110 replies to this topic

[lsp]

No.

[Trauglodyte]

One thing that they could do is apply the JJ spread "debuff" to mechs based on heat and movement. Right now, you can't do pin point damage when you're jumping even if you don't have the shake because it forces your arms to spread (not an issue for mechs with torso mounted weapons). But, if we ended up getting equal spread the hotter and faster we went, it would help alleviate things without needing much tinkering with weapons.

[FactorlanP]

Trauglodyte, on 07 February 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

One thing that they could do is apply the JJ spread "debuff" to mechs based on heat and movement. Right now, you can't do pin point damage when you're jumping even if you don't have the shake because it forces your arms to spread (not an issue for mechs with torso mounted weapons). But, if we ended up getting equal spread the hotter and faster we went, it would help alleviate things without needing much tinkering with weapons.

I find that idea to be interesting.

[Raghnall]

TehSBGX, on 07 February 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

I'm leaning more towards half of a PPCs damage get spread out in a splash effect. It seems like a good comprimise. :/

I have also thought that it should be a weapon that can transfer damage to adjacent parts. If it impact footprint is large a portion could be distributed...

[wanderer]

Yeah. The problem isn't how much damage is delivered, it's how precisely you can place the damage.

Make the PPC splash some of it's damage and it's in a much better place. Heck, the ERLL/LPL's got damage beefed UP a bit because they spread that damage around.

[Bishop Steiner]

Raghnall, on 07 February 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

I have also thought that it should be a weapon that can transfer damage to adjacent parts. If it impact footprint is large a portion could be distributed...

that is how it worked (unintentionally, apparently) in early Closed Beta. Guess how many people used PPCs? None. Especially with their ridiculous heat burden, they already lay out far less DPS than ANY ballistic in the game. And have a laughably slow projectile which means that hitting anyone at long range requires them being asleep at the wheel.

PPCs ain't the problem. Start actually clamoring to fix the problem, not the symptoms.

[Roland]

Raghnall, on 07 February 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

I have also thought that it should be a weapon that can transfer damage to adjacent parts. If it impact footprint is large a portion could be distributed...

Why do people keep making this terrible idea?

It would make the weapon into a garbage tier trash weapon like the LBX. No one who understands the game would use it.

[Mcgral18]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

Why do people keep making this terrible idea?

It would make the weapon into a garbage tier trash weapon like the LBX. No one who understands the game would use it.

You mean one of the few balanced weapons?

[Roland]

Mcgral18, on 07 February 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

You mean one of the few balanced weapons?

It's really weird that folks like you equate "garbage" with "balanced".

When a weapon is trash compared to almost every other weapon, it's not balanced. It's underpowered.

The answer to balance isn't to make every weapon in the game as weak as the weakest weapon.

[Mcgral18]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

It's really weird that folks like you equate "garbage" with "balanced".

When a weapon is trash compared to almost every other weapon, it's not balanced. It's underpowered.

The answer to balance isn't to make every weapon in the game as weak as the weakest weapon.

No, the issue is PPCs and ballistics don't have a spread mechanic built in. Only the LB10x does for the ballistics.

[Roland]

Mcgral18, on 07 February 2014 - 08:58 PM, said:

No, the issue is PPCs and ballistics don't have a spread mechanic built in. Only the LB10x does for the ballistics.

No, lasers also don't have a spread mechanic. They have a burn time, but that can be concentrated through pilot skill.

The LBX is trash because it's guaranteed to spread damage all over the place, regardless of pilot skill.

And the suggestion of making the PPC spread its damage would result in the exact same thing.


What some of you guys don't seem to understand is that if you make ballistics and PPC's start spreading their damage around, that isn't going to make them equal to laser weapons. It's going to make them TRASH compared to laser weapons, because lasers have a huge advantage in that they do not require any lead time or ammo.

If you made PPC's spread damage all over the place, no one would use them at all. They could easilly just use an ER LL, not have to ever lead a target, use less tonnage and crit space, and generate less heat per shot.. while potentially getting even more concentrated damage on the target.

[Mcgral18]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

No, lasers also don't have a spread mechanic. They have a burn time, but that can be concentrated through pilot skill.

The LBX is trash because it's guaranteed to spread damage all over the place, regardless of pilot skill.

And the suggestion of making the PPC spread its damage would result in the exact same thing.


What some of you guys don't seem to understand is that if you make ballistics and PPC's start spreading their damage around, that isn't going to make them equal to laser weapons. It's going to make them TRASH compared to laser weapons, because lasers have a huge advantage in that they do not require any lead time or ammo.

If you made PPC's spread damage all over the place, no one would use them at all. They could easilly just use an ER LL, not have to ever lead a target, use less tonnage and crit space, and generate less heat per shot.. while potentially getting even more concentrated damage on the target.

I'm fine with frontloaded, half the damage and double the fire rate on some ballistics to spread that damage.

PPCs, increase the cooldown to 5 or 6. Or decrease the damage to 8. All weapons are already more effective than in TT, without taking into account the tonnage free 100% accurate targetting computer or the instant convergence.

I'm just tired of this massed pinpoint damage being the most effective way to play. It's very stale.

Edited by Mcgral18, 07 February 2014 - 09:25 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 07 February 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'm fine with frontloaded, half the damage and double the fire rate on some ballistics to spread that damage.

PPCs, increase the cooldown to 5 or 6. Or decrease the damage to 8. All weapons are already more effective than in TT, without taking into account the tonnage free 100% accurate targetting computer or the instant convergence.

I'm just tired of this massed pinpoint damage being the most effective way to play. It's very stale.

which is sort of where the whole convergence thing comes to play.

"Stale" would be every weapon doing pitiful damage. Not everyone finds dps ac2 and ac5 build fun, nor conducive. They suck for instance for ambushes.

Again, even though some, like wanderer can't seem to get it, let's address the actual problem that is causing you and me both our aggravation. Making every weapon into papercut weapons really is not going to do it.

[Roland]

Mcgral18, on 07 February 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

All weapons are already more effective than in TT, without taking into account the tonnage free 100% accurate targetting computer or the instant convergence.

I'm just tired of this massed pinpoint damage being the most effective way to play. It's very stale.

Two points here:
1) You aren't getting 100% accuracy. You're getting the accuracy of the pilot... i.e. you, the player. This is part of it being a skill based game. People who trivialize the gunnery skills of other folks, suggesting that "it's just point and click" tend to be very poor shots, in my experience.. that is, they tend to be folks who apparently can't "point and click".

2) The issue of massed pinpoint damage is most certainly an issue that "breaks" the battletech model. However, the issue isn't that a PPC does all of its damage to one location. Because that was a quality of those large damage weapons in battletech. It was a chief reason for using them.

The issue in mechwarrior isn't that a PPC does 10 damage to one location. The issue is that I can take a BUNCH of weapons and duct-tape them all together, fire them all at once, and have them ALL hit a single location. So I can take two PPC's, and 2 AC5's, and dump 30 damage onto one location.

This has been an issue in every single mechwarrior title to date, and it was brought up numerous times by various folks throughout closed beta... and it does not appear like PGI is really going to deal with it.

But simply nerfing individual weapons isn't going to solve the problem.... clearly. Because PGI has already nerfed weapons over and over again, and the target just keeps moving. Players just move to the next best combination of weapons to achieve a high alpha... Meanwhile, you make those weapons which you nerfed into weapons which no longer function particularly well on their own.

The refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of having magical convergence of all weapons on a mech has resulted in basically ALL of the worst changes to this game that have taken place over the past two years... It's led to ghost heat, and gauss charging. It led to a nerfing of primary infighting weapons like Medium and Small Lasers.

Refusing to deal with the real issue, and just nerfing weapons randomly like we've seen in the past isn't going to solve the problems or make the game better.

[Mcgral18]

Roland, on 07 February 2014 - 09:34 PM, said:

Two points here:
1) You aren't getting 100% accuracy. You're getting the accuracy of the pilot... i.e. you, the player. This is part of it being a skill based game. People who trivialize the gunnery skills of other folks, suggesting that "it's just point and click" tend to be very poor shots, in my experience.. that is, they tend to be folks who apparently can't "point and click".

2) The issue of massed pinpoint damage is most certainly an issue that "breaks" the battletech model. However, the issue isn't that a PPC does all of its damage to one location. Because that was a quality of those large damage weapons in battletech. It was a chief reason for using them.

The issue in mechwarrior isn't that a PPC does 10 damage to one location. The issue is that I can take a BUNCH of weapons and duct-tape them all together, fire them all at once, and have them ALL hit a single location. So I can take two PPC's, and 2 AC5's, and dump 30 damage onto one location.

This has been an issue in every single mechwarrior title to date, and it was brought up numerous times by various folks throughout closed beta... and it does not appear like PGI is really going to deal with it.

But simply nerfing individual weapons isn't going to solve the problem.... clearly. Because PGI has already nerfed weapons over and over again, and the target just keeps moving. Players just move to the next best combination of weapons to achieve a high alpha... Meanwhile, you make those weapons which you nerfed into weapons which no longer function particularly well on their own.

The refusal to deal with the fundamental issues of having magical convergence of all weapons on a mech has resulted in basically ALL of the worst changes to this game that have taken place over the past two years... It's led to ghost heat, and gauss charging. It led to a nerfing of primary infighting weapons like Medium and Small Lasers.

Refusing to deal with the real issue, and just nerfing weapons randomly like we've seen in the past isn't going to solve the problems or make the game better.

There's also a fundamental flaw with the weapon's implementation, which lead to doubled armor and required DHS to have a decent build.

Damage was taken straight from TT values, but they did not cut the damage or heat by the recycle. They also kept the stock dissipation, and 1.4 for external DHS.

As it is, 2.5x damage is still more powerful than the 2x armor meant to negate it. 1x dissipation can't keep up with 2.5+x heat, which lead to excessive caps, and for some reason no penalties.

But options to combat this can be pretty poor, ranging from changing weapon mechanics, cone of fire, forced chainfire.

Some merit to each, and many counter points. As for PGIs implementation, at least AC2s aren't useless, which is nice. But flamers are.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 07 February 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

There's also a fundamental flaw with the weapon's implementation, which lead to doubled armor and required DHS to have a decent build.

Damage was taken straight from TT values, but they did not cut the damage or heat by the recycle. They also kept the stock dissipation, and 1.4 for external DHS.

As it is, 2.5x damage is still more powerful than the 2x armor meant to negate it. 1x dissipation can't keep up with 2.5+x heat, which lead to excessive caps, and for some reason no penalties.

But options to combat this can be pretty poor, ranging from changing weapon mechanics, cone of fire, forced chainfire.

Some merit to each, and many counter points. As for PGIs implementation, at least AC2s aren't useless, which is nice. But flamers are.

actually, again the flaw was not the weapon.

The flaw was PGI deciding to seriously ramp up the RoF, which is why the heat and armor became an issue.

Every other MW title had same damage type, and standard armor, and worked fine. Because the general rate of fire was slower though only a bit than here.

Follow the basic cooldown rate of MW4, and the doubled armor and heat become very minor things.

So again, the weapon iteslf is NOT the issue.

the underlying issues to MWO are

1) Convergence
2) Hard Points/Mechlab
3) Heat Threshhold
4) Universal RoF (aka pretty much everything cycles a touch too fast)
5) Poor JJ implementation (currently, they are as broken as ECM, when any mech with a single JJ gets about 75% of its thrust fromt hat first JJ. Have them scale up as you add more, with the last JJs giving more thrust than the first, and they become a legit tradeoff)

and a limited CoF on jumping, full throttle mechs and beyond optimal range probably would do a hell of a lot to minimize the pinpoint issue, too.

After that, then simple weapon tuning can be done in a logical manner. Which should start with tier 1 weapons, and AFTER those are locked in stone, then the tier 2 Star League gear can be balanced around that.

But instead we get the endless yo-yo cycle of nerf and buff, doing superficial "fixes" to the symptoms whilst ignoring the underlying issues that are causing the universal balance issues.

[wanderer]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

which is sort of where the whole convergence thing comes to play.

"Stale" would be every weapon doing pitiful damage. Not everyone finds dps ac2 and ac5 build fun, nor conducive. They suck for instance for ambushes.

Again, even though some, like wanderer can't seem to get it, let's address the actual problem that is causing you and me both our aggravation. Making every weapon into papercut weapons really is not going to do it.

Every weapon compared to AC/PPC spam IS papercuts at this point. I can sit there at range tickling someone with a laser, or I can master race AC them to death and kill em in half the time for what's supposedly the same DPS...just that my Ilya's AC mounts put all their damage in one spot and a moving target spreads the love around for the lasers. Guess which one chews through someone's CT easier?

PPC's are slower, but the same idea. Blammo, 20 damage from those twin PPCs to one single spot while Mr. Assault Bunny drops back behind cover that absorbs whatever firepower didn't skate all over the guy from people shooting lasers back at him. I've had people hit me in four different spots with the same bloody single large laser while jump-shooting at them, and I know half the beam just went past me as I dropped out of sight.

A PPC delivers it all to one spot instead. Which kills faster, the gun that can hit 4 spots and rarely the same one twice, or the one that can only hit one spot with everything it delivers? Please, slow RoF. It'll just mean people poptart more and let the hill shield them while their guns recycle, the guy in the open won't even be able to lay down suppressive fire to try and keep some heads down.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 07 February 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

No. JJs arnt the problem. Even if JJs didn't exist at all, ppcs and acs would still utterly dominate. The problem is the same as it's always been: pinpoint alphas. Reduce pinpoint damage and poptarts will no longer be a threat. More than 20 damage to one location just shouldn't be allowed. And you don't even have to lower damage on ppcs just make them spread a portion of their damage to adjacent locations.

Also srms need far more than a buff. They need a complete overhaul. Srms arnt dumbfire and should be guided like lrms. Only mrms and rockets are dumbfire in battletech.

I disagree. Many of the strengths and weaknesses of ppc in particular are based around the ability of keeping your opponents at a distance. Especially considering the utter lack of damage of those mechs at below 90 meters. lets break it down.

Of the builds people complain about you have three major ones.

1) The high alphs misery - Ac20-2 ppc

Fairly strong mech that can mount all of its weapons on one side. Good pilots will use torso twisting to have all the damage go to the side without there weapons so the can continue to fight effectively. Problems are two fold with this mech. For one its slow with an inability to be faster, at max your looking at 65kph. It also lacks jump jets. It has a vulnerablity to flanking. Pretty much everyone knows you simply focus the left side of the misery and its neutered. It loses its ac and ppc all in one blow. Unlike jump capable mech it does not have the ability to negate damage as highly and due to its low speed it cant escape from flankers as quickly either.

2) Poptarts - 2ppc+ac of flavor

Highly mobile (often) Jump capable, long distance alpha mechs. very strong at medium to high ranges, Run hot. These mechs rely on high damage alpha while utilizing the cover of mountain ranges and buildings. They alpha while turning and falling to roll damage across one side of there body and protecting there weapon side. Many of them (the victor, etc) use xl engine and can reach speeds of 75 kph+. These ones can be truly terrifying as they can use there speed as well to keep fighting against flanking maneuvers. However just like all ppc using mechs they lose half of there damage once you close in beyond 90meters.

3) dual ac20 jager.

Now. The ac40 jager is pretty troll and only acceptable at fairly low elo. At mid to higher elo it dies and dies very fast. I know many will look at this statement and rage and cry foul. And if you are lower elo this mech will appear strong but I assure you it really isnt. its easily defeatable. It has to close distance to be effective, It cant block shots with its arms. It usually mounts an xl engine and dies fast to focused fire, and even it it mounts a standard, once it loses a torso section its damage goes down by half.

------------------------------------------------

Of these mechs I want to use the stalker-misery as a good example. It uses the ac20 and ppc that everyone is complaining about so much. its 85 tons, only 5 less then the highlander. It also has a better turning profile for blocking damage, Much better in fact. But if the ac20 and the ppc are the problem everyone seems to think they are, then why arent more misery seen in high elo play? Yes you may see one or two but overall its simply victor and highlander over and over again by far. The reason for this is in fact jump jets. The mobility they offer and there ability to keep enemies at bay while utilzing cover so effectively is whats breaking the game. Its making the ac20 and ppc seem more powerful then they actually are when in truth they are heat hogs and major targets on any battlefield that would normally be wolfpacked down and flanked hard.

If you want to see a lasting change, alter the way jump jets are implimented to make it alot harder for jump snipers and you will have a brand new game that will be alot more fair to all playstyles.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mechs with only energy hardpoints might not like this solution...

[East Indy]

Bishop Steiner, on 07 February 2014 - 09:30 PM, said:

"Stale" would be every weapon doing pitiful damage. Not everyone finds dps ac2 and ac5 build fun, nor conducive. They suck for instance for ambushes.

You're not clear on what you want to happen in an ambush. Who is the ambusher? Who is the target? If the ambusher is 50% heavier and equipped for short range, it ends well. If the target is an assault 'Mech but outnumbered three-to-one, it's still a good play. How do positioning, initiative and confidence factor? Even if ambushers and targets are equal strength, if the ambushers are prepared to fight and in the better location, they'll win.

BattleTech has distinct pacing. And six competent 'Mechs will demolish any one target regardless of their loadouts. "Ambush" doesn't mean singly cutting a 'Mech in half after one volley; that's the alpha meta talking.