424 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

This is obviously to make hitting at extreme ranges on these weapons harder. I don't hate it.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 07 January 2014 - 02:10 PM, said:

as opposed to putting your ideas into a central location? without derailing the topic, trolling, putting on tinfoil hats, etc.

Like I dunno....

http://mwomercs.com/...s/page__st__820

No. The AC20 change was announced today, so a discussion about this change is appropriate. Unfortunately this change is new and exciting.

Mister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

O_O
he was?

I could be wrong... I though he was referenced as such or something as some previous gaming champion of some other game.

[Trauglodyte]

You're right, focus. That still doesn't mean anything has changed when a lot, or most if you so choose to say, of the "meta" ballistic builds are PPC x2 and AC5 or UAC5 x2. Yes, PGI has addressed the idiotic AC20 snipers (so bad when people do that) and tagged the AC10 users, all like three of them including me, but they didn't do anything to address the other ACs which people are using much more so and to a much greater lethality.

I will say that I see a lot of PGI's changes as a back handed and lack luster way of forcing people to consider, if not full on, playing frankenmechs so that you have weapons for short-medium range and weapons for long-extreme ranges. SARNA's original BT builds, or at least like 95% of them, were designed to use X weapons for long ranges and approach times and Z weapons for when you could see the pilots through the cockpit glass. Most players are refusing to play like that because it is more efficient to build mechs around weapons that are lethal at all ranges (see the above mentioned Highlander/Victor builds). While the other ACs weren't addressed and I would have much rather seen them reduce the max range and change them to burst fire, they're slowly but surely forcing players' hands into considering different weapon combinations. Its why Catapult drivers now mix LRMs and Streaks and why AC20 drivers are going to have to consider backup weapons for longer range. Sadly, though, one of their current Champion mechs (the BJ-1) stupidly goes against what they're trying to get us to do but that is their fault for falling into the trap of the now nerfed AC20 (it should have been a Gauss Rifle).

[DONTOR]

FupDup, on 07 January 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

The LB 10-X does not do its job well. Critical hits are not very significiant most of the time, and the raw damage is spread out on the target unless it's fired at very very close range. The 1 ton and 1 slot gained compared to the AC/10 is simply not worth the loss of pinpoint damage potential and the massive "effective" range reduction (due to spread).




The AC/2 is kind of a "meh" troll cannon. It has its uses but can't quite stand up to "the meta" weapons.

The Flamer does not perform well in its niche at all. It only heats up the target to 90% heat, but the shooter can still reach 100% or higher with them. It also requires constant firing on the target, and takes several moments for the exponential heat up effect to "wind up" for it to actually do anything. All in all, it is a horrible weapon.

LBX weighs 1 ton less, takes up 1 less slot, does 2 less heat, WILL hit your target, destroys lights, and the spread is effective up to 300M, everypellet will hit larger mechs at 500M.

Flamers cause heat, got a range buff, and Ive actually managed killls with them. Not to mention the blinding effect.

AC2s are incredibly effective in the right hands (not just a troll cannon by any means)

[Ahja]

What was wrong with the 20 and 10 was they nerfed everything above it. Can they do anything right at this point?

[Artgathan]

Mister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

Now, for MWO... Say the AC/20 shell is similar to a 125 mm smoothbore shell... then it'd weigh at least 7 kg ... but probably more. If it is travelling at 650 m/s then...

Shouldn't an Ac/20 round weigh 1 ton / 7 rounds = 0.143 tons (143 kg)?

That would give it 92,950 joules

[FupDup]

DONTOR, on 07 January 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

LBX weighs 1 ton less, takes up 1 less slot, does 2 less heat, WILL hit your target, destroys lights, and the spread is effective up to 300M, everypellet will hit larger mechs at 500M.

In Mechwarrior, just hitting your target isn't good enough in most cases. This is not an infantry-based classic FPS that just has body and head hitboxes; Mechwarrior has LA, LT, CT, RT, RA, LL, RL, HD, RRT, RLT, and CRT hitboxes. You need to hit enemy robots in very a precise location to take them out--not like CSS, TF2, CoD, Battlefield, Halo or whatever where you can just kill them with shots to the foot or pinky finger. Mechwarrior simply does not work like that. With the LBX, getting everything into a specific component is not possible at most ranges. As for lights, their smaller bodies and hitboxes mean that the spread is effectively wider against them. Just like any other targets, the best way to kill lights to rip off a specific body part (legs or on some of them the CT works too).

Again, here is the steering wheel guy:

DONTOR, on 07 January 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

Flamers cause heat, got a range buff, and Ive actually managed killls with them. Not to mention the blinding effect.

They cause exponential heat to the user as well, and only heat the target up to 90% (the user has no cap on how much a Flamer can heat them). As said earlier, their exponential effect doesn't even kick in right away, which means there will be several moments of you just annoying the target without hindering theme in any way. Their range is hardcapped at 90 meters (no 2x range like other energy weapons), which is pitifully short for what they accomplish. The blinding effect is limited and the person getting hit can still have a good idea of where you are via the red rectangle around your body and red triangle above your head. It's got a lot of risks, and rather lackluster rewards.

Being able to get kills with something doesn't actually make the something in question an effective choice, because otherwise the Awesome, Trebuchet, Dragon, and Locust would not be terribad mechs (people get kills with them all the time). However, we know from experience that they are indeed terribad mechs, it's just that some people manage to minimize the badness of them.

DONTOR, on 07 January 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

AC2s are incredibly effective in the right hands (not just a troll cannon by any means)

In the right hands, they still have excruciatingly low burst damage. Outside of short range, simple torso twisting will spread their damage all over the place and result in no significant harm to you (the person getting shot). The high heat on a non-alpha weapon doesn't help matters.

They're not useless by any means, but they are not in the same league as truly pinpoint weapons.

Edited by FupDup, 07 January 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 07 January 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

No. The AC20 change was announced today, so a discussion about this change is appropriate. Unfortunately this change is new and exciting.

I understand that, my point being it really would be nice to get a good exchange of ideas into one spot for once

Not to mention? This thread will probably go k-town soon as a duplicate or as "please post feedback in official feedback thread" so we could easily avoid that and maybe get some ideas. There's been several really good ones posted there that some may support or ahve tweaks for that might get a good adjustment made eventually

[Rebas Kradd]

Considering PGI's biggest critics had recently shifted their tune to "PGI has done absolutely nothing in three months, they're probably clearing out their offices and donating the furniture to thrift shops", I don't think you guys are really in a position to complain about their addressing the most frustrating OP meta in the game.

[Mystere]

Khan Hallis, on 07 January 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

It doesn't matter what you want if you're not in one of the "top" groups pulling PGI's strings about how things should be developed (specifically to suit themselves).

Hold a second because now I am really confused!

On one side, we have casuals accusing PGI of catering only to the "elites". On another side, we have the "elites" accusing PGI of listening to the "skill less rabble" instead of listening to them. And finally we have another side accusing PGI of listening only to the "silent majority".

JUST WHO THE FRACK IS PGI ACTUALLY LISTENING TO?

Edited by Mystere, 07 January 2014 - 05:01 PM.

[Roland]

DONTOR, on 07 January 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

LBX weighs 1 ton less, takes up 1 less slot, does 2 less heat, WILL hit your target, destroys lights, and the spread is effective up to 300M, everypellet will hit larger mechs at 500M.

Dude, simply "hitting your target" is not useful. I can use a laser and hit my target every single time. That's not where the bar for a useful weapon is set.

In one of the recent mech config threads, I posted a video that clearly shows exactly how much spread the LBX does at different ranges, and it clearly demonstrates exactly how terrible the weapon is. Here, see for yourself:


Doing 10 damage spread across the entirety of a mech is terrible.

And as I've explained other places, your suggestion that the LBX is good for killing light mechs is clearly, demonstrably false.

Against light mechs, the LBX spread is guaranteed to fail to deliver damage to a single location, even at point blank range. You can see the spread for yourself. It's larger than the entire body of most light mechs, even when extremely close. Each round is going to do less than 10 damage to their whole mech, much less any particular section. Against a specific location, like a leg, it's physically impossible that you will score more than one or two points, tops, against it.

It's one of the worst weapons in the entire game for killing light mechs... because simply grazing a light mech with a few pellets of damage isn't good enough. That's now how you kill mechs in mechwarrior.

Folks like you seem to think that the LBX is good for light mechs, because you are comparing it to MISSING with other weapons.. but you are missing the critically important third option, which is to improve your gunnery and actually land a shot with the other weapons, which turns out, is infinitely more effective against light mechs.

Quote

Flamers cause heat, got a range buff, and Ive actually managed killls with them. Not to mention the blinding effect.

The only person flamers effectively blind is the person shooting them. They are a total trash tier weapon.

And honestly, I totally do not understand why people like you continue to argue for garbage weapons to stay garbage weapons. Why not bring the trash up out of the basement, so that in competitive play you see a wide variety? How could it possibly hurt you to have more weapons be made effective?

[FupDup]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 January 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

Considering PGI's biggest critics had recently shifted their tune to "PGI has done absolutely nothing in three months, they're probably clearing out their offices and donating the furniture to thrift shops", I don't think you guys are really in a position to complain about their addressing the most frustrating OP meta in the game.

But they didn't really address it at all. The AC/10 has never been in a meta position at any point in time. It's somewhere between well balanced and in need of a slight buff, actually.

The AC/20 change makes a little bit of sense in some ways, but a lot more people used 2 AC/5 or 2 UAC/5 for their ballistics (after the change, the proportion of the latter combinations will become higher). And it doesn't fix the underlying issues of pinpoint damage, or jump jets giving too much power with only 1 jet, or the heat system, etc...


In addition, nerfs are not the only way to solve a meta; you can also buff underperforming weapons (and mechs) to give people more viable choices to counter the preexisting combinations.

Edited by FupDup, 07 January 2014 - 03:05 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

FupDup, on 07 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

But they didn't really address it at all. The AC/10 has never been in a meta position at any point in time. It's somewhere between well balanced and in need of a slight buff.

The AC/20 change makes a little bit of sense in some ways, but a lot more people used 2 AC/5 or 2 UAC/5 for their ballistics (after the change, the proportion of the latter combinations will become higher). And it doesn't fix the underlying issues of pinpoint damage, or jump jets giving too much power with only 1 jet, or the heat system, etc...


In addition, nerfs are not the only way to solve a meta; you can also buff underperforming weapons (and mechs) to give people more viable choices to counter the preexisting combinations.

Balance as you've put forth is not balance, though, it's "equalization without role warfare", and in a game with mechs specialized by hardpoints and varying ranges, balance as you speak of is going to be impossible. i.e. Buff the LPLs and energy boats experience gains far out of proportion to the buff simply by virtue of having multiple energy hardpoints. PGI really has little choice but to choose a relatively harmless meta and be glad it's not worse.

And you make a good point about the next meta. There's always going to be a meta, simply because players exploiting it in mass will magnify its effects and spill it outside its intended role/range boundaries. The only solution to that is to EQUALIZE the weapons until the only real differences are aesthetic. I don't want that.

I'm smh over the AC10 myself...they probably have a reason...but my point is, at least they're doing something. I'm simply using the moment to introduce a bit of perspective and thank PGI for addressing something a lot of people were griping about.

Also, this is hilarious:

Quote

Hold a second because now I am really confused!

On one side, we have casuals accusing PGI of catering only to the "elites". On another side, we have the "elites" accusing PGI of listening to the "skill less rabble" instead of listening to them. And finally we have another side accusing PGI of listening only to the "silent majority".

JUST WHO THE FRACK IS PGI ACTUALLY LISTENING TO!

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 January 2014 - 03:20 PM.

[FupDup]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 January 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

It just isn't as simple as anything you've just said. Balance as you've put forth is not balance, it's "equalization without role warfare", and in a game with mechs specialized by hardpoints and varying ranges, balance as you speak of is going to be impossible. PGI really has little choice but to choose a relatively harmless meta and be glad it's not worse.

And you make a good point about the next meta. There's always going to be a meta, simply because players exploiting it in mass will magnify its effects and spill it outside its intended role/range boundaries. The only solution to that is to EQUALIZE the weapons until the only real differences are aesthetic. I don't want that.

I don't think I've ever said "equalization." Buffing underperformers doesn't usually mean giving everything the same spreadsheet stats of DPS etc, it just means giving them some kind of reward to justify their associated risks (at least the way I use it, but there are a select handful who do use it that way).

I.e. buff LPL damage by 2-3 points to distinguish it as the energy weapon of choice for brawlers, but it has a relatively short range as its main vulnerability (also high heat). Or buff the LBX damage per pellet to something around 1.5 so that it does a lot of damage in close quarters, but the shotgun effect makes it {Scrap} outside of brawls. Or make it so Flamers don't heat up the user past 90% heat just like they do to the target, so that they can actually be used to keep somebody at high heat for a longer period of time (make it hard for them to fire weapons, without totally stunlocking them). Make Narc beacons not fall off from damaging the target, last longer, and some other effects that I can't think of right now.

Those are sloppy examples but you get the idea. Most people asking for weapon balance do not want absolute "equalization," we just want each piece of equipment to fulfill some kind of purpose that makes it worthy to put on your robot.

Edited by FupDup, 07 January 2014 - 03:20 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

Artgathan, on 07 January 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

Shouldn't an Ac/20 round weigh 1 ton / 7 rounds = 0.143 tons (143 kg)?

That would give it 92,950 joules

Not exactly. Remember, the rounds are chemically propelled so a large part of that weight per round is the propellant. Exactly how much... well, we don't know.

We could figure it out if we knew /what/ propellant was being used since we have the exit velocity... but, well, we don't. So we can only assume. I think it is fair to say that the AC/20 round is a bit bigger than a 125 mm round used in modern tanks.

I just don't know how much.

Mystere, on 07 January 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Hold a second because now I am really confused!

On one side, we have casuals accusing PGI of catering only to the "elites". On another side, we have the "elites" accusing PGI of listening to the "skill less rabble" instead of listening to them. And finally we have another side accusing PGI of listening only to the "silent majority".

I want to answer this baited question but the moderators wouldn't like my response.

[EnigmaNL]

So how does PGI decide on what to change next?

Do they just have a giant wheel of fortune with different items on it that they spin and nerf whatever it lands on? Because that's how it feels to me.

This time they spun the wheel and it landed on AC/20 AC/10 so they nerfed it, just because they felt like it.

PGI, RESTORE THE AC/20 AND AC/10 TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THIS PATCH. THIS MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE.

[RichAC]

Accursed Richards, on 07 January 2014 - 02:16 PM, said:

Dual AC/20's really needed a convergence fix rather than a nerf, but anything that means fewer point-and-click Jager builds is A-OK with me. I've used that build, and there's no getting around it, it's easy mode. But regardless of what effect is actually has, the river of tears about ZOMGnerfs had really brightened up my day.

Its far from easy. same goes for the poptart ppc's.

I just made an ac40 jager. now I know why most are ac2 and ac5's. I die in like two hits. I mean the dam jager has no armor haha. I feel like I'm in a medium with this thing. I have new respect for ac40 jagers. situational awareness and postitioning seems more important in this mech then anything else I've played.

going to a standard engine means real heat issues, and going slower then assaults, and still being squishy haha. I'm sure with practice I'll get the hang of it.

It took me a month to get good with poptart ppc's.....another build not easy at all.

[Michael Abt]

Played 16 matches in my Hunch, fired 136 rounds AC20 total. My hit rate is pretty much the same.

What is interesting though is that i didn't have difficulties on ranged targets, yet more misses in close quarter brawls compared to prepatch, and also not always hitting the area i wanted to hit. It is the opposite from what i expected, but since it is only a few matches this is only a first impression.

Edited by Michael Abt, 07 January 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[RichAC]

Michael Abt, on 07 January 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

Played 16 matches in my Hunch, fired 136 rounds AC20 total. My hit rate is pretty much the same.

What is interesting though is that i didn't have difficulties on ranged targets, yet more misses in close quarter brawls compared to prepatch, and also not always hitting the area i wanted to hit. It is the opposite from what i expected, but since it is only a few matches this is only a first impression.

this is strictly a nerf for poptart ppcs, not the ac/20 itself. people complainging about the highlanders and shadowhawk poptarts ac and ppcs in the 12 mans. when they can't use the build effectively themselves, because its really not that easy.

I feel the same way I can still hit ac/20 ranged. no big deal a slight adjustment.

Edited by RichAC, 07 January 2014 - 03:48 PM.

[FupDup]

EnigmaNL, on 07 January 2014 - 03:23 PM, said:

So how does PGI decide on what to change next?

Do they just have a giant wheel of fortune with different items on it that they spin and nerf whatever it lands on? Because that's how it feels to me.

This time they spun the wheel and it landed on AC/20 AC/10 so they nerfed it, just because they felt like it.

PGI, RESTORE THE AC/20 AND AC/10 TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE THIS PATCH. THIS MAKES NO FREAKING SENSE.

?