305 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

You can shoot down aircraft with SRMs if they get close enough, but you are missing the point. You may not agree with the purpose of them, but that is what AC2s were for.

I'll try a more direct approach.

Weapon A can perform activity X.
Weapon B can perform activity X with very similar efficiency as weapon A, while also being able to perform activity Z. Weapon B also requires a similar/lower initial sacrifice in terms of construction (similar/less tonnage).

Which weapon is better?

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

As far as their suckage in general, that is totally preference. We have all sorts of people that do the same thing with mechs in MWO. Some people make their mechs into LRM boats, others into direct-fire pounders, and others into energy boats or SRM/MG brawlers. That doesn't mean any of the systems suck - it just means different people like different weapons.

Not all preferences are created equal. In the case of my example modified builds, my preference was superior (in terms of combat strength and longevity) to the preference of whoever designed them.

In a turn-based game with dice like Tabletop, the hard numbers matter a lot more than they do in a real-time environment that is mostly skill/twitch based.

If my mech has the ability to do more damage than yours, at the same ranges as yours or greater, without having heat issues, and has no risk of exploding from a critical hit to ammo (which the stock builds do have the risk of), I have the advantage. Does this mean I'll always win? No, but it does mean that I have better chances at winning. Maybe you'll get a lucky TAC or something, but barring that my robot is just plain more effective.

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2014 - 06:31 PM.

[Mister Blastman]

PAUL... Do you NOT read the forums?!!?!?!

Reducing Autocannon ROF won't help.

Decreasing AC 2 range? Where did you come up with this? What are you thinking here? This is the BIG reason to use the weapon!!! For real? The AC2 is weak enough already.

Autocannons aren't the problem.

Convergence is!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, Sniper weapons cycling too fast is also the problem. Make the PPCs + Gauss have a 6 - 8 second cooldown (and remove the dumb charge mechanic).

Reduce the heat on Medium and Small lasers by one point. Set them back to how they were.

Remove convergence...

or add variable spread on PPCs.

@ 100 meters - 90% splash damage, 10% pinpoint. @ Max range, 100% pinpoint. Have it tighten to pinpoint from 100 meters.

Random jam mechanic on the UAC 5? Paul, didn't you ever play Mechwarrior: Living Legends? Didn't you see how they balanced the Ultra Autocannons in it? If not, you should go play it... NOW. There is no random jam. It is all up to user skill and preference. It is superior in every single way to this game.

SRMs??? Tighten the grouping! For real? They're bunk weapons at the moment. Put back in the missile mechanics for SRMs from closed beta--the ones that rewarded you for understanding the weapon system where they had a tight grouping up close and far away. It rewarded smart players who knew how to use the weapon and added an element of skill to them.

Honestly though, SRMs should be tip-top priority. Even if it requires pulling every single coder off of everything else and putting them on SRMs. That means crunch-time hours. Slave labor. They need to be in the office sixteen hours a day, seven days a week until they are fixed. It is embarassing they have been broken this long with no solution.

Paul, I must say, I am completely flabbergasted by all your conclusions.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 11 April 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Not all preferences are created equal. In the case of my example modified builds, my preference was superior (in terms of combat strength and longevity) to the preference of whoever designed them.

In a turn-based game with dice like Tabletop, the hard numbers matter a lot more than they do in a real-time environment that is mostly skill/twitch based.

If my mech has the ability to do more damage than yours, at the same ranges as yours or greater, without having heat issues, and has no risk of exploding from a critical hit to ammo (which the stock builds do have the risk of), I have the advantage. Does this mean I'll always win? No, but it does mean that I have better chances at winning. Maybe you'll get a lucky TAC or something, but barring that my robot is just plain more effective.

Therein you have made the same mistake every "I'm better than you, so I am right" person makes. Just because you want to build your mech out a certain way and perform better with it does NOT mean that I would have the same success with said mech. Some people even prefer stock mechs, and we can all agree on how horrible they usually are.

That doesn't mean that some weapons aren't inherently better than others, but AC2s did not need to be buffed to do roughly the same DPS as an AC20 to be competitive.

[Cimarb]

Mister Blastman, on 11 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Reducing Autocannon ROF won't help.

I think this needs to be tried out for a week or two and see how it changes things.

Mister Blastman, on 11 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Decreasing AC 2 range? Where did you come up with this? What are you thinking here? This is the BIG reason to use the weapon!!! For real? The AC2 is weak enough already.

I agree on this one. AC2 needs to be longer range than the AC5. I'm confused why they are doing this.

Mister Blastman, on 11 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Autocannons aren't the problem.

Convergence is!!!!!!!!!!!

Convergence isn't changing - it directly impacts HSR and such, and PGI has stated that they will not be changing it (for what that is worth, granted).

Mister Blastman, on 11 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Also, Sniper weapons cycling too fast is also the problem. Make the PPCs + Gauss have a 6 - 8 second cooldown (and remove the dumb charge mechanic).

I like the charge mechanic, though PPCs should definitely have longer cooldowns (and not the same as any other weapon)

Mister Blastman, on 11 April 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

or add variable spread on PPCs.

@ 100 meters - 90% splash damage, 10% pinpoint. @ Max range, 100% pinpoint. Have it tighten to pinpoint from 100 meters.

I have some suggestions for this here.

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

Therein you have made the same mistake every "I'm better than you, so I am right" person makes. Just because you want to build your mech out a certain way and perform better with it does NOT mean that I would have the same success with said mech. Some people even prefer stock mechs, and we can all agree on how horrible they usually are.

You can say that in a real-time game where different weapon mechanics that require different skills, but Tabletop isn't like MWO. Every weapon uses practically the same mechanic in TT. You declare your attack with it on your chosen target and then let the dice determine the rest. There are no separate skills between the stock builds I listed and my min-maxed versions. They play essentially the same. The singular and only difference is performance.

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

That doesn't mean that some weapons aren't inherently better than others, but AC2s did not need to be buffed to do roughly the same DPS as an AC20 to be competitive.

Again, the AC/2 is a very very special circumstance. It's an outlier. It cannot perform its on-paper role effectively because of the way that role is played in actual gameplay...and it wasn't even good at its on-paper rolls in the source game. :\ DPS can be nice in some situations but only when your opponent lets you get in position for it. Alpha is generally the most efficient way to kill stuff and prevent yourself from getting killed. For the AC/2, it would actually have to stay on-target for 5.2 seconds to equal the damage of an AC/20...which gives OPFOR quite a lot of time to react. And, unless your target it dumb or you're a total beast with aiming, you're not gonna hit the same hitbox with all of those shots.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

This man gets it. More people need to listen to him.


For those who haven't yet heard, the hard-counter to the AC/2 is a high-alpha burst followed immediately by proactive torso twisting. The AC/2 guy has to keep himself exposed for the entire firing time to achieve high DPS, which means he can't take cover or torso twist against your own shots. Fire everything you have straight into his CT (or ST, depending on what mech has the AC/2s) and crush him.

As it stands right now, the AC/2 is mostly a weapon used to determine if your opponents are bad or good at the game. People who stare at you and let you core them are bads, and people who use the tactic outlined above CRUSH AC/2 carriers. High alpha builds are my worst nightmare when I take out my 2 AC/2 + LL Shadow Hawk for a spin.

I'm mostly convinced Paul wants more AC40 builds or the quad AC5 Jager builds. 4 AC2s are "OP" if you are the underhive after all.

I've never found the AC2 dakka builds to be a threat, unless I stupidly overheat and shutdown (like any poor target)

With that said, remember the days where MGs were terrible (particularly before the crit to damage component conversion) and the "logic" used to justify it's state was "it had epic DPS"... forgetting about constant uptime and exposure?

Same logic is literally applied here, except at a far greater range (why use a weapon that is completely inaccurate/unreliable @ max range, despite the projectile speed?) At least Gauss is worth carrying occasionally...

So, congrats to nerfing a weapon into uselessness.

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

Again, the AC/2 is a very very special circumstance. It's an outlier. It cannot perform its on-paper role effectively because of the way that role is played in actual gameplay...and it wasn't even good at its on-paper rolls in the source game. :\ DPS can be nice in some situations but only when your opponent lets you get in position for it. Alpha is generally the most efficient way to kill stuff and prevent yourself from getting killed. For the AC/2, it would actually have to stay on-target for 5.2 seconds to equal the damage of an AC/20...which gives OPFOR quite a lot of time to react. And, unless your target it dumb or you're a total beast with aiming, you're not gonna hit the same hitbox with all of those shots.

Very true, but that is a result of Front-Loaded Damage being drastically better the larger the amount. If an AC20 did burst damage, the current AC2 would be on par or even outclass it, depending on the burst.

[Deathlike]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Very true, but that is a result of Front-Loaded Damage being drastically better the larger the amount. If an AC20 did burst damage, the current AC2 would be on par or even outclass it, depending on the burst.

If we made the AC20 a hypothetical "quad AC5" in firing 4 shots (5 damage each) into the target, the "current AC5" would look better, but that assumes that the AC5 WOULD NOT CHANGE... if the AC5 changed into say 2 projectiles, then it becomes a "slightly better" AC2 (more accurately, an "AC2.5") which, also assumes that the current AC2 remains the same.

In consideration, it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

[Mister Blastman]

Deathlike, on 11 April 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

I'm mostly convinced Paul wants more AC40 builds or the quad AC5 Jager builds. 4 AC2s are "OP" if you are the underhive after all.

I've never found the AC2 dakka builds to be a threat, unless I stupidly overheat and shutdown (like any poor target)

With that said, remember the days where MGs were terrible (particularly before the crit to damage component conversion) and the "logic" used to justify it's state was "it had epic DPS"... forgetting about constant uptime and exposure?

Same logic is literally applied here, except at a far greater range (why use a weapon that is completely inaccurate/unreliable @ max range, despite the projectile speed?) At least Gauss is worth carrying occasionally...

So, congrats to nerfing a weapon into uselessness.

Paul doesn't get it or he's some sort of Counterstrike worshipper.

News to Paul: Mechwarrior isn't Counterstrike!

AC 2 in no way needed any sort of nerf. Crazy. I'm at a loss for words here on how he comes up with any of this.

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

Very true, but that is a result of Front-Loaded Damage being drastically better the larger the amount. If an AC20 did burst damage, the current AC2 would be on par or even outclass it, depending on the burst.

You would have to make it a seriously loooong burst for that to happen, and in which case that would probably be excessive.

[Ultimax]

If AC 2 is getting both a range, and a DPS nerf you need to bring the heat down.

This is already a weapon that places its damage all over the place.


UAC5s are obviously powerful, but sometimes they do nothing.

Does a 9 ton weapon with 25% chance to jam really need a DPS nerf?

Can you bring down the chance to jam?
As it is I usually end up not using UAC5s because I find "balance by frustration" to be an unsatisfactory way to design weapons in a game.

[Butane9000]

Here's the problem with your AC weapon balance ideas.

With the AC2 it breaks the model. Currently as you progress up the Auto-cannon tiers the damage goes up and range goes down. That's a good thing. The only thing that didn't follow this model? The heat system. AC5/UAC5 have always had strange heat levels in comparison with the rest of the Auto-cannons. Rather then worrying about fire rates and other issues normalize the heat across all auto-cannons.

SRMs really need to be fixed. The fact that an entire class of weaponry is just sub par compared to everything else is just bad. This should be higher on your priority in regards to balance/fixing.

Clans - cool, still not dropping money on em. Though I am excited to see the mechs in game. I'd like to see the Ryoken/Stormcrow preferably.

Launch Module - Cool. Is it delayed? Because you've been doing a good job about releasing stuff on time recently. I'd really hate for you to go back to your old ways.

Community Warfare - Once this and Clans combined are out then I'll start dropping money on this game again. As of right now it's still just ideas on paper years later.

Extra Variants - While it's cool you're giving us more variants to some phoenix mechs some of these are marginal changes at most. Plus your missing some truly golden opportunities with older chassis that could use some love. Like the COM-1C, HBK-4N and CN9-AH. You've got options! Start using em!

[Biglead]

Roadbeer, on 11 April 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

That is what's called "Aggressive Weapons Balancing"
Beat a weapon into uselessness to see what the next weapon is that rises to the surface so you can beat the shit out of it too.

It's like whack-a-mole, but with weapon balance.

Pound a weapon into the dirt, wait several months then address it again.

Don't believe me, talk to LRMs

Thank you Roadbeer, it's been along time since I've laughed this hard about anything related to this game.

[Threat Doc]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

2) This would probably be useful, but I don't particularly care for it - my limited experience with Halo-type games that have this in-game voice system has been horrifying, so I'll pass.

Okay, but we need SOMETHING better than what we have.

Quote

3) Are you meaning target the game more to units than solo? I agree with that, even though I'm a solo dropper, but I don't want to be forced to group to participate either, so I'm on the fence.

Yes, the game should be targeted more toward units, but not to the exclusion of allowing solo droppers. I recommended something for this well over a year ago, but I don't think it was ever seen.

[Scromboid]

TL/DR;

Launch Module.
A programmer actually seemed to complete something only 1 year behind schedule. Cheers all around.

Clan Mechs.
Don't worry. More mechs are coming!!

Weapon Balance.
Ghost heat nerfed everything unexpectedly. Having to nerf everything else.
Other programmer (we only have 2) working on HSR... is.... sick.... err... and... it's still not done. So... we are going to just shuffle these cards here a bit... look at the cards... look... here. A Queen? Is that your card? I knew it! Thank you, thank you all! Good night!

Community Warfare.
Oh, right... more card games. No? Okay, we lied. Deal with it. We are never going to release community warfare because it would take WAAAY too much effort. Remember the launch in September when we promised it in 6 months? We really meant 6 months from now. Or later. Either way....

Some New Mechs
NEW MECHS!!!

[Asmosis]

I don't really see how an old school splat cat is any more dangerous than a dual ac20 jagger. less so really.

[WonderSparks]

I don't know why everyone is always complaining about SRMs, mine seem to work just fine.

Granted I haven't been using them as much as my other weapons, but still.

Also, I'm eagerly awaiting those new Phoenix 'Mechs! Even if I don't buy any of them (only have 33 Mech Bays and several of them are "locked" (per preference, ie. my Misery) or locked (such as the P variants and my JR7-D(S))) I'm still interested to see which ones you guys picked!

PS: Bracket-Man strikes again!

[XX Sulla XX]

Here is a thought on SRMs. It is a good things if SRMs hit closer to together the closer you are. If you can get past all of the LRMs and snipers and mid range high DPS builds etc to etc say 40m away you deserve to do a lot of damge to one area. Also splat cats can be contained using ghost heat and were never that big of a problem to start with.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 11 April 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[Randall Flagg]

If you could refund my $360.00 that would be fantastic.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

I haven't read any of the other feedback yet, so if any of this is redundant, I apologize ...

Launch Module
This is going to be a huge change to the game ... it's also good to hear (from Karl Berg) that you're looking into group sizes bigger than 4.

Clan Mechs/Tech
Cool ... more info on how clan tech will be implemented please!

Weapon Balance
Interesting ... I don't think this will change the way 2x (U)AC/5s + 2x PPCs will be used, but OK.

SRMs – Host State Rewind (HSR)
Very happy to hear you're looking into this. Once SRMs become more reliable, expect their usage to spike.

Community Warfare
More info would be appreciated.

Some New ‘Mechs
Cool ... right now, there's not really good reason to bring any of the Phoenix 'mechs other than the GRF or SHD over any of the other similarly tonned chassis. I really want TDR to be able to compete with JM6 and BLR to be able compete with STK. Variety is never a bad thing.

When can we expect geometry updates for the other older 'mechs?