424 replies to this topic

[ReXspec]

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

Sooo... you've been completely ignoring the bad PR, the missed deadlines and the p*ss-poor communication that has become typical for PGI... okay then.

That was kind of my point. Personally, I could care less what rules they implement for the gameplay, but I would like to see some honesty, consistency, and communication from the devs regarding these issues for once.

Edited by ReXspec, 08 January 2014 - 06:23 PM.

[Amsro]

Myomes, on 08 January 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

you know what's funny? The amount of people uninstalling and trying to be vocal about it to prove to PGI they're making mistakes actually encouraged PGI to make a SUPER SERIOUS RULE in the forum rules about how you can't say you're uninstalling.

I don't see how its funny. the fact is I've seen the same people consistently make posts about uninstalling the game and yet never doing so, still playing but at the same time bashing the game. Whats the point in that?

The fact they need a rule about it shows how much wolf is being cried. People that uninstall don't post it on the forums.

[Nihtgenga]

So the people NOT uninstalling and giving up hope automatically is proof that PGI is doing perfectly right? I lol'd. That's like yesterday when someone telling me that I'd keep my mouth shut over PGI as I don't know **** about projects, since I've been leading product projects for the last decade, not software projects...

Changing the muzzle velocity of the AC/20 and AC/10 will have a certain effect in the beginning, as it makes targeting at higher ranges slightly more difficult due to leading distance and projectile travel time to impact. However, this will not help except for novice players, as experienced players know how to put these guns to good use (600mps is still fast enough for hitting that heavy/assault with top-speed of less than 20mps). So, after a while of practice, the effect of this change will be minimal, and the AC/20 still be preferred over the AC/10, just for combination with PPCs the UAC/5 will take over.

[R Razor]

Nihtgenga, on 09 January 2014 - 02:23 AM, said:

just for combination with PPCs the UAC/5 will take over.

They will take over??? Where have you been for the last month and a half or so??????????

[Nihtgenga]

Not playing so much anymore*, so I didn't want to postulate they have already on the broad scale.
*(The annoying persistent weaknesses keep me from playing more, MWO simply gets boring after a few matches in a row.)

[Lapamato]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

Today we have 203mm shells that travel at 850 M/S...

You know.. the AC muzzle velocities are at least in the general ballpark for current cannons (not that the bigger caliber=less velocity but more damage thing makes sense but you can at least imagine that they use huge shaped charge warheads for the bigger guns. Or something.).

The one scary futuristic gun we have though is the Gauss Rifle. A 100 kg slug going at 2000 m/s is insane. If,for example, the DU shell used by the M1 tank weighs about 10 kg and has a muzzle velocity of about 1500 m/s, the Gauss would deliver 17x the energy to the target. And the M829 (or whatever the round is called) is apparently about the top of the line when it comes to anti-armor penetration. With the parameters we have in place, the Gauss slug would probably do 50+ points of damage if we scaled the damage directly by ammo weight and velocity

The missiles on the other hand are funny to look at.. the longer-ranged missiles reach the long range by going slower than SRMs, and still have their engines on during the descent while moving at a constant speed.This means that they are actually using the rocket engine as a brake in order to not accelerate when they fall. Even the most dedicated fan might have problems with hand-waving a plausible explanation for that to make sense

[Voidsinger]

Lapamato, on 09 January 2014 - 04:20 AM, said:

The one scary futuristic gun we have though is the Gauss Rifle. A 100 kg slug going at 2000 m/s is insane. If,for example, the DU shell used by the M1 tank weighs about 10 kg and has a muzzle velocity of about 1500 m/s, the Gauss would deliver 17x the energy to the target. And the M829 (or whatever the round is called) is apparently about the top of the line when it comes to anti-armor penetration. With the parameters we have in place, the Gauss slug would probably do 50+ points of damage if we scaled the damage directly by ammo weight and velocity

One thing throws your calculations out a litle. In MWO, gauss rounds re about 66.5 kg (15/ton). Still a huge amount of energy, and one which makes the power draw for movement seem dwarfed by the Gauss power requirements.

A point of MWO damage has never been defined in terms of energy cost. Therein lies a huge part of the issue.

[Lapamato]

I thought Gauss was 10/ton? Anyway, not trying to do physics here, just thinking aloud.

[Voidsinger]

Lapamato, on 09 January 2014 - 05:29 AM, said:

I thought Gauss was 10/ton? Anyway, not trying to do physics here, just thinking aloud.

You're right, my derp.

Actually, my main point was more that the energy taken to charge the Gauss Rifle to that energy level is massive, and makes engine ratings fairly inaccurate for movement. since an Atlas at max speed has far less energy than a Gauss projectile.

[Khurr]

Regarding ballistics, I think a better way of Handling it would be something like this:

AC/20 Projectile speed decreased from 900m/s to 650m/s Outside of 250m (250m/s decrease)

AC/10 - Projectile speed decreased from 1100m/s to 950m/s Outside of 450m (150m/s decrease)

Subtle change but I think it makes sense.

- Thoughts? Comments? Roll it out in next patch?

[o0Marduk0o]

Mister Blastman, on 07 January 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Hehe. I've got a couple other accounts that receive some odd stuff on rare occasion I never get on my main one.

You must be on their blacklist.

[Napoleon_Blownapart]

i would argue after weapon nerfs there should be a week or two, till the next patch where players can sell those weapons and ammo back for full cbill cost.

[Hexenhammer]

I.S. ACs have to be nerfed to make Clan ACs 'better'.



I thought I had posted that here.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 09 January 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[P e n u m b r a]

Like an asthmatic using a blow dart

[Meridian]

ReXspec, on 08 January 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

That was kind of my point. Personally, I could care less what rules they implement for the gameplay, but I would like to see some honesty, consistency, and communication from the devs regarding these issues for once.

I believe that the response to that is "working as intended".

[Corvus Antaka]

I'm liking the change so far. the ac/20 is pretty much unchanged in close, but at longer ranges hitting mobile targets isnt so easy anymore, especially if they move unpredictably.

ac/10 change is less likeable, though so far i havent played enough to really comment, the change doesnt seem significant really.

Edited by Colonel Pada Vinson, 09 January 2014 - 01:01 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 09 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

I'm liking the change so far. the ac/20 is pretty much unchanged in close, but at longer ranges hitting mobile targets isnt so easy anymore, especially if they move unpredictably.

ac/10 change is less likeable, though so far i havent played enough to really comment, the change doesnt seem significant really.

This ^


So after actually playing multiple rounds with the AC/20 this is why I think the change was done.

It kills the ability to take snap shots at fast moving mechs.. The past I could use my crosshairs to lead the mech and now with the round moving so slow I have to aim off into space past the target and hope they run into it.

[Serapth]

Hexenhammer, on 09 January 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

This ^


So after actually playing multiple rounds with the AC/20 this is why I think the change was done.

It kills the ability to take snap shots at fast moving mechs.. The past I could use my crosshairs to lead the mech and now with the round moving so slow I have to aim off into space past the target and hope they run into it.

PGI's complete {Scrap} weapon balancing keeps hitting my favorite medium mechs that hardest.

I used to play a 4xLL Flame, but ghost heat completely killed that build.
Also play a Gauss + 4ML build, gauss nerf killed that one.

I absolutely loved playing my Yang ( standard build 2ML AC20 ) and now its dead meat against lights.

Thanks PGI, you keep making this game less and less fun for a medium pilot, all in a failed attempt to fix metas.

Edited by Serapth, 09 January 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[Corvus Antaka]

Serapth, on 09 January 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

I absolutely loved playing my Yang ( standard build 2ML AC20 ) and now its dead meat against lights.

why? having to adjust aim for the new flight time? once you adjust you should be fine with the ac/20 in close vs a light.

[Jalik]

Serapth, on 09 January 2014 - 04:58 PM, said:

PGI's complete {Scrap} weapon balancing keeps hitting my favorite medium mechs that hardest.

I used to play a 4xLL Flame, but ghost heat completely killed that build.
Also play a Gauss + 4ML build, gauss nerf killed that one.

I absolutely loved playing my Yang ( standard build 2ML AC20 ) and now its dead meat against lights.

Thanks PGI, you keep making this game less and less fun for a medium pilot, all in a failed attempt to fix metas.

it's impossible to make it right for everyone. if something is tweaked, SOMEONE will suffer. imagine they buffed the AC20: that would make you happy and someone else pretty unhappy. I'm affected myself. I use AC20s and AC10s as well. Almost every weapon balance tweak affected one or more of my mech loadouts and sometimes I have to redo the whole thing. But I won't complain. From what I've experienced myself from open beta to we-don't-call-it-beta (= now) I'm pretty happy with the changes they made. Usually, not always tho, it turned out to work better after the tweak.