180 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Even on my worst match I can afford that! Makin' war ain't cheap. And I don't fear payin' the piper!


I don't know Bishop, My Battlemaster got a lot better adding a AC10 to the PPC. A don't think a 20 point ranged Alpha is to much from a 85 ton Mech.

I have been using the ac10 since long before it had it's 2 weeks of Meta. And it is inferior to the ac5 at range, inferior to that ac20 for CQB alpha. It's only real saving grace, especially post projectile speed nerf, if the blend of RoF and pinpoint damage. It's still effective but teetering dangerously.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 10 April 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

I dunno about that.

Remember, the AC/5 was widely considered to be a joke before its cooldown was reduced to 1.5 (I believe the old value was 1.7 or 1.9). The only reason people are using the weapon so often right now is because they can be duct-taped together with PPCs so well.

The AC/2 doesn't have enough burst damage per mouse click to be an effective "sniper" type weapon at long range, so having a high RoF at least lets it be a decent suppression/psychological warfare weapon.

ac2 would still be 10 times more effective than it's TT counterpart if you halved it's RoF. And actually might be more so, for sustainable DPS because it would also significantly improve their heat issues.

AC5s were never a joke, have been part of most successful DPS builds since CB. Have only taken more limelight lately due to the ac10 and 20 nerfs leaving the poptarts needing a lower skill weapon (aka higher projectile speed, less lead) to maintain their Meta. Increasing them to 1.5 to 1.75 seconds would not hurt them too much. (AC10 might have to be bumped to 3 seconds to accomodate. While in current meta it can't afford it, if their was a global cooldown increase in ballistics, they should maintain their viability)

AC20s would still survive at a second slower on Cooldown.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 09:40 AM, said:

I have been using the ac10 since long before it had it's 2 weeks of Meta. And it is inferior to the ac5 at range, inferior to that ac20 for CQB alpha. It's only real saving grace, especially post projectile speed nerf, if the blend of RoF and pinpoint damage. It's still effective but teetering dangerously.

My AC10 affection started back in Closed beta when I got Murphy's Tower(my gaming rig) and bought centurions to level, lasted through the introduction of the Jager(2 AC10 v 2x5s and 2x2s)
At range(451M+) the AC5 should out perform an AC10, Under 279M so should an AC20. It is a good workhorse weapon to my use and I am happy with it. We can disagree.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

ac2 would still be 10 times more effective than it's TT counterpart if you halved it's RoF. And actually might be more so, for sustainable DPS because it would also significantly improve their heat issues.

It doesn't take much for it to be better than its TT counterpart... It was horribly, unspeakably terrible in BT. Such a puny range advantage and so little damage, for relatively high tonnage. You could replace an AC/2 with 3 LRM5, and deal more than seven times as much damage with only 3 hexes of range lost. Without much excess heat, either (especially due to the base engine sinks).

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

AC5s were never a joke, have been part of most successful DPS builds since CB. Have only taken more limelight lately due to the ac10 and 20 nerfs leaving the poptarts needing a lower skill weapon (aka higher projectile speed, less lead) to maintain their Meta. Increasing them to 1.5 to 1.75 seconds would not hurt them too much. (AC10 might have to be bumped to 3 seconds to accomodate. While in current meta it can't afford it, if their was a global cooldown increase in ballistics, they should maintain their viability)

It might not hurt poptarts that much because of the hit-and-hide playstyle, but folks who use it for applications other than pogosticking might not like that change. I also don't think the AC/10 needs a reduction, especially not after the arguably stupid projectile speed nerf. It could use a small buff if anything.

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

AC20s would still survive at a second slower on Cooldown.

That there's no doubt about the AC/20 surviving, because it has very respectable burst damage for its tonnage. The others get progressively worse in that regard as you go down the line.

Edited by FupDup, 10 April 2014 - 09:54 AM.

[Bront]

Limiting ammo by tonnage is silly. Better off changing the ammo count per ton. That still isn't a great solution, as how ACs fundimentally work is the problem, along with how poorly heatsinks work.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 08:36 AM, said:

14 shots for my Wang, with only 2 CT energy points to back it up? Wow, that would be different. Not a good different, but different. I think I'll pass.

How about instead we increase the cooldowns slightly. Have to be careful as the ac10 is on the verge of obsolescence thanks to le last idiotic nerf, but ac5s and 2s are far too fast cycling anyhow.

I never said I supported it. It's kinda like saying : Lets buff a weapon 400%, and see what happens. It certainly made things play a little different.

I know Joe's aware of my opinion on this subject, but I think I'll let Jobe have this thread.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 10 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I never said I supported it. It's kinda like saying : Lets buff a weapon 400%, and see what happens. It certainly made things play a little different.

I know Joe's aware of my opinion on this subject, but I think I'll let Jobe have this thread.

actually you specifically said you weren't agreeing with the OP. I was just running a continuing riff off your comments.

Also...buff things 400%...you mean like Arty Strikes?

[Daggett]

Fut, on 10 April 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

God dammit. People need to stop trying to force the idea that MWO is P2W.
Hell, even in your own comment you mix up the meaning of P2W. Unless these paying-players are buying things that I don't even know about in game...

Sure people who pay $$ can afford things quicker than those who don't, but that's all - everything is still available to the F2P group.

Whoo, wait.

I only said that a specific element of this game (consumables) has some P2W attributes. I never said that MWO itself is pure P2W. I would not play the game if this would be the case. And i also said that those P2W attributes are acceptable as long as they are the only ones.

I thought i made it clear enough that the P2W in this feature lies not in it's general availability. You are right, a free player has access to everything. But you ignore the psychological factors i tried to explain in my post.

When a feature like consumables is expensive enough to shrink the cbill-income to a degree that a player needs to play twice as much or even longer to buy the next thing on his wish-list, then he will likely not use the feature unless his wish list is empty.

Or he will use it only very conservatively. But i guarantee you that most free players will NOT spam expensive consumables because they rather want to earn some cbills to progress further in the game.

2 strikes cost 80K, so you need quite a good game to net more than a few bucks. Most players will not receive 80K for a loss and many will not receive this amount even for a win.
And a strike needs to hit very hard to generate significant cbills, you can be glad if you receive 5-10K for damage and component destruction. The average strike will probably generate less than 5K cbills.

But the paying player can always afford to spam such consumables without having to worry about his progress.

To make it very clear to the point:
Free player: not motivated to not spam consuables because it greatly reduces progress or even negates it
Paying player: has no problem spamming consumables because progress is not influenced

And because consumables are very powerful (especially the strikes) and can easily influence the outcome of a match, i indeed see a problem when only payers are motivated to use them frequently.

You can buy power which the free player is also able but unwilling to do. And for me such psychological barriers are almost equally problematic as availability barriers and therefore are P2W too. Maybe on a smaller and acceptable scale, but it stays P2W.

Edit:
And to repeat myself: I'm okay with such small P2W elements. But i'm not okay with adding more of those elements like the implementation of RnR we had in beta because those small P2W effects add up.

Edited by Daggett, 10 April 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcgral18, on 10 April 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

I know Joe's aware of my opinion on this subject, but I think I'll let Jobe have this thread.

Even if I do not agree with it, I respect your opinion Mcgral. Don't forget that.

[Ultimax]

Daggett, on 10 April 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

When a feature like consumables is expensive enough to shrink the cbill-income to a degree that a player needs to play twice as much or even longer to buy the next thing on his wish-list, then he will likely not use the feature unless his wish list is empty.

Or he will use it only very conservatively. But i guarantee you that most free players will NOT spam expensive consumables because they rather want to earn some cbills to progress further in the game.

2 strikes cost 80K, you need quite a good game to gain more than a few bucks. Most players will not receive 80K for a loss and many will not receive this amount even for a win

Honestly I see most of the consumables as really existing for the ultra competitive players/teams or players who have tons of cbills and nothing they want to spend it on.

Because to be honest, on a PUG team while it can really be effective sometimes to lay down the perfect art strike - I'd really much rather have Seismic Sensor, Adv Zoom and something like Improved Gyros or TIG, etc.

Basically I'd rather have something that has a benefit throughout the entire match.



Seismic Sensor = 150 Art Strikes.

[Bishop Steiner]

Daggett, on 10 April 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

Whoo, wait.

I only said that a specific element of this game (consumables) has some P2W attributes. I never said that MWO itself is pure P2W. I would not play the game if this would be the case. And i also said that those P2W attributes are acceptable as long as they are the only ones.

I thought i made it clear enough that the P2W in this feature lies not in it's general availability. You are right, a free player has access to everything. But you ignore the psychological factors i tried to explain in my post.

When a feature like consumables is expensive enough to shrink the cbill-income to a degree that a player needs to play twice as much or even longer to buy the next thing on his wish-list, then he will likely not use the feature unless his wish list is empty.

Or he will use it only very conservatively. But i guarantee you that most free players will NOT spam expensive consumables because they rather want to earn some cbills to progress further in the game.

2 strikes cost 80K, so you need quite a good game to net more than a few bucks. Most players will not receive 80K for a loss and many will not receive this amount even for a win.
And a strike needs to hit very hard to generate significant cbills, you can be glad if you receive 5-10K for damage and component destruction. The average strike will probably generate less than 5K cbills.

But the paying player can always afford to spam such consumables without having to worry about his progress.

To make it very clear to the point:
Free player: not motivated to not spam consuables because it greatly reduces progress or even negates it
Paying player: has no problem spamming consumables because progress is not influenced

And because consumables are very powerful (especially the strikes) and can easily influence the outcome of a match, i indeed see a problem when only payers are motivated to use them frequently.

You can buy power which the free player is also able but unwilling to do. And for me such psychological barriers are almost equally problematic as availability barriers and therefore are P2W too. Maybe on a smaller and acceptable scale, but it stays P2W.

Edit:
And to repeat myself: I'm okay with such small P2W elements. But i'm not okay with adding more of those elements like the implementation of RnR we had in beta because those small P2W effects add up.

have you noticed that cost element remotely slowing their use?

The increased their damage 400% when they decided to "improve" them.

400%

And most matches you get to see 24 combined arty and air strikes dropped by each team. I have probably taken far more arty and AS damage to my Banshees than LRM or direct fire. And since they are freely available to all, I don't see it as being P2W, because most f2p players obviously feel they are worth the trade off.

The need to have their damage cut in half, and possibly their radius increased to compensate.

But they are not remotely P2W.

[Mordin Ashe]

I believe that any reworking ACs should include DPS reduction. I love lasers but right now they are inferior. My best damaging Mech now? Banshee with 2xAC/2 and 2xUAC/5. Incredible DPS, a true horror to face. Vulnerable to torso destruction, yes, but with some careful piloting this thing is a beast.

Until I am capable of doing anything similar like this with lasers there is little point in taking anything else than ballistics-heavy loadouts. Sad because I love the light shows lasers put up, but thats how the world works now.

[Daggett]

Bishop Steiner, on 10 April 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

have you noticed that cost element remotely slowing their use?

The increased their damage 400% when they decided to "improve" them.

400%

And most matches you get to see 24 combined arty and air strikes dropped by each team. I have probably taken far more arty and AS damage to my Banshees than LRM or direct fire. And since they are freely available to all, I don't see it as being P2W, because most f2p players obviously feel they are worth the trade off.

The need to have their damage cut in half, and possibly their radius increased to compensate.

But they are not remotely P2W.

Hmm, then i'm in a different ELO bracket than you.
I experience about 0-4 strikes per match, never witnessed 24 or similar heavy striking. I only see this when watching 12mans on youtube where cbill income is not important and pure efficiency is asked.

[Bishop Steiner]

Daggett, on 10 April 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

Hmm, then i'm in a different ELO bracket than you.
I experience about 0-4 strikes per match, never witnessed 24 or similar heavy striking. I only see this when watching 12mans on youtube where cbill income is not important and pure efficiency is asked.

IDK about that. From what I can tell "Elo Brackets" are largely mythical, as it's grabbing random Elos, and trying to "average" them out across the competition. I have dropped with High Elo and Low Elos in the same match, (or shall we say "self proclaimed "high Elos", whereas the scrubs were pretty self apparent). Since I am reasonably sure I am middle of the pack or slightly above, that would pretty much cover the rainbow of Elo.

[wanderer]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 03:57 AM, said:

It is not always random though Wanderer. Targeting computers allow for called locations. To my memory only Pulse weapons were taken off the list of TCPU weapons. On TT (in the old rules) 2 UAC20s COULD put 80 damage in one location... An Atlas/Dire Wolf had 50-60 Armor on the front CT normally... The only complaint I remembered hearing was, "Dam, that was a good Mech!"

Yes, they could- at a huge penalty to accuracy (that is, it's +3 to hit a specific location, the equivalent of going from short to nearly long range before any other modifiers and you don't get that -1 you normally do, either).

Aiming for specific locations is hardly rocket science in MWO and can be done with any weapon- and incidentally, you just pointed out the real reason FLD weapons are flat-out broken. Reliable, massive chunks of damage carved off the single vital portion of a 'Mech = huge reductions in TTK vs. anything else. All other weapon systems either scatter damage naturally or can be passively/actively scattered as target and firer move and twist. I put four ML's on a 'Mech, it's not likely to put 20 damage in any one spot. I put two PPC's and two AC/5's on a 'Mech, I'm gobbling 20 points off at a time at 600m without breathing heavy, and I WILL kill that guy faster almost every time with those vs. anything else on the field that doesn't say "AC" or "PPC" on the weapons grouping.

That's the problem with ballistics right now. Period. But old argument, eh?

Edited by wanderer, 10 April 2014 - 10:28 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

wanderer, on 10 April 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

Yes, they could- at a huge penalty to accuracy (that is, it's +3 to hit a specific location, the equivalent of going from short to nearly long range before any other modifiers and you don't get that -1 you normally do, either).

In the old rules you also could link Pulse lasers for aimed shots...
So if you take 2/3 and 1/2 and ...0 / 0 Clan Pilots - add Enhanced Imaging and Targeting Computers and set them in a Warhawk with 4 Large Pulse Lasers - you can make a guess how much tactic was left in the game. The result is pretty the same a we have now - sometimes even worser.

I think with this "curiositiy" in the past of BattleTech every Desginer and Number Balancer at PGI should have known that instant damage at a location of choice - that could be delivered with - a week of "training" is a bad idea.
But maybe they didn't know.

[Mordin Ashe]

That possibility of raising your skills and subsequently being capable of delivering stronger thrashing blows to specific location is what keeps people playing and interested in the game. They can't take that away 100% because then the game would be as good as a game of dice.
But yeah, a little scattering would do ACs some good. It may not be much, but every little could go a long way. Skilled players could still place their shots well, but not with holding one button. Reaiming woud be a necessity.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 10 April 2014 - 10:28 PM, said:

Yes, they could- at a huge penalty to accuracy (that is, it's +3 to hit a specific location, the equivalent of going from short to nearly long range before any other modifiers and you don't get that -1 you normally do, either).

Aiming for specific locations is hardly rocket science in MWO and can be done with any weapon- and incidentally, you just pointed out the real reason FLD weapons are flat-out broken. Reliable, massive chunks of damage carved off the single vital portion of a 'Mech = huge reductions in TTK vs. anything else. All other weapon systems either scatter damage naturally or can be passively/actively scattered as target and firer move and twist. I put four ML's on a 'Mech, it's not likely to put 20 damage in any one spot. I put two PPC's and two AC/5's on a 'Mech, I'm gobbling 20 points off at a time at 600m without breathing heavy, and I WILL kill that guy faster almost every time with those vs. anything else on the field that doesn't say "AC" or "PPC" on the weapons grouping.

That's the problem with ballistics right now. Period. But old argument, eh?

Min Max even here. You don't give a TCPU to a 3-4 gunner, you give it to a 0-2 Gunner. Easily gamed.

Also you see it as a problem, I see it as a bonus!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 April 2014 - 04:48 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Min Max even here. You don't give a TCPU to a 3-4 gunner, you give it to a 0-2 Gunner. Easily gamed.

Difference is in TT that 0/2 pilot can die. And when he dies you have to start over with a 3/4 pilot. The point being theres a certain degree of risk that accompanies the increase in power level. But in MWO there is no risk, which means that level of power shouldnt be obtainable. You shouldnt be able to unload all your weapons into a single location on a mech; there needs to be some kindve damage spreading mechanism put into place.

Edited by Khobai, 11 April 2014 - 05:02 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 April 2014 - 04:55 AM, said:

Difference is in TT that 0/2 pilot can die. And when he dies you have to start over with a 3/4 pilot.

So?

Also using character creation tables I can have a 1/2 Clan Gunner in under 15 minutes.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 April 2014 - 04:58 AM.