517 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

I say no to any nerf to ACs it will change nothing, 4xERLL or 4xLPL mechs could be as good as our current meta builds, PGI just nerfed the shіt out of energy weapons because forums were full of whining.

[Karl Streiger]

kapusta11, on 08 April 2014 - 02:45 AM, said:

I say no to any nerf to ACs it will change nothing, 4xERLL or 4xLPL mechs could be as good as our current meta builds, PGI just nerfed the shіt out of energy weapons because forums were full of whining.

Of course it will change something....
first i don't see that the 4 ERLL or 4 LPL builds be so powerful - but even if this is should be true - the TTK time will be reduced...and last not least it may last some weeks until the new FOTM is used every where.... and believe it or not i will love this time - with a lots of diversity in builds (was so after Ghost Heat and Gauss Charge - very very different loadouts)

When they nerf the Machine Guns - (for example Burst Fire - only - one klick .... 1sec Burst 1sec reload - several lights have to adapt too....

Anyhow we will never have a "perfect" balance...this system isn't designed in this way - so all we can do is to - nerf buff nerf buff and change the meta as fast as possible (2 FOTM per months would be incredible)

[Monkeystador]

22 freaking pages on this?
Well one more post from me


Up the heat by 20%
Up the firing delay by 10%
Reduce max range to increase damage falloff after optimum range for all ACs by 20%. (no gauss)

Decrease Gauss Cooldown to gain more DPS. Reduce by 0.25sec.

[Joseph Mallan]

Monketstador(good name sir )
Yes Nerf range, it is not what this universe uses.
No to more heat. ACs are cool hammers
Fire delay... Eh, I don't like the idea, but I do see your point ACs are a bit faster than their energy counterparts, and quite a bit faster than Missile equivalents... However Missile racks need to load more than one projectile at a time and Lasers could be padding cool down due to heat constraints.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2014 - 03:54 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

Manketstador(good name sir )
Yes Nerf range, it is not what this universe uses.
No to more heat. ACs are cool hammers

I agree on the range of ACs, 3x Range seems too much for the types of maps we play on.

To be honest I don't like most of the proposals in this or other threads.

I think many of them lack perspective and some of them are wildly overboard.

The range reduction I can get behind however.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

Fire delay... Eh, I don't like the idea, but I do see your point ACs are a bit faster than their energy counterparts

My perspective on this is probably different from most.

A single Medium Laser at 1 Ton & 1 Slot deals a 5 point alpha.

The same 5 point alpha that a single 8 Ton & 4 Slot Ammo Dependent AC 5 Deals.

The AC 5 wins out when it comes to DPS and sustainable fire, the Medium's advantage is that it is a tiny, economical weapon, that can provide provide 5 points of damage over its 1s duration.


A single 3 Slot & 7 Ton LPL deals a 10 point Alpha.

The same 10 point alpha that a single 7 Slot & 12 Ton Ammo Dependent AC 10 deals.


The AC 10 wins out when it comes to DPS and sustainable fire, the LPLs advantage is that it is comparatively less intensive with regard to slots and weight and can put out the same 10 point alpha.


So from my perspective the trade off is one of sustainable fire for what is a fairly generous burst potential for the slotting and weight of the weapon.


That being said, I would like to see energy weapons be more sustainable than they are now - especially if you heavily build for it.


I do think that the conversation on a lower heat cap but with higher dissipation rates has a lot of merit, and would be a viable solution to give energy weapons better sustained fire.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 08 April 2014 - 06:35 AM.

[Cimarb]

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

I agree on the range of ACs, 3x Range seems too much for the types of maps we play on.

There aren't many people that DON'T agree with this, which is why I am so surprised that PGI hasn't at least fixed this yet.

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

My perspective on this is probably different from most.

A single Medium Laser at 1 Ton & 1 Slot deals a 5 point alpha.

The same 5 point alpha that a single 8 Ton & 4 Slot Ammo Dependent AC 5 Deals.

The AC 5 wins out when it comes to DPS and sustainable fire, the Medium's advantage is that it is a tiny, economical weapon, that can provide provide 5 points of damage over its 1s duration.

A single 3 Slot & 7 Ton LPL deals a 10 point Alpha.

The same 10 point alpha that a single 7 Slot & 12 Ton Ammo Dependent AC 10 deals.

The AC 10 wins out when it comes to DPS and sustainable fire, the LPLs advantage is that it is comparatively less intensive with regard to slots and weight and can put out the same 10 point alpha.

So from my perspective the trade off is one of sustainable fire for what is a fairly generous burst potential for the slotting and weight of the weapon.

It is hard to compare the different weapon systems (missile/energy/ballistic) because they are so much different from each other, but you can't ignore damage delivery method in these comparisons.

A 5 point ML does that damage in ten 0.5 damage "ticks" over a 1 second duration, while the AC5 does 100% of its damage immediately upon impact. This means that the ML is more likely to "get a hit", but the amount of damage inflicted is dramatically affected by movement of both shooter and target. It also requires much more Time On Target, which causes proportionally more damage to be incurred by the shooter in the torsos. An AC5 allows you to snapshot and quickly torso twist, absorbing return damage in less vital areas, such as the arms.

Even the shorter 0.6 duration of the LPL doesn't make much difference, as the damage is still spread and requires far longer ToT than a ballistic.

This doesn't even take into account the range and heat differences, of course, which is why it's so hard to compare the systems.

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 06:25 AM, said:

That being said, I would like to see energy weapons be more sustainable than they are now - especially if you heavily build for it.

I do think that the conversation on a lower heat cap but with higher dissipation rates has a lot of merit, and would be a viable solution to give energy weapons better sustained fire.

I 100% agree. The heat system is, IMO, the single largest problem with weapon balance. Until we get a good, balanced heat system with linear penalties like TT had, weapon balance itself will be a series of bandaids when a tourniquet is needed.

[Mirkk Defwode]

stjobe, on 07 April 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

When we talk about burst-fire from ballistics, we talk about one press of the firing key firing the whole cassette. In essence, the size of the cassette is the size of the burst.

But one could also imagine a system where you'd need to keep the firing key depressed for the whole burst duration, and in which a quick tap of the firing button would fire just one round from the cassette. That single round would then of course only do (total damage / cassette size) damage, e.g. 5 damage from a single round of a 4-round burst AC/20.

Firing a single round from a cassette would not start the cooldown of the weapon, so the other three rounds in the example could be fired at a moment's notice. Only when the cassette is completely empty does the cooldown start (and signifies the time it takes to eject the spent cassette and load a full one from the ammo bin).

That's one of the models I'd setup along that line with the manufacturer unique behaviors.

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

There aren't many people that DON'T agree with this, which is why I am so surprised that PGI hasn't at least fixed this yet.

Yes, there does seem to be a general consensus on this.

Honestly speaking, it's very likely that a simple good idea like this gets completely drowned out in the white noise of the forums.

It's pretty rare for devs in most MMOs to pick up the valuable feedback from the chaff.

The most effective ways to enact these kinds of changes in games is to keep your proposals and posts clear, and succinct - be persistent and do your best to remain civil and not insulting.

I'm not aiming that at you, it's just my experience with a half dozen past MMOs - and in more than a few of them I had success a number of times getting specific changes made.

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

It is hard to compare the different weapon systems (missile/energy/ballistic) because they are so much different from each other, but you can't ignore damage delivery method in these comparisons.

Absolutely.

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

A 5 point ML does that damage in ten 0.5 damage "ticks" over a 1 second duration, while the AC5 does 100% of its damage immediately upon impact. This means that the ML is more likely to "get a hit", but the amount of damage inflicted is dramatically affected by movement of both shooter and target. It also requires much more Time On Target, which causes proportionally more damage to be incurred by the shooter in the torsos. An AC5 allows you to snapshot and quickly torso twist, absorbing return damage in less vital areas, such as the arms.

Again, I agree.

The key factor though however is that alpha potential is still very, very generous.

You can slot 6x MLAS, suffer 0 Ghost heat and you are still at least 4 or 5 tons underweight compared to an AC 5.

Except you have 30 point alpha, and the chances of you missing completely with even just a part of that beam is exceedingly low.

Even if you only get 1/3rd of that duration on target, you still did 10 damage for 6 tons of weapon. More than the AC 5 can deal in one single snapshot.

That 30 point strafing beam is also a terror to the legs of lights everywhere.

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

Even the shorter 0.6 duration of the LPL doesn't make much difference, as the damage is still spread and requires far longer ToT than a ballistic.

This doesn't even take into account the range and heat differences, of course, which is why it's so hard to compare the systems.

Personally, as I've stated in a few threads. I feel hitscan as a benefit at 0.6s duration is pretty good vs. FLD.

If people want to have Pulse Laser duration at say 0.3s total, and then Standard laser duration chopped down to 0.6s - I will just remain silent and love it.


You're right in that ACs have several benefits over "energy counterparts" - but the reality is, ton for ton there are few "counterparts".

When I'm weighing up weapons for a build for example, I don't actually class MLAS vs. AC 5s. They're too different.

LLAS or ER LLAS, these are in the same arena as an AC 5 - based on their tonnage and slotting requirements.


IMO those weapons are actually fairly balanced against one another, with a few glaring outliers.

1) AC 3x max range.
2) Heat Cap, Dissipation System and Ghost Heat.


Due to #2, my first thought isn't "Nerf ACs!" - even if we can never get the devs to make some changes to the way their heat systems work (not impossible, imo) I'd rather live with it than see other weapons "nerfed down to size".

With that being based on a game mechanic most of the playerbase seems to agree is poor.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 08 April 2014 - 12:36 PM.

[Daekar]

Would love to see pulse laser duration uniformly 0.5 seconds, with a slight drop in heat for the medium pulse.

The burst-fire A/Cs look great too.

I wouldn't change anything except the falloff multiplier from x3 to x2 before messing with other things. I wouldn't change the heat for A/Cs either, because that would start to destroy their synergy with the hotter weapons. If the falloff distance change wasn't enough, I'd look at nerfing refire rates a smidgen.

[Cimarb]

Honestly, I am an advocate for burst-fire Autocannons for three reasons:

1. It will help balance them with all of the other weapon systems that spread their damage in some manner
2. It is the most effective method of increasing TTK without causing all sorts of other repercussions
3. A burst-fire AC20 will be AMAZINGLY FUN. I can't wait until I can put an AC20 back in my Jäger and walk around going BRAAAAAAAAT-BRAAAAAAAAAAT and just watching enemies disintegrate under the sustained fire! Forget dakka, I want braaaaat!

[Sug]

Make ammo actually explode. That is all.

[Cimarb]

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Spoiler

Yes, there does seem to be a general consensus on this.

Honestly speaking, it's very likely that a simple good idea like this gets completely drowned out in the white noise of the forums.

It's pretty rare for devs in most MMOs to pick up the valuable feedback from the chaff.

The most effective ways to enact these kinds of changes in games is to keep your proposals and posts clear, and succinct - be persistent and do your best to remain civil and not insulting.

I'm not aiming that at you, it's just my experience with a half dozen past MMOs - and in more than a few of them I had success a number of times getting specific changes made.

Absolutely.

Again, I agree.

The key factor though however is that alpha potential is still very, very generous.

You can slot 6x MLAS, suffer 0 Ghost heat and you are still at least 4 or 5 tons underweight compared to an AC 5.

Except you have 30 point alpha, and the chances of you missing completely with even just a part of that beam is exceedingly low.

Even if you only get 1/3rd of that duration on target, you still did 10 damage for 6 tons of weapon. More than the AC 5 can deal in one single snapshot.

That 30 point strafing beam is also a terror to the legs of lights everywhere.

Personally, as I've stated in a few threads. I feel hitscan as a benefit at 0.6s duration is pretty good vs. FLD.

If people want to have Pulse Laser duration at say 0.3s total, and then Standard laser duration chopped down to 0.6s - I will just remain silent and love it.

You're right in that ACs have several benefits over "energy counterparts" - but the reality is, ton for ton there are few "counterparts".

When I'm weighing up weapons for a build for example, I don't actually class MLAS vs. AC 5s. They're too different.

LLAS or ER LLAS, these are in the same arena as an AC 5 - based on their tonnage and slotting requirements.


IMO those weapons are actually fairly balanced against one another, with a few glaring outliers.

1) AC 3x max range.
2) Heat Cap, Dissipation System and Ghost Heat.


Due to #2, my first thought isn't "Nerf ACs!" - even if we can never get the devs to make some changes to the way their heat systems work (not impossible, imo) I'd rather live with it than see other weapons "nerfed down to size".

With that being based on a game mechanic most of the playerbase seems to agree is poor.

We are in agreement about almost everything, which is great.

I would also love to see lasers be a shorter duration, especially pulse lasers (since they still need a buff), but it is counterproductive to the TTK issue. I want fights to be about attrition and strategy, not just steamrolling herds of FLD, and making weapons do more pinpoint damage goes against this goal.

Sug, on 08 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Make ammo actually explode. That is all.

It does. I die to it far more often than I care to.

[Chemie]

Hold tight...once clan mechs come out, every IS weapon will need a doubling of its damage...no need to nerf right now.

[Sug]

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 01:32 PM, said:

It does. I die to it far more often than I care to.

Since there's only about a 0.8% chance of dying to an ammo explosion I'm going to have to disagree with you.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Chemie, on 08 April 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

every IS weapon will need a doubling of its damage...

And reduce the TTK even further?

No thank you.

[Cimarb]

Sug, on 08 April 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Since there's only about a 0.8% chance of dying to an ammo explosion I'm going to have to disagree with you.

That would make sense, as the RNG Spirits absolutely hate me. I have saw ammo explosions on my death log many, many times, so I vote against increasing them.

[Sug]

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

That would make sense, as the RNG Spirits absolutely hate me. I have saw ammo explosions on my death log many, many times, so I vote against increasing them.

Someone may have put a curse on you because I played a Centurion stripped of armor with side torsos full of LRM ammo and never died to ammo blowing.

Even tried it with just 1 slot of ammo in each ST so that any crit would crit the ammo and still never died to ammo explosions.
: /

[Name140704]

No changes that are made will change things unless they address pinpoint firing. HRR had it right two years ago.

[wanderer]

Quote

Hold tight...once clan mechs come out, every IS weapon will need a doubling of its damage...no need to nerf right now.

....you do realize they're nerfing Clan weaponry to basically another flavor of IS weapons, right?

[Joseph Mallan]

Shar Wolf, on 08 April 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

And reduce the TTK even further?

No thank you.

I have no problem with a shorter time to kill my opponents. It means there is less time or them to kill me back. I have no problem with a short TTK.