Jump to content

Why Lasers Are Non-Competitive, Or, Stop Nerfing Ac's To Try To Make Lasers Better.


479 replies to this topic

#381 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:19 PM

View PostVarent, on 13 January 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:


to build off this.

Some mechs are better at twisting then others. I will say the wolverines arent amazing at it, but the griffins actually tend to be very good and so are the S-hawks.. Then there is the TT masers the centurion. Of the assaults, obviously the atlas, excel at it. The victor and highlander are also both decent. I have mixed feelings on the orion. Ive heard some swear by it but its hit and miss for me personally.

That said if your good at TT and playing a mech good at it you shouldnt have many issues.



I think you missed the point.

30+ pinpoint alphas are prolific.

An Atlas that turns to intercept damage on an arm has absorbed the damage.

A Medium mech that turns to intercept damage on an arm has just had it's arm blown off.

Larger mechs absorb damage mediums are taken apart because they can not absorb 30-40 point hits because frequently 30-40 armor is all they have on any location being used to "absorb" with.

An atlas has 60 or so armor a 50 ton mech has 30ish this means an Atlas taking a hit on the arm has absorbed 30 damage reducing it's arm's armor by 50% the medium mech has lost almost every point of armor on the arm meaning the next attempt to "absorb" damage results in the loss of that limb.Meanwhile the atlas can absorb another hit and still has armor left.

Torso twisting is not as effective if all you are doing is trying to pick what body part is savaged by an alpha strike.

Griffin,Wolverine or Shadowhawk take your pick none of them can "absorb" 40 points to the...

Head= dead
CT= one maybe two more hits from dead
RT/LT= stripped armor no defense against another hit and you probably have an XL engine so 1 hit from dead
RA = loss of limb or nearly blown off accompanied by loss of weapons (it's a big deal if the RA is carrying your big gun)
LA= arm blown off or nearly destroyed (about the best outcome you can hope for)
RL/LL= 2 hits from limping 2 more hits from dead.You will not last long with one leg.

There is no absorbtion if any single hit is potentially crippling damage. it's not a viable tactic you need to aim for evasion.

#382 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:34 PM

View PostVarent, on 13 January 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:


I never use BAP on an artemis.

Standard or xl depends heavily.... For example I like xl on my wolverine because ive found they dont TT as well so I like them with more speed. But with the Griffin I swear by standard.

Funny enough srm 4... they register better.... but that said its hard to resist the srm 6.... I use both but favor the 4 overall if I want more stability. Also the 4 have a tighter spread.



I have yet to test this but many other pilots have said the SRM4s hit with a higher volume than the SRM6s.

I would consider the use of a BAP with that many artemis systems instaled.you have 4 tons invested in a targeting system that is countered by ECM. 1.5 tons more invested on a BAP seems wise.

The differences between a Griffin and Wolverine torso rotation is around 3 degrees the Griffin has around 178 degrees the Wolverine has around 175 degrees.It's minimal and only seems to help if you are trying to shoot something that is almost exactaly behind you. But three degrees is three degrees more.

I'm going to put in some artemis SRM4s and try it out.

#383 Cimarb

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Caladbolg
  • Caladbolg
  • 3,912 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationA hop, skip and jump from Terra

Posted 13 January 2014 - 04:41 PM

View PostKhobai, on 13 January 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:


single gauss would be fine. dual gauss would still be overpowered even if it was the only FLD weapon.

I would make Autocannons fire in bursts, but implement different ammo types, to give autocannons versatility.

I would make PPCs do splash damage, but get rid of the much derided minimum range, and also give PPCs an emp effect that disrupts HUDs.

Im not sure what id do with gauss, but if a hypersonic projectile hit a hard target it would spiral around like crazy. So it wouldnt be too far fetched to have gauss spread its damage around. Maybe even make Gauss the only weapon that can get through armor crits.

That gets rid of pinpoint damage but keeps the weapons interesting and unique.

Yep damage is about 2-3 times higher than tabletop. Using a Hunchback as an example, in tabletop the chance to hit it in the right torso is only 14%. In MWO, its 100% with perfect aim. The right torso is taking 6 times more damage because of aiming. Even after dividing by double armor, the right torso is still taking 3 times more damage than it should. Thats why TTK is so low.

I don't think Gauss doing FLD is an issue, even with two of them, but I agree with the rest of your post completely.

View Postwanderer, on 13 January 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

I don't think you understand. At 200m, you aren't poptarting. You're jumping up, shooting once, and I'm coming over the hill and thrashing you shortly thereafter- and if I can't, I'm backing out to 300m or so and laughing at you the next time you poptart and using you for target practice.

Poptarting takes actually having weapons with range that work at medium-if-not-long range. SRMs are not a "poptart" weapon, nor will they ever be. A frickin LB-X would be more effective at that than SRM racks, Artemis or no Artemis.

View Postwanderer, on 13 January 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

I don't think you understand. At 200m, you aren't poptarting. You're jumping up, shooting once, and I'm coming over the hill and thrashing you shortly thereafter- and if I can't, I'm backing out to 300m or so and laughing at you the next time you poptart and using you for target practice.

Poptarting takes actually having weapons with range that work at medium-if-not-long range. SRMs are not a "poptart" weapon, nor will they ever be. A frickin LB-X would be more effective at that than SRM racks, Artemis or no Artemis.


Welcome to the argument, Wanderer, it's great to have you! Hopefully you can talk some sense into Varent, God love him.

#384 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 13 January 2014 - 05:25 PM

View PostLykaon, on 13 January 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:



I have yet to test this but many other pilots have said the SRM4s hit with a higher volume than the SRM6s.

I would consider the use of a BAP with that many artemis systems instaled.you have 4 tons invested in a targeting system that is countered by ECM. 1.5 tons more invested on a BAP seems wise.

The differences between a Griffin and Wolverine torso rotation is around 3 degrees the Griffin has around 178 degrees the Wolverine has around 175 degrees.It's minimal and only seems to help if you are trying to shoot something that is almost exactaly behind you. But three degrees is three degrees more.

I'm going to put in some artemis SRM4s and try it out.


I think its an issue of the amount of missles that effect hit detection myself.

#385 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 06:16 PM

Quote

Larger mechs absorb damage mediums are taken apart because they can not absorb 30-40 point hits because frequently 30-40 armor is all they have on any location being used to "absorb" with.


This. 30 point alphas are absolutely fine if youre playing a heavy or assault. The problem is we cant just balance the game around heavies and assaults.

Mediums are not that fast. Theyre pretty huge for their tonnage. They have 30% less armor than heavies. Theres really no way a Medium can avoid getting hit by {Scrap} like dual AC20. It just obliterates them in 2-3 hits.

#386 TyGeR STD

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 245 posts
  • LocationGa

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:35 PM

I think serveral ppl here have some very good ideas to help balance he weapon issues that most ppl feel this game has.

Lasers
these should be the only pin point, point and click weapon. They have a damage over time that fits well with this weapon.

PPCs/ERPPCs
I think there damage should be split to a 60%/40%. 60% of damage goes to the impact point where the shot lands, the other 40% splash's to the other areas around the impact point. this could be moved to a 70%/30% or whatever would be needed for balanceing reasons.

Convergence on this weapon system is limited to 350M and out. Once a target is inside this range this weapon system no longer hits the same point. If an Atlas has a PPC in each arm, there impact point would spread out from the center cross hair until it reaches the point that they are fireing stright out from the mech in a stright line. Mechs that can carry 2 of these weapon systems in the same area, their convergence will spread on a vertical plane vs the horzontial plane.

Mechs that are build around this weapon system, (I.E. Awesome) will have a better convergence rate with these weapons being in different locations. Also, a few new moduels could be added that would allow small floating circles to appear on the pilots hud to show the aim point of these weapons. The better convergence rate on some mechs would be built in like a qurik that we see now.

ACs.
this is a tough one. I think a few changes would be needed to these systems to help.

First addition to these would be torque. When these weapons are fired they having a torqueing effect on the mech that fires the weapon. it makes the fireing mech twist as it fires. If a mech fires one of these weapons wile jumping it will twist the mech in the air and has a change to tilt it off balance. If a mech is off banace when it lands it may stumble and take longer to recover before the pilot has control of it again. The mech could fall to the ground all together. Of corse an AC20 would effect a mech more then an AC2, but all ACs have some type of recoil that would be transfered to a mech when fired. Some type of forumula would be created to crunch the numbers and see what the chance of a mech falling would be when it fires these weapon systems wile jumping. Also, taking damage wile in the air will add to the numbers that effect.

Now, AC boats. These mechs that run 4 AC2s, or 3 AC5s or even 2 AC 20s or 2 Gauss. How can they be effected by torque when fireing. Lets take the duel AC20 K2. In all of its configs, these slots are ment to hold MGs. It is not designed to hold 2 AC 20s. But, due to the way we can configure mechs, I can add a 225XL with my 2 AC20s and run the mech the way I want. So, when a pilot fires 1AC20 the mech twist to the left, then you aim and fire the 2nd AC20, the mech twist to the right. Now if the pilot fires both AC20s at the same time, the mech can not twist, but all that force is directed to the internals of this mech. Think of it like your doing butterfly press when working out. and wile holding 100lb on each arm doing this press, someone drops an exter 200LB of wight on the rack, your arms rip backwards and you feel a crunch in your back. Same thing applys here. If these weapons are fired with in 1 sec of each other, there is a chance that the torque of fireing both these weapons can recoil into the internals of the mech and cause damage to the internal structor of your mech. Now again, mechs that are designed to carry these weapons systems will have a higher resitance to this type of damage. It will be added as a qurk for each mech. If I could be 2 AC20s on an Atlas, it would not have the same % chance to damage the internals as it would you on Catapult K2, Also, a Jagger would be more resistant to this type of damage because it is designed to carry serveral ACs in the arms, maybe not the AC20s, but it is desigend to carry the ACs. A few moduals could be added that could strengthen the mounting points of a mech and release the amout of twist, or torque on the internals, but it would not remove this all together.

Maybe these are good ideas, maybe its just me rambleing because I've only had about 3 hours sleep in the past 40 hours, I dont know, but I think these could add a fun change to the mech. I think these changes would help remove the over abundence of jump snipers we have, but at the same time, if someone is comitted to that type of game play, they can still use it, but it will take alot more skill to do so.

#387 Lykaon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,815 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 04:58 AM

View PostTyGeR STD, on 13 January 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

I think serveral ppl here have some very good ideas to help balance he weapon issues that most ppl feel this game has.



I find that many of the ideas are being drawn from a similar context.They are focused on how weapons work with our current damage mechanics and as such are generaly focused on altering the weapons themselves as opposed to altering interaction with damage mechanics.

What I mean,to simplify is there is an assumption that any "fix" will be used with our current (failing) armor and damage mechanics.

Now,what if we shifted the damage caused to mechs into three distinct catagories with weapons effecting each in distinctly different ways we may be able to balance weapon damage effects to their firing mechanics.

Armor damage: first line of defense.The armor must be breached to cause meaningful damage to a mech.Until the armor is depleted a mech suffers from no ill effects.

Structural damage: The skeleton of a mech that holds all the pieces together.After armor is depleted the internal structure becomes vulnerable to attack.Once the structural damage cap for a given location is depleted that body segment is destroyed with all equipment contained in that segment.

Critical component damage: Every time a body segment that has no armor value is hit for damage the damage is allocated to structure or a component mounted in this location.If the hitpoints of a component is depleted it no longer functions.If it is an ammo location it may detonate.

To support this design we would need to adjust armor values (by 20% or less)

Seriously buff internal structure hit points (probably to nearly equal armor values)

Increase component hit points (between 50-100% depending on components)

Increase targetable components to include all internal components including Gyros,Actuators,sensors etc.

Apply meaningful penalties to component distruction (if a gyro is damaged the mech will have a wobbly target reticule if it moved if a foot actuator was destroyed the mech loses top speed etc)

Increase ammo counts per ton to meet the needs of higher overall mech "health".

Mechanicly damage is applied exactally as it is now to armor.When the armor is depleted is when the changes take effect.

When an unarmored location sustains damage the damage is applied to either internal structure or a component with any excess component damage being applied to structure.So an AC 20 hits an unarmored leg the AC's damage is applied to either a component or structure,in this case let's say the AC hit the foot actuator and the actuator is destroyed (causing movement penalties) any remaining damage over the health of the actuator is now applied to structure)

My thoughts are that weapon characteristics are to be balanced against their effectivness at one of the three damage effects.

Front loaded damage has the advantage of snap fire and pinpoint damage.As such these weapons are idea at punching through armor.The downside is they do less damage to internals and components.

Beam weapons have the advantage of accuracy but lack in concentrated damage.These weapons are a good choice to seek weakened armor or depleted armor.Beam weapons deal full damage to any armor,structure or component but the damage to unarmored locations is assigned per "tick" of damage.Beams lose no damage effectivness against structure and components but lack the punch to take out large portions of either structure or component health since each tick is assigned independantly. A large laser does 9 damage but never all 9 to structure or a component it is spread across all components and structure.The advantage is beams will have higher chances to destroy severely damaged structure and components.

Missiles lack the capacity to concentrate damage by nature of their design.Missile weapons have low damage per projectile but high volumes of projectiles.This makes them ideal sand blasters.Good at scouring armor off of targets making them more vulnerable to concentrated damage or beams seeking weakened armor.
Missile also inflict full damage values against armor,structure and components but each projectile is assigned seperatley.This causes missile damage to be spread fairly evenly between structure and components when hitting unarmored location.

Our last catagory of weapons is the crit seeking weapons like LBx cannons and MGs.These weapons do normal armor damage and structure damage.If a component is hit the damage inflicted is higher than list values. Ie: Armor 100% Structure 100% components 250%.Each Lbx pellet or MG damage "tick" is allocated seperatley to components or structure.

#388 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 14 January 2014 - 05:34 AM

View PostKhobai, on 13 January 2014 - 06:16 PM, said:


This. 30 point alphas are absolutely fine if youre playing a heavy or assault. The problem is we cant just balance the game around heavies and assaults.

Mediums are not that fast. Theyre pretty huge for their tonnage. They have 30% less armor than heavies. Theres really no way a Medium can avoid getting hit by {Scrap} like dual AC20. It just obliterates them in 2-3 hits.

Come on Kho, a 30 point alpha is a single Gauss on TT. You know how many Mechs collapsed under a single Gauss hit on TT? A Centurion was stripped of armor everywhere but the CT! Finally at the Griffin we have a Mech that needs 2 Gauss slugs to penetrate armor!

30 point Alphas are not to much damage. The convergence of 2-3 weapons is not good for the game though and a 1-2 meter CoF would break up the convergence issue.

#389 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:22 AM

Quote

Come on Kho, a 30 point alpha is a single Gauss on TT.


No its not like TT at all. In TT you dont get to choose where you want to hit. You also dont get to hit that location over and over.

TT = roll random hit location, unlikely to hit same location twice in a row

MWO = hit where you want, keep hitting there until mech is neutered/dead


Once again using the example of the Hunchback...

In TT if you want to hit a hunchback in the right torso with a Gauss, you only have only a 14% chance of doing it. And the statistical chance of hitting the right torso a second time with Gauss is only 14% x 14% = 1.96%. 2%!

In MWO the chance to hit a hunchback in the right torso is 100% with decent aim. The second shot also has a 100% chance to hit the right torso too. So does the third shot. And so on.

The problem isnt so much the 30 damage. The problem is you can keep putting that 30 damage in the same location over and over. So the only real solution is to artificially spread damage around more.

Quote

30 point Alphas are not to much damage.


They are if they keep hitting the same spot on a mech over and over. If the 30 damage spread out more it would be perfectly acceptable. Think of damage spreading as a way of emulating random hit locations in MWO without the randomness of dice rolls.

They should also increase internal structure so critical hits actually matter. Right now locations get destroyed before the ramifications of crits get fully realized. The combination of damage spreading and an internal structure increase would increase TTK back to where it needs to be.

Edited by Khobai, 14 January 2014 - 10:38 AM.


#390 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:31 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:


No its not. In TT you dont get to aim where you want to hit. You also dont get to hit that location over and over.

TT = roll random hit location, unlikely to hit same location twice in a row

MWO = hit where you want, keep hitting there until mech is dead

A 15 point hit on TT didn't need to be aimed at specific locations to ruin almost all Lights and many Medium Mechs day. So you can save that argument. Take a stock Jenner and let a single Gauss or AC20 round bump it... watch the location disappear! Hit it in an arm with an AC20 and it will give you a side torso structure crit roll! Hit a CT with one AC20 and it ends the run of that Jenner. So hitting it with multiple weapons... specially heavy weapons was not a necessity.

HMRandom dice roller
3,4,7,4,8 two hits in the Right arm

6,10,8,5,6 two hits in the Right torso

8,8,2,5,4 Two hits left torso and a possible crit Center torso!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 January 2014 - 10:35 AM.


#391 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:37 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:


TT = roll random hit location, unlikely to hit same location twice in a row

MWO = hit where you want, keep hitting there until mech is neutered/dead



This is a shooter. Its not TT.

TT was not realistic. This is a hell of alot more realistic.

#392 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:43 AM

Quote

A 15 point hit on TT didn't need to be aimed at specific locations to ruin almost all Lights and many Medium Mechs day. So you can save that argument. Take a stock Jenner and let a single Gauss or AC20 round bump it... watch the location disappear! Hit it in an arm with an AC20 and it will give you a side torso structure crit roll! Hit a CT with one AC20 and it ends the run of that Jenner. So hitting it with multiple weapons... specially heavy weapons was not a necessity.

HMRandom dice roller
3,4,7,4,8 two hits in the Right arm

6,10,8,5,6 two hits in the Right torso

8,8,2,5,4 Two hits left torso and a possible crit Center torso!


That is 15 rolls. We're talking about 2 rolls: firing two gauss rifles. The odds of both gauss rifles hitting the right torso subsequently are only 2%. You cannot argue statistical probability. In TT a dual gauss mech isnt nearly as effective.

Quote

This is a shooter. Its not TT.

TT was not realistic. This is a hell of alot more realistic.


Realism is irrelevant . It has no bearing on a game. Most of us play games to escape reality.

And the relationship of TT to MWO is very much relevant, because PGI irresponsibly used TT values in MWO, without fully considering the repercussions. Most players agree that time to kill is too low and that it feels like mechs die way too fast. Even PGI themselves have admitted that.

No one in their right mind could think putting 30-40 damage into one location is balanced for medium mechs. They die in 2-3 hits. And the majority of mediums are forced into taking XL just to compete, which makes the problem that much worse. If PGI cant fix the scaling on medium mechs, theyve gotta do something about the pinpoint damage.

Edited by Khobai, 14 January 2014 - 10:53 AM.


#393 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:45 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:


That is 15 rolls. Its not relevant. We 're talking about 2 rolls: firing two gauss rifles. The odds of both gauss rifles hitting the right torso are only 2%. You cannot argue statistical probability.


Realism is irrelevant and has no bearing on a game.

I never fired only 2 weapons unless my Mech was a PoS!

#394 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:52 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:


Realism is irrelevant . It has no bearing on a game. Most of us play games to escape reality.


yes and no

If it's completely irrelevant then we can have MGs do more damage than AC20's and JJs can just be used to fly like a jet.

Realism is the basis for anything but yes it's still fiction so there are going to be things that defy real world physics and such.

#395 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:55 AM

Hunchback-4G
Firing 1 AC20
2 Medium and walk (+1) at a Jenner, 6 hex movement including facing(+2), short range(+0) 3 gunner

6 required to hit!
7 AC20
9 Medium
6 Medium

Locations
8 Left torso 20 damage to LT which takes 2 damage off CT armor
5 Right leg 5 damage
5 Right leg 6 damage, All armor and 4 structure. (3 no crit)

30 damage Pilot roll (3) Jenner falls, 3 damage to the Left arm... Transfers to the Ct for -3 more armor.

Not the Jenner pilot's lucky day (2) fails consciousness roll and the Jenner is now immobile and prone!

*Rolls made using Ricks Dice roller App

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 January 2014 - 10:56 AM.


#396 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:58 AM

Quote

I never fired only 2 weapons unless my Mech was a PoS!


2 weapons is all most dual gauss mechs have though. Dual gauss is what we were talking about.

In tabletop, if you fire dual gauss, the chance of hitting the same location with both is abysmally low. But in MWO its all but guaranteed.

Quote

If it's completely irrelevant then we can have MGs do more damage than AC20's and JJs can just be used to fly like a jet.


It is completely irrelevant. Realism has very little bearing on the rules of battletech. Jumpjets dont allow flight for game balance reasons. And if you want to fly like a jet you can play a LAM, which has all the downsides of flight, while being fantastically unrealistic.

http://www.sarna.net...and_Air_%27Mech

Trying to apply a realism argument to battletech is absurd. No modern military in their right mind would design an upright abrahms tank with the profile of a building. Battletech's rules were designed to balance the game, not to mimic some fabricated notion of reality.

That said, realism should have zero bearing on game balance in MWO. What matters in MWO is that all weapon choices given to players are roughly equal, and right now the weapon choices which allow pinpoint damage are drastically better... to the exclusion of most non-pinpoint weapons. If making pinpoint weapons spread damage more helps equalize them with other weapons, im all for it.

Edited by Khobai, 14 January 2014 - 11:20 AM.


#397 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:10 AM

Ok so since the title suggests lasers are not "competitive"

I played for a few hours yesterday evening and night.

I played a few dozen matches
I was averaging over 500 damage easy in most games with multiple kills and assists in a 5LL Stalker
This was hot maps, cold map, maps with cover, maps with less cover, maps with hills, maps with thrills
This was against ballistics, meta humpers, poptarters, AC40s, and everything in between.

I've actually had a few "doubters" able to drop with me over the past few days. They see my end of round score and stop doubting.

Lasers are in a good spot. ACs could use range reduced a bit and that's about all I can see that really needs to be adjusted between the two now.

#398 Varent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,393 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationWest Coast - United States

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:17 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Realism is irrelevant . It has no bearing on a game. Most of us play games to escape reality.

And the relationship of TT to MWO is very much relevant, because PGI irresponsibly used TT values in MWO, without fully considering the repercussions. Most players agree that time to kill is too low and that it feels like mechs die way too fast. Even PGI themselves have admitted that.

No one in their right mind could think putting 30-40 damage into one location is balanced for medium mechs. They die in 2-3 hits. And the majority of mediums are forced into taking XL just to compete, which makes the problem that much worse. If PGI cant fix the scaling on medium mechs, theyve gotta do something about the pinpoint damage.


I was merly pointing out a flow in your argument. That said I absorb those alphas just fine in most of my mechs, Keep in mind those alphas get to be drastically less once you get within 90 meters. Unless your reffering to the jager wich dies quick anyways and usually ends up jsut a 20 alpha or dead in very short order.

I would hapily take on any mech within 90 meters with a medium and be very confident of victory if they are using PPC and AC.

#399 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:21 AM

View PostKhobai, on 14 January 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:


2 weapons is all most dual gauss mechs have though. Dual gauss is what we were talking about.

In tabletop, if you fire dual gauss, the chance of hitting the same location with both is abysmally low. But in MWO its all but guaranteed.
And the need to do so is also abysmally low!

2 Gauss(8 & 9 o hit) Locations 3 and 10 both arms! Jenner... Ouch now all you have is an SRM. Next turn 6 and 8 to hit. One Gauss hit. 9 Left leg! Sorry sir you are now crippled Auto fall (10) Left arm takes 3 damage LT Armor held but you are no face down in the dirt and able to only stand with a Pilot roll at +4!

#400 Noesis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,436 posts
  • LocationIn the Lab

Posted 14 January 2014 - 11:25 AM

View PostVarent, on 14 January 2014 - 11:17 AM, said:


I was merly pointing out a flow in your argument. That said I absorb those alphas just fine in most of my mechs, Keep in mind those alphas get to be drastically less once you get within 90 meters. Unless your reffering to the jager wich dies quick anyways and usually ends up jsut a 20 alpha or dead in very short order.

I would hapily take on any mech within 90 meters with a medium and be very confident of victory if they are using PPC and AC.


Which for a logical premise if you agree that a Medium can be taken out in 2-3 hits kind of makes it difficult to get to that 90m weakness range and maintain it. Especially if the guy has similar friends all nicely blobbed and working together.

Anyone for a game of Medium dominoes? Ok .... I'll set them up you snipe them down.

+1 on rearranging Medium sizing to afford better capabilities of even finding this 90m bubble. ;)





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users