106 replies to this topic

[kesmai]

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

I don't know about being less effective or whatever.But,I'll tell you one thing...the chain firing AC's from MW3 were sooooo much more fun and way more satisfying than the piddly,underwhelming sounding ac's we have in MWO.

When you pulled the trigger on a mw3 AC there was a cool *Brrrrt* sound while the gun fired off a few shots.
like this:

http://youtu.be/4olzluu1M4E?t=2m8s

and of course the sound was beefier and more impactful with the bigger ac's,I think the one in that vid is an ac 5 or 10,not sure.OH and get this....if you hit a light mech with enough rounds from the ac20 stream,it would knock the light mech on it's ***! how awesome would that be?

So,once again...even if it would be less effective it would be a hell of a lot more fun and satisfying ,for me anyways.And that's what games are supposed to be about right? fun? does anyone remember when we used to play games just for FUN??

well i nearly forgot mw3.
this is what i meant

[Joseph Mallan]

Mister Blastman, on 08 January 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Well the problem is the developers refuse to remove/fix/correct convergence. They either...

a. Don't want to
b. Don't know how to
c. Don't care

Convergence is the real problem. It has been for over a year and a half. They haven't even once made an attempt to address it nor have they even commented much on it.

That's cause we have to many players who think they don't have skillz cause they can't put 3 100mm rounds into a paper plate sized target at 700M

[Varent]

kesmai, on 08 January 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

well i nearly forgot mw3.
this is what i meant

you do know most agreed MW3 was not a good 'online' game and was just mainly used for the campaign. There is good reason they moved away from this....

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Well said.



they have already said convergence works against true hit reg.

then figure out how to workaround it? Isn't that what deves are paid to do?

[kesmai]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

you do know most agreed MW3 was not a good 'online' game and was just mainly used for the campaign. There is good reason they moved away from this....

with the absolute better mw4 ?
i don´t think mw4 was better than mw3

[Varent]

kesmai, on 08 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

i don´t think mw4 was better than mw3

*blink*

K.

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

then figure out how to workaround it? Isn't that what deves are paid to do?

Id say they have more on there plate then that. At the moment its definetly not anywhere close to a priority.

[Sandpit]

kesmai, on 08 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

with the absolute better mw4 ?
i don´t think mw4 was better than mw3

I don't think Ballistics are OP nor are Lasers ineffective

[AC]

Roland, on 08 January 2014 - 10:00 AM, said:

I know folks think that making AC's into some kind of trash burst fire weapon is useful, but it's really not, and it's gonna kill the weapon.

The whole point of the AC20, even in the original battletech, was that it did 20 damage TO ONE LOCATION.

This was WHY you used that gun. It was why it was better than 4 medium lasers.

The problem that folks are generally running into isn't that the AC20 does point damage.. it's that when you combine a ton of guns, they all fuse into a single uber-gun. This has been a problem that has plagued mechwarrior FOREVER. We've seen the issue in every single mechwarrior title to date.

A single AC20 in BT was a deadly weapon, because that single shot hitting a light mech's limb would tend to rip it off... or if it hit anyone's head, it'd kill that mech EVERY SINGLE TIME.

The problem you're seeing in MWO, is that you can combine a bunch of weapons... like two AC20's, or PPC's and AC's, or whatever.. and suddenly you have the devastating power of the AC20, but at really long range.

The answer isn't to make more weapons into burn time weapons... because the result is not going to change the fact that the best builds will still involve grouping together the largest alpha possible.

MW4 fixed this to an extent by having really long cool down times for these weapons. Gauss was 7 seconds, Heavy gauss was pushing 11. PPC's ERPPC's and PPC+Capacitors were all really long cool down time weapons. The cool down times in MWO seem way way too short on these high damage weapons.

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

*blink*

K.



Id say they have more on there plate then that. At the moment its definetly not anywhere close to a priority.

inability to balance combat mechanics causing massive minmax meta disparity and driving off players might be a good priority to look into, instead of kneejerk nerfs which fix nothing and just alienate more players.

Sometimes difficult, time consuming actual fixes are the only answer. At the very least they could fix other issues that are simpler instead of the nerfhammer.

kesmai, on 08 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

with the absolute better mw4 ?
i don´t think mw4 was better than mw3

it was a better ONLINE game than 3, is the point (though imbalance was still an issue) MW2 and 3 were obviously better PvE games.

[kapusta11]

Bah, go ahead, make ACs fire in bursts, they will still be superior to energy weapons because they produce no heat thus fire faster. All this complains just show that you have no clue about how the game works.

[Varent]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

inability to balance combat mechanics causing massive minmax meta disparity and driving off players might be a good priority to look into, instead of kneejerk nerfs which fix nothing and just alienate more players.

Sometimes difficult, time consuming actual fixes are the only answer. At the very least they could fix other issues that are simpler instead of the nerfhammer.


it was a better ONLINE game than 3, is the point (though imbalance was still an issue) MW2 and 3 were obviously better PvE games.

Honestly? I have no issue with convergence as it is. I dont see it as a priority and I still think its a vocal minority myself that are upset over it. I survive just fine and have a great kill to death ratio and I enjoy brawling mechs that dont use the ac20 at all. Most of my damage I actually get from srm/medium laser. If I can do well with those weapons and kill others.. .I dont see it as anywhere close to a priority as upposed to putting even more time into CW. Keep in mind everything they 'fix' or tweak just takes away from people working on that.


And yes MW3 was a great PvE game. But keep in mind MWO is not PvE at all.. which is what alot of people fail to realize.

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

And yes MW3 was a great PvE game. But keep in mind MWO is not PvE at all.. which is what alot of people fail to realize.

agree to disagree on the first point, and not interested in a KDr debate (relatively unreliable stat all things being equal)

That said, the MWO not having a PvE was kinda part of the point of the comment.

[Varent]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 12:01 PM, said:

agree to disagree on the first point, and not interested in a KDr debate (relatively unreliable stat all things being equal)

That said, the MWO not having a PvE was kinda part of the point of the comment.

im pretty sure they didnt come out with a pve because of it would be a very limited amount of money they could make off of it and an online shooter was more viable. Much to many TT players chagrin and to more competitive shooting players delight.

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

im pretty sure they didnt come out with a pve because of it would be a very limited amount of money they could make off of it and an online shooter was more viable. Much to many TT players chagrin and to more competitive shooting players delight.

agreed. The point was in reply to the comment that MW4 was inferior to MW3, basically pointing out that too many people let their feeling for PvE games overshadow the PvP aspects. Basically, that while as a straight game, MW3 was suprior to 4, as an online PvO it was inferior, partly because sized hardpoints in mw4 did reduce minmaxing, and the overall engine was superior.

[Varent]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

agreed. The point was in reply to the comment that MW4 was inferior to MW3, basically pointing out that too many people let their feeling for PvE games overshadow the PvP aspects. Basically, that while as a straight game, MW3 was suprior to 4, as an online PvO it was inferior, partly because sized hardpoints in mw4 did reduce minmaxing, and the overall engine was superior.

True. They both were good games, just depends what your in it for. Though MW4 is probly a better example towards Multiplayer. That said I enjoyed MW3 for the single player.

Actually all this talk has made me want to redownload mechcommander.... *wistful*

[kesmai]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

agreed. The point was in reply to the comment that MW4 was inferior to MW3, basically pointing out that too many people let their feeling for PvE games overshadow the PvP aspects. Basically, that while as a straight game, MW3 was suprior to 4, as an online PvO it was inferior, partly because sized hardpoints in mw4 did reduce minmaxing, and the overall engine was superior.

so we are again at the point of the sized hardpoints and you know pgi just would not listen to this.
the basic idea of my suggestion was to take a bit spread into account when you use ac´s and i still think this is not totally of.
(and by the way i´d like to hear a 3 round burst from a 90mm ac ), but i can see this idea is not liked very much.

Varent, on 08 January 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

True. They both were good games, just depends what your in it for. Though MW4 is probly a better example towards Multiplayer. That said I enjoyed MW3 for the single player.

Actually all this talk has made me want to redownload mechcommander.... *wistful*

http://www.moddb.com...mander-omnitech

Edited by kesmai, 08 January 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[Varent]

THere is alot they could do for diversity. Personally I would love to see different manufactures of different AC. They have the manufactures listed in Sarna. Could make different ones have different CD. Perhaps slightly different heat, one a little bigger or smalller, more durable, less reliable... cost more cost less.... etc... etc... Would be neat, specially if they threw it into CW and made you rearm on planet only with what was available there.

kesmai, on 08 January 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

http://www.moddb.com...mander-omnitech

<3

[Appogee]

What problem are we trying to solve in this thread...?

Is it that a heavy, ammunition dependant, slow refire, high heat, short-range weapon does 20 points of damage to a single location?

Just nerf it a little further through range, shots per ton, weight, hit points or heat if it's that big a concern.

Edited by Appogee, 08 January 2014 - 12:32 PM.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 January 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

(And let's face it, a 120mm rhinemetal smoothbore going full auto? If you can't figure out the engineering hurdles there, well, you don't belong in this conversation).

You're forgetting the 1036 years of weapons development between now and 3050.

Look back 1000 years to 1000 AD and the most advanced weaponry is the bow and arrow. The Greeks have their Greek Fire, and the Chinese have started experimenting with explosives. Now imagine someone in 1000 AD talking about automatic radar-guided 57mm Bofors 4P naval guns, or GPS-guided Tomahawk missiles, or Leopard II MBTs, not to mention nuclear weapons...

And there's actually something closer to a lore representation of that Rheinmetall gun, but it's not an Autocannon, it's a Rifle (lore says they are "based on modern main battle tank main guns, and it has a -3 damage modifier against 'mechs). Those Rifles then in turn evolved into our Autocannons.

Always remember that there is zero connection between BattleTech weapons and actual, real life weaponry that you may or may not have personal experience of. Me, I've fired everything from .22 pistols to 120mm mortars, but that's neither here nor there in a discussion about game balance, now is it?

[FireSlade]

The AC20 does not need to be nerfed anymore it already is one of the worst ACs, in the game unless you cannot aim, with the others able to put out more damage per ton and more likely to hit 270+ meters. The only thing that I really think needs to be done to Ballistics in general is to bring them in line with Energy weapons (with out a DOT mechanic). PGI is not going to listen to us in this, and there have been many, many, ideas to help them through this but they want to do it their way which is fine but I would like to see balancing done with thoughts to the future MWO instead of the here and now knee jerks that they have been doing. I also wish that they would use the test server more to try balancing the weapons, rather than just a UI, so that they can get real game numbers to figure out if the nerf is viable or if it just pushes them to the next meta. Maybe when they have more time/man power available we will start seeing better control with their game and less rushed mechanics. Until then we just have to adapt and stop with the anti PGI stuff and start putting posts with actual suggestions that are open and thought out rather than "I hate what you did! Change it now!".