125 replies to this topic

[Mudhutwarrior]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

sense is tingling

Can we please just stop calling for a nerf every time someone gets killed by something? I mean seriously. This is getting really ridiculous. And no, you're "Well if so many people are posting it, it must need to be changed" arguments are not valid.

This is almost as bad as the "remove this trend" that took place.

Weapons are in a good spot right now. The recent change to AC20&10 helped, I think if they reduced ballistic ranges they would be great.

Agreed but I would have left the 20/10 alone. I was fine with them as they were. Fact is nerf nothing. Maybe buff some things like pulse lasers as they are kinda useless and forgotten except for the rare bird.

[Roadkill]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

sense is tingling

Can we please just stop calling for a nerf every time someone gets killed by something? I mean seriously. This is getting really ridiculous. And no, you're "Well if so many people are posting it, it must need to be changed" arguments are not valid.

This is almost as bad as the "remove this trend" that took place.

Weapons are in a good spot right now. The recent change to AC20&10 helped, I think if they reduced ballistic ranges they would be great.

is OP. Nerf .

Weapon balance is mostly okay, but there are number of glaring problems. LBX. Pulse lasers. Flamers. I'd even like to see regular lasers get a little bit of love. But in all cases, I'd rather see the bad weapons get boosted rather than the good ones get nerfed.

[EvilCow]

Rather than nerf ballistic weapons and sink in an endless vortex of QQ over the next thing to nerf I'd recommend to work on the other weapons and bring them in a state of usefulness, carefully, on step at time.

[Almond Brown]

Varent, on 16 January 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

This.

minus this

Quote

"I think if they reduced ballistic ranges they would be great.

I think many players would be very surprised to find that a range reduction would actually make the current ammo counts even more efficient.

Given that players know they can place, even less than the maximum, damage, or just generally harass from long to extreme distances, they do as much. Now, I am sure there are many here who would never waste a shot at even 1m out past Optimal, and they will post as much given the chance, but 99.9% do fire their ballistics at non-optimal ranges.

By reducing the range bracket, you reduce the amount of long to extreme shots that are provided thus reduce the number of those shots and again, reduce the number of sub-optimal shots taken, thus increasing the damage potential of every ton carried.

So I can not agree with a Range reduction, but a reduction in ammo count per ton may in fact be in order.

Edited by Almond Brown, 16 January 2014 - 10:21 AM.

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 16 January 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

minus this


I think many players would be very surprised to find that a range reduction would actually make the current ammo counts even more efficient.

Given that players know they can place, even less than the maximum, damage, or just generally harass from long to extreme distances, they do as much. Now, I am sure there are many here who would never waste a shot at even 1m out past Optimal, and they will post as much given the chance, but 99.9% do fire their ballistics at non-optimal ranges.

By reducing the range bracket, you reduce the amount of long to extreme shots that are provided thus reduce the number of those shots and again, reduce the number of sub-optimal shots taken, thus increasing the damage potential of every ton carried.

So I can not agree with a Range reduction, but a reduction in ammo count per ton may in fact be in order.

Im hopeful that CW will address the ammo issue so im loath to make a change to that until then since the lower ammo count may then need a massive boost after a reduction. We simply dont know yet either way.

[Entail]

IL MECHWARRIOR, on 16 January 2014 - 02:28 AM, said:

what the (), in my jm6-s armeod with 4 mdlaser and 3 ac 5 with 240 ammo and xl 265 i just did 5 kills and 1400 damage!!!!!!!!



what the()i did 1400 damage with ac 5 in a 65 tons!!!!! this is overpowered!!!!!! nerf ac 5 now!!!!!!

ac 2 ac 5 and ultra ac 5 are overpowered compared to gauss, in order to understand that you must compare builds

DUAL GAUSS JAGERMECH VS 3 AC 5 + 4 MDLAS JAGER

i choose the ac sniper version

2 GAUSS + 4 MDLASER CATAPHRACT 3D VS 3 ULTRA AC 5 + 3 MDLASER MUROMETS

i choose the ac version

and..........just for a second............consider how much damage without overheating a Victor 9b with 3 ac 2, 825 ammo and 19 double heat sinks can do

12 damage each second without overheating for at least 15 seconds, at 720 meters and with 2000 rangE!!!!!

O NO! NERF ME 2 PLZ I BOUGHT RAVEN YESTERDAY AND DO 800 DMG SOMETIME
AND I GET 700 DMG AND 8 KILL IN MY BLACKJACK I DO MORE AVERAGE PLZ NERF ME
I AM SO OP.

AND NERF FLAMER CUZ FLAMER SO OP THE RANGE IS 2 MUCH I AM TOO STRONG
O NO I CAN'T HANDLE MYSELF I PLAY IN LOW ELO AND GET 1400 DMG BECAUSE
I LIKE TO KILL LEGS AND ARM OF ATLAS, BUT NO KILL ATLAS AND GET HIGH
DAMAGE BUT LITTLE KILL, I NO LIKE KILL NERF ME

[Co Ward]

so what you're saying is that you had 1 game where you did really well and that somehow means that the weapons you used that 1 time are now op?

something tells me you dont have any idea wtf you're talking about.

in statistics you ususally throw out the outliers, meaning the highest and lowest get tossed and you average everything else. so untill your average is 1400 damage a game with the ac5, S T F U.

Edited by Udachi Kerensky, 16 January 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Sandpit]

Udachi Kerensky, on 16 January 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

so what you're saying is that you had 1 game where you did really well and that somehow means that the weapons you used that 1 time are now op?

That's like 90% of the "op" "nerf" threads on the forums

[Navy Sixes]

Disagree with the OP, really agree with the "make buffs, not nerfs" spirit of many of the posts. I've been trying to make pulse weapons work. I give up. They're really bad. For their limited range and not exceptionally different damage, they weigh too much and run waaay too hot.

People will say, "But the beam length is shorter! The damage is more concentrated!" Meh. Practice with standard beam weapons for a couple weeks and you'll be able to get the same results... at +200m.

I think pulse weapons are where MGs were a few months ago. They look cool. They sound AWESOME. Everyone really wants to take them... But as far as in-game effectiveness, they're a colossal bad choice.

Oh, and yes. I know I'm totally off-topic. I'd rather talk about something useful than argue about something that is, well, silly.

[Krujiente]

the lower ACs suffer from the same thing that that the lasers suffer from, time that center torso is exposed. These weapons are fine. I took down a 3AC2 Shadowhawk that kept staring at me and pummeling me with my hunchback 4j that had 3MLs and 3LLs. I kept swing my torso and then alphaing the LLs then swing my torso, didn't even get orange anywhere. On PAPER these are great weapons, they do a lot of damage, but they don't do a lot of damage where it counts, in one spot in an instant.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, could consider for the AC/5s & UAC/5s

• Heat: 1.1 or 1.2
  
• Speed: 1,100
  
• Range: 540 M for the AC/5

For the AC/2

• Heat: 0.9 or 0.8
  
• Reload: 0.6
  
• Speed: 1700 m/s (this, only to keep Gauss as the only Hypersonic Weapon in MWO)

Otherwise, they're more or less okay, along with adding/increasing Heat penalties, if absolutely necessary then they could be fine if the concern is stacking multiples of them.

[DeathlyEyes]

Instead of demanding a nerf, why not ask for PGI to fix the counter to the weapon. The issue isn't recycle time or heat. The issue is lasers suck. They do damage over time and have a whole host of issues. The best solution is to incrementally buff lasers.

[Mycrus]

Ac2s.... really!?

[Corvus Antaka]

might be a damage potential issue. too much ammo? not enough heat?

[Rhent]

OP, I'm calling lying on this. Here is your build. You'll have about 7 tons of AC/5 ammo, putting that at 1,050 damage, meaning you also had to have done 350 damage with your medium lasers as well. All with 10 DHS. Meaning that you would have had to have hit every single time with your AC/5's at effective range and most likely with your ML's as well all the time while not overheating w/ your 10 DHS.

You would have had to of had 4 minutes of constant fire at effective range always hitting with your AC/5's and with your ML's and still live through it without losing an arm cutting down your base DPS or a torso exploding and killing you. What you post just does NOT ring true.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 16 January 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

I think if they increased energy ranges they would be great.

This

[Sandpit]

Wolfways, on 17 January 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

This

lol I like the sentiment but I do not think energy range needs to be increased, just ballistics reduced slightly

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 07:54 PM, said:

lol I like the sentiment but I do not think energy range needs to be increased, just ballistics reduced slightly

Might help short ranged weapons like SL's get more use.

[Sandpit]

Wolfways, on 17 January 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Might help short ranged weapons like SL's get more use.

Which is exactly why I'm not really for a buff in ranges on energy weapons. SLs SHOULD be extremely short range, as should the AC20, MG, and flamer. There's no reason an AC20 should be just as effective if not more effective than an AC10 at range. Other than size limits there's currently no reason for a mech that can equip an AC20 to take an AC10 instead. The range multiplier effectively turns then AC20 into an AC10 at range.
The decrease in projectile speed was a step in the right direction but I really think a range reduction would solve a lot ot the perceived issues with the ballistics

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 17 January 2014 - 08:31 PM, said:

Which is exactly why I'm not really for a buff in ranges on energy weapons. SLs SHOULD be extremely short range, as should the AC20, MG, and flamer. There's no reason an AC20 should be just as effective if not more effective than an AC10 at range. Other than size limits there's currently no reason for a mech that can equip an AC20 to take an AC10 instead. The range multiplier effectively turns then AC20 into an AC10 at range.
The decrease in projectile speed was a step in the right direction but I really think a range reduction would solve a lot ot the perceived issues with the ballistics

I agree with you about the AC20. I just think all the weapon ranges in MWO are very short, especially lasers.
But while i'd prefer an energy range increase i'd be fine with a ballistic range decrease.