479 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Again if those were the only two weapons that would be true. But ballistics... MLs complement ballistics far better due to tonnage restrictions. So if you start buffing MLs youre just going to make all the ML toting ballistic boats even better.

I just don't see a negative in things like this!

[Khobai]

Id be okay with a heat reduction on medium lasers if it was accompanied by an AC/20 and AC/5 range nerf.

The AC/20's range is way too long and it makes the AC/10 completely obsolete as a result. The AC/20s max range should be two-and-a-half times instead of triple its base range.

Also the AC/5's range was buffed a while back to help it compete against the UAC/5. But since then the UAC/5 has been heavily nerfed. So theres simply no reason for the AC/5 to need that range buff anymore. Its range should be reduced back to 540m.

Quote

I just don't see a negative in things like this!

Its negative because it defeats the purpose of having customization. Customization can only work if all options are roughly equal, which they currently arnt. That doesnt mean all weapons have to be the same, but all weapons should have pros and cons that zero out.

Currently the energy/ballistic combo pack is better than anything else in the game, and theres little or no reason to even consider anything else.

Edited by Khobai, 09 January 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[AaronWolf]

I'm one of those weird people who think that weapons should be buffed to the same plateau as other weapons. So that nerfing is kept to a minimum.

BUT.

On topic, I believe that ML's/LL's need some love in some way. Extending effective damage range would be very useful for LL's I must say.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Id be okay with a heat reduction on medium lasers if it was accompanied by an AC/20 and AC/5 range nerf.

The AC/20's range is way too long and it makes the AC/10 completely obsolete as a result. The AC/20s max range should be two-and-a-half times instead of triple its base range.

Also the AC/5's range was buffed a while back to help it compete against the UAC/5. But since then the UAC/5 has been heavily nerfed. So theres simply no reason for the AC/5 to need that range buff anymore. Its range should be reduced back to 540m.


Its negative because it defeats the purpose of customization. Customization can only work if all options are roughly equal, which they currently arnt. That doesnt mean all weapons have to be the same, but all weapons should have pros and cons that zero out.

Yeah but I have been primarily a Ballistics and Energy player for most f my CBT Career. I know how to use Missiles, but never was a fan of all the extra dice rolls. 8-10 Mechs in a company should in fact have a mix of ballistics and Energy and the remainder be Fire Support (Missiles). This mix should not be etched in stone of course, but that is a basic military axiom. And this is a game of military might.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Myomes]

Mekwarrior, on 08 January 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

Oh, interesting how often is the damage tick?

There are three separate damage ticks as far as I can make out by pulling a laser quickly across helpful teammate in order to gauge damage done.

Edited by Myomes, 09 January 2014 - 10:12 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yeah but I have been primarily a Ballistics and Energy player for most f my CBT Carrier.

Ok but thats your own personal preference. Good game design doesnt prefer one type of weapon over any other. In a well designed game, all choices need to be equal, or you dont have choice, just the illusion of choice.

[AaronWolf]

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Ok but thats your own personal preference. Good game design doesnt prefer one type of weapon over any other. In a well designed game, all choices need to be equal, or you dont have choice, just the illusion of choice.

Plateau Theory: Everything is equal, but effective in its specific niche. While ineffective in something else.

One day we may get there.

[Myomes]

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Ok but thats your own personal preference. Good game design doesnt prefer one type of weapon over any other. In a well designed game, all choices need to be equal, or you dont have choice, just the illusion of choice.

play stock light and medium mechs and figure out how many stacking of lasers it takes for lasers to actually be "viable". There's your clue.

[AaronWolf]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

play stock light and medium mechs and figure out how many stacking of lasers it takes for lasers to actually be "viable". There's your clue.

As a Light Pilot, I won't even pilot many stock Lights. Even with Hell frozen over.

[Joseph Mallan]

AaronWolf, on 09 January 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

As a Light Pilot, I won't even pilot many stock Lights. Even with Hell frozen over.

As that is a City in Michigan, I can confirm it has frozen over this weekend.

[Livewyr]

Without reading the thread- All I will add is:

One shouldn't always "buff weapons to make them competitive with other weapons."
Often, a nerf to the other weapons is needed otherwise, the maxim would be to make all of the weapons too powerful and reduce the purpose of Armor. (Example: People called for the PPC to be buffed because it couldn't compete with the Gauss Rifle...then PPCs got buffed, became all too powerful for the armor in the game... 1-shotting and 2-shotting mechs.. "PPCmageddon" and now they're back where they were and the Gauss Rifle got nerfed.)

Consider this: because all weapons were given 3x the RoF or more over TT..(as well as precision aim) armor had to be doubled. Now take that concept and buff the attributes of weapons to be in line with the strongest weapons we have now. Armor would become a superficial aspect of the game.

That is all.

[dwwolf]

My personal fix for large lasers ( all kinds ) would be a beam duration reduction of about 15 to 20 %. That would make em more efficient in applying their damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 09 January 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Ok but thats your own personal preference. Good game design doesnt prefer one type of weapon over any other. In a well designed game, all choices need to be equal, or you dont have choice, just the illusion of choice.

Which is why I have a stock of Fire Support Mechs as I know there worth even if I prefer a more direct approach. I have faced players who banked on Arty, and on Strictly Ultra2s for those chance TAC rolls. What has always worked best is a mostly ballistic/energy force with some missile cover. You have 3 weapon types in this game, you have 3(4) ranges in this game. the combinations of weapons are just only so big. If the pool was larger we wouldn't have so many similar builds in the TROs! And frankly complaining cause the Mechs don't vary much is a dumb one. How many different assault rifles are used by the US military? How many different tanks do we use? Back in the day I remember we had 4 Helicopters. So if a group drops against me with 4 Jager 40s and 3 AC/PPC Highlanders etc... I am seeing MechWarrior properly follow how a military works!

Livewyr, on 09 January 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Without reading the thread- All I will add is:

One shouldn't always "buff weapons to make them competitive with other weapons."
Often, a nerf to the other weapons is needed otherwise, the maxim would be to make all of the weapons too powerful and reduce the purpose of Armor. (Example: People called for the PPC to be buffed because it couldn't compete with the Gauss Rifle...then PPCs got buffed, became all too powerful for the armor in the game... 1-shotting and 2-shotting mechs.. "PPCmageddon" and now they're back where they were and the Gauss Rifle got nerfed.)

Consider this: because all weapons were given 3x the RoF or more over TT..(as well as precision aim) armor had to be doubled. Now take that concept and buff the attributes of weapons to be in line with the strongest weapons we have now. Armor would become a superficial aspect of the game.

That is all.

True but we have been Nerfing enough. Buffs are needed. For the sake of balance!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 January 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Myomes]

Livewyr, on 09 January 2014 - 10:27 AM, said:

Without reading the thread- All I will add is:

One shouldn't always "buff weapons to make them competitive with other weapons."
Often, a nerf to the other weapons is needed otherwise, the maxim would be to make all of the weapons too powerful and reduce the purpose of Armor. (Example: People called for the PPC to be buffed because it couldn't compete with the Gauss Rifle...then PPCs got buffed, became all too powerful for the armor in the game... 1-shotting and 2-shotting mechs.. "PPCmageddon" and now they're back where they were and the Gauss Rifle got nerfed.)

Consider this: because all weapons were given 3x the RoF or more over TT..(as well as precision aim) armor had to be doubled. Now take that concept and buff the attributes of weapons to be in line with the strongest weapons we have now. Armor would become a superficial aspect of the game.

That is all.

try to nerf 5 weapons to fit within your failed paradigm of game design because your name is Russel bullock, or buff the odd weapon out. Which is better for the game and faster?

[Varent]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

try to nerf 5 weapons to fit within your failed paradigm of game design because your name is Russel bullock, or buff the odd weapon out. Which is better for the game and faster?

problem is most cant agree on what the odd weapon out is.

personally I feel its large lasers. I feel a medium buff would be majorly overpowering.

[Noesis]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

There are three separate damage ticks as far as I can make out by pulling a laser quickly across helpful teammate in order to gauge damage done.

Lasers have 10 ticks over their duration.

[Myomes]

have you tested it for yourself? Why dont you do that.

[Noesis]

Myomes, on 09 January 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

have you tested it for yourself? Why dont you do that.

Using this as reference: http://mwomercs.com/...-melt-properly/

[Bront]

Varent, on 09 January 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

Every single balistic mech I own and use uses medium lasers.

c.c thanks for the buff?

There are alot of heavy assault and medium mechs out there that would only benefit from an upgrade to large lasers that actually REALLY need it.

An upgrade to medium lasers would be a primary boost to light mechs and then to most balistic user mechs that use them as secondary weapons. Which is very very common.

*dislike*.

Or perhaps it might tempt balistic uses to, you know, use MLs more?

The issue is making lasers more useful in general. Fixing all lasers will boost all mechs. For balistic mechs that use MLs as a secondary weapon, they're not getting anything any other mech isn't getting, but since it's a secondary weapon, they'll still be using it less.

Ultimately, I don't see this as a reason to not buff the ML. You can't not buff a weapon that needs it just because folks who use a more powerful weapon system might use it too. Balistics need to be reigned in a bit, but that's a discussion for another thread. This is a thread about how lasers are underpowered, and the ML suffers regardless of it's usage (It's often used because there's nothing else better to use, not because they're powerful).

A laser buff, particularly an ML buff, effects lights and energy boats most, but those are the mechs we're talking about that need a buff. So your 3 AC5 3 ML Ilya gets a buff as well out of it. I don't see the big deal.

I guess we might just have to agree to disagree.

Edited by Bront, 09 January 2014 - 11:14 AM.

[Varent]

Bront, on 09 January 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

A laser buff, particularly an ML buff, effects lights and energy boats most, but those are the mechs we're talking about that need a buff. So your 3 AC5 3 ML Ilya gets a buff as well out of it. I don't see the big deal.

I guess we might just have to agree to disagree.

.... light mechs do not need a buff. and large laser buffs would effect energy boats alot more then a medium laser buff.

That said most balistic users and balistic boats (jump sniper exception) use medium lasers. Thats fairly common. Also most srm close in medium mechs use mediums as well. They use them because the large laser isnt worth it. That should say alot.