0
Threads will be added to the list provided they meet the following conditions.
1) Provide information regarding relevant and important weapon issues.
2) 7+ pages
3) Speak about relevant topics and are not fully dead threads.
4) any threads that do die due to the subject not longer being valid will be removed from the list.
I will update the list regularly and keep the topics fresh with spoilers below them.
Keep in mind a few of these topics may not seem like weapon topics on the outside but have gradually turned into them over the course of the thread evolving.
http://mwomercs.com/...-your-game-pgi/ - not exactly a weapon thread but lots of talk on weapons included.
Spoiler
Highlanders, victors and 3Ds...Jumpjets, PPCs and autocanons. you may as well remove every other weapon and chassis from the game..this is where your game is going..enjoy
And you dont seem willing to fix it...MW4 anyone?
Highlanders, victors and 3Ds...Jumpjets, PPCs and autocanons. you may as well remove every other weapon and chassis from the game..this is where your game is going..enjoy
And you dont seem willing to fix it...MW4 anyone?
http://mwomercs.com/...rbalancing-101/
Spoiler
WAY back in closed beta there was a mech, the loathed and feared master of battlefield, the K2 guass kitty. This is where our story begins.
There were so many people who whined and complained that people could actually aim and hit their target with these guns that PGI eventually relented and nerfed the weapon. This is when PGI took that fateful step into submitting to every whim of their player base if it meant another dollar. This, of course, led to many more dollars lost in the long run.
As an aside, I played A LOT in closed beta. Do you know what my favourite mech to attack was? The K2, I would search them out and kill them before they had a chance to wreak havoc. I did it with another kitty, my "Whoosh" cat, two LRM 15s and four streaks, purpose built to kill K2's. If the K2 was lucky he would have my pods off before I got to him, but usually my LRMS would mess his aim up so badly he couldn't hit me until I was on top of him. So the K2 was far from the invincible machine everyone claims, you just had to use... what's the word, oh, yeah, TACTICS!
So with their new powers, the "Whiners Club" joined forces and began to complain about EVERY weapon in the game which killed them in game at least twice. PGI began its blitz to balance this game, not matter what the cost. Patch after patch was tweak this, re-tweak that, oops that was overboard, reign that in, now this is too powerful, wait, no it wasn't, it wasn't powerful enough. "Statistics, bah, we don't need statistics to balance things. This is a game! Why would we use complex statistical models when we can just ask our cadre of whiners, oh, I mean our player base?"
Then they turned their attention to the chassis, oh boy, hit box hell began. Do I need to talk about all the posts on hit boxes? Hit box here, hit there, hit boxes are everywhere. Now you have problem with hit registration, most likely to the amount of tampering with the hit boxes of every mech!
Breathe... okay I'm good, back to the point.
The results of all this mess is PGI has allocated so much time and resources on "balancing" these issues that they have failed to produce a single new weapon for the IS, and have no clue as to how to balance Clan tech. New chassis come out which drastically over power current mechs. On top of that, the forums are flooded with the over righteous and highly indignant whiners club who feel justified in complaining over everything! That's my job damn it!
If PGI could have stayed focus on developing the game like adding features instead of over balancing the hell out of it, we might have actually had a great game right now. But we got what we got, take it or leave it, I suggest the latter. This as much PGI's fault as it is the "Whiners Club" of course, this also led the the rise of the dreaded "PGI Defenders"
WAY back in closed beta there was a mech, the loathed and feared master of battlefield, the K2 guass kitty. This is where our story begins.
There were so many people who whined and complained that people could actually aim and hit their target with these guns that PGI eventually relented and nerfed the weapon. This is when PGI took that fateful step into submitting to every whim of their player base if it meant another dollar. This, of course, led to many more dollars lost in the long run.
As an aside, I played A LOT in closed beta. Do you know what my favourite mech to attack was? The K2, I would search them out and kill them before they had a chance to wreak havoc. I did it with another kitty, my "Whoosh" cat, two LRM 15s and four streaks, purpose built to kill K2's. If the K2 was lucky he would have my pods off before I got to him, but usually my LRMS would mess his aim up so badly he couldn't hit me until I was on top of him. So the K2 was far from the invincible machine everyone claims, you just had to use... what's the word, oh, yeah, TACTICS!
So with their new powers, the "Whiners Club" joined forces and began to complain about EVERY weapon in the game which killed them in game at least twice. PGI began its blitz to balance this game, not matter what the cost. Patch after patch was tweak this, re-tweak that, oops that was overboard, reign that in, now this is too powerful, wait, no it wasn't, it wasn't powerful enough. "Statistics, bah, we don't need statistics to balance things. This is a game! Why would we use complex statistical models when we can just ask our cadre of whiners, oh, I mean our player base?"
Then they turned their attention to the chassis, oh boy, hit box hell began. Do I need to talk about all the posts on hit boxes? Hit box here, hit there, hit boxes are everywhere. Now you have problem with hit registration, most likely to the amount of tampering with the hit boxes of every mech!
Breathe... okay I'm good, back to the point.
The results of all this mess is PGI has allocated so much time and resources on "balancing" these issues that they have failed to produce a single new weapon for the IS, and have no clue as to how to balance Clan tech. New chassis come out which drastically over power current mechs. On top of that, the forums are flooded with the over righteous and highly indignant whiners club who feel justified in complaining over everything! That's my job damn it!
If PGI could have stayed focus on developing the game like adding features instead of over balancing the hell out of it, we might have actually had a great game right now. But we got what we got, take it or leave it, I suggest the latter. This as much PGI's fault as it is the "Whiners Club" of course, this also led the the rise of the dreaded "PGI Defenders"
http://mwomercs.com/...-to-burst-fire/
Spoiler
I have read a few forums on how to "fix" MWO and the issue with a lack of variety at the top of ELO brackets. I know that they have said that making convergence work as originally intended is a no-go, but have they given word on implementing it.
I don't like the idea at all, mainly because I like me some big mean canons, but it might work. Have the dev's said whether or not this is technically possible? I would think that the introduction of a massive increase in the number of projectiles would be taxing on their already less than optimized systems.
I am not here to debate the merits of it, just whether or not the developers have responded in any way to implementing this idea.
I have read a few forums on how to "fix" MWO and the issue with a lack of variety at the top of ELO brackets. I know that they have said that making convergence work as originally intended is a no-go, but have they given word on implementing it.
I don't like the idea at all, mainly because I like me some big mean canons, but it might work. Have the dev's said whether or not this is technically possible? I would think that the introduction of a massive increase in the number of projectiles would be taxing on their already less than optimized systems.
I am not here to debate the merits of it, just whether or not the developers have responded in any way to implementing this idea.
http://mwomercs.com/...ettering-beams/
Spoiler
Been looking at my personal pilot stats (as I do considering that I have no life) and looked at the "applied" or real effectiveness of the various weapons from their base design parameters.
This is looking at the maximum damage they should apply and then evaluating what they actually put down range after accuracy.
The remaining stats being there for comparisons for some of the balance mechanisms applied.
Admittedly it would be more sensible to include more sampling to the data to have a much better confidence here, but I would encourage others to compare the relative effectiveness of their own weapons as applied.
What I find here is that whilst lasers are a more accurate weapon they don't actually then apply the most effective damage "per hit" as a result. My conclusion here is this is to do with the beam effects and ticks for lasers creating an effective reduction in damage transfer. And in the case of beams presumably with less pin point accuracy issues due to beams spreading over a Mech.
What we can also see is that Ballistics are high DPS but less accurate. And I kind of like the idea of these weapons having different styles. Ballistics being "hammers" and lasers being "scalpels".
Looking at overall effective "applied" damage from shots fired we can see that the beam lasers typically under performs with damage transfer in comparison to ballistic by at least 10%. Which in itself suggests an imbalance as we are comparing actual relative applied damage.
However I wouldn't want to suggest that any "under performing" weapons receive a damage boost as a result. It may be more preferable to allow more damage to be transferred over time in order for this lack of applied damage to occur more often.
As a proposal (that I have made before) I'd suggest lowering ML heat to 3.5 or even maybe 3 and perhaps increasing the short beam and pulse effective ranges slightly. In theory this would allow these weapons to at least be fired more often, which when you compare beam times and cool downs between the ML and AC20 they are the same but having an effective applied DPS disparity of 15%+. Alternatively reducing the beam spread times with whatever tick damage effects are applied to counter the effect may be the more direct way to do this, assuming that the overall cool down times don't end up destabalising current builds for some Mechs due to the effective HPS increase as a result.
This would favorably apply benefits to the short game where if the above effects as described are more representative could indicate why the longer Direct fire support Meta is most dominant with the use of ballistics and energy ballistics like the PPCs.
It would also help to bridge a gap with lighter Mechs (lights and mediums) who more typically can't fit any reasonable number of ballistic or energy ballistic weapons as their heavier counterparts. Though people try to do so given the current Meta.
Though please remember this change would also apply to any Mech platform that can fit these shorter range energy weapons.
It is also fair to say that some of the proposals with "cone fire" or "burst fire" may help to reduce the applied damage by ballistic weapons and assuming lasers were unchanged could apply a similar mechanism to bring ballistic type weapons down in effectiveness, but these appear on the forums to be unpopular changes as suggested.
So the idea of improving other elements of the game more in line with other weaponry but to actually improve on the differing styles of play the above suggestion to improve the shorter range energy weapons may help the short game but not actually nerfing the current meta. It is also a minimal change of current mechanics as opposed to generating new ones that require development time, testing and an extra sub-system to balance by PGI. This would keep the current characteristics of the ballistic weaponry but allow the use of shorter energy weapons to be sustained slightly better over time.
I realise this is a complicated scenario with lots of balancing mechanics with builds that may effect these details (heat, tonnage, ammo, slots, hard points etc) but I'm simply evaluating from the statistics what the effective applied damage is for these weapons based on the "shooting" mechanics as given.
As is however trying to argue on the forums that a 4 point ML is the same as an AC20 is not true given that from the figures above the effective DPS of ML is 2.08 and AC20 is 2.93 or the AC20 is 150% more effective an arrangement and presumably delivering a pin-point application to where it hits. This more relevant when you consider torso twisting, JJing and other movement possible to mitigate the pinpoint effects of lasers other than aiming.
Been looking at my personal pilot stats (as I do considering that I have no life) and looked at the "applied" or real effectiveness of the various weapons from their base design parameters.
This is looking at the maximum damage they should apply and then evaluating what they actually put down range after accuracy.
The remaining stats being there for comparisons for some of the balance mechanisms applied.
Admittedly it would be more sensible to include more sampling to the data to have a much better confidence here, but I would encourage others to compare the relative effectiveness of their own weapons as applied.
What I find here is that whilst lasers are a more accurate weapon they don't actually then apply the most effective damage "per hit" as a result. My conclusion here is this is to do with the beam effects and ticks for lasers creating an effective reduction in damage transfer. And in the case of beams presumably with less pin point accuracy issues due to beams spreading over a Mech.
What we can also see is that Ballistics are high DPS but less accurate. And I kind of like the idea of these weapons having different styles. Ballistics being "hammers" and lasers being "scalpels".
Looking at overall effective "applied" damage from shots fired we can see that the beam lasers typically under performs with damage transfer in comparison to ballistic by at least 10%. Which in itself suggests an imbalance as we are comparing actual relative applied damage.
However I wouldn't want to suggest that any "under performing" weapons receive a damage boost as a result. It may be more preferable to allow more damage to be transferred over time in order for this lack of applied damage to occur more often.
As a proposal (that I have made before) I'd suggest lowering ML heat to 3.5 or even maybe 3 and perhaps increasing the short beam and pulse effective ranges slightly. In theory this would allow these weapons to at least be fired more often, which when you compare beam times and cool downs between the ML and AC20 they are the same but having an effective applied DPS disparity of 15%+. Alternatively reducing the beam spread times with whatever tick damage effects are applied to counter the effect may be the more direct way to do this, assuming that the overall cool down times don't end up destabalising current builds for some Mechs due to the effective HPS increase as a result.
This would favorably apply benefits to the short game where if the above effects as described are more representative could indicate why the longer Direct fire support Meta is most dominant with the use of ballistics and energy ballistics like the PPCs.
It would also help to bridge a gap with lighter Mechs (lights and mediums) who more typically can't fit any reasonable number of ballistic or energy ballistic weapons as their heavier counterparts. Though people try to do so given the current Meta.
Though please remember this change would also apply to any Mech platform that can fit these shorter range energy weapons.
It is also fair to say that some of the proposals with "cone fire" or "burst fire" may help to reduce the applied damage by ballistic weapons and assuming lasers were unchanged could apply a similar mechanism to bring ballistic type weapons down in effectiveness, but these appear on the forums to be unpopular changes as suggested.
So the idea of improving other elements of the game more in line with other weaponry but to actually improve on the differing styles of play the above suggestion to improve the shorter range energy weapons may help the short game but not actually nerfing the current meta. It is also a minimal change of current mechanics as opposed to generating new ones that require development time, testing and an extra sub-system to balance by PGI. This would keep the current characteristics of the ballistic weaponry but allow the use of shorter energy weapons to be sustained slightly better over time.
I realise this is a complicated scenario with lots of balancing mechanics with builds that may effect these details (heat, tonnage, ammo, slots, hard points etc) but I'm simply evaluating from the statistics what the effective applied damage is for these weapons based on the "shooting" mechanics as given.
As is however trying to argue on the forums that a 4 point ML is the same as an AC20 is not true given that from the figures above the effective DPS of ML is 2.08 and AC20 is 2.93 or the AC20 is 150% more effective an arrangement and presumably delivering a pin-point application to where it hits. This more relevant when you consider torso twisting, JJing and other movement possible to mitigate the pinpoint effects of lasers other than aiming.
http://mwomercs.com/...uble-with-lrms/
Spoiler
If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.
If speeding them up disadvantages them against AMS, would lowering their health help balance it? Seems like that stuff should be the kind of aggressive tweaking we've heard about.
http://mwomercs.com/...y-fix-srms-101/
Spoiler
Edit: (For those who don't know, Russ Bullock has already stated no changes/fixes to SRM hit registration will be made until AFTER CW is released. That means nine to twelve more months of how the game is now).
I'm attempting to spell this out for PGI in plain simple terms so we can end the shenanigans immediately. Russ Bullock thinks it is too complicated a problem and doesn't want to do anything about it until after Community Warfare.
The truth is, though, the community is sick of waiting. We're sick of the current front-loaded, long range pinpoint metagame. There are plenty of us that want brawling back. I'm one of them. I can handle the meta just fine (others will attest to this I'm sure) but it has gotten old.
We want our brawlers back!
So, for Paul and Russ... let me help you.
The SRM problem:
1. SRMs don't register damage often enough.
2. SRMs, when they actually register... do inadequate damage.
Up for debate is whether SRM hit registration has always been an issue. I'll admit before HSR, I did have to lag shoot the SRMs into thin air to cause damage sometimes. For oldschool players, this is simple to do as we already know all about lag shooting. Still, I recall times where they wouldn't count damage even back then (but from my memory it wasn't nearly as often.)
So what do we do?
1. Remove HSR for missiles. Yep. Turn it off. You implemented it in three stages. Turn it off for missiles. Comment out that section of code so missiles go the old-fashioned route. This probably could be done in a ... DAY. Even less if you coded it properly with function calls. If that's the case... minutes.
2. Put back in SRM splash damage as a function. Make the existing SRM damage algorithm a function. Make Streak damage a separate function.
2a. Stop calling the existing SRM damage function.
2b. When SRMs hit a target, call the SRM splash damage function (like it was in the old days)
2c. When SRMs hit a target, call the Streak damage (no-splash) function.
3. Remove ghost heat on ALL SRMs. This is stupid simple table edit for craps sake. Five minute job here.
4. Bring back the closed-beta SRM flight path (the close-in, spread, then close back in). You already wrote the code. Copy and paste, man.
PROFIT.
Russ, Paul: YOU ALREADY HAVE WRITTEN THE CODE. Structure the code properly. Use functions. End this madness now.
You have coders dedicated to supporting issues. WELL guess what? SRMs are an ISSUE. A BIG issue. Bigger than pulse lasers, flamers and machine guns... Combined!
We can live with no HSR for missiles. It is better than the current ball of shit we are dealing with. We can live with SRM splash damage. Splat Cats would be refreshing. Super Centurions would bring tears of joy to my eyes.
... I don't care if mechs disintegrate to SRMs again. It'd give me something to fear in my 733C. It'd give a reason to run... different types of builds on my 733C.
Do this... and you'll start seeing money trickle back into your coffers. You'll probably see attrition slow down... or even stop... as the gameplay will become immediately more interesting.
So there you go. Simple terms, simple solution, simple timeframe to do this. No new major code, just a few functions and a few lines here or there. Elementary changes that even a junior programmer could make in short order.
Get to it. Feel free to contact me if you want more info. I know you won't... but if you'd like... the door is open.
Oh, and to tease your memory, remember this?
It was supposed to be scary. That Atlas with SRMs... it murdered the Warhammer. I want that sight to be scary again.
Edit: (For those who don't know, Russ Bullock has already stated no changes/fixes to SRM hit registration will be made until AFTER CW is released. That means nine to twelve more months of how the game is now).
I'm attempting to spell this out for PGI in plain simple terms so we can end the shenanigans immediately. Russ Bullock thinks it is too complicated a problem and doesn't want to do anything about it until after Community Warfare.
The truth is, though, the community is sick of waiting. We're sick of the current front-loaded, long range pinpoint metagame. There are plenty of us that want brawling back. I'm one of them. I can handle the meta just fine (others will attest to this I'm sure) but it has gotten old.
We want our brawlers back!
So, for Paul and Russ... let me help you.
The SRM problem:
1. SRMs don't register damage often enough.
2. SRMs, when they actually register... do inadequate damage.
Up for debate is whether SRM hit registration has always been an issue. I'll admit before HSR, I did have to lag shoot the SRMs into thin air to cause damage sometimes. For oldschool players, this is simple to do as we already know all about lag shooting. Still, I recall times where they wouldn't count damage even back then (but from my memory it wasn't nearly as often.)
So what do we do?
1. Remove HSR for missiles. Yep. Turn it off. You implemented it in three stages. Turn it off for missiles. Comment out that section of code so missiles go the old-fashioned route. This probably could be done in a ... DAY. Even less if you coded it properly with function calls. If that's the case... minutes.
2. Put back in SRM splash damage as a function. Make the existing SRM damage algorithm a function. Make Streak damage a separate function.
2a. Stop calling the existing SRM damage function.
2b. When SRMs hit a target, call the SRM splash damage function (like it was in the old days)
2c. When SRMs hit a target, call the Streak damage (no-splash) function.
3. Remove ghost heat on ALL SRMs. This is stupid simple table edit for craps sake. Five minute job here.
4. Bring back the closed-beta SRM flight path (the close-in, spread, then close back in). You already wrote the code. Copy and paste, man.
PROFIT.
Russ, Paul: YOU ALREADY HAVE WRITTEN THE CODE. Structure the code properly. Use functions. End this madness now.
You have coders dedicated to supporting issues. WELL guess what? SRMs are an ISSUE. A BIG issue. Bigger than pulse lasers, flamers and machine guns... Combined!
We can live with no HSR for missiles. It is better than the current ball of shit we are dealing with. We can live with SRM splash damage. Splat Cats would be refreshing. Super Centurions would bring tears of joy to my eyes.
... I don't care if mechs disintegrate to SRMs again. It'd give me something to fear in my 733C. It'd give a reason to run... different types of builds on my 733C.
Do this... and you'll start seeing money trickle back into your coffers. You'll probably see attrition slow down... or even stop... as the gameplay will become immediately more interesting.
So there you go. Simple terms, simple solution, simple timeframe to do this. No new major code, just a few functions and a few lines here or there. Elementary changes that even a junior programmer could make in short order.
Get to it. Feel free to contact me if you want more info. I know you won't... but if you'd like... the door is open.
Oh, and to tease your memory, remember this?
It was supposed to be scary. That Atlas with SRMs... it murdered the Warhammer. I want that sight to be scary again.
http://mwomercs.com/...mage-solutions/
Spoiler
Hello all, Id like to preface this by saying that;
1) I actually feel the game is pretty well balanced atm (atleast at my "level")
2) I dont "meta"
That being said, I see alot of......weird, suggestions to balance the game flying around, with som common themes. And other things brought up regularly that are.....not to my liking (cough burst ACs cough). So Ive been working on a couple ideas recently and thought Id get some input.
To start I followed a couple of simple rules;
1) Whatever is implemented must be simple to implement, simple to run, and simple to understand (so, KISS)
2) It has to make some logical physical sense (BT stretches my suspension of disbelief enough already....)
So, in order to address one of what seems to be the communities largest complaints, pinpoint damage/instant convergence/etc. I give you first;
Reticle Shake
This is the simpler, though less effective of my proposed solutions. The reticle shakes around during movement/extreme heat/etc. and affects where your shot will go. Your shot hits where the reticle shows, but the reticle moves to affect your aiming.
Implementation: Really all that would be done is to take the JJ shake mechanic and apply it at all times following a basic equation;
shake = %throttle + [.1] * m
where m is a modifier on a per mech basis. So the higher your throttle setting, the more area your reticule covers. The exact form and values for this would be up for tuning, obviously. But this gives another great area to help differentiate Mechs with each one having their own modifier.
The major downside is, an alpha strike would still all hit one location, though it would be harder to hit the one you wanted to.
This would, unfortunately, affect the less skilled more so than the more highly skilled players, who would be able to adapt much more quickly.
Simulated Convergence:
I can see this one being quite controversial. In essence what we are doing here, is providing the effects of convergence, without putting the strain of calculating so many different weapons paths on the server (Which is, IIRC why PGI said they wouldnt be implementing convergence).
We start with this equation;
r = m*(l*tan(a))
Where;
m is a per-Mech modifier
l is the range to target (or reticle)
a is the angle
and r is the radius that will be hit.
What happens:
Lets assume we target a Mech at 700m with our 4 ERPPCs in a Stalker.
Stalker has an m of [.1], our base a value is [5] so our r value becomes [6.2]m
What this means is that our ERPPC alpha will spread over an area of 6.2m radius. What actually happens, is that the damage is split up into n (number of weapons being fired) different packets each with the damage value of one weapon, which each hits a different section at random.
So in our example, we have 4 packets of 10 damage each distributed across what is probably the entire target. The damage is centered around the reticle, so if we are aiming at the CT we have 10 at the CT, 10 each side torso, and 10 to either an arm, leg, or the head.
Now, as we hold our target lock, or hold our reticle on target, our a value decreases which decreases our r, increaseing the number of weapons hitting any singular point.
Now, this solution is more complex, but better simulates actual convergence in its effects. IT would also encourage targetting.
This is all just a rough "sketch" if you will, but a place to start. Comments, questions, suggestions, flames?
Hello all, Id like to preface this by saying that;
1) I actually feel the game is pretty well balanced atm (atleast at my "level")
2) I dont "meta"
That being said, I see alot of......weird, suggestions to balance the game flying around, with som common themes. And other things brought up regularly that are.....not to my liking (cough burst ACs cough). So Ive been working on a couple ideas recently and thought Id get some input.
To start I followed a couple of simple rules;
1) Whatever is implemented must be simple to implement, simple to run, and simple to understand (so, KISS)
2) It has to make some logical physical sense (BT stretches my suspension of disbelief enough already....)
So, in order to address one of what seems to be the communities largest complaints, pinpoint damage/instant convergence/etc. I give you first;
Reticle Shake
This is the simpler, though less effective of my proposed solutions. The reticle shakes around during movement/extreme heat/etc. and affects where your shot will go. Your shot hits where the reticle shows, but the reticle moves to affect your aiming.
Implementation: Really all that would be done is to take the JJ shake mechanic and apply it at all times following a basic equation;
shake = %throttle + [.1] * m
where m is a modifier on a per mech basis. So the higher your throttle setting, the more area your reticule covers. The exact form and values for this would be up for tuning, obviously. But this gives another great area to help differentiate Mechs with each one having their own modifier.
The major downside is, an alpha strike would still all hit one location, though it would be harder to hit the one you wanted to.
This would, unfortunately, affect the less skilled more so than the more highly skilled players, who would be able to adapt much more quickly.
Simulated Convergence:
I can see this one being quite controversial. In essence what we are doing here, is providing the effects of convergence, without putting the strain of calculating so many different weapons paths on the server (Which is, IIRC why PGI said they wouldnt be implementing convergence).
We start with this equation;
r = m*(l*tan(a))
Where;
m is a per-Mech modifier
l is the range to target (or reticle)
a is the angle
and r is the radius that will be hit.
What happens:
Lets assume we target a Mech at 700m with our 4 ERPPCs in a Stalker.
Stalker has an m of [.1], our base a value is [5] so our r value becomes [6.2]m
What this means is that our ERPPC alpha will spread over an area of 6.2m radius. What actually happens, is that the damage is split up into n (number of weapons being fired) different packets each with the damage value of one weapon, which each hits a different section at random.
So in our example, we have 4 packets of 10 damage each distributed across what is probably the entire target. The damage is centered around the reticle, so if we are aiming at the CT we have 10 at the CT, 10 each side torso, and 10 to either an arm, leg, or the head.
Now, as we hold our target lock, or hold our reticle on target, our a value decreases which decreases our r, increaseing the number of weapons hitting any singular point.
Now, this solution is more complex, but better simulates actual convergence in its effects. IT would also encourage targetting.
This is all just a rough "sketch" if you will, but a place to start. Comments, questions, suggestions, flames?
http://mwomercs.com/...-buff-feedback/
Spoiler
So, did people try out the new pulse lasers?
Better range for the medium and large pulse laser, and the large pulse laser also got a bit more heat efficient. Did it make a difference?
So, did people try out the new pulse lasers?
Better range for the medium and large pulse laser, and the large pulse laser also got a bit more heat efficient. Did it make a difference?
http://mwomercs.com/...g-the-new-fotm/
Spoiler
4-5 lrm 10's on chain fire that permanantly screen shake you.
everyone has seen them all over the place sense the tuesday before last.
if something isnt done PGI is going to over correct the problem like always and we will be left with useless LRMs again.
please, stop the flooding before you ruin LRM for everyone, or. nerf LRM flooding
4-5 lrm 10's on chain fire that permanantly screen shake you.
everyone has seen them all over the place sense the tuesday before last.
if something isnt done PGI is going to over correct the problem like always and we will be left with useless LRMs again.
please, stop the flooding before you ruin LRM for everyone, or. nerf LRM flooding
http://mwomercs.com/...27-gauss-rifle/
Spoiler
Why is there a charge up for the Gauss? Makes it take too long to use unless the guy you aiming at is standing still. Now the AC's are better than the gauss because you don't have to charge them up. They need to get rid of the charge up on the gauss. It's not worth having anymore
Why is there a charge up for the Gauss? Makes it take too long to use unless the guy you aiming at is standing still. Now the AC's are better than the gauss because you don't have to charge them up. They need to get rid of the charge up on the gauss. It's not worth having anymore
http://mwomercs.com/...whats-the-deal/
Spoiler
Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?
Well, Lets work through this step by step!
First off, I'm not going to be answering these questions in the order above because I have faith in your basic comprehension skills!
Second off! Alternate ammo? It's default ammo is the alternate ammo! It says at http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X_AC :Quote, "The LB 10-X Autocannon is essentially a 'Mech-mounted shotgun, capable of firing special "cluster rounds" that split apart after being fired. LB-X Autocannons are able to use either the special cluster rounds or standard autocannon rounds,".
This means that the LB 10-X is already using the critical hit seeking "alternate" ammo. So the only thing left for it is to implement the ammo switching during a battle. (Unless for some reason you can already do this and I don't know.)
But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range. This, however, is just speculation so don't take it too seriously.
(Light Barrel is the spectualtion stated at Sarna.net. Long Barrel is my own spectualtion, but both would make sense.)
Next up is expense. You might think that the LB 10-X is more expensive because it's lighter than it's AC counterpart, and you'd be right, but only by half. To be more specific, the LB 10-X is a, quote; "derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design used for centuries by every military in the Inner Sphere," and that by "Taking advantage of advanced materials such as Endo Steel, the company was able to reduce the weight of the weapon for only a slight increase in bulk and mated it with the advanced Mercury-VII targeting system to boost its effective range,".
And before you start typing, there is no way that a "targeting system" could increase the range of effectiveness without the weapon itself being physically capable of longer range. Meaning the before stated speculations still make sense.
Many thanks for reading this post! I hope this made sense and cleared the fog for those of you who didn't quite understand the LB 10-X AC! Though this all means that there is still some mechanics to be implemented before the LB 10-X AC stands above the AC 10 as it should, it's still good as a long range "pester weapon" and "weapon removing" cannon. Not to mention it appears to fly faster and straighter than it's AC counterparts.
Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?
Well, Lets work through this step by step!
First off, I'm not going to be answering these questions in the order above because I have faith in your basic comprehension skills!
Second off! Alternate ammo? It's default ammo is the alternate ammo! It says at http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X_AC :Quote, "The LB 10-X Autocannon is essentially a 'Mech-mounted shotgun, capable of firing special "cluster rounds" that split apart after being fired. LB-X Autocannons are able to use either the special cluster rounds or standard autocannon rounds,".
This means that the LB 10-X is already using the critical hit seeking "alternate" ammo. So the only thing left for it is to implement the ammo switching during a battle. (Unless for some reason you can already do this and I don't know.)
But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range. This, however, is just speculation so don't take it too seriously.
(Light Barrel is the spectualtion stated at Sarna.net. Long Barrel is my own spectualtion, but both would make sense.)
Next up is expense. You might think that the LB 10-X is more expensive because it's lighter than it's AC counterpart, and you'd be right, but only by half. To be more specific, the LB 10-X is a, quote; "derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design used for centuries by every military in the Inner Sphere," and that by "Taking advantage of advanced materials such as Endo Steel, the company was able to reduce the weight of the weapon for only a slight increase in bulk and mated it with the advanced Mercury-VII targeting system to boost its effective range,".
And before you start typing, there is no way that a "targeting system" could increase the range of effectiveness without the weapon itself being physically capable of longer range. Meaning the before stated speculations still make sense.
Many thanks for reading this post! I hope this made sense and cleared the fog for those of you who didn't quite understand the LB 10-X AC! Though this all means that there is still some mechanics to be implemented before the LB 10-X AC stands above the AC 10 as it should, it's still good as a long range "pester weapon" and "weapon removing" cannon. Not to mention it appears to fly faster and straighter than it's AC counterparts.
http://mwomercs.com/...till-a-problem/
Spoiler
2 shots from an AC40 Jagermech at like 500m and my atlas has lost 2/3 of its weapons.
This is way imbalanced.
When I bring 1 ac20 on a mech, getting kills is insanely easy due to such accurate damage. Anything comparable has serious downsides. 2 ppcs generate a ton of heat. 2 LL are tough to get pinpoint accuracy. And that's just comparable to a single ac20.
2x ac20 is out of control. 40 damage, pinpoint accuracy, that works at such a long range is way too much. A mech shouldn't be able to fire 2 at once so often without overheating.
Ac20 needs a more drastic range limitation and a huge heat penalty when firing more than 1.
Oh, and L2P, kill at range, don't get close, etc. is true, but tactics don't fix poor balance. Cheers.
2 shots from an AC40 Jagermech at like 500m and my atlas has lost 2/3 of its weapons.
This is way imbalanced.
When I bring 1 ac20 on a mech, getting kills is insanely easy due to such accurate damage. Anything comparable has serious downsides. 2 ppcs generate a ton of heat. 2 LL are tough to get pinpoint accuracy. And that's just comparable to a single ac20.
2x ac20 is out of control. 40 damage, pinpoint accuracy, that works at such a long range is way too much. A mech shouldn't be able to fire 2 at once so often without overheating.
Ac20 needs a more drastic range limitation and a huge heat penalty when firing more than 1.
Oh, and L2P, kill at range, don't get close, etc. is true, but tactics don't fix poor balance. Cheers.
http://mwomercs.com/...ey-are-too-hot/
Spoiler
Multiple threads pro and con have been posted about the ERPPC/PPC heat increase, most of it subjective. The following is hard data as to the ERPPC performance with current heat mechanics, as compared to the long range ballistic weapons. Please, regardless of your feelings or opinions, read the data and listen to what the data tells you, not to what you want the data to be.
So, let's start with the data:
Engine Double Heat Sinks – cool at .2 heat per second, add 2 heat per.
External Double Heat Sinks – cool at .14 heat per second. Add 1.4 heat per.
Figure 1: Weapon Data
So we will assume 3 tons ammo for each ballistic weapon we are considering. Anything less is an issue, especially with 12 vs. 12 now, your major damage weapons would run out of ammo long before the end of the match, leaving you with only you short range weapons to fall back on.
Instead of ammo, we will figure on 5 external DHS for the ERPPC. 1
So here are the figures with the inclusion of ammo on the ballistics, external DHS foe the ERPPC, and criticals:
· AC2s - 2 damage / 0.52 seconds / 1 heat / 9 tons, 4 crits ...3.85 DPS / 1.92 HPS
· AC5/UAC5s - 5 damage / 1.5 seconds / 1 heat / 11tons, 7 crits ...3.3 DPS / 0.72 HPS
· AC10s - 10 damage / 2.5 seconds / 3 heat / 15tons, 10 crits ...4 DPS / 1.2 HPS
· Gauss - 15 Damage / 4.75 seconds / 1 heat / 18 tons, 10 crits ... 3.75 DPS / 0.25 HPS
· ERPPC - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 15 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 3.75 HPS
· PPCs - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 10 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 2.5 HPS
What is immediately evident is that of all the long range direct fire weapons, the ERPPC has the lowest DPS and the highest heat. AC10s do almost twice the DPS at less than 1/3 of the heat. Now, on a single volley, this isn’t an issue, but over time, DPS will drop even further on the ERPPC due to needing to cool off.
Let’s look at heat over time, using dual weapon setups, with the ACs and Gauss using just the 10 native DHS in an engine, and the ERPPCs using an additional external 10 DHS, with heat dissipation factored in:
Figure 2: HEAT VS. TIME (IN SECONDS) DUAL SETUPS, CONTINUOUS FIRE
Figure 3: Heat per Volley with Continuous Fire
The ERPPC mech has 20 DHS, giving it a max heat of 64 before a shutdown. The AC and Gauss mechs have only the 10 native DHS to the engine, and a heat cap of 50. Immediately apparent are the following:
Note that the dual Gauss is heat neutral, with a negative temperature trend, and the dual AC5/UAC5 is effectively heat neutral, it could fire a full minute and not shut down. The AC10 can fire for 14 volleys and 32.5 seconds before shutdown. The dual AC2s have the highest climb in heat, but still capable of delivering 136 damage before inducing a shutdown.
For a comparison of a Dual ERPPC and Dual AC5 Firebrand, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...-was-excessive/
For analysis and discussion of the heat system, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/
Data is data; math is math, and not subject to opinion nor feelings. In order to have balance, the pros and cons of each weapon need to balance out so that along with the disadvantages, there are enough advantages to make something worthwhile to utilize. The latest increase in heat for the ERPPC brought the heat levels up too high, negating any significant advantage compared to ballistics, and unbalanced them, as we will discuss next.
First question you might ask, is why you would even use ERPPC at this heat level, and the lowest DPS of all the sniping weapons? Speed is now the same as the AC5/UAC5s, so it still has a faster travel time than the AC10, same damage as the AC10. The fact of having less than a third the crits necessary for an AC10 is not significant, since that amounts to, on the dual setups, 14 more crits, which is 4 more external DHS. The data presented earlier is based on 5 external DHS, which makes the ERPPC 18 crits and 12 tons.
· But, ERPPCs don’t need ammo!
· But, ERPPCs don’t run out of ammo!
· But, ERPPCs take less crits!
This is the problem with PGI balancing by heat. Approaching the historical issues by addressing the root causes, such as convergence, the heat system in general, and the fitting mechanics would have addressed those issues in a more accurate way. Specifically, fitting, due to current mechanics making all mechs effectively omni mechs. Limiting criticals in a location for the weapon types allowed there would have prevented most of the major boating issues.
Currently, given a choice between taking dual long range ballistics, and dual ERPPCs, there is little to nothing to recommend taking the ERPPCs. That’s not balance, and for those mechs that cannot fit ballistics, it is the only long range pinpoint damage available to them. Right now, there is no reason not to use long range ballistics, compared to the ERPPC, and a balanced system would have advantages and disadvantages for both that would make neither superior to the other.
In no way am I advocating that ERPPCs should be heat neutral or near heat neutral. ERPPC heat needs to be lowered back down to 12, or possibly 13, and the ghost heat penalty needs to be increased for ERPPCs used beyond 2 volley fired, to prevent excessive boating. The other option, however, is that the AC10, AC5/UAC5, and Gauss be brought more in line with the current profile for the AC2. This would “balance” out these systems.
EDIT - corrected the Dual Gauss, damage, was 120, s/b 180, and cleaned up the format.
2nd EDIT - Clarified the weights and crits for ERPPCs with DHS at 1
Multiple threads pro and con have been posted about the ERPPC/PPC heat increase, most of it subjective. The following is hard data as to the ERPPC performance with current heat mechanics, as compared to the long range ballistic weapons. Please, regardless of your feelings or opinions, read the data and listen to what the data tells you, not to what you want the data to be.
So, let's start with the data:
Engine Double Heat Sinks – cool at .2 heat per second, add 2 heat per.
External Double Heat Sinks – cool at .14 heat per second. Add 1.4 heat per.
Figure 1: Weapon Data
So we will assume 3 tons ammo for each ballistic weapon we are considering. Anything less is an issue, especially with 12 vs. 12 now, your major damage weapons would run out of ammo long before the end of the match, leaving you with only you short range weapons to fall back on.
Instead of ammo, we will figure on 5 external DHS for the ERPPC. 1
So here are the figures with the inclusion of ammo on the ballistics, external DHS foe the ERPPC, and criticals:
· AC2s - 2 damage / 0.52 seconds / 1 heat / 9 tons, 4 crits ...3.85 DPS / 1.92 HPS
· AC5/UAC5s - 5 damage / 1.5 seconds / 1 heat / 11tons, 7 crits ...3.3 DPS / 0.72 HPS
· AC10s - 10 damage / 2.5 seconds / 3 heat / 15tons, 10 crits ...4 DPS / 1.2 HPS
· Gauss - 15 Damage / 4.75 seconds / 1 heat / 18 tons, 10 crits ... 3.75 DPS / 0.25 HPS
· ERPPC - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 15 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 3.75 HPS
· PPCs - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 10 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 2.5 HPS
What is immediately evident is that of all the long range direct fire weapons, the ERPPC has the lowest DPS and the highest heat. AC10s do almost twice the DPS at less than 1/3 of the heat. Now, on a single volley, this isn’t an issue, but over time, DPS will drop even further on the ERPPC due to needing to cool off.
Let’s look at heat over time, using dual weapon setups, with the ACs and Gauss using just the 10 native DHS in an engine, and the ERPPCs using an additional external 10 DHS, with heat dissipation factored in:
Figure 2: HEAT VS. TIME (IN SECONDS) DUAL SETUPS, CONTINUOUS FIRE
Figure 3: Heat per Volley with Continuous Fire
The ERPPC mech has 20 DHS, giving it a max heat of 64 before a shutdown. The AC and Gauss mechs have only the 10 native DHS to the engine, and a heat cap of 50. Immediately apparent are the following:
- The Dual ERPPC mech - 4 volleys across 12 seconds, total 80 damage, until shutdown
- The Dual AC10 mech - 9 volleys across 20 seconds, total 180 damage, and no shutdown
- The Dual AC5/UAC5 mech - 14 volleys across 20 seconds, total 140 damage and no shutdown
- The Dual AC2 mech - 34 volleys over 17.7 seconds, total 136 damage, until shutdown
- The Dual Gauss mech - 6 volleys over 20 seconds, total 180 damage, no shutdown, negative temp. trend
Note that the dual Gauss is heat neutral, with a negative temperature trend, and the dual AC5/UAC5 is effectively heat neutral, it could fire a full minute and not shut down. The AC10 can fire for 14 volleys and 32.5 seconds before shutdown. The dual AC2s have the highest climb in heat, but still capable of delivering 136 damage before inducing a shutdown.
For a comparison of a Dual ERPPC and Dual AC5 Firebrand, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...-was-excessive/
For analysis and discussion of the heat system, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/
Data is data; math is math, and not subject to opinion nor feelings. In order to have balance, the pros and cons of each weapon need to balance out so that along with the disadvantages, there are enough advantages to make something worthwhile to utilize. The latest increase in heat for the ERPPC brought the heat levels up too high, negating any significant advantage compared to ballistics, and unbalanced them, as we will discuss next.
First question you might ask, is why you would even use ERPPC at this heat level, and the lowest DPS of all the sniping weapons? Speed is now the same as the AC5/UAC5s, so it still has a faster travel time than the AC10, same damage as the AC10. The fact of having less than a third the crits necessary for an AC10 is not significant, since that amounts to, on the dual setups, 14 more crits, which is 4 more external DHS. The data presented earlier is based on 5 external DHS, which makes the ERPPC 18 crits and 12 tons.
· But, ERPPCs don’t need ammo!
Yes they do, heat sinks are the ammo of ERPPCs. Due to the current heat levels, you have no choice but to run DHS, because the engine HS actually run as double HS. In order to compensate for using SHS, and additional 10 tons and 10 crits is necessary, just to get you to the level of a DHS engine.
And, ammo takes 1 crit, DHS take 3 crits. When taking critical internal damage, the DHS are extremely vulnerable, and even though they do not explode, taking out DHS on an enemy mech means in the heat of battle, you lose capability to fire. So in that respect, they function like ammo.
· But, ERPPCs don’t run out of ammo!
No, they do not, but as noted, crit the DHS enough, and you will slow their firing. But that isn’t the main issue here. Matches are 15 minutes long, 12 vs. 12. If each ballistic weapon has 3 tons of ammo each has the potential to deliver 450 damage. A dual AC2 / AC5/ UAC5/ AC10/ Gauss mech can each put out 900 damage during that match.
Now, unless you are a very bad shot, that’s pretty significant. If the matches were 30 minutes to an hour long, against 24 mechs, then there would be a chance to run out of ammo and the ERPPC would shine a bit more then. But at current match sizes and times it’s hard to justify using ERPPCs, because normally, with 3 tons of ammo per gun, you are not going to run out, or if you do, it will be near the end of the match if you survived that long.
· But, ERPPCs take less crits!
No, they take more. Look at the figures for Effective Heat Sinks (EHS) to be heat neutral. For 1 ERPPC, it takes 38 EHS. So, you have 10 actual doubles in the engine, that’s 20. You need an additional 12.86 DHS to make a mech with 1 ERPPC heat neutral.
Problem is, with weapons, AMS, equipment, and ammo for the other weapons you will be carrying; you will have room for maybe 8-10, maybe 11. So there is no possibility of getting even 1 ERPPC, never mind 2, heat neutral or even close to it. Dual AC10 mechs CAN BE heat neutral; they each require only 12 EHS. Same with Gauss, at 3 EHS, and AC5/UAC5/UAC5/UAC5 at 7 EHS each and can still fire other weapons, like SSRMs, small and medium lasers, for significantly long periods of time.
This is the problem with PGI balancing by heat. Approaching the historical issues by addressing the root causes, such as convergence, the heat system in general, and the fitting mechanics would have addressed those issues in a more accurate way. Specifically, fitting, due to current mechanics making all mechs effectively omni mechs. Limiting criticals in a location for the weapon types allowed there would have prevented most of the major boating issues.
Currently, given a choice between taking dual long range ballistics, and dual ERPPCs, there is little to nothing to recommend taking the ERPPCs. That’s not balance, and for those mechs that cannot fit ballistics, it is the only long range pinpoint damage available to them. Right now, there is no reason not to use long range ballistics, compared to the ERPPC, and a balanced system would have advantages and disadvantages for both that would make neither superior to the other.
In no way am I advocating that ERPPCs should be heat neutral or near heat neutral. ERPPC heat needs to be lowered back down to 12, or possibly 13, and the ghost heat penalty needs to be increased for ERPPCs used beyond 2 volley fired, to prevent excessive boating. The other option, however, is that the AC10, AC5/UAC5, and Gauss be brought more in line with the current profile for the AC2. This would “balance” out these systems.
EDIT - corrected the Dual Gauss, damage, was 120, s/b 180, and cleaned up the format.
2nd EDIT - Clarified the weights and crits for ERPPCs with DHS at 1
http://mwomercs.com/...h-energy-sucks/
Spoiler
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=27s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=6m15s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=10m7s
For some reason I'm not able to embed these...
00:27 Round 1: PPC + ML
06:15 Round 2: LL + ML
10:07 Round 3: AC10 + AC5
Open a new window for each round placed side by side to compare.
This is a comparison between energy and balistic weapons in Mecwarrior online as they are today. In their work to balance the game, PGI has in my opinion destroyed energy weapons, making balistic oriented platforms superioir over energy.
In this runtrough I used the same mech, and three setups with weapons dealing the same amount of damage at each shot. To simulate battle, I ran the same cource three times with some weapons Sway to simulate actual gameplay, but I also tried to make each round as simmilar as possible, shooting at the same general area of each mech.
I had some issues with my recording software, but pay atention to heat build ups and shutdowns, and also the time used on the mission timer. Not only do the balistic build run the cource a lot faster, 3:20 compared to 6:30 and 5:30, it does so with no heat issues.
Now, the LL + ML build is similar to AC10 + AC5 regarding heat, but it's a lot less effective. Also, with the balistic build I can ad more weapons with no heat issues, but with the energy build this would also in most cases lead to Ghost Heat issues on top of the fact that the player also would have to remove heat sinks to fit more weapons.
So, I'm having trouble seing how the game is more balanced compared to a few months ago, before GH and nerfing of energy weapons.
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=27s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=6m15s
http://youtu.be/ry4cicee1vI?t=10m7s
For some reason I'm not able to embed these...
00:27 Round 1: PPC + ML
06:15 Round 2: LL + ML
10:07 Round 3: AC10 + AC5
Open a new window for each round placed side by side to compare.
This is a comparison between energy and balistic weapons in Mecwarrior online as they are today. In their work to balance the game, PGI has in my opinion destroyed energy weapons, making balistic oriented platforms superioir over energy.
In this runtrough I used the same mech, and three setups with weapons dealing the same amount of damage at each shot. To simulate battle, I ran the same cource three times with some weapons Sway to simulate actual gameplay, but I also tried to make each round as simmilar as possible, shooting at the same general area of each mech.
I had some issues with my recording software, but pay atention to heat build ups and shutdowns, and also the time used on the mission timer. Not only do the balistic build run the cource a lot faster, 3:20 compared to 6:30 and 5:30, it does so with no heat issues.
Now, the LL + ML build is similar to AC10 + AC5 regarding heat, but it's a lot less effective. Also, with the balistic build I can ad more weapons with no heat issues, but with the energy build this would also in most cases lead to Ghost Heat issues on top of the fact that the player also would have to remove heat sinks to fit more weapons.
So, I'm having trouble seing how the game is more balanced compared to a few months ago, before GH and nerfing of energy weapons.
http://mwomercs.com/...-lasers-better/
Spoiler
In TT:
Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short Range: 450
Max Range: 1350
ER Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short Range: 630
Max Range: 1710
In MW:O
Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short(long in MWO) Range: 450
Max Range: 900
ER Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short (long in MWO) Range: 675
Max Range: 1350
In TT, damage is fully retained, but you get to-hit modifiers for further away.
In MWO, damage scales down linearly from 100% to 0%.
The heat of these weapons has remained the same, while the firing rate goes up.
Lasers already have the ill effect of Damage Over Time, a mechanic introduced to spread damage out like you're watering a garden and thus preventing the surgical destruction of lasers like in TT or old mechwarrior titles. No longer does a medium laser do exactly 5 points of damage to a 40 point Atlas torso, Now it does 2 damage and some change as the atlas rolls around. Even worse damage is applied for outside range. The same thing happens to large lasers as well, making them non-competitive with AC5 and AC2.
Both of these weapons have a max range triple their "long" range. Lasers do not. Lasers have DoT, damage reduction for "over'range, and have had 1/3 of their TT range neutered. That means a sharper decline in damage for being outside "long" range.
This is what makes AC20, AC5, AC2 so powerful compared to lasers. It has nothing to do with people wisely choosing the weapons which aren't nerfed into the ground. It's really about how lasers have been dealt a bad hand every time.
lasers should either have more maximum range, thus extending their damage drop to at least compete with AC, if not be superior (they still generate more heat and LESS DPS), or lasers should do their full damage over their entire much shorter range.
Messing around with projectile speeds on guns and making everything suck isn't the way to go.
In TT:
Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short Range: 450
Max Range: 1350
ER Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short Range: 630
Max Range: 1710
In MW:O
Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short(long in MWO) Range: 450
Max Range: 900
ER Large Laser
Min range: 0
Short (long in MWO) Range: 675
Max Range: 1350
In TT, damage is fully retained, but you get to-hit modifiers for further away.
In MWO, damage scales down linearly from 100% to 0%.
The heat of these weapons has remained the same, while the firing rate goes up.
Lasers already have the ill effect of Damage Over Time, a mechanic introduced to spread damage out like you're watering a garden and thus preventing the surgical destruction of lasers like in TT or old mechwarrior titles. No longer does a medium laser do exactly 5 points of damage to a 40 point Atlas torso, Now it does 2 damage and some change as the atlas rolls around. Even worse damage is applied for outside range. The same thing happens to large lasers as well, making them non-competitive with AC5 and AC2.
Both of these weapons have a max range triple their "long" range. Lasers do not. Lasers have DoT, damage reduction for "over'range, and have had 1/3 of their TT range neutered. That means a sharper decline in damage for being outside "long" range.
This is what makes AC20, AC5, AC2 so powerful compared to lasers. It has nothing to do with people wisely choosing the weapons which aren't nerfed into the ground. It's really about how lasers have been dealt a bad hand every time.
lasers should either have more maximum range, thus extending their damage drop to at least compete with AC, if not be superior (they still generate more heat and LESS DPS), or lasers should do their full damage over their entire much shorter range.
Messing around with projectile speeds on guns and making everything suck isn't the way to go.
http://mwomercs.com/...w-with-weapons/
Spoiler
The main flaw with weapons in MWO is:
-Focused instantaneous damage
Lasers, LRM's and SSRM's are implemented in a way that they are not game breaking.
However, PPC's and AC's are game breakers. No if's, and's or butt'. Why? It allows a player to do damage without exposing themselves to return damage. When you are firing a Laser, you have to expose yourself for a second to do concentrated fire, meanwhile you yourself are opened for concentrated fire. Meanwhile, with a PPC or AC, you locate an enemy mechs target signature, pop up in the air for 1 second, fire, then immediate hire OR you crest a hill and fire for a second.
All that has to be done to fix this broke game is to force AC and PPC's to do stream damage. The other solution is to force a charge up time like Gauss.
The main flaw with weapons in MWO is:
-Focused instantaneous damage
Lasers, LRM's and SSRM's are implemented in a way that they are not game breaking.
However, PPC's and AC's are game breakers. No if's, and's or butt'. Why? It allows a player to do damage without exposing themselves to return damage. When you are firing a Laser, you have to expose yourself for a second to do concentrated fire, meanwhile you yourself are opened for concentrated fire. Meanwhile, with a PPC or AC, you locate an enemy mechs target signature, pop up in the air for 1 second, fire, then immediate hire OR you crest a hill and fire for a second.
All that has to be done to fix this broke game is to force AC and PPC's to do stream damage. The other solution is to force a charge up time like Gauss.
hopefully will help keep things cleaner, and make it so just the same thoughts and ideas arent repeated over and over again.
Edited by Varent, 06 March 2014 - 10:14 AM.
