166 replies to this topic

[Haakon Magnusson]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Not at all. Everyone agrees the AC/20 should be scary. But its only supposed to be scary inside its 270m max range. The fact it has an 810m max range in MWO is absurd because it removes the traditional weakness of the AC/20 which is its lack of range. Furthermore it upsets the balance between the AC/20 and AC/10 because the AC/20 does more damage than the AC/10 at the AC/10s optimum range. The result is that the AC/10 is outright worse than the AC/20 on any mech that can equip an AC/20. Right now the AC/20 is one of the least balanced weapons in the game, right up there with the PPC and AC5.

I love the ac20, it is supposed to be death (within 270m) on legs. But I agree totally, it boggles the mind they haven't made a call to have 2x max range as opposed to other acs. Nowadays it is slowish, not unusable by far as some like to paint it.
But reducing range, velocity could be upped perhaps to half way where it was.

[anonymous161]

Well....pgi just does not know how to make a stable game to begin with, I even have been getting booted out of matches more and more lately and then there is the matchmaker...there is too much wrong and unfinished and unpolished with this game to call it remotely past beta stage.

Weapon balance will never be at that perfect spot.

[Rebas Kradd]

Khobai, on 08 March 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Everyone agrees the AC/20 should be scary. But its only supposed to be scary inside its 270m max range. The fact it has an 810m max range in MWO is absurd because it removes the traditional weakness of the AC/20 which is its lack of range.

Like most balance critics, you are judging from a purely and utterly theoretical standpoint, without any regard to actual player behavior. Personally, I don't see a lot of people using AC20 at long ranges. The drift makes it unreliable, and the reduced damage makes it inefficient for such big bullets.

Why complain about how something COULD be used, when nobody WOULD use it that way?

[Khobai]

Quote

Personally, I don't see a lot of people using AC20 at long ranges.

Hold on. I never said anyone used the AC20 at long range. I said the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 at the AC10s optimum range. The AC10's optimum range is 450m. Players use AC20s at 450m all the time. Where you got this "long range" nonsense from is beyond me, but its definitely not from anything I said.

AC10 = 10 damage at 450m
AC20 = 10 damage at 540m

See the problem? The AC10 is supposed to outrange the AC20 yet the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 past the AC10s optimum range!

The AC5 and AC2 have the same exact problem with overlapping ranges.

AC2 = 2 damage at 720m
AC5 = 2 damage at 1116m

So how do we fix this? The obvious solution is to decrease the range of the AC20 and AC5 and possibly increase the range of the AC2 (because you can only decrease the AC5s range so much before it overlaps with the AC10 so you may have to buff the AC2 instead).

Edited by Khobai, 09 March 2014 - 09:45 AM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Hold on. I never said anyone used the AC20 at long range. I said the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 at the AC10s optimum range. The AC10's optimum range is 450m. Players use AC20s at 450m all the time. Where you got this "long range" nonsense from is beyond me, but its definitely not from anything I said.

AC10 = 10 damage at 450m
AC20 = 10 damage at 540m

See the problem? The AC10 is supposed to outrange the AC20 yet the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 past the AC10s optimum range!

The AC5 and AC2 have the same exact problem with overlapping ranges.

AC2 = 2 damage at 720m
AC5 = 2 damage at 1116m

So how do we fix this? The obvious solution is to decrease the range of the AC20 and AC5 and possibly increase the range of the AC2 (because you can only decrease the AC5s range so much before it overlaps with the AC10 so you may have to buff the AC2 instead).

That's one of the few things I see tossed around in regards to ballistics I agree with. The ranges really need to be adjusted. An AC20 is essentially more effective at 540m than any other ballistic because its damage increases exponentially as it continues to close.
Ranges def need to be reduced but that's about the only thing I think should be adjusted on them at this point

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

That's one of the few things I see tossed around in regards to ballistics I agree with. The ranges really need to be adjusted. An AC20 is essentially more effective at 540m than any other ballistic because its damage increases exponentially as it continues to close.
Ranges def need to be reduced but that's about the only thing I think should be adjusted on them at this point

Shit did I just agree with Sandpit.

Well mostly anyway.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 09 March 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Shit did I just agree with Sandpit

On second thought I think autocannon ranges are fine how they are.

[Sandpit]

You guys I've agreed with and said this for months....

This isn't "new", almost every balance thread out there has me agreeing with and supporting this idea. The AC20 shouldn't be as effective at long ranges as an AC10. That's not how it was designed to work. I really think if they had flipped the ranges between lasers and ballistics it would solve a lot of the complaints in regards to balance. Lasers would have the more effective range while remaining beams and ballistics would be better at managing heat but not as effective at extreme ranges.

That single thing would placate and appease a lot of the grumbles about the two weapon systems

[Varent]

smokefield, on 09 March 2014 - 03:40 AM, said:

you put a lot of thinking in that post varent, all good and sound ideas..but i want to say only one thing - this is different than bt or any other previous game - its not a single player game, its not just a dm shooter (well...thats the final purpose at least ) and for sure its not the BT and its rules. So there must be a balance. without it you will see only meta builds on the field and no one wants that...its not fun to be forced to play only 2xppc 2ac5 builds because anything else is underpowered. so balance is needed. yes - there are a lot of idiotic ideas, some are not worth even a laugh thats how stupid they are, but the essence is - we need balance. and like someone else said - starcraft was and is an awesome game but it reached that spot in time....maybe it was a smoother trip but you cant compare blizzard with pgi

so - even i simpathize with your ideas, i simpathize with the balance ideas aswell. I do think that you need to fear an assault if you play a light or medium (at the moment this is actually a problem...a light can easily kill an assault if not more....if they play 1vs1 ) but in the same time we need to keep a balance so a build and a specific weapon is not too op compared with other builds/weapons. I do like to see variations on battlefield, different strategies, different builds and playstyle.

bottom line - its not easy to do that..but its not impossible either. whever loves this universe will continue to play the game (unless pgi does really something stupid...which is not excluded atm )..all others are just passengers

I agree on just about everything here. I will say that although its not a single player game, keep in mind a lot of people coming here are coming from that point of view and while.... its not fair to lean totally towards them just becaue its not that... They do have a right to have there wants heard as well so to a degree we need to lean a little that way as well in order to try and appease all groups.

[stjobe]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

AC20 is essentially more effective at 540m than any other ballistic because its damage increases exponentially as it continues to close.

No, it does not increase "exponentially"; it increases linearly from max range to optimal range - then it stays the same. The problem is that at double optimal range it still does half damage, which is 10 points, and that its double optimal range is further than the AC/10s optimal range (at which it starts losing damage).
AC/20: 20 damage at 0-270m, 20-10 damage at 271-540m, 10-0 damage at 541-810m
AC/10: 10 damage at 0-450m, 10-5 damage at 451-900m, 5-0 damage at 901-1350m

The AC/20 outdamages the AC/10 at ranges from 0 to roughly 590m.

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 10:23 AM, said:

The AC20 shouldn't be as effective at long ranges as an AC10. That's not how it was designed to work. I really think if they had flipped the ranges between lasers and ballistics it would solve a lot of the complaints in regards to balance. Lasers would have the more effective range while remaining beams and ballistics would be better at managing heat but not as effective at extreme ranges.

That single thing would placate and appease a lot of the grumbles about the two weapon systems

Missiles get max range == 1x optimal range
Energy get max range == 2x optimal range
Ballistics get max range == 3x optimal range

Why? Nobody knows, except possibly Paul, and he's not telling. It has mucked up not only intra-ballistics balance, but also inter-weapon balance.

Another in the laundry lists of dubious design decisions that have landed us where we are today.

Edited by stjobe, 09 March 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Varent]

Haakon Magnusson, on 09 March 2014 - 04:08 AM, said:

I love the ac20, it is supposed to be death (within 270m) on legs. But I agree totally, it boggles the mind they haven't made a call to have 2x max range as opposed to other acs. Nowadays it is slowish, not unusable by far as some like to paint it.
But reducing range, velocity could be upped perhaps to half way where it was.

The problem is that the weapon projectile speeds when lowered work against hit detection. They have tried to put real life physics into the game with bullet drop as well in order to give a realistic factor to where the ammo would fall off velocity wise in relation to damage. Hence the three times distance. If you had two times the bullet drop would be even greater and it would look rather funky.

Khobai, on 09 March 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Hold on. I never said anyone used the AC20 at long range. I said the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 at the AC10s optimum range. The AC10's optimum range is 450m. Players use AC20s at 450m all the time. Where you got this "long range" nonsense from is beyond me, but its definitely not from anything I said.

AC10 = 10 damage at 450m
AC20 = 10 damage at 540m

See the problem? The AC10 is supposed to outrange the AC20 yet the AC20 does more damage than the AC10 past the AC10s optimum range!

The AC5 and AC2 have the same exact problem with overlapping ranges.

AC2 = 2 damage at 720m
AC5 = 2 damage at 1116m

So how do we fix this? The obvious solution is to decrease the range of the AC20 and AC5 and possibly increase the range of the AC2 (because you can only decrease the AC5s range so much before it overlaps with the AC10 so you may have to buff the AC2 instead).

I think its a little nitpicky, but you do have a fairly valid point, however it would also mean a rework of there velocity system as a whole wich could also lead to worse hit detection.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why? Nobody knows, except possibly Paul, and he's not telling. It has mucked up not only intra-ballistics balance, but also inter-weapon balance.

Agreed. A good example is LRMs which are supposed to be one of the longest range weapons in battletech. But their max range limit of 1000m (and optimum range of only about 500m) makes them a medium range weapon in MWO.

For LRMs to be equivalent to their tabletop range, they would need about a 1500m range, and a 50% speed increase in order to traverse that range gap in the same amount of time.

[Hexenhammer]

Reducing the AC/20's velocity also plays into what happened to the Gauss rifle.

The Gauss rifle was effectively an snap fire ultra long range AC/15. The charge timer takes it out of the AC family and makes it unique. In short, why take an AC/5 or AC/10 when a Gauss Rifle can do it better?

Changes the AC/20's velocity does much the same thing. It makes it harder to hit small targets and or fast movers. A person fire and hit lights like the broadside of a barn but it keeps the AC/20 a snap fire weapon.

[Sandpit]

Hexenhammer, on 09 March 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Reducing the AC/20's velocity also plays into what happened to the Gauss rifle.

The Gauss rifle was effectively an snap fire ultra long range AC/15. The charge timer takes it out of the AC family and makes it unique. In short, why take an AC/5 or AC/10 when a Gauss Rifle can do it better?

Changes the AC/20's velocity does much the same thing. It makes it harder to hit small targets and or fast movers. A person fire and hit lights like the broadside of a barn but it keeps the AC/20 a snap fire weapon.

The change they made to the 10 and 20 a few weeks ago put it in a good place in my opinion. Just reduce those ranges and I think we'd have a great balance for them

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

The change they made to the 10 and 20 a few weeks ago put it in a good place in my opinion. Just reduce those ranges and I think we'd have a great balance for them

a Fine example of the community giving and taking.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 09 March 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

a Fine example of the community giving and taking.

There's always going to have to be some sort of "compromise" because you have so many variables and differing opinions. I've been happy with weapon balance in general for a long time now but I understand it's not perfect and can still use some minor adjusting here and there

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

There's always going to have to be some sort of "compromise" because you have so many variables and differing opinions. I've been happy with weapon balance in general for a long time now but I understand it's not perfect and can still use some minor adjusting here and there

The important thing to understand is no one is ever going to be PERFECTLY happy with adjustments since every group wants something different.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 09 March 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

The important thing to understand is no one is ever going to be PERFECTLY happy with adjustments since every group wants something different.

That was never more apparent than when we had people complaining about getting a free mech and bay lol

I think overall the balance is good right now. Everything is viable if not preferred.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Sandpit, on 09 March 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

The change they made to the 10 and 20 a few weeks ago put it in a good place in my opinion. Just reduce those ranges and I think we'd have a great balance for them

I always thought one way to reinforce range values for the AC's would be to introduce 'bullet drop' to the rounds. Give the AC20 a flat trajectory out to 270 meters, then make the round drop like a rock so that it maybe carries to 300 meters and hits the ground. Make it so that the lighter the AC round the lower the speed at which the round drops, so AC2's and 5's still retain their reach while ensuring that the AC20 is the close range killer. I have no idea how difficult that would be to implement, but if possible it could be more effective to restricting the AC20 to close range use than nerfing its projectile speed.

[Sandpit]

Tincan Nightmare, on 09 March 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

I always thought one way to reinforce range values for the AC's would be to introduce 'bullet drop' to the rounds. Give the AC20 a flat trajectory out to 270 meters, then make the round drop like a rock so that it maybe carries to 300 meters and hits the ground. Make it so that the lighter the AC round the lower the speed at which the round drops, so AC2's and 5's still retain their reach while ensuring that the AC20 is the close range killer. I have no idea how difficult that would be to implement, but if possible it could be more effective to restricting the AC20 to close range use than nerfing its projectile speed.

The problem with that is, it's not hard for players to learn to compensate for bullet drop. Heck we used to have shotgun slugs lobbed across a map in BF, you just had to arc the shot. Granted it would be a little harder but doesn't solve the issue. People still snipe at long ranges with an AC20 after the last adjustment that slowed them down. You just adapt and learn where to lead your targets now.