 damage mega-PPC.

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Lasers are the most effective at damaging lights in general. But the difference would be effective damage vs overall damage there.

You misquoted me. THe very next sentence explains it.

and yes I understand that.

THe damage system here is not battletech its its own monster.

Its a shooter.

I dont feel I need to explain further then that..

This game more accuretely depicts what mech combat would probly be like in my own opinion.

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

We don't have tt armor
We have doubled armor values

That was implemented for the exact thing you're talking about jobe

Also, This.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

We don't have tt armor
We have doubled armor values

That was implemented for the exact thing you're talking about jobe

No, it wasn't. It was implemented because rate of fire was tripled.

[YueFei]

Doubled armor is *mostly* a wash that compensates for >= 2.5x rate of fire increase.

Convergence causes more issues the more weapons you stack on. PPCx2 + 2xAC5, is several times the lethality compared to TT because you can land it all in one spot.

Even then, some mechs are able to twist and tank hits on arms, shoulders, spreading out the damage in a very TT-like manner, because they have good hitboxes. Other mechs have awful hitboxes and just die super fast.

This is why I was initially excited about the hitbox adjustments being made. I think Mech survivability is better served by hitbox adjustments, since that is something technically do-able in a short time frame and promotes skill in defensive piloting.

They can make arm hitboxes larger and slim down the torso sections. There's precedence for making hitboxes larger than the physical model (Raven legs, for example), so I would rather they inflated arm hitboxes so that they could make good shields on all mechs, not just the mechs that happen to have great arm geometry.

[Wildstreak]

Varent, on 31 December 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

We are too. Opinion are very common among gamers. They are opinions not facts.

Opinions are common among a lot of subjects, not just gaming. I see you are one of those, when things don't go your way, you think editing posts make you look cute. Well, you just keep having that cute feeling because the trend I have seen in this game is whenever some players say 'L2P' and 'nothing's wrong' about something others claim is broken, PGI tends to fix the item. So go ahead, keep posting what you are, you only encourage changes.

Cimarb, on 01 January 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

Merchant, the spreadsheets are from Google docs (at least mine are, possibly Excel for others?). Just take a screenshot and upload it as an image.

Sandpit and Varent, I'm glad you guys have confirmed your bromance, but let's get back on topic. StJobe and others have brought up great points, yet you two seem intent on the "you're dumb, learn to play" response instead of considering options where ballistics could be brought in line with the rest of the weapons.

In addition to firing bursts of shells instead of single slugs, autocannons need to be balanced with each other, as an AC2 should never out DPS a higher grade AC by their very definition: an AC is categorized by the amount of damage done over a set period, irregardless of caliber or firing rate.

Thanks. Don't sweat the other guys, L2P statements help get changes. History of MWO.

[Sandpit]

I'd like to know where I said anyone is dumb and learn to play? Sounds like you are the one digging because someone disagrees with your opinion

[Wildstreak]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Oh, it's no secret I'm a light pilot by preference, that's no big revelation. Anyone who's read a number of my posts know this. I love my Commandos, but I own more mediums than any other weight class.

And either way, I'm not arguing for a change to ACs and PPCs as a way to make lights more viable (I argue for Role Warfare for that), I argue this change to make the game better and closer to its BattleTech roots.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't even given much thought as to how making burst-fire ACs would affect light 'mechs; but at first glance I don't really think it'll be a buff to them. They'll take more damage as AC bursts that would have missed can be walked in just like lasers - but then again they might take less since AC bursts can partially miss and don't do the full damage they would have. It'll probably be a wash then.

You're right, changing ACs & PPCs will not help Lights, it would to some degree work against them. But the change, whatever form it would take, would help Mediums the weight class Frontloaded damage hurt the most and thus changed the meta to piles of Heavy/Assaults especially those with Ballistics.

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

We don't have tt armor
We have doubled armor values

That was implemented for the exact thing you're talking about jobe

And it works for everything except Frontloaded damage.

[Wildstreak]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 08:43 PM, said:

I'd like to know where I said anyone is dumb and learn to play? Sounds like you are the one digging because someone disagrees with your opinion

No you may not have but you are in the group that has people who have said it. Just because you individually did not does not mean others on your side have not either. The comments are in the topic regarding who did and did not. It is just you are in the group with people who have. The focus is the argument, not the individual.

Don't know where you get this 'digging because someone disagrees with your opinion' from at all. My statements have a strong case and support.

YueFei, on 02 January 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

I've done spotting for my buddy's LRMs in my Jenner before. Very satisfying to me, because I don't care about XP or C-Bills, I just care about winning the match. When there's no ECM around it worked fine. I'm hopping up and down here and there holding a lock and the enemy Assault mech is getting pelted by LRMs. Then an enemy Streakhawk comes barreling in my direction and I run away screaming like a little girl. =P

Hey that sounds like Role Warfare! What the heck?

When I drive my Locusts, there are times the team tries to find the enemy, I zip in causing a bunch of temporary sensor blips to show up figuring the team notes them and gets an idea where the enemy is. Other times throughout the match, I find some enemies and leave to a safe spot then noting some team members are elsewhere, I text what I got and leave for a location of greater safety.

All through the match. No rewards other than greater chance of a team win but I am fine with it.

Role Warfare still works for Lights.

[mania3c]

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

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.

And you can't make any reliable conclusion based on some very limited observations.

I will put it VERY strongly.. so don't take that literally .. just want to try explain what I have on mind..

If ACs are strong weapon against huge slow targets, and current meta is build around slow and huge mechs... you really can't say other weapon systems are undertuned or ACs are overpowered..only you can say that ACs fits into current environment the best..that's it.. and nerfing AC's wouldn't fix core of the problem..

Again..I just overshoot what I just said just to make point clear.. I Understand it's not that easy.. however, you should have idea what data we need to be actually objective..

we need fair representation of each chassis in the game..ideally 25% lights/mediums/heavies/assaults ..but we don't have it now..fact is..as long as I remember (I am playing this game since december 2012)..we always had something like 70-80% of heavies/assaults in a match.. okey..we had period of time, when raven flocks were effective..but it was really long time ago..

What I am saying that many people are making really wide conclusions based on current experience in the game..which is fine..what however many people don't understand..that with their suggestions they could make situation even worse.. when meta will finally shift away from heavies and assaults ..

Another example would be..heavies/assault vs medium balance. I know it's not so prominent these days..but still we can hear it.."buff mediums, nerf heavy mechs" etc.. Again..how we know medium vs heavy is actually issue? thing is..we don't. Current maps and modes are just glorified deathmatch arenas / modes. It's understandable, that in modes, where you actually need go into head to head combat, heavies will outperform mediums..especially when maps and modes are not utilizing speed and agility builds (chock points everywhere)...so people still asking for medium buffs..but..how far it can goes? Until mediums can beat heavies/assaults in head to head combat? if this will happen..and more modes will be introduced where actually mobility, agility and lighter mech will be needed ..AND mediums will be able beat heavy mechs in head to head combat..we will have different cries..that heavies and assaults should be able to catch up with mediums in mobility... do you see my point?

I am saying we should focus on core of the issue ..not trying to band aid symptomes.

Edited by mania3c, 03 January 2014 - 03:48 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 02 January 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

One of these quotes must be wrong? Lasers can't both be "completely ineffective against a light 'mech" and "the most effective at damaging lights in general" at the same time, can they?


It breaks the armour mechanic.

It can't be that hard to understand, I've explained it quite a few times already. But I'll do it again:

The values for damage, armour, weight, heat and everything else concerning how 'mechs deal and take damage is taken from BattleTech, a game that has a random hit location system. As such, those values are balanced for random hit locations, i.e. the damage a 'mech does to another 'mech is intended to be spread across randomly chosen hit locations.

Now we don't want random hit locations in MWO, we want to hit what we aim at. But we have damage and armour values that are designed for random hit locations, and when the damage from a full alpha gets instantly applied to a single armour section of a 'mech, that is simply more damage than the system was ever intended to handle.

Lasers don't have this problem because they simulate the random hit location system from TT to some degree by spreading their damage during their beam duration, either by the firer failing to hold aim on one location, or the target managing to move so the firer cannot hold on one location. As such, lasers spread their damage over time.

Missiles and LBX don't have the problem either because they spread their damage over space - for missiles it is done with missile spread, and with the LBX it's done with a cone of fire. That means any damage done will naturally spread over several hit locations.

But ACs, PPCs, and Gauss don't spread their damage at all - all of it is applied in an instant to the same location. There is no action on the firer's part that can spread the damage over several locations, and there's no action on the target's part that can either; all damage is always instantly applied to a single location.

A good example is the AC/10 vs the LB-10X - which is the better weapon? The LB-10X is a ton lighter, takes one slot less, generates 1 point less heat, has longer range, and does the same 10 points of damage, yet is still a worse weapon - why? Because it - like most of the other weapons in MWO - spreads it damage out (in the LBX's case, it spreads over space).

So even before talking about convergence, ballistics have a great advantage over lasers and missiles in that they have zero spread; neither in time nor in space. This is hard enough to balance, but it gets even worse when we add in MWO's convergence system that allows every single weapon on a 'mech to hit the same spot - making two AC/20s into what effectively is an AC/40, and three PPCs into a 30 damage mega-PPC.

And as I have countered a few times it is more the problem of convergence than front loaded damage. All our Mechs are equipped with the equivalent of Clan Targeting Computers as everything we fire goes right where we are pointing. That is not normal. There is a bit of spread unless you are firing lasers which should all hit where the crosshairs are pointed.

Why not make a laser front loaded damage just like ACs? That would be a better fix in my eyes. I understand why lasers are the way they are, but you know me St, I want moar damnage nad. Not ashamed to say it either. Stop Nerfing and start buffing instead.