216 replies to this topic

[Mazzyplz]

that would be fine and good except for the heat, the fact AC obscures your vision which would be hard to do with srm unless you're chain firing srm4. the rate of fire (4 sec for SRM) the registration issues - the fact SRM really does nothing to light mechs because you can't put many missiles in a single component, and splash damage went out the window when people cried.

numbers disagree? let's see em.

better yet let's see you kill a fast shooting jagermech with SRM up close out in the open, on a mech with comparable speed, not that pop out and shoot stuff

Edited by Mazzyplz, 05 March 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[Varent]

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 March 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

I'm pulling my numbers from Smurfy's AC10s and AC20s are 3.333 points of damage per point of heat, while SRMs are 3.0 at best with SRM6es

SRMs are definitely lighter and more compact, but autocannons have much, much better range and that all-important pinpoint factor. Your only chance at landing all SRMs on one component is if you're just facehugging a guy, but that's not a particularly great tactic itself.

I actually fight at around 200 meters with srm or closer. (my own preffered range) I totally admit I don't use srm 2... since Ijust never saw a point. And I fully admit I ALWAYS use artemis. but lets see ill pull some numbers for ya. 1036 games 82,821 missles (wew) 64,601 hits 78% 4 days 50 minutes 7 seconds and 129,200k damage. I love my srm.

[DocBach]

Koniving, on 05 March 2014 - 09:59 PM, said:

Throttle stick right hand. Joystick left hand. O_O What is this!?

...Can you imagine trying to pilot the mech like that?

Oh and while I'm at it... Notice the cluster-duck of shells ejecting behind that rifleman?

Even ~back then~ autocannons were fully automatic and/or burst fire weapons. Tabletop just never took it into account because too many variants meant too many rules to memorize and too many dice rolls to do.

Apparently the made the controls more ergonomic in the 3050 refit packages.

And yeah, autocannons were suppose to be burst weapons.

Even more so, Ultra autocannons were actually affected by a recoil mechanic in which the bursts hit different locations per burst rather than a single death stream of shells like we have in MWO, who'da thought, right? Recoil as a mechanic to balance pinpoint accurate weapons so they didn't get out of hand.

[Varent]

Mazzyplz, on 05 March 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

that would be fine and good except for the heat, the fact AC obscures your vision which would be hard to do with srm unless you're chain firing srm4. the rate of fire (4 sec for SRM) the registration issues - the fact SRM really does nothing to light mechs because you can't put many missiles in a single component, and splash damage went out the window when people cried.

numbers disagree? let's see em.

better yet let's see you kill a fast shooting jagermech with SRM up close out in the open, on a mech with comparable speed, not that pop out and shoot stuff

I will totally admit they suck versus light mechs. Cost of doing business, try not to fight them *shrug* TBH though on the first example. I LOVE killing jager mech. Them big side torso that they cant defend even by trying to torso twist? Ya no.

[Master Maniac]

I never said ballistics were perfect as they are, either. But when poor players insult people who use them as playing with an "easy button," I take issue. Gauss Rifles are skill weapons, and I get flack all the time for preferring them to other weapons. As it is, Gauss Rifles are probably the most skill-based weapon currently in the game.

As for a recoil mechanic, bring it on. Take it right out of Mechwarrior 3. MW3 was IMO the best of the series, and did practically everything right.

[DocBach]

Who are you calling poor players? We've all been on the leaderboards, too. Several times, in fact.

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

Gauss Rifles are skill weapons, and I get flack all the time for preferring them to other weapons. As it is, Gauss Rifles are probably the most skill-based weapon currently in the game.

As for a recoil mechanic, bring it on. Take it right out of Mechwarrior 3. MW3 was IMO the best of the series, and did practically everything right.

Now you're saying things I can agree with.

Edited by DocBach, 05 March 2014 - 10:10 PM.

[Varent]

Koniving, on 05 March 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

Actually, they were seeking to create a simulation. What the founders paid for was that game. The Atlases had the armor of current Hunchbacks, so deaths would still have been reasonably fast. 20 seconds to kill an Atlas, sometimes longer.

It was a game where when actuators took damage, aim was thrown off when the arm actuators took a hit. Mechs would yaw left or right due to a damaged leg actuator. Ammo, weapons, heatsinks, all began to burn and take damage at 80% heat. Vision would blur. Atlases had glowing eyes. Night vision was black and white. Heat truly mattered. Weapons were frequently fired in chain fire for good reason. Battles was a combination of positioning, scouting, staging, and lots of brawling (the main thing everyone wants is brawling). When an Atlas would rush a Hunchback and use its fist to topple that damn thing over.

That was the game we started with, the fun thing we really wanted. Where the presence of a single Atlas on the field could turn the entire tides of the battle. Where the very sight of one instilled fear and panic. Where you could have the time to call for help.

Where the battles were like these...


Atlas, PUNCH!


Yes, my god some things might be slow, but that's just part of the reality.


Combat would be a lot more like this. Registration would be considerably better (less firepower at once, more spacing between shots).


That's what we wanted.

AC/2s as I mentioned before might be a bit more like this, though admittedly less damage per shot. After all they are 1 heat, and 2 damage in 10 seconds. A Shadowhawk 2D2 for a comparison, would have 104 total armor stock.
The Cataphract 3D would have 176 armor stock.


Things would still die reasonably fast, but nothing would be dead 'instantly'.

THat was beta.... That's not a good explanation of the game since they literally were working to put the game together at that time and deciding on the direction they wanted it to go. Most players (at least the ones I was playing with) were actually only half playing it during that time because it was clunky, slow and buggy as all hell with constantly changing mechanics. If that's your idea of a good game... then I don't know what else to say there. Not saying what we have now is a great game either, but it is getting better. Its most certainly not a simulation though.

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

As for a recoil mechanic, bring it on. Take it right out of Mechwarrior 3. MW3 was IMO the best of the series, and did practically everything right.

MW 3 is regarded as a great single player and a HORRIBLE multiplayer. The mechanics of the weapons in the game did not work well at all for a multiplayer experience. They were designed to wow you and be enjoyable for first player. That's all. And they did a great job of it. I have fond memories of that game. However to say it was a good multiplayer and the mechanics of it would be good for multiplayer is simply not true

[Koniving]

DocBach, on 05 March 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

Apparently the made the controls more ergonomic in the 3050 refit packages.

And yeah, autocannons were suppose to be burst weapons.

Even more so, Ultra autocannons were actually affected by a recoil mechanic in which the bursts hit different locations per burst rather than a single death stream of shells like we have in MWO, who'da thought, right? Recoil as a mechanic to balance pinpoint accurate weapons so they didn't get out of hand.

Indeed. Actually regular autocannons are mentioned to have their range limitations more factually due to recoil than "oh the bullet stops." Example, "An autocannon class 2 that takes 10 rounds to do 2 damage of the same caliber as an autocannon class 20 that delivers 100 rounds to deal 20 damage has significantly shorter effective range due to a higher volume of recoil."

And with autocannons as they were supposed to, the "Rifles" would actually be somewhat viable even with the obsolete tech punishment. An 8 ton Heavy Rifle, dealing 9 damage normally may only deal 6 damage against "current" battlemechs... but Rifles are the single shot weapons based on our real life modern day Tank cannons. The high power, high upfront and pinpoint damage weapons.

8 tons to deal 6 damage pinpoint, it'd be worth it occupying two hands (though I've yet to use them in TT or find the damn things in a book yet, did it require both hands? I know the Medium and Light Rifles do not.)

[Master Maniac]

DocBach, on 05 March 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

Who are you calling poor players? We've all been on the leaderboards, too. Several times, in fact.



Now you're saying things I can agree with.

Poor players as in players who are defeated by a weapon two or three times in a row and then proceed to rant, shriek, and whine about it rather than try to improve their game and determine what they are doing wrong. This is not a blanket statement, but there are *lots* of poor players who are doing just that, and "nerf EVERYTHING" is just the tack they tend to take.

5 matches out of 10, when I do well, all I hear is "gauss spam" or something similar, and "that needs to be nerfed" isn't far behind.

[Mcgral18]

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:16 PM, said:

Poor players as in players who are defeated by a weapon two or three times in a row and then proceed to rant, shriek, and whine about it rather than try to improve their game and determine what they are doing wrong. This is not a blanket statement, but there are *lots* of poor players who are doing just that, and "nerf EVERYTHING" is just the tack they tend to take.

5 matches out of 10, when I do well, all I hear is "gauss spam" or something similar, and "that needs to be nerfed" isn't far behind.

Well, the nerf everything crowd actually has a point. Weapons fire 3-20 times their TT values, against 2X armor. That math doesn't lie.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 05 March 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

their TT values,

Its not TT.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 10:23 PM, said:

Its not TT.

But it's based on the TT game, and takes exactly the TT damage and armor values, but made them fire a huck ton faster, but only doubled the armor. The dissipation for heat is the same, but the heat generated is equal to the increase in RoF...someone borked up severely in that implementation.

[Master Maniac]

Mcgral18, on 05 March 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Well, the nerf everything crowd actually has a point. Weapons fire 3-20 times their TT values, against 2X armor. That math doesn't lie.

This ISN'T TT, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be.

Mechwarrior *THE FPS GAME* has been based on Battletech, but never bound explicitly by it, because TT rules would make for a profoundly awful real-time mech simulation. Simple as that.

Edited by Master Maniac, 05 March 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

I actually fight at around 200 meters with srm or closer. (my own preffered range) I totally admit I don't use srm 2... since Ijust never saw a point. And I fully admit I ALWAYS use artemis. but lets see ill pull some numbers for ya. 1036 games 82,821 missles (wew) 64,601 hits 78% 4 days 50 minutes 7 seconds and 129,200k damage. I love my srm.

The problem with SRMs is that beyond 200 meters, they're absolutely useless. Autocannons, on the other hand, work just fine well beyond even their optimal ranges, and are great weapons up close as well.

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 09:55 PM, said:

Sure.
MechWarrior Credits 541 Kills / Death 5,104 / 3,483 C-Bills 1,387,648 Experience Points 3,457,282 Wins / Losses 2,480 / 2,415 Kill / Death Ratio 1.47 Accumulative C-Bills Per Match 89,061.61 Avg. XP Per Match 706.29

I hate to do this, because it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not sure why I even brought the subject up. I guess your overbearing attitude pissed me off?

Anyway, those stats are perfectly fine and serviceable, but they don't fit the "better-than-you" attitude you are conveying.

These are my stats:



These aren't even particularly good! There are plenty others here who would laugh at these, but that's beside the point. The point is, mine are far better than yours, yet I don't go around calling other people poor players because they have issues with the current balance. Everyone has issues with the current balance.

They used to be a lot higher, too. I peaked at around 5.0 K:D before poptarting came around. I never did get into poptarting.

EDIT: I'm not saying high stats == authority on balance. I am however, saying you should lay off the attitude, because it's doing your argument no favors, and you can't actually back up your attitude with numberrs.

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 05 March 2014 - 10:29 PM.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 05 March 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

But it's based on the TT game, and takes exactly the TT damage and armor values, but made them fire a huck ton faster, but only doubled the armor. The dissipation for heat is the same, but the heat generated is equal to the increase in RoF...someone borked up severely in that implementation.

Lets evaluate this. Carefully. If this is TT we would be taking a roughly 10 second cycle for weapons. Do you really want the base damage for machine guns over 10 seconds? How about the ac2? MechWarrior has... NEVER.... EVER.... done this. All of the games have always had there take on the weapons and implemented them the way they deem fit. The game has a rough base in Battletech, there is nothing at all that is to say they should or have to take the numbers of the system of combat. Right now the game is exciting and interesting. I stay alive a very decent amount of time. Longer in fact then any other shooter I know of. I have to use tactics to survive and It takes time to kill things (unless im a really really good shot) In wich case I should in fact be rewarded. I don't see a problem with this.

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 March 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

The problem with SRMs is that beyond 200 meters, they're absolutely useless. Autocannons, on the other hand, work just fine well beyond even their optimal ranges, and are great weapons up close as well.

I agree. I never said srms were great at everything. I said brawling range, wich is around 200ish meters. Wich... ok im not going to repeat my ideas over and over again.. .just ya...

[Mcgral18]

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

This ISN'T TT, nor has it ever been, nor should it ever be.

Mechwarrior *THE FPS GAME* has been based on Battletech, but never bound explicitly by it, because TT rules would make for a profoundly awful real-time mech simulation. Simple as that.

Then why do we have an AC70, a 6 ton AC40 (or is it an AC39 due to the .52 recycle?), armor values on 8 seperate components....for balance? Why aren't we balancing?

TT values would have made the game have a much higher TTK, making the game more enjoyable for new players, and game more in depth, rather than the current rather low TTK.

[Varent]

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 March 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

I hate to do this, because it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not sure why I even brought the subject up. I guess your overbearing attitude pissed me off?

Anyway, those stats are perfectly fine and serviceable, but they don't fit the "better-than-you" attitude you are conveying.

These are my stats:



These aren't even particularly good! There are plenty others here who would laugh at these, but that's beside the point. The point is, mine are far better than yours, yet I don't go around calling other people poor players because they have issues with the current balance. Everyone has issues with the current balance.

They used to be a lot higher, too. I peaked at around 5.0 K:D before poptarting came around. I never did get into poptarting.

EDIT: I'm not saying high stats == authority on balance. I am however, saying you should lay off the attitude, because it's doing your argument no favors, and you can't actually back up your attitude with numberrs.

little mean.. .but he did ask for it c.c

Mcgral18, on 05 March 2014 - 10:31 PM, said:

Then why do we have an AC70, a 6 ton AC40 (or is it an AC39 due to the .52 recycle?), armor values on 8 seperate components....for balance? Why aren't we balancing?

TT values would have made the game have a much higher TTK, making the game more enjoyable for new players, and game more in depth, rather than the current rather low TTK.

The TTK is only low on players that don't under stand the mechanics and utilize it correctly and don't properly use cover. I see a lot of people that rush out into the middle of nowhere and get shot to death then cry. You don't bend the game to fit bad and new players. You teach new players how to be better and help them improve or create better tutorials and helpful in game systems that allow them to improve.

[Master Maniac]

Kaeb Odellas, on 05 March 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

The problem with SRMs is that beyond 200 meters, they're absolutely useless. Autocannons, on the other hand, work just fine well beyond even their optimal ranges, and are great weapons up close as well.



I hate to do this, because it's completely irrelevant to the conversation. I'm not sure why I even brought the subject up. I guess your overbearing attitude pissed me off?

Anyway, those stats are perfectly fine and serviceable, but they don't fit the "better-than-you" attitude you are conveying.

These are my stats:



These aren't even particularly good! There are plenty others here who would laugh at these, but that's beside the point. The point is, mine are far better than yours, yet I don't go around calling other people poor players because they have issues with the current balance. Everyone has issues with the current balance.

They used to be a lot higher, too. I peaked at around 5.0 K:D before poptarting came around. I never did get into poptarting.

EDIT: I'm not saying high stats == authority on balance. I am however, saying you should lay off the attitude, because it's doing your argument no favors, and you can't actually back up your attitude with numberrs.

I could back up my attitude with *performance,* and invite you to try and prove me wrong.

Now, back on topic: the NERF EVERYTHING crowd has yet to provide a single argument more cohesive than "aiming is OP." Precision weapons are not inherently "better" than track weapons, no matter how much they want to whine about them. They refuse to acknowledge player skill as part of the equation, not to mention the difficulty of placing precise shots with a free-roaming reticule with real-time weapon orientation. They refuse to consider the aspects of projectile velocity, target deflection, and trajectory. They just don't exist in their argument. Full stop.

[Varent]

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

I could back up my attitude with *performance,* and invite you to try and prove me wrong.

This isn't gonna end well for you I think....

[Varent]

Master Maniac, on 05 March 2014 - 10:40 PM, said:

Now, back on topic: the NERF EVERYTHING crowd has yet to provide a single argument more cohesive than "aiming is OP." Precision weapons are not inherently "better" than track weapons, no matter how much they want to whine about them. They refuse to acknowledge player skill as part of the equation, not to mention the difficulty of placing precise shots with a free-roaming reticule with real-time weapon orientation. They refuse to consider the aspects of projectile velocity, target deflection, and trajectory. They just don't exist in their argument. Full stop.

as a proponent towards arguing both sides of it I feel I need to step in here. weapons right now have more roles then anything else wich they all tend to fill. ATM lasers are a little on the underpowered side but not by much. This is mainly due to the lack of CW and the fact that ammo resupply issues aren't in play. Hopefully that will be resolved with CW but we will see. Pulse lasers need an overhall IMO but that's just because I feel they need to be made into fast firing brawling weapons so a lot of the medium laser boats can be flankers. (as I said just my opinion). AC are the strong heavy big weapons that are great at ranges but will struggle abit up close to practiced players who will target them. They especially suffer when mixed with PPC up close however they are the main damage dealers from range. If anything I want to say the true items that are completely out of place atm are Gause rifle just because on the competitive scene it has no point. And flamers because... well I wont even go into that... ya..... It could be argued LRM are having issues but that's more or less because of the way the meta is.... im curious to see with JJ if this changes lrm... it could be interesting since many used to use them against brawling forces coming in. It may see a resurgence. SRM are great but need hit detection bugs fixed... .Now in regards to FLD you don't need to address it as much as people think you do mostly because of the fact that it can be mitigated if your smart and many other weapons are simply better at different ranged regardless. That said (taking the middle ground again) Id love to see them put in many different types of weapon manufacturers for weapons that all have neat quirks and firing styles so all sides can be happy. (sorry for rambling paragraph, on lap top and no enter key working)