147 replies to this topic

[Varent]

PropagandaWar, on 26 December 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

lol. Yeah that'll be fun to watch! Because being shut down is for winners! Weeeeeeee. Oh can I have 18 DHS to go with that!

you do realize from alpha value alone the medium lasers would probly win?

by the time you did significant damage with an ac5 over the same time frame to open up a torso, you would already have a torso opened up by the lasers. That isnt even taking into account the fact you could cycle the lasers so if your twisting to avoid damage you can still have constant damage up on one or two areas to keep up the pressure.

But then we also dont even go into the concept of range, where are they starting from, since the ac5 has longer range... but oh wait cover... ya that comes into effect...

Pointless arguments comparing weapons are pointless. You cant compare weapons based off weight or dps. They all have there place and roll and are all situationally better in any given circumstance. It always depends on circumstance.

NRP, on 26 December 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Fine, replace the 2 PPCs with 2 LPLs.

The conclusion will not change.

then I would say you made a bad mech? How about instead you rip out the lasers overall and put im mediums for better heat efficiency and run 3 srm 6 with artemis? Now compare again. the three srm 6 with artemis mech is more heat efficient and has higher damage potential. Also it does not rely on one major weapon group like the ac20 one does and cant be neutered quite so eaasily.

bad mech build is bad, dont use it as an example.

[PropagandaWar]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

you do realize from alpha value alone the medium lasers would probly win?

by the time you did significant damage with an ac5 over the same time frame to open up a torso, you would already have a torso opened up by the lasers. That isnt even taking into account the fact you could cycle the lasers so if your twisting to avoid damage you can still have constant damage up on one or two areas to keep up the pressure.

But then we also dont even go into the concept of range, where are they starting from, since the ac5 has longer range... but oh wait cover... ya that comes into effect...

Pointless arguments comparing weapons are pointless. You cant compare weapons based off weight or dps. They all have there place and roll and are all situationally better in any given circumstance. It always depends on circumstance.

I was just laughing at firing 8 medium lasers off at once is silly in itself unless its the kill shot. Because right after that you have to go into a cycle. Personally I use both together, along with missles. The only OP weapon I think we have is the stupid streaks, and thats because srms only due 2 points of damage and we all know they'll be dialing back streak damage once big brother comes, so why not do it now. One thing people also forget to weigh in on these great debats is you do have a DoT with the "Lasers". You don't get that luxury with AC's, PPC or Guass and Cannon ammo is a precious commodity on the battlefield.

Edited by PropagandaWar, 26 December 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Varent]

PropagandaWar, on 26 December 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

I was just laughing at firing 8 medium lasers off at once is silly in itself unless its the kill shot. Because right after that you have to go into a cycle. Personally I use both together, along with missles. The only OP weapon I think we have is the stupid streaks, and thats because srms only due 2 points of damage and we all know they'll be dialing back streak damage once big brother comes, so why not do it now. One thing people also forget to weigh in on these great debats is you do have a DoT with the "Lasers". You don't get that luxury with AC's, PPC or Guass and Cannon ammo is a precious commodity on the battlefield.

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.

[PropagandaWar]

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.

Oh if we could get that with CW. Damn that would be awesome. Cutting off supply lines. Doubt that'll happen though. In game I conserve my ammo as best i can though

[Varent]

PropagandaWar, on 26 December 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Oh if we could get that with CW. Damn that would be awesome. Cutting off supply lines. Doubt that'll happen though. In game I conserve my ammo as best i can though

They have stated alot of things (pgi). some of them seem favorable with options for community warefare... but that said its all too soon to tell anything. For myself ive committed to waiting to see if they hit there marks with there current timeline and waiting to see what there model for CW starts looking like.

They have mentioned supply drops when you run out of ammo, scavenging ammo from destroyed mechs and being limited in ammo depending on where you are at. So maybe you can repair your mech but not get the ammo back.... which would be 'hilarious' to dual ac20 jagers qqing about nothing to do. Personally id be amused and then say, 'wish ya had those 'underpowered' lasers now dontcha?'

[Tombstoner]

Food for thought for when hard-points are no longer as big a constraint i.e. clan tech

weapon name DPS per ton of weapon buff from TT
auto cannon - 5 .4 667%
medium laser 2.0 400%

[NRP]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

then I would say you made a bad mech? How about instead you rip out the lasers overall and put im mediums for better heat efficiency and run 3 srm 6 with artemis? Now compare again. the three srm 6 with artemis mech is more heat efficient and has higher damage potential. Also it does not rely on one major weapon group like the ac20 one does and cant be neutered quite so eaasily.

bad mech build is bad, dont use it as an example.

Kind of my point. The 733P is an inferior variant, precisely because it's an energy boat.

I used these two mechs as an example because it's about as close as you can get to an equivalent ballistic vs energy loadout for comparison purposes.

Besides, with SRM hit detection being what it is, your 4 ML + 3 ASRM6 733P would get annihilated by either of the builds I posted earlier. Seriously, do you actually play this game, or just argue on the internet all day?

[PropagandaWar]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

They have stated alot of things (pgi). some of them seem favorable with options for community warefare... but that said its all too soon to tell anything. For myself ive committed to waiting to see if they hit there marks with there current timeline and waiting to see what there model for CW starts looking like.

They have mentioned supply drops when you run out of ammo, scavenging ammo from destroyed mechs and being limited in ammo depending on where you are at. So maybe you can repair your mech but not get the ammo back.... which would be 'hilarious' to dual ac20 jagers qqing about nothing to do. Personally id be amused and then say, 'wish ya had those 'underpowered' lasers now dontcha?'

Yeah just like in the books. They will probably have to go with two types of CW if they go that route. I can hear the QQ'ing now.

[Varent]

NRP, on 26 December 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Kind of my point. The 733P is an inferior variant, precisely because it's an energy boat.

I used these two mechs as an example because it's about as close as you can get to an equivalent ballistic vs energy loadout for comparison purposes.

Besides, with SRM hit detection being what it is, your 4 ML + 3 ASRM6 733P would get annihilated by either of the builds I posted earlier. Seriously, do you actually play this game, or just argue on the internet all day?

it wasnt a matter of it being an energy boat. It was a matter of you made a bad build. the build I just showed you was superior.

I regularly take builds using SRMs into the game. yes I know hit detection is bad. i have actually calculated it to about 1/4 of the missles dont hit. I still use them and love them for there weight to damage to heat ratios and am very good with them. I didnt even mention the fact you could make an lrm boat and in many situations be superior if you catch the ac20 user out in space.

I play this game quite abit in fact. I would argue I could take the ac 20 user with my srms easily to be honest. But perhaps that is simply because I am good with the weapons and understand that the ac20 would die within 3 alphas and then id just be fighting large lasers with my superior weapon groups.

I would however love to show you a test of this sometime if you think im (full of it) feel free to add me in game, take the builds you have with the ac20, ill take the srms and we can see how they compare? Ive always viewed playtesting as the true telling statement, not numbers or number skewing. If nothing else might help ya get a new outlook.

name in game - Varent.

PropagandaWar, on 26 December 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

I can hear the QQ'ing now.

It sounds like.... victory....

[Corvus Antaka]

Energy weapons are just fine right now.

Ballistics are OP.

[Serpentbane]

Varent, on 26 December 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

it wasnt a matter of it being an energy boat. It was a matter of you made a bad build. the build I just showed you was superior.

I regularly take builds using SRMs into the game. yes I know hit detection is bad. i have actually calculated it to about 1/4 of the missles dont hit. I still use them and love them for there weight to damage to heat ratios and am very good with them. I didnt even mention the fact you could make an lrm boat and in many situations be superior if you catch the ac20 user out in space.

I play this game quite abit in fact. I would argue I could take the ac 20 user with my srms easily to be honest. But perhaps that is simply because I am good with the weapons and understand that the ac20 would die within 3 alphas and then id just be fighting large lasers with my superior weapon groups.

I would however love to show you a test of this sometime if you think im (full of it) feel free to add me in game, take the builds you have with the ac20, ill take the srms and we can see how they compare? Ive always viewed playtesting as the true telling statement, not numbers or number skewing. If nothing else might help ya get a new outlook.

name in game - Varent.



It sounds like.... victory....

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 ****.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

No one on the "ballistics are op" bandwagon ever takes into account those trade-offs. They either ignore them entirely or "argue" that those trade-offs don't count because (insert whatever reason here)

Here's one insane reason: Energy weapons need more heat sinks.

For these 3 trade-off aspects of weapons in relation to damage output potential:
- Weight
- Weight for Heat Sinks to run sufficiently cool (not heat neutral, just enough to fire for a while.)
- Weight of Ammo Needs (not "never run out ever", just enough to have the ammo to shoot for a hopefully sufficient while)
I have the thread in my signature.

We've been talking so much about pinpoint precision, convergence and beam vs projectile that I almost forget that...

Spoiler

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 January 2014 - 03:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 26 December 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Energy weapons are just fine right now.

Ballistics are OP.

I don't do this often, but I disagree with you Sir.

Ballistics are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. Punch holes in armor!
Lasers Burn/Melt armor DoT
Missiles Blast armor off all over
Ballistics are hammers!(excluding the MG... its a sand blaster)

AC20 is often firing a 6"(150mm)-8"(203mm) shell... you don't see that flying around at 600 rounds per minute! You see 6-10 rounds per minute. Don't screw up what a heavy AC should be doing! If I wanted to take off armor in lil bites I'd use an AC2!

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 ****.

Then Fix ENERGY WEAPONS!!!

[Lykaon]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

f you notice? In all of the "op, broken, up, etc." threads? It's the same 20 or so players posting the same exact posts over and over and over and over again, with a few new players here and there once in a while giving their opinions.

PGI, please just know that not everyone (and judging by just about every single poll these players posting this kinda stuff have ever posted) agrees that the isn't balanced

Lasers = good place right now
ballistics = good place right now
heat = good place right now
SRMs = could use a look at hit registration

The game, overall, is very well-balanced at the moment. Please do not continue implementing easy buttons for those that simply cannot or will not adjust. Those of us that actually look for a challenging game appreciate where the game is now.

Is this opinion or Sandpit's version of reality?

You expound on the competitive nature of lasers and claim that a Laser build is equal to a ballistic build without ever providing any evidence to support the argument beyond you think it's so.

You activley ignore critical facts and focus on incomplete data.

And when someone does provide you with examples and comparative data proving that there is a dispairity you do not refute the data you instead attack the person exclaiming that they are bad players or stupid etc.

The amuzing part to this is you can't even provide supporting data to support your strawman argument that anyone who thinks counter to you is in fact a bad player or a {Dezgra}.



Here is the disparity between beams and ACs.

ONE: Concentrated damage is superior to dispersed damage. An AC applies all it's damage to one spot instantly upon impact of the projectile.A laser beam applies it's damage over the duration of the beam inflicting damage to any locations under the beam contact point.
By it's nature Laser damage mechanics in MWo produce inconsistant results frequently creating dispersed damage patterns.

Can you refute this? No because it's true. Ballistics have the superior damage application mechanics over beams.

Two: Tactical use of a weapon is dependant upon it's firing mechanics.A ballistic weapon can be fired instantly upon aligning with a target and then the firing unit is free to manuver.This is obviously favorable because it allows for a ballistic armed mech to maximize time in cover.Conversley the laser armed mech must maintain the beam on the target for the duration of the beam.This leaves the laser equiped mech exposed to incoming fire while it waits to complete the beam cycle.

Can you refute this? No because it is true.Ballistics posses a more favorable firing mechanics as well as the superior damage application mechanics.


Three: Ballistics posses superior heat managment characteristics coupled with higher rates of fire producing superior DPS on a ton for ton basis.

An example:

Shadowhawk 2d2 builds.each is allowed 10 DHS and 10 tons of weapons.

Model a: AC 5 with 2 tons of ammo.This mech posseses a 286% cooling efficency and a sustained DPS of 3.33.

Model b: two large lasers.This mech posseses a 59% cooling efficency and a sustained DPS of 2.5

The Ballistic model gets the superior damage dealing mechanic (concentrated damage) and the superior firing mechanic (instant discharge of 100% of the damage potential) AND also has obvious advantages in the cooling efficency department AND the DPS department.Also an AC5 out ranges the large lasers.

The laser platform gets? what? no ammo dependency? is that balance? the AC gets superior everything else but needs ammo.

Now I'm sure I'm correct on this.

or do you want to see 8 medium lasers 1 medium pulse 10 DHS if you think 2 large lasers was not a good example.

Hunchback 4SP 8 medium lasers 1 med pulse 2.45 sustained DPS 21% cooling efficency + ghostheat for over 6 medium lasers.Also a larger range dispairity of medium lasers vs Ac5.

Can you answer this? do you have a means of supporting a discussion on game mechanics without your ussual fall backs of Strawman attacks or claims that your opinion is somehow more correct than actual examples that apply actual game mechanics in a logical compareson?

Edited by Lykaon, 11 January 2014 - 05:31 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

The problem isn't damage its cool down!

AC10 Cool Down 2.5 seconds

PPC Cool Down 4 seconds

Make the AC10 AND the PPC cool down 3 seconds and now the damage per second for both weapons should be equal. Lasers need a shorter beam duration(0.5 seconds) and cool down(2.5 second) so they can put more damage on target faster. These weapons are supposed to be comparable in battle, so make them nearly identical damage so the only deciding factor is do I want to Pew Pew or Dakka! People are just over thinking this issue way to much!

[Lykaon]

Now here's the thing.

I think it would be a bad idea to nerf ACs or alter them to emmulate lasers by making the autocannons into burst fire weapons.

If you alter ACs into burst weapons you have essentially cloned the laser's firing mechanics and removed the AC's unique tactical use as a snap fire weapon.This removes variety and reduces tactical options.

So,bad plan.

I would recomend we look at this issue from the other end of the spectrum.

Most threads on the subject fixate on the weapon's mechanics I feel the solution is in adjusting the armor mechanics instead.

Currently the armor mechanics are exactally what is producing the favorable enviorment that is producing the Pinpoint alpha striker meta,a meta dominated by AC and PPC builds.

If different classes of weapons inflicted damage differently balance can be struck.We do however need to keep an eye on maintaining the unique characteristics of these weapons so we do not delude tactica flexability by producing a pile of cloned guns using cloned mechanics.

[Skyfaller]

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

The Locust wishes to discuss that with you! You gotta show me how you get a AC20 ON It effectively!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 January 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Look, the major problem with ballistics is by the time they run out of ammo, the 12v12 is over. Damage potential of the 10/5 caliber guns combined with their high ammo counts is a big part of the issue.

in theory energy guns have unlimited dmg potential, but by the time a fight is over, it's generally ireelevant as the ballistics have enough ammo for 1 12v12 fight.

add to this faster recycle times etc.

ac/20 after the bullet change is a lot better. im quite happy with the gun now as a brawling gun.

what we need to see is some tuning to the heat on ballistics and ammo amounts so that the unlimited ammo of energy weapons is more appealing.

that said the regular ppc is still not hot enough, it needs to be 12 heat not 10, and that coupled with current ballistic ammo #'s and ballistic effectiveness seems slightly problematic.

However overall ia gree with sandpit, the game balance is extremely good now. some very minor tuning on ballistics sohuld be enough. curbing max range might do the job, maybe 25% less ammo or even 50% less could work too.

but the heat heavy weapons/mechs are absolutely hurting vs balliostic boats.

ie a quad ballistc jaeggger vs an awesome the ballistic jaegger is handdown heavily advantaged currently.

[Joseph Mallan]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 11 January 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Look, the major problem with ballistics is by the time they run out of ammo, the 12v12 is over. Damage potential of the 10/5 caliber guns combined with their high ammo counts is a big part of the issue.

in theory energy guns have unlimited dmg potential, but by the time a fight is over, it's generally ireelevant as the ballistics have enough ammo for 1 12v12 fight.

add to this faster recycle times etc.

ac/20 after the bullet change is a lot better. im quite happy with the gun now as a brawling gun.

what we need to see is some tuning to the heat on ballistics and ammo amounts so that the unlimited ammo of energy weapons is more appealing.

that said the regular ppc is still not hot enough, it needs to be 12 heat not 10, and that coupled with current ballistic ammo #'s and ballistic effectiveness seems slightly problematic.

However overall ia gree with sandpit, the game balance is extremely good now. some very minor tuning on ballistics sohuld be enough. curbing max range might do the job, maybe 25% less ammo or even 50% less could work too.

but the heat heavy weapons/mechs are absolutely hurting vs balliostic boats.

ie a quad ballistc jaeggger vs an awesome the ballistic jaegger is handdown heavily advantaged currently.

With Hit boxes and Ghost heat I have to agree sir.