147 replies to this topic

[Roughneck45]

So many threads about ballistics being OP.

But lets get serious here, besides triple UAC5, Quad AC5, and AC40 (which should all be scary lethal because that is your entire payload 9/10 times) is anyone afraid of ballistics that aren't backed up by PPC's?

Edited by Roughneck45, 11 January 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Roughneck45, on 11 January 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

So many threads about ballistics being OP.

But lets get serious here, besides triple UAC5, Quad AC5, and AC40 (which should all be scary lethal because that is your entire payload 9/10 times) is anyone afraid of ballistics that aren't backed up by PPC's?

Am I supposed to be afraid of Ballistics WITH PPCs? Why doesn't anyone give me those Memos!

[Gaan Cathal]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

ammo SHOULD be a precious commodity. right now it isnt, eventually it will be, once that happens things are going to change DRASTICALLY. So that said I dont see a point in nerfing or buffing until that occurs and then making a judgement call.

"Eventually it will be"? Evidence on that? It was, at one point, as were repair costs. PGI screwed up by allowing people to drop in armourless mechs with a % free ammo and rather than fix the problem they removed the entire R&R system and fairly much stated that it was never coming back.

Roughneck45, on 11 January 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

But lets get serious here, besides triple UAC5, Quad AC5, and AC40 (which should all be scary lethal because that is your entire payload 9/10 times) is anyone afraid of ballistics that aren't backed up by PPC's?

The PPC is a Ballistic that goes in an Energy slot. You're being disingenuous and you know it.

Edited by Gaan Cathal, 11 January 2014 - 11:22 AM.

[Sowaka]

I don't see any draw to using energy over ballistics, a combination is always best, but I never see any reason to prioritize energy over ballistics. I consider the ballistic weapons as my primary weapon and energy as a secondary that I only add in once I've crammed as much ballistic weaponry into my mech as possible. I've been trying to use energy boats like the Jester but just find them pointless when compared to other mechs in my arsenal with ballistic hard points. I've yet to find a Jester build that performs better than any of my K2 builds, I can load him with as many heatsinks as possible but he'll still overheat too quickly or do less DPS, pinpoint damage AND require more face time with the enemy, something that a Catapult can't really afford. Ballistics might be heavier, but they're always operational for a brawl, can be fired even when I'm at 90% heat without worry, and end up doing higher DPS since I can fire them consistently throughout a large fight without taking little heat breaks to cool down. Oh yeah, they're also natural anti-light weapons. They're amazing against lights if you can aim, I find it's impossible to do a full beam duration on a light without the perfect situation, but 2 AC5s will apply an instant 10 damage to a light. I think that even if you had perfect accuracy and dragged a beam perfectly over a moving light the latency would cause half of it not to register, you don't really have that problem with ACs.

[Varent]

Serpentbane, on 11 January 2014 - 02:49 AM, said:

But you prove the point of this topic by scratching energy weapons for superior weapon systems. You bringing down AC20 boats with SRM's have nothing to do with this discussion.

Bad build, yes. But then again, all energy builds are bad builds. Don't get me wrong, I can deal good damage with energy builds, but they still can not compare with balistic builds.

Mixed setups are what they are, but so are energy only builds also. Awesome 8Q, when did you last see that one ingame. It simply will not work with the default setup, and there is no way making it good. Yes, as I wrote earlier, putting all SPL on it, making several kills and quite a fwe hundered dmg just make me lucky or a better pilot in that match. This does not change the fact that this mech is ****.

I use energy weapons on that build as well. In fact I dont use ballistics on that build. I go away from the balistic to use energy.

Think about it.

Roughneck45, on 11 January 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

So many threads about ballistics being OP.

But lets get serious here, besides triple UAC5, Quad AC5, and AC40 (which should all be scary lethal because that is your entire payload 9/10 times) is anyone afraid of ballistics that aren't backed up by PPC's?

Im not afraid of any balistic or ppc thats not backed up by JJ

[Noesis]

Roughneck45, on 11 January 2014 - 11:02 AM, said:

So many threads about ballistics being OP.

But lets get serious here, besides triple UAC5, Quad AC5, and AC40 (which should all be scary lethal because that is your entire payload 9/10 times) is anyone afraid of ballistics that aren't backed up by PPC's?

Since this is a normal configuration on all light Mechs for instance? . But of course I'd like to confirm with this statement that lights and some Medium Mechs with build limitations are not scary with this mentioned dominant Meta that are only really the domain of larger Mechs.

Weapons have their balances, ballistics the most effective as being able to be applied, this includes energy PPC ballistics.

So I'd say that ballistics are still OP but remembering to include energy ballistics, more relevant as you say with these utilised in grouped or combined weapon fire arrangements.

Edited by Noesis, 11 January 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The current discussion is in a large part, by the way, not actually ballistic vs energy, but ballistic and ppc vs beams.

But of course, even that is incomplete..

How many AC/20 Ravens or Dual AC/5 Cicadas are out there, compared to 4-6 ML Jenners?
It's never all that simple.
But how many Dual AC/20 Jagermechs are there, compared to Hexa ML + 2MG Jagermechs?

[Varent]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 January 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

The current discussion is in a large part, by the way, not actually ballistic vs energy, but ballistic and ppc vs beams.

But of course, even that is incomplete..

How many AC/20 Ravens or Dual AC/5 Cicadas are out there, compared to 4-6 ML Jenners?
It's never all that simple.
But how many Dual AC/20 Jagermechs are there, compared to Hexa ML + 2MG Jagermechs?

bettre question might be in multiple elo how many ac40 jagers actually do good as compared to other builds of jager. I usually see ac40 jager fail pretty hard in mind.

[Sandpit]

Skyfaller, on 11 January 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Lasers only need to be given a crit chance per damage puff (a non-pulse laser does like 12 of them in a second). That would bring them into 'deadliness' balance with the front loaded damage, pinpoint accuracy ballistics.


Also, this nonsense that ballistic tonnage requirements balances them out is untrue. Mechs that have ballistic slots have the tonnage to equip even the biggest AC effectively. Don't believe me? Try a Raven with an AC20. There's plenty of ammo in it to take down multiple heavy mechs. A Jager with dual AC20 is another great example... more firepower than an atlas and enough ammo to take down several atlas. Its absurd.

And fearing an AC20 Raven in anything over a 35 ton mech is nonsense

See how that works? It's a matter of opinion. Just because someone doesn't feel the trade-off is worth it doesn't make it nonsense. Statements like that basically just dismiss anyone who disagrees with that opinion.

[Lukoi Banacek]

While I do not post about the topic often, I disagree that lasers do not need some help to be of closer parity to ballistics. I am more concerned with pulse lasers than standard and with options that might help beam/duration weapons in light of the challenges brought on convergence. That is really a multitide of issues rather than an overly simplistic take on things as the "ballistics are op compared to lazors" discussion tends to degenerate into however.

And since I honestly do not believe PGI uses these forums as any kind of legitimate sounding board....why waste the time arguing with people over opinions who you will not convince to change their POV anyway? It is simpler to play the game, enjoy it for what it is worth and feedback to PGI in what few ways are available, instead of bothering with anecdotal zealotry on the forums.

Edited by Lukoi, 11 January 2014 - 10:59 PM.

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 11 January 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

And fearing an AC20 Raven in anything over a 35 ton mech is nonsense

See how that works? It's a matter of opinion. Just because someone doesn't feel the trade-off is worth it doesn't make it nonsense. Statements like that basically just dismiss anyone who disagrees with that opinion.

Yet another contrary opinion posted by Sandpit supported entirely by opinion and completely ignoring the actual topic.

You really should see to changing your forum name from Sandpit to Strawman.

[Varent]

hes wrong because hes not fearing a 35 ton mech that would have little to no agility or armor and pops like nothing? Ive actually made that mech for laughs. Ya no.... anyone that sees a raven moving at about 80-90 ish is going to lock on and kill it like no ones business.

That said just because I was feeling chipper last night I actually ran about 10 games in a row with an ac40 jager. 10 games in I averaged about a kill a game and 200ish damage each time while I was focused at every corner simply because people 'properly' saw what I was carrying and made me a target, taking out my ac or left/right torso as they should.

I couldnt take more then 10 because honestly it left a bad taste in my mouth, switched to my dakka jager with 2 uac5, 2 large laser and 4 machine gun and proceeded to rip through people for about 500+ a game and 3+ kills each time. Even did a few 12 mans with it and racked up about 500 ish damage on those with our brawler lance.

[Sandpit]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

Yet another contrary opinion posted by Sandpit supported entirely by opinion.

Nice try.
Calling any weapon, useless, worthless, unusable, or any other such nonsensical blanket statement implies it cannot do damage, cannot be used, cannot be effective. Thank you for pointing that out though. It's always nice to have some support when pointing this out to others

[YueFei]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

hes wrong because hes not fearing a 35 ton mech that would have little to no agility or armor and pops like nothing? Ive actually made that mech for laughs. Ya no.... anyone that sees a raven moving at about 80-90 ish is going to lock on and kill it like no ones business.

That said just because I was feeling chipper last night I actually ran about 10 games in a row with an ac40 jager. 10 games in I averaged about a kill a game and 200ish damage each time while I was focused at every corner simply because people 'properly' saw what I was carrying and made me a target, taking out my ac or left/right torso as they should.

I couldnt take more then 10 because honestly it left a bad taste in my mouth, switched to my dakka jager with 2 uac5, 2 large laser and 4 machine gun and proceeded to rip through people for about 500+ a game and 3+ kills each time. Even did a few 12 mans with it and racked up about 500 ish damage on those with our brawler lance.

Yeah can't overlook the extra range you get from UAC5's and Large Lasers. Jagermech hitboxes don't lend itself well to brawls and short-range fights. It's easier to fire from cover if you don't have to get close.

I know the feeling so often in my HBK-4SP with the usual loadout. So many times I step from cover, and I see the enemy isn't looking at me, but I'm too far away to do effective damage. I can move in closer, but it's always risky. The closer you get, the less cover is available, and the harder it is to disengage if things go bad.

But at least the HBK-4SP is better built to take punishment compared to the Jagermech. Sometimes a good game in a HBK-4SP means doing only 200 damage or less, but tanking hits all over the mech so teammates can get off free shots. I do wish the arm hitboxes on the HBK were bigger, though. You have to be twisted at just about the perfect angle to block shots with those skinny upper arms... even at a perfect angle, some shots can still get past and hit the shoulder instead of the arm.

[Varent]

YueFei, on 13 January 2014 - 12:34 AM, said:

Yeah can't overlook the extra range you get from UAC5's and Large Lasers. Jagermech hitboxes don't lend itself well to brawls and short-range fights. It's easier to fire from cover if you don't have to get close.

I know the feeling so often in my HBK-4SP with the usual loadout. So many times I step from cover, and I see the enemy isn't looking at me, but I'm too far away to do effective damage. I can move in closer, but it's always risky. The closer you get, the less cover is available, and the harder it is to disengage if things go bad.

But at least the HBK-4SP is better built to take punishment compared to the Jagermech. Sometimes a good game in a HBK-4SP means doing only 200 damage or less, but tanking hits all over the mech so teammates can get off free shots. I do wish the arm hitboxes on the HBK were bigger, though. You have to be twisted at just about the perfect angle to block shots with those skinny upper arms... even at a perfect angle, some shots can still get past and hit the shoulder instead of the arm.

Ive actually been really fond of building my hunchbacks for ranged fire support. with that massive hump you can peak over hills nicely without exposing yourself to much. That hump is a liability in brawling but works well for supportive rolls.

I like erlarge laser, erppc and ac2

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Ive actually been really fond of building my hunchbacks for ranged fire support. with that massive hump you can peak over hills nicely without exposing yourself to much. That hump is a liability in brawling but works well for supportive rolls.

I like erlarge laser, erppc and ac2

Which is really limiting don't you think for a Mech recognised in lore classification as a Juggernaut?

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Which is really limiting don't you think for a Mech recognised in lore classification as a Juggernaut?

eh. honeslty ive been trying to step away from lore. While I enjoy it, and I read all the books. It just doesnt work for an online shooter and ive found the more I try to treat it from a lore standpoint the less fun I have where as the more I think outside of the box and treat it like a shooter the more fun I have.

Is it right for everyone? *shrug* who knows. I just know its allowed me to enjoy playing my hunchy.

What I think would really help the hunchy and ALOT of mechs overall is if they build a true city map with lots of buildings to slide in and out of. However PGI has already said they dont want to release a map wich takes away from other playstyles.

Im hopefull they will change there mind.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

eh. honeslty ive been trying to step away from lore. While I enjoy it, and I read all the books. It just doesnt work for an online shooter and ive found the more I try to treat it from a lore standpoint the less fun I have where as the more I think outside of the box and treat it like a shooter the more fun I have.

Is it right for everyone? *shrug* who knows. I just know its allowed me to enjoy playing my hunchy.

What I think would really help the hunchy and ALOT of mechs overall is if they build a true city map with lots of buildings to slide in and out of. However PGI has already said they dont want to release a map wich takes away from other playstyles.

Im hopefull they will change there mind.

That would be a nice change. It would flood us with even more QQ over ballistics, AC20 and AC40 though. That type of map is perfect for a brawler build

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 07:34 AM, said:

eh. honeslty ive been trying to step away from lore. While I enjoy it, and I read all the books. It just doesnt work for an online shooter and ive found the more I try to treat it from a lore standpoint the less fun I have where as the more I think outside of the box and treat it like a shooter the more fun I have.

Is it right for everyone? *shrug* who knows. I just know its allowed me to enjoy playing my hunchy.

What I think would really help the hunchy and ALOT of mechs overall is if they build a true city map with lots of buildings to slide in and out of. However PGI has already said they dont want to release a map wich takes away from other playstyles.

Im hopefull they will change there mind.

Far too forced a situational need, maps should have scope to employ tactics for differing roles even if there needs to be slight differences to enjoy and explore various differences in roles. And river city does afford these opportunities, maybe Crimson Strait to some extent.

The elephant in the room however might be to resize some mediums with appropriate "mechosuction" to help with their size and help the HBK's kyphosis issue with some needed plastic surgery? Thus allowing them more survivability to the roles they could play well and have been identified in lore as doing?

Edited by Noesis, 13 January 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 07:40 AM, said:

Far too forced a situational need, maps should have scope to employ tactics for differing roles even if there needs to be slight differences to enjoy and explore various differences in roles.

The elephant in the room however might be to resize some mediums with appropriate "mechosuction" to help with their size and help the HBK's kyphosis issue with some needed plastic surgery? Thus allowing them more survivability to the roles they could play well and have been identified in lore as doing?

agreed, to a degree. Though that hunch is still a massive target. Personally I had alot of ideas on the hunchy to make them more playable. Making the shoulder a weapon pod for example. Perhaps diverting armor from the left torso to the right.. etc..etc.

Still Im simply unsure. I think from a shooting perspective its hard to make that shoulder not attract fire.