40 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Here is a fun experiment you can try at home. Take any mech you wish, and equip it with a solitary AC/2 or AC/5. Yup, that's right, just one. Not four. Not three. Not two. ONE. UNO. EINS. Bonus points if you don't try to pair it up with PPCs or some other projectile weapon. Now run around and tell me how overpowered it is.


Oh wait, a single AC isn't all that overpowered after all? It's taking you forever to kill things? Those dinky little AC rounds are bouncing harmlessly off of your targets? They're only intimating when carried in groups or paired with PPCs?

Might that be a sign of some other underlying game issue that needs to be addressed, rather than nerfing a weapon that isn't really overpowered in the first place?



Minimum range is okay (awkward, but okay) for PPCs because they're such an amazingly powerful weapon. They'd have literally no damn weakness if we removed min range from them--if we didn't replace it with some other kind of nerf. But the light ACs? LOLNO.

Edited by FupDup, 11 March 2014 - 12:53 PM.

[Gladewolf]

So, how many of you also dislike being overrun by light wolfpacks...because that's who benefits most from this proposed change. I enjoy piloting lights...but this simply makes too many weapons ineffective against the one class that is REALLY good up close and good at getting there.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 11 March 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Hmm... where have I seen this before?



Although, the shot had laser-infused streak tracking.

[Hans Von Lohman]

theta123, on 11 March 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

But for a cannon shell to ..."ARM" itself?? seriously? No such thing exists in any cannon related items.

Uh, your wrong. Cannon shells do in fact arm themselves, if they're the exploding types of rounds and not solid shot. You ever hear of dud artillery shells? Those were shells that failed to arm themselves.

Real life military weapons come in all types, and it depends on if the bullet is filled with explosives or is just a solid hunk of metal.

The fuse in the shell arms itself after leaving the gun tube and it does in fact have a minimum range in real life. You don't want your shell exploding while inside the gun tube from the shock of being fired in the first place. It has to travel down range a bit, THEN it arms, usually by centripidal forces after the round has spun around a few times, and ought to explode when it hits something...most of the time. Again, duds when nothing happens because the shell didn't arm itself, or the fuse actually broke from the shock of being fired (one of the problems of engineering a device is that it has to survive the violence of being accelerated that fast out of a gun tube).

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

This is why I suggested that AC's should still do some damage below their minimum range, like 15% or so. That is damage from just kinetic force of being hit by something, but it is being hit by a shot that doesn't detonate it's explosive charge (I assume they're HEAT rounds or such).

However, I take any arguments about "realism" in a game with lasers, giant robots, alien planets, and large guns that somehow paradoxically have the shortest range with a grain of salt. It is gameplay balance that comes first.

Edited by Hans Von Lohman, 12 March 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[DONTOR]

^not to contest what you said there, but it is my theory that the rounds dont fire nearly as far as they would in todays military because they are using far less propellant to cut down on (production cost/weight/size of the round itself). Just a possibility anyhow, atleast thats what I tell myself.

[stjobe]

FupDup, on 11 March 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

Might that be a sign of some other underlying game issue that needs to be addressed, rather than nerfing a weapon that isn't really overpowered in the first place?

Yeah, but you already know that the devs can't fix convergence, Fup. We've been over that time and time again, and at least for the foreseeable future we have to choose between HSR and convergence, and the devs have chosen HSR.

And that's incidentally the problem with the OP's suggestion as well; as someone else pointed out, the minimum range in TT didn't magically stop the weapons doing damage - it added to-hit penalties so it was actually harder to hit the closer the targets were within minimum range.

But, alas, to-hit penalties would probably have to be coded as some form of convergence penalty, and that's out the window as long as we want HSR.

THAT's why the devs went with linear fall-off of damage and later zero damage, and THAT's why minimum range probably is best left off the ACs that should really have it.

They just can't implement it.

[Escef]

Malleus011, on 11 March 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Minimum range in TT was NOT no damage. That's lazy crap PGI came up with. Minimum range in TT was a slight accuracy penalty (which got more severe as you got closer) and that's it.

I don't know if you/recall this, but at first PPCs simply did reduced damage under range. And that wasn't enough to stop the rampant PPC meta. The only thing that stopped the PPC and Gauss meta was upping PPC heat and making the Gauss counter-intuitive. Now we have a PPC/LL and AC20/AC5 meta.

[SirLANsalot]

This one ranks up there with RNG (cone of fire) as one of the "rules" from TT that is bad for game play. Stupid is as Stupid dose.

For all intensive purposes our AC's right now are shooting Slug rounds, yes the in game animation has an explosion on impact, but thats not what we are shooting. We all are using AP rounds, which have no powder in them. So minimum range is a game mechanic that was made for THE BOARD GAME, and not a FIRST PERSON, game.

We all have to keep in mind, that the TT was written from a Lance or Company standpoint, as in YOU are commanding XX group of mechs. When you move that to a FIRST PERSON point, things must change as well as some mechanics will not work for said game. We are just 1 mech instead of 4 mechs, think 1 mech vs 12 mechs, as that is what we are playing. We have allies too, but its more or less 1v12 from the TT standpoint.




So simple answer is HELL NO.


Stop trying to make this game into Table Top, its not TT, its based on it, but not is, TT is being used as a guideline instead of straight up rules. I have said this time and time again, if you want to play Table Top, GO EFFING PLAY MECHWARRIOR: TACTICS.

[Escef]

SirLANsalot, on 11 March 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

This one ranks up there with RNG (cone of fire) as one of the "rules" from TT that is bad for game play. Stupid is as Stupid dose.

For all intensive purposes...

Calls other people stupid, doesn't understand the phrase "intents and purposes"... C'mon, LANs, you're better than that.

[Khobai]

Gauss, AC5, AC2, and PPC should all have minimum ranges. Although the damage dropoff should be gradual not a sudden dropoff to 0. Because in tabletop you could still fire all those weapons at close range, but they would suffer a penalty to hit, which would simply be represented by lower damage in MWO.

Why should they have minimum ranges you ask? For the same reason it was done in tabletop; because it FORCES combined arms. SRMs and medium lasers suddenly become necessary. PPC/AC5 mechs now have to carry streaks or lasers as backup weapons. MWO needs more incentive for mixed loadouts and min ranges help provide that.

It doesnt make sense you say? Neither do walking mechs. Or faster than light drives. Or ghost heat. Or any number of other things in battletech/mwo. So nitpicking about one thing in particular not making sense when none of those other things make sense is completely silly. It doesnt have to make sense, its a game.

Quote

Stop trying to make this game into Table Top, its not TT, its based on it, but not is, TT is being used as a guideline instead of straight up rules.

Then how else would you prevent Gauss, AC/5, AC/2s and PPCs from being used as brawling weapons? Minimum ranges make complete sense because they force you to complement your long-range weapons with short-range weapons. Currently in MWO, all you need are sniping weapons, because they can double up as both sniping AND brawling weapons, which is completely unbalanced. It makes far more sense to have sniping weapons only be good at sniping and require brawling weapons in order to brawl.

Edited by Khobai, 11 March 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

Khobai, on 11 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Then how else would you prevent Gauss, AC/5, AC/2s and PPCs from being used as brawling weapons? Minimum ranges make complete sense because they force you to complement your long-range weapons with short-range weapons. Currently in MWO, all you need are sniping weapons, because they can double up as both sniping AND brawling weapons, which is completely unbalanced. It makes far more sense to have sniping weapons only be good at sniping and require brawling weapons in order to brawl.

So then should every sniper weapon in every other game out there also have a minimum range? What about the AWP in Counter-Strike, worked just as well in close combat as it did at long range. Yes there were other mechanics at work in that game that made it unwieldy as such, but that didn't stop people from using it. What your asking for is to completely stop people from using said gun at all, because that is what will happen. The Charge on the gauss that people so hate, dose exactly what it was designed for. It makes the guass a little unwieldy in close combat, doesn't stop it completely, but dose add a little more skill to pulling the shot off, just like the AWP in CS when faced against someone up close.


If we put a minimum range on "sniping" weapons, then the ERLL needs one too, oh and what about the CLAN guns? They have NOTHING but the ERLL/ERPPC and the ERML has the SAME range as the Inner Sphere Large Laser (which would be debatable if it was "long range"). What about the Clan LBX 5 and 2? or the Clan UAC2 and 5? should those have minimum ranges too then? Even if the TT doesn't have mins on those guns, what you are asking and why you are asking it would mean those guns would have them too.

The players themselves self balance the game, Gauss is hardly used except those that are ACTUALLY proficient with it. ERPPC is not used by the general masses because it is perceived as "too hot" and as such miss the fact that the gun is designed to be that hot. Same applies to the AC2 because of the heat system not able to handle thing at .5 sec, much less the clan UAC at .25 sec (that thing will be a monster).

People using the AC5 are quite stupid for doing so unless you are using 4 or more of them. The AC5 is a poor choice of a gun to pair with itself, as its alpha is the same as the AC10 and its DPS is lower then using 2 AC2. Using a UAC and AC5 together is good as it gives you the dakka you are after in 5 damage increments. 3 AC5 is again, overpaying in tonnage for a Gauss in damage, or overpaying in tonnage in DPS for 3 AC2. Its a poor gun to use in a singe 2-3 ballistic slot on a mech, there are far better choices out there. No mech can use 4 AC5 in a single slot, but paired the CTF4X dose use them to deadly effectiveness as for each arm there isn't much of a better choice to use for the tonnage of the mech. 2 AC5 and 2 UAC can work but the ammo constraints make it unfavorable to using 4 AC5's which is the equivalent of an AC20 every 1.5 seconds. So there is no excuse for the meta being what it is, and even now I am seeing it far less then before because people are wising up and using (at the very least) UAC/AC5 together now.

Escef, on 11 March 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Calls other people stupid, doesn't understand the phrase "intents and purposes"... C'mon, LANs, you're better than that.

was explaining that our AC's are using AP rounds and not HE rounds, if we were using HE rounds then a minimum range would maybe make sense. Besides the "TT" rule people are the idiots here trying to make the game, or take it, a way that its not designed to be.

[Khobai]

Quote

So then should every sniper weapon in every other game out there also have a minimum range?

No. Because other games limit you to one weapon at a time and dont allow you to use multiple weapons at the same time like MWO does (the whole reason for minimum range on sniper weapons is to promote mixed loadouts). Other games also balance sniper weapons in other ways. Usually sniper weapons in other games fire slow, have a low magazine capacity, and a long reload times. PGI opted not to balance sniper weapons that way, or even really balance them at all. Minimum ranges make sense because its carried over from battletech and helps encourage mixed loadouts by dividing sniping weapons and brawling weapons into two distinct categories, both of which are important.

Quote

What your asking for is to completely stop people from using said gun at all, because that is what will happen.

Nope its not what will happen. Players will not stop using sniping weapons, even if theyre given minimum ranges, because the sniping meta is the dominant meta. What will actually happen is a trend towards mixed loadouts. Youll see more mechs with a mix of both sniping and brawling weapons.

Quote

If we put a minimum range on "sniping" weapons, then the ERLL needs one too

Unlike the PPC or AC5, the ERLL is already balanced around the disadvantage of spreading damage. So the ERLL doesnt need a minimum range. Its PPCs and Autocannons that are currently unbalanced and need minimum ranges to help bring them back into parity.

Quote

People using the AC5 are quite stupid for doing so unless you are using 4 or more of them.

Two PPCs and two AC5s is currently the best core loadout in the game. You certainly dont need four for them to be effective. And im not sure why you said "4 or more" since im not aware of any mech that can have 5 AC5s.

Quote

The AC5 is a poor choice of a gun to pair with itself, as its alpha is the same as the AC10 and its DPS is lower then using 2 AC2.

Clearly you dont understand the strength of the AC5 then.

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

The AC5 does the same damage as the AC2 at 55% more range. For that reason, the AC5 is currently the best long-range weapon in the game. Since ERPPCs run way too hot.

Edited by Khobai, 11 March 2014 - 09:23 PM.

[DocBach]

SirLANsalot, on 11 March 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

So then should every sniper weapon in every other game out there also have a minimum range? What about the AWP in Counter-Strike, worked just as well in close combat as it did at long range.

this isn't counterstrike. I wish all the people trying to balance the game using counterstrike as an example would GO EFFING PLAY COUNTERSTRIKE: GLOBAL OPERATIONS!

Edited by DocBach, 11 March 2014 - 08:56 PM.

[Tahribator]

I think introduction of convergence mechanics for ballistics would solve this issue while making sense. Just don't let multiple ballistics converge under 120m, and this would be the much needed nerf to AC's while still leaving them as powerful as before.

[Escef]

SirLANsalot, on 11 March 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

Besides the "TT" rule people are the idiots here trying to make the game, or take it, a way that its not designed to be.

My point, which you did an excellent job of missing, was that if you are going to call others stupid than you should at least not make stupid mistakes like mistaking "intents and purposes" for "intensive purposes" yourself. It's like all the ignorant jackwads that don't realize that what they thought was "would of" and "could of" was actually the contractions "would've" and "could've". And before someone makes a remark about English not being everyone's first language, these are mistakes that I almost never see from people that learned English as a second language, but I see it all the time from native speakers.

[SirLANsalot]

Escef, on 12 March 2014 - 12:42 AM, said:

My point, which you did an excellent job of missing, was that if you are going to call others stupid than you should at least not make stupid mistakes like mistaking "intents and purposes" for "intensive purposes" yourself. It's like all the ignorant jackwads that don't realize that what they thought was "would of" and "could of" was actually the contractions "would've" and "could've". And before someone makes a remark about English not being everyone's first language, these are mistakes that I almost never see from people that learned English as a second language, but I see it all the time from native speakers.

Its the internet....no one gives a ****?

[dwwolf]

theta123, on 11 March 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

But for a cannon shell to ..."ARM" itself?? seriously? No such thing exists in any cannon related items.

Lookup bofors 3P ammo.

[Hans Von Lohman]

stjobe, on 11 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

THAT's why the devs went with linear fall-off of damage and later zero damage, and THAT's why minimum range probably is best left off the ACs that should really have it.

They just can't implement it.

I tend to think the reason the AC-2 and AC-5 don't have a minimum range was to entice players into trying them. They were NOT at all popular when I first started playing the game a year ago. SRM's were all the range then, and the only autocannon you really saw on a regular basis was the AC-20.

I'm not saying that AC-2's and AC-5's actually need to be nerfed. I won't quit the game because they don't add a minimum range to them, but I wonder if it might not be a good idea now that they're so popular.

[Escef]

SirLANsalot, on 12 March 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Its the internet....no one gives a ****?

You should, because it makes you look bad. It makes you look like this guy...
http://youtu.be/am-Qdx6vky0

Edited by Escef, 12 March 2014 - 02:22 PM.

[no one]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 11 March 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

The only minimum range that would make any sense for the AC2, AC5, and Gauss would be for them to have a minimum convergence distance set at minimum range meters. That would make them still do damage inside their minimum, but would make them much harder to aim, especially when they're spread out across a mech.

Wisdom.

stjobe, on 11 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

Yeah, but you already know that the devs can't fix convergence, Fup.
They just can't implement it.

I missed that conversation, and I can't say I understand how that could be the case. It's not like weapons all fire out of the same point on your 'Mech as it is, so there has to be individual tracking of firing lines, and convergence already exists, it's just instant. Why can't they code in an arc/second traverse delay on guns going from one focus to another?

Also, I'd argue PPCs should do damage under 90m, but at the risk of blowing out and damaging your 'Mech. Say a 5% chance for every 10 meters inside minimum range? Then let people have a 'toggle for your field dampener' so they can choose to lock PPCs from firing inside 90m, or not.