517 replies to this topic

[Monkeystador]

wanderer, on 09 April 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

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

Will be hard to overcome the shock.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

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!

I only like this Braaaaat

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 08 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

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!

Hi Cimarb,



1. It will help balance them with all of the other weapon systems that spread their damage in some manner

I don't agree.

Those other weapon systems that spread their damage have one or more of the following advantages:

> Often Lighter
> Some do not require ammo
> Some/many require less slots
> Some of them function as hitscan weapons
> Some of them are capable of indirect fire and have more forgiving direct fire aiming systems

So if you change ACs to spread damage, you need to improve other aspects of ACs such as weight, slots, projectile speeds (primarily AC 10 & 20) etc.



You seem like a reasonable poster, tell me if you think lasers had a projectile speed like an AC 10 or PPC and also did their damage in whatever pulse/s they deal it in, how much worse would they be now?

What if they also weighed more? For example, if a single ER LLAS weighed about 10 tons.

Would you still be strapping lasers on?





2. It is the most effective method of increasing TTK without causing all sorts of other repercussions

Personally I like East Indy's suggestion better. It allows every AC to retain it's current character, it allows a big alpha, but it staggers the fire of all "cannon" weapons (including PPCs).

It curbs boating and alphas without penalizing singular usage.

This means 4x AC 5s would be unlikely to all hit the same spot, 2x AC 5s and 1 PPC would be unlikely to hit one spot - and FLD weapon still get to retain their teeth and character.

I can't remember seeing any Mechs downed by any 1 single Gauss, PPC or AC round.
Does your experience match mine?

East Indy, on 03 April 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

Random idea #8, because this is the thread for it:

1. Add very short global cooldowns for autocannons and PPCs, delaying shots sequentially in a firing group or manual shots within cooldown duration -- long enough to disrupt pinpoint, short enough to never feel like an unfair delay.

2. When mixed in firing groups, largest caliber always fires first.

3. When autocannons shells hit a target within 0.5 seconds each other, autocannon cockpit shake is reduced by 50%.

4. Revert recent velocity changes to AC/10 and AC/20.

5. Remove heat scale penalities from autocannons and PPCs.

Weapon	Global Cooldown
AC/2	0.15 seconds
AC/5	0.20 seconds
AC/10	0.25 seconds
PPC	0.25 seconds
AC/20	0.50 seconds

*Shrug.*

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 April 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[Blacksoul1987]

The global cooldown suggestion is by far my favorite out all the suggestions I have seen.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

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.

If I ever see you make any post about how any mech dies to easy - you are going permanently on my ignore list.

[Cimarb]

Ultimatum X, on 09 April 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

Hi Cimarb,

1. It will help balance them with all of the other weapon systems that spread their damage in some manner

I don't agree.

Those other weapon systems that spread their damage have one or more of the following advantages:

> Often Lighter
> Some do not require ammo
> Some/many require less slots
> Some of them function as hitscan weapons
> Some of them are capable of indirect fire and have more forgiving direct fire aiming systems

So if you change ACs to spread damage, you need to improve other aspects of ACs such as weight, slots, projectile speeds (primarily AC 10 & 20) etc.

You seem like a reasonable poster, tell me if you think lasers had a projectile speed like an AC 10 or PPC and also did their damage in whatever pulse/s they deal it in, how much worse would they be now?

What if they also weighed more? For example, if a single ER LLAS weighed about 10 tons.

Would you still be strapping lasers on?

When all of the weapon systems were transferred over from TT to MWO, every single system EXCEPT autocannons and PPCs were switched to some sort of spread damage. The only weapon system that had any sort of spread in TT was the LRM, and that was in 5-point clusters, which is still less spread than they have in MWO.

If you look at the competitive crowd, the vast majority (and most dominant) of players use Autocannons and PPCs. Do you not see a coorelation between these two things?

Here is how they SHOULD be balanced:

Energy: high heat, low weight, no ammo
Missile: medium heat, medium weight, ammo
Ballistic: low heat, high weight, ammo

What we have currently, though, is this arbitrary Ghost heat mechanic that has caused autocannons to be high heat, high weight, ammo-based weapons, and PPCs to be obscene heat, low weight, ammo-less weapons. They have to be, though, because they are the "best" weapon due to their damage delivery (FLD).

By breaking autocannons and PPCs from their front-loaded damage, you can then remove ghost heat and have much better TTKs as well as strategic gameplay.

If ERLL did FLD and weighed 10 tons, I most definitely would be strapping them on EVERYTHING. We would also have a TTK of about 60 seconds per match... with 50 seconds of that being walking to the enemy...

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

Here is how they SHOULD be balanced:

Energy: high heat, low weight, no ammo
Missile: medium heat, medium weight, ammo
Ballistic: low heat, high weight, ammo

Agreed.

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

What we have currently, though, is this arbitrary Ghost heat mechanic that has caused autocannons to be high heat, high weight, ammo-based weapons, and PPCs to be obscene heat, low weight, ammo-less weapons. They have to be, though, because they are the "best" weapon due to their damage delivery (FLD).

Agreed.

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

If ERLL did FLD and weighed 10 tons, I most definitely would be strapping them on EVERYTHING. We would also have a TTK of about 60 seconds per match... with 50 seconds of that being walking to the enemy...

That wasn't the question.

My question was if they were as they are now a 1s DoT, but they weighed 10 tons and lost hitscan and gained a projectile speed.

We can even make them a 0.5s DoT.

The point is not that it's a totally horrible idea, the point is that for a DoT weapon like lasers the spread damage isn't awful or unusable because it is hitscan.

Hitscan keeps lasers being decent weapons.


Changing ACs and PPCs to be burst weapons would require other balance tweaks to offset the fact that now they are not only no longer FLD they are still heat or weight hogs, and they also are not hitscan like the lasers or pulse lasers people are pushing them to be.


That's my main point, if they get "nerfed" to lose FLD, they need to be better balanced in other areas to compensate.



So while I'm not totally against the idea of losing FLD, I'm against the idea of losing it and there being no compensation with how these weapons function or their weight costs, etc.

It's also why I much prefer East Indy's proposal.

It's efficient, it doesn't neuter these weapons.

They get to keep some FLD, but you won't be placing 2x AC and 1 or 2x PPC rounds all into a single location in one shot - the projectiles will be staggered.

His (or her) approach seems the most fair, balanced and objective to me.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 April 2014 - 08:04 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Ultimatum X, on 09 April 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

His (or her) approach seems the most fair, balanced and objective to me.

The idea of global cool down has some merit - although on its very "theory" even Ghost Heat did look acceptable.
Basically you "force" players to use chain fire - even if you trigger all weapons at once - 2 AC 5 and 2 PPCs...the result is a burst of 0.75-0.8 seconds with (AC5 - 0.2 AC5 0.2 PPC 0.25 PPC) but here the problems start:
Wich weapon is triggered first? If it is the PPC - players that will hit by this change will complain that the AC 5 - have to fire first - because they want to fire them shortly after the PPCs again. If you trigger the AC first - high level poptarter will complain that the PPCs have to hit first to deal more damage.

Like Ghost Heat its a "secondary" balancing tool - that moves the control from the player - to a forumula designed by a Dev on a Desk....
For one simple reason?

A horrible heat system - and pin point damge

(A well made heat system will automatically force players to use chain fire over alpha damage.... when your ammo can cooks off, or your hud gets blurry and a cone of fire is added to your weapon aim because of excessive heat - plus a heat system that causes heat spikes - you should get all those things even with 30 DHS and firing a single ER-PPC - but only for a brief period of time)

The reason for FLD while using energy weapons is the heat capacity - you can fire two -three salvos that your Mech wasn't build to deal with - but you don't get any trouble by doing that. (Consider those Mini Whammy Cicadas as a perfect example - if even the first shot - causes a heat spike that slowes them for 2.5 seconds down from 130kph to 96kph - they hardly will made a second shot. So a single PPC on a Cicada may work - a second is suicide)

Now with a good working heat system - you can take a closer look to the ACs... and hey the best way to bring them back to a reasonable level is ammunition.
They could run cold ... and they should deal damage really really fast....

For example - when you have only 2tons of ammunition for your single MAC (5) with a potential damage of 200 - you really should think about installing a heavy energy weapon too. While a second MAC may give you the option to devastate one maybe two targets in a really short time - what is about the next Mech that comes to kill you - believe me a single small laser is killing fire power when you have nothing more to shoot with.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 03:56 AM, said:

I only like this Braaaaat

Whats this? Thats madness - i think i get ill

THIS Is are "Roster"


burned - cracked open when the heat starts to boil the grease
you simple not drown "Roster" in onion juice.... that is against the Ares Convention

[SirLANsalot]

Reduce maximum range from 3x to 2x: Would be an ok adjustment, really wouldn't change much in the game.

Reduce projectile speeds: Now were talking about a good "nerf" here that would adjust AC's without touching anything major.

Increase Cooldown (lower rate of fire): No...No....and NO! The CD of weapons is actually in a GOOD place, especially for the AC2, which otherwise would go unused if it wasn't a Dakka Dakka gun. Yes its "DPS" is higher then the AC2, but it NEEDS to be that way to otherwise be useful. If every gun was 1/2/3/4 sec CD, there would be no use for the AC2/5 and maybe the 10, you would want to always use the AC20, since it would be inherently better then the others. If you couldn't use the 20, then the 10 would suffice, but the smaller AC's would be unused. Plus, everyone right now would be used to the current RoF of the guns, and directly nerfing them, leaves a very very bad taste and feel in everyone's mouths because we would always have known where XX gun was, and how it used to be "good".

Burst fire (beam-like damage). Would be great if we had different Manufacturers of each AC.

Reduce Ammo per ton. AC2 and 5 could use a cut, as right now they are saturated with too much ammo, far too often, and these weapons need to have "ammo" issues that every LRM mech runs into. The AC20 and 10 are fine where they are at and so is the UAC since it chews its ammo up quite well.

Increase critical slots by 1. Can't do that bud, Crit system is LOCKED to where it is and cannot be changed at all. Its one of the few TT things about this game that just cannot be changed, no matter how well it might balance the game. There are other, far better, ways to balance things, then with direct (and often heavy handed) nerfs that are overkill.

Recoil (based on impulse). Would bring in CoF, something that no one in there right mind would want, and PGI agrees, CoF will never...ever. be in this game.

Ammo location requirements (ammo has to be in same component or adjacent component). Could be a good idea, if it was flexible enough. Like an Arm mounted Gauss Rifle would be able to feed from the arm its in, plus the closest torso. However this could cause issues for the AC20.

Convergence (based on weapon tonnage). See "Recoil" above.

Increase drop-off rate of autocannon rounds (from Coralld). This would naturally happen if you reduced the Velocity of the rounds, as the rounds would start to drop off sooner.

[Galenit]

SirLANsalot, on 10 April 2014 - 12:21 AM, said:

Reduce maximum range from 3x to 2x: Would be an ok adjustment, really wouldn't change much in the game.

This would change a lot.
In the moment ac outranging most other weapons, with 2x range for ballistics, they would be more in line with overall ranges.


Think about the ac 10/ac 20 paradoxon caused by 3x range that let the ac20 do the same damage then the ac10 at the ac10s optimum range.

In the moment the ac5 do 2.5 damage at 1240m and you have plenty of ammo...

At 2x Range Ac5s would still do some damage at 1000m, but are you willing to use your ammo at that range for only 1 damage if you have only 1X or better 1/2x tt ammo?


With 2x range for ballistics you would have left at 1000m range:
AC2, ERLL, ERPPC, Gauss and LRM (2x dot, 2x pinpoint, 1x missiles)

That would change, together with the ammo reduction, a lot, but letting the acs still have their high damage and rof.

Edit:
Gauss and Mg should stay at their range, because the mg would be worthless with 2x and the gauss has its charge up mechanic.

Edited by Galenit, 10 April 2014 - 02:01 AM.

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

When all of the weapon systems were transferred over from TT to MWO, every single system EXCEPT autocannons and PPCs were switched to some sort of spread damage. The only weapon system that had any sort of spread in TT was the LRM, and that was in 5-point clusters, which is still less spread than they have in MWO.

Were there equivalent mechanics for AC/PPCs projectile with speed vs. laser/pulse lasers as hitscan?

For example, were Lasers significantly higher accuracy or similar?

If you want to make ACs hitscan, and then spread there damage out into a burst fire - be my guest.

If you think they should continue to fire a projectile with travel time and also make them spread, this proposal will never have my vote.

Either that, or they need to be compensated in their tonnage.


Because when you compare them TON for TON vs. their equivalent weight in Lasers, much of problem actually becomes the heat system.

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

If you look at the competitive crowd, the vast majority (and most dominant) of players use Autocannons and PPCs. Do you not see a coorelation between these two things?

Yes, and no.

I've played other games competitively, I'm fairly casual in this one.

What always ends up being the case is one or two primary tactics become the dominant ones.


Many players fault individual weapon systems or one specific mechanic for that dominance.


The reality is usually that the dominance of a specific tactic comes down to many factors.

> Game Environment (maps, combat systems/mechanics)

> The Nature of a controlled (premade) team composition vs. an uncontrolled (PUG) team composition.

> Pride - I've seen talented teams purposefully eschew tactics that were technically more powerful or had the potential to be so, simply because their pride prevented them from using something that was so horribly balanced and clearly pay to win, while simultaneously using another extremely powerful tactic that they considered required skill and was not pay to win.




Other players who were never nearly as competitive, often complained heavily about the powerful tactics the premades used while simultaneously advocating the systems those premades eschewed out of pride.




I'm not blind to how powerful ACs and PPCs are.

I'm also not blind to how much they weigh, how many slots they take up and how much heat (PPCs) generate.

When you put all of those factors into a comparison, then you get a better picture of how weapon systems are balanced.


if you remove FLD from heavy, ammo limited weapons, to make those weapons function in a spread vs. weapons that spread but have hitscan - you are creating another disparity.



TL;DR: Balance is never as easy as most players think it is.

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

What we have currently, though, is this arbitrary Ghost heat mechanic that has caused autocannons to be high heat, high weight, ammo-based weapons, and PPCs to be obscene heat, low weight, ammo-less weapons. They have to be, though, because they are the "best" weapon due to their damage delivery (FLD).

I dislike the ghost heat system, and I support the lower heat cap with higher dissipation rate proposals.

Cimarb, on 09 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

If ERLL did FLD and weighed 10 tons, I most definitely would be strapping them on EVERYTHING. We would also have a TTK of about 60 seconds per match... with 50 seconds of that being walking to the enemy...

2x ER LLAS have more than three x the alpha potential of a single AC 5 for what is nearly equivalent weight.

You trade sustainable fire, for a bigger alpha. The better you are with keeping the beam on target location, the more useful that alpha becomes.

Even if you only keep the beams on target location for 0.3s, you've still done 5.4 damage vs. the 5 that 1 AC 5 deals.





P.S. I enjoy our debate, thank you for being civil while disagreeing with me. Disagreement is an excellent stimulus, and I appreciate the manner you present it in.

[Ultimax]

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

The idea of global cool down has some merit - although on its very "theory" even Ghost Heat did look acceptable.

Fair point.

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Basically you "force" players to use chain fire - even if you trigger all weapons at once - 2 AC 5 and 2 PPCs...the result is a burst of 0.75-0.8 seconds with (AC5 - 0.2 AC5 0.2 PPC 0.25 PPC) but here the problems start:

East Indy would be the best person to clarify, as it's their proposal.

Staggered fire would be specifically when you do trigger all weapons at once.

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Wich weapon is triggered first? If it is the PPC - players that will hit by this change will complain that the AC 5

According to the proposal, the highest caliber.

With the interrupt period being determined by the caliber fired previously

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

Like Ghost Heat its a "secondary" balancing tool - that moves the control from the player - to a forumula designed by a Dev on a Desk....
For one simple reason?

A horrible heat system - and pin point damge

Technically, changing AC/PPCs from FLD to Burst is also a secondary balancing tool, that moves control from the player to a formula designed by a player on the forums.


I agree on the heat system.

I recognize why some players dislike pinpoint damage, however I think they need to consider hitscan vs. projectiles when they make their nerf proposals.

Karl Streiger, on 09 April 2014 - 11:26 PM, said:

(A well made heat system will automatically force players to use chain fire over alpha damage.... when your ammo can cooks off, or your hud gets blurry and a cone of fire is added to your weapon aim because of excessive heat - plus a heat system that causes heat spikes - you should get all those things even with 30 DHS and firing a single ER-PPC - but only for a brief period of time)

All interesting points.


Do you think such a system would have broad appeal to a player base that includes casual players, and less than rabid fans of TT?





What you've laid out certainly looks very in-depth and could create interesting gameplay choices, it also looks more complicated than the average player is likely to enjoy and would consider "fun".


I'm not saying I couldn't personally enjoy it, but ultimately gamers need to also be realists and all MMOs are businesses.

I'm not convinced such a system would be appealing to the average player.

[Karl Streiger]

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Do you think such a system would have broad appeal to a player base that includes casual players, and less than rabid fans of TT?

What you've laid out certainly looks very in-depth and could create interesting gameplay choices, it also looks more complicated than the average player is likely to enjoy and would consider "fun".

I'm not saying I couldn't personally enjoy it, but ultimately gamers need to also be realists and all MMOs are businesses.

I'm not convinced such a system would be appealing to the average player.

The very idea of this system is founded in the Solaris 7 Duell Rules - that did split the 10second TT turn in 4 smaller ones.
Including reload times for weapons (2.5sec for machine guns and AC 2s....5sec for AC 5s and 10secs for PPCs)

However i think as an casual player you don't have to know about how this is working. You will simple see it at the outcome.
Good example is MW3 - it did have the same "heatspikes" - even on Mechs like the TimberWolf A - with enough heat sinks to manage temperature was always critical when firing even a single PPC.

have another better example ( I know we are just discussing Autocannons - but a working heatsystem for energy weapons is needed to cause a alternative)
take those Mechs:
CDA-3M
and with 11t more weight for HS - and much slower
FIREBRAND

Maybe you are able the PPCs one additional time on the Jaeger - but you don't have the speed to flew...you have to stand your ground and fire and fire and fire....until you die.

But now the trick without Ghost Heat, and maybe some heat penalties - slower sluggish movement, cone of fire...electronic system breakdown

• Cicada with 10 DHS
  
• capacity of 50
  
• dissipation of 8
  
• ERPPC with heat of ~ 40
  
• you can't fire both ER-PPCs without shutting down
  
• after firing one ERPPC - you have to cool for ~3sec before you can fire a second shot - when you don't want to shutdown

• Jager with 21 DHS
  
• 72 heat capacity
  
• 16.8 dissipation
  
• ERPPC 40
  
• this guy can fire one ER-PPC and hardly get critical temperatur - but still he isn't able to fire both ER-PPCs at once

This system needs tweaking - its a rough draft - but its more streamlined as Ghost Heat or maybe a global cooldown setting. You fire your weapons you overheat - no magical staggering of your fire or suddenly increase of heat

[Joseph Mallan]

Shar Wolf, on 09 April 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

If I ever see you make any post about how any mech dies to easy - you are going permanently on my ignore list.

Good. I would advise you and anyone else to do so immediately. Or call me a Doctor... cause I would have lost my ever lovin' mind!

[Cimarb]

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

Were there equivalent mechanics for AC/PPCs projectile with speed vs. laser/pulse lasers as hitscan?

For example, were Lasers significantly higher accuracy or similar?

If you want to make ACs hitscan, and then spread there damage out into a burst fire - be my guest.

If you think they should continue to fire a projectile with travel time and also make them spread, this proposal will never have my vote.

Either that, or they need to be compensated in their tonnage.

Because when you compare them TON for TON vs. their equivalent weight in Lasers, much of problem actually becomes the heat system.

Probably the largest issue with balance in MWO is most definitely the heat system. It causes all sorts of other really bad balance decisions.

In TT, there was no accuracy difference between lasers and ballistics, except in special circumstances. For instance, you could take a penalty to hit if you wanted to "spray" an autocannon across several adjacent mechs. Pulse Lasers had an inherent bonus to hit (to represent their shorter beam), but I believe that got changed in later rules (or at least didn't combine with the targeting computer bonus - not sure which).

I don't think ACs need to be hitscan, but they should all have the same flight speed, which should be roughly the same as the current AC2, if not quicker. Very quick, but not hitscan.

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

Many players fault individual weapon systems or one specific mechanic for that dominance.

Definitely, I agree. I am faulting two specific mechanics: the heat system combined with front-loaded damage on only specific weapons. I use autocannons heavily (on all mechs except my LRM boats) and PPCs on roughly half of my mechs, so I'm not trying to nerf a weapon because I don't like it. I also don't have a problem with getting killed by them, as I get killed by pretty much everything equally. I've even been killed by a flamer before, and my Ember gets almost all of it's kills from MG/flamer crits, so I'm pretty impartial regarding weapons.

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

I dislike the ghost heat system, and I support the lower heat cap with higher dissipation rate proposals.

Amen.

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

2x ER LLAS have more than three x the alpha potential of a single AC 5 for what is nearly equivalent weight.

You trade sustainable fire, for a bigger alpha. The better you are with keeping the beam on target location, the more useful that alpha becomes.

Even if you only keep the beams on target location for 0.3s, you've still done 5.4 damage vs. the 5 that 1 AC 5 deals.

Equip 2 ERLL for every AC5 on the enemy mech, and see who wins - it won't be close. In fact, with 3 AC5, I dare you to try to match that damage rate with the lasers - you'll cook yourself quicker than they can kill you.

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

P.S. I enjoy our debate, thank you for being civil while disagreeing with me. Disagreement is an excellent stimulus, and I appreciate the manner you present it in.

I 100% agree. I love debating things, especially with someone that can compromise to figure out a solution (I do it, so it's aggravating when the other person refuses to).

[kapusta11]

• PPC sync well with AC
  
• Lasers sync well only with itself
  
• PGI put Ghost Heat cap on lasers at 2
  
• Current heat system does not favor full energy loadouts in the first place.

Yeah, its AC and PPCs that are totaly broken

[Cimarb]

kapusta11, on 10 April 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

• PPC sync well with AC
  
• Lasers sync well only with itself
  
• PGI put Ghost Heat cap on lasers at 2
  
• Current heat system does not favor full energy loadouts in the first place.

Yeah, its AC and PPCs that are totaly broken <_<

I'm not sure I get the sarcasm. The heat system is broken, but the front-loaded damage of ACs and PPCs is also a large problem, and happen to take advantage of the broken heat system as well.

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 10 April 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

In TT, there was no accuracy difference between lasers and ballistics, except in special circumstances.

Here are the outliers I think you and I both agree on:

1) 3x Range of ballistics should drop to 2x.
2) Heat dissipation should be increased, caps should come down, remove Ghost Heat.

Let's set those aside for a moment.



So in your opinion, if ACs are changed to spread their damage like a laser.

But they still end up with significantly worse ACC due to not being hitscan.

Do you still think that is a fair and balanced proposal?


Keeping in mind that Ton for ton, most ACs weight 2x more than their Alpha potential laser equivalent.




It's a simple question that so far, almost no one seems willing to address when they make their nerf proposals.


Most players have higher ACC with hitscan weapons than they do with projectile based weapons.

The projectile weapons have higher per hit damage, since all of it either hits or misses.
The hitscan weapons hit more frequently, misses sometimes become hits.


If you change the projectile weapon to lose FLD, but it continues to retain be the lower ACC weapon:

Now it still hits less, and also has lower damage per hit.


To be blunt, that is a much larger nerf to ballistics than the people arguing for removing FLD are either ignoring or haven't considered.


Would you say it's a fair assessment that most players probably have 15% to 25% higher ACC with Laser/Pulse lasers vs. projectile based weapons?

Cimarb, on 10 April 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

Equip 2 ERLL for every AC5 on the enemy mech, and see who wins - it won't be close. In fact, with 3 AC5, I dare you to try to match that damage rate with the lasers - you'll cook yourself quicker than they can kill you.

Let's take your concept, and have some fun theory crafting in a vacuum.

Team A has 12 mechs,
> all armed with 1 AC 5 (alpha potential of 5)
> they get 4 tons of ammo (120 shots, total DMG output limitation of 600 damage per mech)
Total 12 tons of weapon/ammo



Team B has 12 mechs
> all armed with 2x ER LLAS (alpha potential of 18)
> they get 2 tons of external DHS. (4.0 heat/s, 2.12 dissipation, time to overheat: 45s)
Total 12 tons of weapons/ammo

All of the mechs have the same tonnage (and therefore armor).


Do you still think it's so clear who would win?

Do you still think it "won't even be close..."?

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 April 2014 - 06:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 05:18 AM, said:

I'm not sure I get the sarcasm. The heat system is broken, but the front-loaded damage of ACs and PPCs is also a large problem, and happen to take advantage of the broken heat system as well.

not so much the front loaded damage as it is the converging damage. Nobody complained about my old Gauss/ERPPC combo Until players brought down 4-6 PPCs, 3 Gauss, on and on. my paultry 25 point pin point Alpha was never a problem... But 30! OMG that is NOW the devils work and should be cast out! I used to rain 98 points of damage on Mechs which Could put 30 damage in one location... Now 25-30 is to much... Nope I just cannot grasp the concept.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 April 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 April 2014 - 06:03 AM, said:

not so much the front loaded damage as it is the converging damage. Nobody complained about my old Gauss/ERPPC combo Until players brought down 4-6 PPCs, 3 Gauss, on and on. my paultry 25 point pin point Alpha was never a problem... But 30! OMG that is NOW the devils work and should be cast out! I used to rain 98 points of damage on Mechs which Could put 30 damage in one location... Now 25-30 is to much... Nope I just cannot grasp the concept.

I had a somewhat surreal moment in MWO gaming last night.

For weeks I've been reading about the poptart-boogie men.

In ur fridge? Check.
Under ur bed? Check.
In ur closet? Check.
In ur base, popping ur tarts? Check.

And to be honest, I'd come across a few here and there but nothing like I kept hearing about.


Then, it happened.

At least 4 matches in a row where pop-tarts made up 25% to 50% of each team.

Tarts were popped, Atlas struggled with pebbles and a few 3Ms stood still for too long - like a candle in the wind.


At the end I thought, that it was both a laughable experience and I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about.

I didn't die to any single alpha, and when I did go down it was after having been sniped at repeatedly due to poorly exposing myself, or turning a corner to find an enemy lance I hadn't realized was there.

So in short, I died to tactical errors - not any single 30 point alpha from any single mech.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 April 2014 - 06:19 AM.