479 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Splash damage has complications.

Easier to take out the head with splash.

It is also easier to aim at the ground near a Mechs legs and still apply some damage with a miss.

Splash will travel further in on small Mechs than larger Mechs, so as an example in the case of arm shielding is also of greater benefit to avoid this technique still applying damage inwards despite protection being there.

And a significant amount of splash area would be needed as the PPC would have to spread damage over Assaults so the area likely sufficiently large enough to do this for any apparent effect.

[GoManGo]

Here is a great idea rewind everything back to the beginning of closed beta and redesign the weapons balance and the core game mechanics like lobby's-live chat-private- matches-no paper mechs-etc.

[Khobai]

Splash damage doesnt need to work like that though.

A PPC could simply do 6 damage to the location you hit, and then 4 damage divided up among adjacent locations.

[Noesis]

Khobai, on 12 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Splash damage doesnt need to work like that though.

A PPC could simply do 6 damage to the location you hit, and then 4 damage divided up among adjacent locations.

So some kind of diffused arcing effect based on the actual hit point, but requiring a hit.

Maybe also considering front to rear transfer avoidance and/or head?

Be helpful to see some mechanics written up and some real case scenarios?

[Khobai]

Quote

So some kind of diffused arcing effect based on the actual hit point, but requiring a hit.

Basically something like this:
If you hit an arm/leg, it would do 6 damage to the arm/leg and 4 damage to the adjacent side torso
If you hit a side torso, it would do 6 damage to side torso, 2 damage to the adjacent arm, and 2 damage to the center torso
If you hit the center torso, it would do 6 damage to the center torso, and 2 damage to each side torso
If you hit the head, it would do 6 damage to the head and 4 damage to the center torso

Theres no RNG whatsoever... it just spreads out the PPC damage in a predictable manner. But visually it could look like chain lighting arcing from location to location, since PPCs are often described as being similar to lightning bolts.

We could even get rid of ghost heat then, because the worst a 6 PPC mech could do is 36 damage to one location. Which is perfectly fine IMO.

Edited by Khobai, 12 January 2014 - 10:29 AM.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

agree with the range. Disagree with the splash and burst. Would make them to much like the lasers and not allow for any other pinpoint damage weapons other then the gause. Pinpoint damage weapons give the game options of what to take and use and help seperate mech classes and abilities.

As you mention later, we have been over this many times. It wouldn't make them "much like lasers" any more than the current AC2, MG, or pulse laser are. The amount of variety you could have with different manufactures is nearly limitless, with ACs anything from large caliber MGs to how a current AC2 functions.

Noesis, on 12 January 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Splash damage has complications.

Easier to take out the head with splash.

It is also easier to aim at the ground near a Mechs legs and still apply some damage with a miss.

Splash will travel further in on small Mechs than larger Mechs, so as an example in the case of arm shielding is also of greater benefit to avoid this technique still applying damage inwards despite protection being there.

And a significant amount of splash area would be needed as the PPC would have to spread damage over Assaults so the area likely sufficiently large enough to do this for any apparent effect.

Just make it like an LBX, but very small cone - at short range, it could hit all in one hitbox, but beyond a 100m or so, the likelihood of it hitting multiple hitboxes increases.

Khobai, on 12 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Splash damage doesnt need to work like that though.

A PPC could simply do 6 damage to the location you hit, and then 4 damage divided up among adjacent locations.

Or that - I think it having a chance to hit internals or the rear/front like a lightning bolt would be very cool, but that would be much harder to implement.

[Bhael Fire]

Lykaon, on 12 January 2014 - 03:22 AM, said:

And I would rather the focus of a match be on accomplishing an objective rather than "smash em up robots".

The exchange of fire and destruction of the enemy mechs should be an effect of the objective's being tended to not instead of paying attention to objective.

The "thinking" in the "thinking man's shooter" should not be how to best hide in order to hopefully hit more often with crippling volumes of damage befoe they do.

The thinking should be how do we accomplish a mission objective before attrition has made the objective unatainable.
You know more like actual tactical warfare.

I completely agree with you; this game should have more objective-based tactical play with robust mission parameters. Many of us have been clamoring for this since closed beta.

However...

This is not an objective-based MMO, it's basically a Mechwarrior-themed MOBA game (unfortunately).

The upside is that PGI has stated they intend on making game modes more interesting, starting with Attack/Defend mode.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 12 January 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

As you mention later, we have been over this many times. It wouldn't make them "much like lasers" any more than the current AC2, MG, or pulse laser are. The amount of variety you could have with different manufactures is nearly limitless, with ACs anything from large caliber MGs to how a current AC2 functions.

As much as you say that is the case it would grealy take away from fragile builds that rely on precision. It would also take away from any type of sniping meta in the game with the exception of sustained damage sniping. Which honestly is boring. It would take away from the actual fun factor many types of players get from this game by trying different things. For example the ilya runs e uac5 and would have no changes whatsoever with this. However the cata3d is mostly used as a sniping mech and if you had large lasers or ppc with splash and ac with splash then you would have the same feel overall at the same ranges with just jump capability. It would not longer allow for a unique feel to different mechs using different weapons.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

As much as you say that is the case it would grealy take away from fragile builds that rely on precision. It would also take away from any type of sniping meta in the game with the exception of sustained damage sniping. Which honestly is boring. It would take away from the actual fun factor many types of players get from this game by trying different things. For example the ilya runs e uac5 and would have no changes whatsoever with this. However the cata3d is mostly used as a sniping mech and if you had large lasers or ppc with splash and ac with splash then you would have the same feel overall at the same ranges with just jump capability. It would not longer allow for a unique feel to different mechs using different weapons.

What fragile builds rely on precision? An AC40?

Want a sniping meta? Use Gauss, the weapon actually designed for that...

Just because you think sustained damage is boring does not mean it would not be very good for the game. I also don't agree that it would be boring, as there have been a lot of complaints about the current sniping meta making brawling builds unpopular, and this would help allow brawlers to close distance with some armor left.

Jump jets are not the issue. Pinpoint, front-loaded damage is the issue and complicated by jump jets.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 12 January 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

What fragile builds rely on precision? An AC40?

Want a sniping meta? Use Gauss, the weapon actually designed for that...

Just because you think sustained damage is boring does not mean it would not be very good for the game. I also don't agree that it would be boring, as there have been a lot of complaints about the current sniping meta making brawling builds unpopular, and this would help allow brawlers to close distance with some armor left.

Jump jets are not the issue. Pinpoint, front-loaded damage is the issue and complicated by jump jets.

No ac40 is just a bad build. I listed a build already, the cata 3d was an example. That said anyone that is using mechs like the jager as fire support oriented or using the dragon for example without a gause would be relegated to destruction. Those mechs rely on being fragile but having arm mounted weapons that have mobility so they can aim better down range. They would no longer have any viability since you would take out any benefit of having arm mounted weaponary. You keep failing to address the issue that these weapons are not a major problem for anything but a light mech since one on one FLD does not promote a significant threat over other weapons at medium or above weight classes.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

No ac40 is just a bad build. I listed a build already, the cata 3d was an example. That said anyone that is using mechs like the jager as fire support oriented or using the dragon for example without a gause would be relegated to destruction. Those mechs rely on being fragile but having arm mounted weapons that have mobility so they can aim better down range. They would no longer have any viability since you would take out any benefit of having arm mounted weaponary. You keep failing to address the issue that these weapons are not a major problem for anything but a light mech since one on one FLD does not promote a significant threat over other weapons at medium or above weight classes.

But you just said (in the other thread, I believe) that the 3d isn't an FLD mech because it relies on sustained damage.... Which is it?

You keep failing to address the issue that these weapons are a problem because that is why they are so popular - the majority will equip the weapons currently unbalanced, which is been PPCs and ACs currently.

Btw, I have been trying out SRM builds the last couple days and they are fun on some mechs, ranking in the same boat as an LBX. On that note, don't you think they should be changed because they are the same? Can't have missiles and ballistics the same and still have a fun game, after all.... (/sarcasm)

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 12 January 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

But you just said (in the other thread, I believe) that the 3d isn't an FLD mech because it relies on sustained damage.... Which is it?

You keep failing to address the issue that these weapons are a problem because that is why they are so popular - the majority will equip the weapons currently unbalanced, which is been PPCs and ACs currently.

Btw, I have been trying out SRM builds the last couple days and they are fun on some mechs, ranking in the same boat as an LBX. On that note, don't you think they should be changed because they are the same? Can't have missiles and ballistics the same and still have a fun game, after all.... (/sarcasm)

I told you the ilya wasn't a FLD mech. And I agree they are very popular on jump capable mechs and usually fail to perform on chasis which are not jump capable with a few exceptions. Even then those builds that use them without jump jets always fail once distance is closed. There is a major reason for this. On a sidenote no. The LBX has a much larger range wich allows it to function with more accuracy at different ranges then srms and allows for a degree of versatility of you have a ballistic slot or missle slot. It also allows for you to double up on some mechs if you want a large shot gun effect. Also the LBX has a higher crit rate. I use them both on varying mechs and enjoy the differences between them quite abit. Although you may not.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

On a sidenote no. The LBX has a much larger range wich allows it to function with more accuracy at different ranges then srms and allows for a degree of versatility of you have a ballistic slot or missle slot. It also allows for you to double up on some mechs if you want a large shot gun effect. Also the LBX has a higher crit rate. I use them both on varying mechs and enjoy the differences between them quite abit. Although you may not.

That was the point of my sarcasm, but thanks for reinforcing it. Just because they deliver damage the same (spread) does not mean the weapons are identical - making ballistics burst-fire will NOT make them "the same as lasers".

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 12 January 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

That was the point of my sarcasm, but thanks for reinforcing it. Just because they deliver damage the same (spread) does not mean the weapons are identical - making ballistics burst-fire will NOT make them "the same as lasers".

It will since it takes out a direct fire weapon and leaves only one in the game.

[Bront]

Varent, on 12 January 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

It will since it takes out a direct fire weapon and leaves only one in the game.

There's a solution. Make all AC shots arc. Literally make mechs lob in the AC20.


Disclaimer: Bront does not actually support such changes and is using the example for sarcasm.

[Varent]

Bront, on 12 January 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

Disclaimer: Bront does not actually support such changes and is using the example for sarcasm.

*like*

[Khobai]

Quote

It will since it takes out a direct fire weapon and leaves only one in the game.

Gauss should be nerfed too. There should be no instadamage pinpoint weapons at all. Pinpoint damage will always be abused as long as it exists in any form.

IMO gauss should "spiral" through mechs like high velocity rounds typically do, and it should hit several different locations, maybe even give it a tiny chance of punching through armor (like through armor crits in battletech).

Theres other options for reducing pinpoint as well, but I personally think this is the easiest way for PGI, and even they should be able to implement it within the span of a month or two. Unlike what other people are suggesting, like redesigning the entire weapons system from the ground up to include cone of fire. Something definitely has to be done about pinpoint damage before clan tech comes out though.

Edited by Khobai, 12 January 2014 - 02:46 PM.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 12 January 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

no it leaves none in the game. gauss should be nerfed too. there should be no instadamage pinpoint weapons.

That is an opinion. The vast majority of gamers that play shooting games at least like to have some weapons like this to both build diversity and give a different feel to the game and allow for new things to try and learn as well as allows for different tools for different jobs.

[Nihtgenga]

And here it comes again, the "we just have to change this one"-bandwagon...

Respawns for less kill-centric play? Sure... 'cause it does not hamper finishing the objective when you always have to restart at the spawn point.
Taking away killing from scores will help to drive people away from coring? Sure, 'cause aiming NOT for the center of a mech but individual small moving parts is so much easier.

Guys, NOTHING of that stuff will help on its own. As long as the base mechanics of how weapons work in MWO stays, so does the meta. It needs several fundamental changes, even before talking about individual values in the weapon tables, if you ask me:

1. Damage over time needs to be low enough in comparison to mech durability to allow the mechs a TTL on the battlefield that is long enough to allow the right tactics being a factor really decisive to win.

2. The heatsink system needs to be changed to make SHS usable for something. Currently, many stock builds are pure bullcrap due to the SHS bad performance. That's largely canon, but since DHS are available, SHS just do not make sense in nearly all builds. So, the SHS/DHS-relation needs to be changed to give SHS an edge somewhere, away from canon values. Might be something like DHS having double dissipation, but only half heat cap (might be "explainable" by less storage/buffer mass per volume of the DHS). Such a difference would give SHS a niche for fighting, while overall keeping them worse in performance than DHS.

3. All deus-ex-machina distortions or limitations applied like "ghost heat" need to be ditched. They create sweet spots for configurations having advantages big enough to create their own metas.

4. Comparable weapon systems need to have a comparable individual "battlevalue" like in TT, so that e.g. the frontloaded damage application, big effective range envelope and low heat of ACs (positive numbers) is counterbalanced by weight, ammo and maybe a cone of fire (negative values). The precision (pinpoint accuracy and no need for target leading) of the lasers is then counterbalanced by their high heat and their DOT damage application (a factor not present in TT!). Pulse lasers then balance out their shorter firing duration and recharge time by reduced range, more heat and more weight. And so on with the rest. Key for balancing is then, that any weapon of a certain damage class ends up with roughly the same "battle value", e.g. if an AC/5 has 15 BV points at the end, a comparable laser should not be far off this 15 BV value too. Bigger weapons may have more BV, smaller lower BV.
At the end it shouldn't be a noticable difference in how "deadly" e.g. one of the comparable weapons (LLAS vs. PLAS vs. ERLLAS vs. maybe AC/10 and LRM10) is over a whole match, but in how the killing potential can be fully utilized.

Edited by Nihtgenga, 12 January 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

The vast majority of gamers that play shooting games at least like to have some weapons like this to both build diversity and give a different feel to the game and allow for new things to try and learn as well as allows for different tools for different jobs.

Of course they do, because theyre overpowered, and the vast majority of gamers like using weapons that are overpowered. It makes them feel elite and special when they do 40 points of damage to someone's center torso.

We need balanced weapons before all other considerations. Making weapons different comes after making them balanced.