424 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

And so do lasers. Note that MWO lasers do NOT deliver their damage in a single point instantly.

What I am saying is that MWO AC's should follow the same model, and that fluffwise using a burst of shells to represent this is actually better both fluffwise and mechanicswise for MWO. And if you wanna quote rules at me:

AC's in tabletop can sweep multiple adjacent hexes, splitting their damage between them (Tactical Operations). At "normal" fire rates. Unless a wizard did this, that gun's firing multiple shells per "shot" regardless of the effect on the target.

Actually, the damage across multiple hexes is splash damage... not a separate shot. You're right, you can split damage across multiple hexes, but, again, the manner in which you can split damage is random.

And for UAC or rotaries, you make SEPARATE attack rolls for each shot (unlike the AC) which all have there own AoE damage rolls (respectively) that doesn't mean the UAC fires four times just because you make four separate rolls.

[ReXspec]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

And so do lasers. Note that MWO lasers do NOT deliver their damage in a single point instantly.

In TT, yes they do. However, that depends on if you hit your target in the first place with a roll to hit, and what roll you got that determines the location and then another roll determines damage versus a mech's AC. That is the advantage of lasers that they DO pinpoint damage, however they generate heat, and they still have to pass an opposing mechs AC to do significant damage.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 11:31 AM.

[Sandpit]

TT is cited because TT is the basis.

Actually that's inaccurate

The IP that created the TT game is the basis for the game here. Slight difference

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

I should've tacked an asterisk on to that statement.

"Balance" is not balance when it is based on a warped perception of how a game should play, or a specific mechanic in that game should work.

It especially doesn't help when the devs are being almost completely ambiguous as to their reasons behind particular design and gameplay choices.

To top THAT off, it helps even less when what we have seen thus far as far as there gameplay design and balance choices go have been completely horrendous.

The problem with this is it's purely subjective. "Warped perspective" "horrendous gameplay design"

I disagree with those as blanket statements. I enjoy the gameplay design and their balance choices are far from horrendous. Especially if you happen to like them

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

And so do lasers. Note that MWO lasers do NOT deliver their damage in a single point instantly.

I would be happy for it if it was changed to a more ballistic damage model!

Quote

What I am saying is that MWO AC's should follow the same model, and that fluffwise using a burst of shells to represent this is actually better both fluffwise and mechanicswise for MWO. And if you wanna quote rules at me:
AC's in tabletop can sweep multiple adjacent hexes, splitting their damage between them (Tactical Operations). At "normal" fire rates. Unless a wizard did this, that gun's firing multiple shells per "shot" regardless of the effect on the target.

They can "double-tap" like an Ultra at a higher rate of failure. (Again, Tac Ops) You roll on the cluster hits chart, and just like Ultra-mode AC's and rotaries, you roll for how much of the burst hits and which locations.

All an AC needed to do to fill its definition is not need manual loading. You are talking about a weapon that can be firing an 8' diameter shell. You don't just fire a gun that size in full auto!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 11:39 AM.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

TT is cited because TT is the basis.

Actually that's inaccurate

The IP that created the TT game is the basis for the game here. Slight difference

Semantics. Point being is that the devs have been about as consistent as a dice roll when it comes to the type of gameplay that they actually implement.

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 11:36 AM, said:

TT is cited because TT is the basis.

Actually that's inaccurate

The IP that created the TT game is the basis for the game here. Slight difference


The problem with this is it's purely subjective. "Warped perspective" "horrendous gameplay design"

I disagree with those as blanket statements. I enjoy the gameplay design and their balance choices are far from horrendous. Especially if you happen to like them

If you enjoy what they've done to this game, good for you. You're in the minority, but more power to you if you can get passed the devs blatant lies, convoluted game mechanics, and various other grievances in the devlopment of this game.

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Semantics. Point being is that the devs have been about as consistent as a dice roll when it comes to the type of gameplay that they actually implement.

How so?

[ReXspec]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

How so?

Implementing TT gameplay mechanics (I.E. single-shot AC's) while simultaneously adding a convoluted system such as "heat scaling" for the sake of nerfing pinpoint damage as opposed to decreasing the weapons rates of fire and matching TT armor values are just a few examples.

Paul Inouye has stated the devs want to stick to canon... and yet they are inacting nerfs (more specifically, to Clan tech) that are NOT canon despite suggestions from players, which would allow the devs to keep the Clans as the elite, well-equipped forces that they were.

Need I mention anything else?

The devs utterly lack consistency when it comes to game balance. Not to mention they lack consistency when it comes to communication with us, and sticking to release deadlines (a la U.I. 2.0).

Seriously... you'd have to be blind, or new to MWO to NOT notice all of this.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 11:52 AM.

[Allen Ward]

Outrage!!! It's ok, although it again clearly shows the freedom PGI takes in interpreting BT stuff. As far as I am informed the AC20 was never supposed to be a large caliber slow firing cannon at all. Instead it was meant to be a fast firing small caliber cannon that spits out up to 100 slugs per burst (pretty much a rapid fire flechette cannon). So one would expect high muzzle velocity and flight times.

I don't know if this is a slight nerf for the overpowered weapon (although it is NOT velocity that is OP) or if they just thought it would fit better inline with their version of auocannons.... it's not making any difference though. Yes, you think the projectile is flying a lot slower, but in fact is not much slower. At the fighting distance of the AC20 it makes no difference at all.

Fix the damage rating or even better: the rate of fire, not projectile speed!

I guess the issue with AC10s not being used that much is: AC5 is much stronger (lighter, more ammo, greater range, much higher ROF), if you can't pack 2 AC5 you switch to AC20 (if ou can). If you must use 10s most people choose LBX for the great critical hits effects.

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Implementing TT gameplay mechanics (I.E. single-shot AC's) while simultaneously adding a convoluted system such as "heat scaling" for the sake of nerfing pinpoint damage as opposed to decreasing the weapons rates of fire and matching TT armor values are just a few examples.

Paul Inouye has stated the devs want to stick to canon... and yet they are inacting nerfs (more specifically, to Clan tech) that are NOT canon despite suggestions from players, which would allow the devs to keep the Clans as the elite, well-equipped forces that they were.

Need I mention anything else?

Yeah they "want to" - doesn't mean they can

[wanderer]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

I would be happy for it if it was changed to a more ballistic damage model!

You wouldn't use ballistics if lasers worked that way. That was one of the previous MW games, and what you did was strap a bunch of lasers on and insta-burn through people with an alpha, burn some coolant, and repeat. In fact, lasers in MWO were given their current "burn time" configuration because at the beginning, we'd just take a Hunchback-P, strap on a bunch of mediums, and blow hit locations off in a single flickering shot.

Instant pinpoint damage is the bane of MWO. Every weapon to date that's delivered it efficiently has been nerfed, and I see the autocannon as the next one up for the bat.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

You wouldn't use ballistics if lasers worked that way. That was one of the previous MW games, and what you did was strap a bunch of lasers on and insta-burn through people with an alpha, burn some coolant, and repeat. In fact, lasers in MWO were given their current "burn time" configuration because at the beginning, we'd just take a Hunchback-P, strap on a bunch of mediums, and blow hit locations off in a single flickering shot.

Instant pinpoint damage is the bane of MWO. Every weapon to date that's delivered it efficiently has been nerfed, and I see the autocannon as the next one up for the bat.

Please don't insist you'd know what I'd put on my Mechs. I have been building these monsters for 30 years sir. I have bucked the Meta here for over a year. I will continue to mix the weapons on my Mechs to my satisfaction. All my Mechs have at least 2 types of weapons, and one is always energy as it is. My one exception is my Jager40... cause it can do it's job perfectly on 2 BFGs!

Pin Point damage can go away and I'd be happily playing on sir. So on this point we agree.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 January 2014 - 12:09 PM.

[ReXspec]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

You wouldn't use ballistics if lasers worked that way. That was one of the previous MW games, and what you did was strap a bunch of lasers on and insta-burn through people with an alpha, burn some coolant, and repeat.

Assuming they could land their shots, and assuming they wouldn't blow up from heat themselves. Not to mention, if we're talking about MW4 here, certain mechs were physically incapable of holding big zappy things because of slot number limitations which were indicated by 'mech design. Those slot-per-body-part number limitations do not exist in MWO. For example, in MWO I can stick an AC-20 on a Raven, make it decently fast, supply the AC with ammo, all while being able to armor my Raven to a decent spec as long as I keep it's opposite arm free of armor. Not only should that be realistically IMPOSSIBLE, but the Raven should NOT have nearly enough slots to accommodate that monster.

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

In fact, lasers in MWO were given their current "burn time" configuration because at the beginning, we'd just take a Hunchback-P, strap on a bunch of mediums, and blow hit locations off in a single flickering shot.

That is because of:

A. High rates of fire.

B. Lack of slot limitations.

C. Innacurate armor values.

You DO NOT need to tack on more heat to weapons that already generate a large amount of heat.

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

Instant pinpoint damage is the bane of MWO. Every weapon to date that's delivered it efficiently has been nerfed, and I see the autocannon as the next one up for the bat.

And I think we can both agree they've done a bad job of balance thus far.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 12:29 PM.

[LastPaladin]

Trauglodyte, on 07 January 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

I mean, other than the random AC10/Md Lasers Jager/K2 builds, did you ever really see anyone building a mech around the sole use OF the AC10? At open beta, I tried my hardest to build my CDA-3M with an AC10 but that never worked right. I honestly can't think of a primary build set around it.

Obviously, everyone was scared of the pseudo-Urbanmech dominating the battlefield, since that's the only one I can think of:

[KharnZor]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 06:26 AM, said:

VW Bug=1,800lbs
Nash Metro=1,785 lbs
Ford Pinto=2,015-2,270 lbs
Toyota iQ= 1,896 lbs
BMW Mini=1,360-1,512 lbs
Tata Nano=1,300lbs

Lightest was the Gordon Murray T 25 at just over 1,260 lbs

Not a one is 500 lbs...

Yea but what about that 3 wheeled blue car Mr Bean is always knocking over

[Sandpit]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

Implementing TT gameplay mechanics (I.E. single-shot AC's) while simultaneously adding a convoluted system such as "heat scaling" for the sake of nerfing pinpoint damage as opposed to decreasing the weapons rates of fire and matching TT armor values are just a few examples.

Paul Inouye has stated the devs want to stick to canon... and yet they are inacting nerfs (more specifically, to Clan tech) that are NOT canon despite suggestions from players, which would allow the devs to keep the Clans as the elite, well-equipped forces that they were.

Need I mention anything else?

The devs utterly lack consistency when it comes to game balance. Not to mention they lack consistency when it comes to communication with us, and sticking to release deadlines (a la U.I. 2.0).

Seriously... you'd have to be blind, or new to MWO to NOT notice all of this.

No what you see is a process

"Ok guys, lets make a Btech game!"
*Directly port the rules as they can*

"Ok, this isn't working much, lets double armor values to increase mech longevity because mechs aren't surviving well"
"Ok we have an issue with this weapon, lets test and try this"
"Ok that's working better, lets test out this weapon system now"
"Ok, now we have issues with (insert whatever here), we need to adjust some numbers to help balance this out"
"Ok, lets lower AC20 and AC10 projectile speed a bit"

Meanwhile back on the PGI Forum ranch.....

"Ehr Meh Gerd! They changed this! This isn't a Btech value!"
"Sarna says"
"Ehr Meh Gerd! The game will be dead in 6 months!"

6 months later

"Ehr Meh Gerd! Game is dead!"
"They slowed projectiles down!!!! Pitchforks!"
"This isn't what Sarna says"
"This isn't what was in a novel written 20 years ago says"
"Insert random good idea once in a while"

People pick and choose when they want to use TT rules to support their views and usually (although not always) taken either out of context or they're not taken with other rules that were written to coincide with the example given

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 08 January 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

No what you see is a process

"Ok guys, lets make a Btech game!"
*Directly port the rules as they can*

"Ok, this isn't working much, lets double armor values to increase mech longevity because mechs aren't surviving well"
"Ok we have an issue with this weapon, lets test and try this"
"Ok that's working better, lets test out this weapon system now"
"Ok, now we have issues with (insert whatever here), we need to adjust some numbers to help balance this out"
"Ok, lets lower AC20 and AC10 projectile speed a bit"

Meanwhile back on the PGI Forum ranch.....

"Ehr Meh Gerd! They changed this! This isn't a Btech value!"
"Sarna says"
"Ehr Meh Gerd! The game will be dead in 6 months!"

6 months later

"Ehr Meh Gerd! Game is dead!"
"They slowed projectiles down!!!! Pitchforks!"
"This isn't what Sarna says"
"This isn't what was in a novel written 20 years ago says"
"Insert random good idea once in a while"

People pick and choose when they want to use TT rules to support their views and usually (although not always) taken either out of context or they're not taken with other rules that were written to coincide with the example given

Im not even bothering with BT rules anymore, trying to port them in directly wont work so there isnt a point in following them. They just need to make a good product with a rough BT feel, not exact at all.

[BlackDrakon]

I dont know if its stated on the other pages, but imo the whole idea of this changes is to make ppl switch their 2PP+AC/20 for a 2PPC+AC/10, so they can fool their stats and in a future say "hey look!, the AC/10 is aight, ppl is using it now!!"

Why they will change? the speed of the AC/10 now is 950ms, 50ms faster than the AC/20, so the ppl who were used to alpha AC/20+2PPC for a 40 alpha, now they do the same, a little more faster, with more ammo but for a 30 alpha.

IMHO, they want to fool their stats and get rid of the 40 alpha. Thats about it.

They should be fixing SRM's and Pulse lasers instead of nerfing weapons that work as intended......

[Roland]

wanderer, on 08 January 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

And so do lasers. Note that MWO lasers do NOT deliver their damage in a single point instantly.

What I am saying is that MWO AC's should follow the same model, and that fluffwise using a burst of shells to represent this is actually better both fluffwise and mechanicswise for MWO. And if you wanna quote rules at me:

You're absolutely right, in that the lasers have been changed.

However, if you make ballistics into lasers, and strip them of their prime advantage, then they're just going to be super heavy, super large lasers that need ammo and aren't hitscan... and as a result, no one will use them.

Ballistics would need to be given some other advantage to make them compete with lasers if that were the case, because the hitscan nature of lasers is a HUGE advantage. MW4 showed us what happens when both weapons were point damage and only lasers were hitscan... only lasers were used by most folks.

So if you make AC's into non-hitscan lasers that weigh a ton and are huge, they'd need some other new advantage... you'd need to significantly buff some aspect of them, like damage or ROF or something.

[Varent]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

You're absolutely right, in that the lasers have been changed.

However, if you make ballistics into lasers, and strip them of their prime advantage, then they're just going to be super heavy, super large lasers that need ammo and aren't hitscan... and as a result, no one will use them.

Ballistics would need to be given some other advantage to make them compete with lasers if that were the case, because the hitscan nature of lasers is a HUGE advantage. MW4 showed us what happens when both weapons were point damage and only lasers were hitscan... only lasers were used by most folks.

So if you make AC's into non-hitscan lasers that weigh a ton and are huge, they'd need some other new advantage... you'd need to significantly buff some aspect of them, like damage or ROF or something.

This.

[Alex Warden]

Trauglodyte, on 07 January 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

So, if the GR is supposed to be the premiere sniping weapon, than what does that make the AC2?

long range harasser...see discussions from OBT early phase..it´s meanto to be a counter-sniper as i understand it (current MWO design, so spare me with "but TT" comments ) ...so surpressing snipers on their effective range is what an ac2 can easily do (screenshake, destroy a snipers aiming)

as for the 20: well i kinda get the tweak, bringing it more in line with short range... BUT... honestly it would have been way enough to reduce the max range from X3 to X2 effective...

ac10 was perfectly fine imho...decent range, decent damage, nothing OP or UP ...ac10 did it´s job

Edited by Alex Warden, 08 January 2014 - 01:40 PM.