305 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Remove Ghost Heat for AC2s already since you are nerfing the DPS from 3.8 to 3.

[Stunner]

I'm really confused with the devs statement.

Quote

That being said, the longest distance at which the AC/2 projectile will do damage will be pulled in to the point that it will still out reach a LRM, but not as far as the (U)AC/5 projectile.

Are you saying the AC/5 will have a longer range than the AC/2? Why? The AC/2 is a sniping weapon and always has been the AC/2 had the worse in ghost heat. My mechs now use AC/5 and I seem to be doing better with them than I ever did with AC/2. So why hurt the AC/2?

You guys mention in the past as if you want to fix Meta but it appears you are reinforcing what should be meta which is PPC and AC/5's.

You guys are getting further away from BT and making a whole new game. I you want to lower AC/2 DPS then decrease the recycle time.

CW is still being designed? What happened to those power points from so long ago? Why can't we be grinding up at last our faction loyalty.

Will this game make it to the Clan Invasion or will there be a new Exodus? You realize there is another game on the horizon that many are looking at and you aren't giving us any thing to keep our interest here. Come on release something new.

[El Bandito]

Stunner, on 12 April 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

Are you saying the AC/5 will have a longer range than the AC/2? Why? The AC/2 is a sniping weapon and always has been the AC/2 had the worse in ghost heat. My mechs now use AC/5 and I seem to be doing better with them than I ever did with AC/2. So why hurt the AC/2?

You guys mention in the past as if you want to fix Meta but it appears you are reinforcing what should be meta which is PPC and AC/5's.

You guys are getting further away from BT and making a whole new game.

Yeah, this game is becoming more and more like a regular arena shooter with Mechwarrior skin, rather than an authentic Battle Tech experience.

PGI is really goofing it up.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 April 2014 - 12:18 AM.

[Flaming oblivion]

Wow any new player that comes to these forums and checks out some of the threads especially this one before looking at the game will likely run a mile. Be mindful of the message your sending out , Honestly I have no issue with any of this you all complained to get lrm's weakened you wanted them weaker still, Now other weapons that are over performing are being brought in line, I mentioned in the lrm thread you thought you wanted it and that it was a fatal mistake you wouldn't find out till it was to late. Well I'm new to this game but I've seen all this before. Trouble is when you cry out to nerf something that doesn't really need nerfing and you scream loud enough till they listen to the minority on the forum rather then the majority in game who get displeased by said nerf, They have to start a chain of events nerfing everything down to equal measures to appease the population, Its started now I doubt they'll be able to stop it. Sorry guys you did this to yourselves.

[VXJaeger]

Flaming oblivion, on 13 April 2014 - 12:43 AM, said:

Well I'm new to this game but I've seen all this before. Trouble is when you cry out to nerf something that doesn't really need nerfing and you scream loud enough till they listen to the minority on the forum rather then the majority in game who get displeased by said nerf. They have to start a chain of events nerfing everything down to equal measures to appease the population, Its started now I doubt they'll be able to stop it. Sorry guys you did this to yourselves.

Exactly. In the end we all end up throwing styrofoam balls to each other, because they are most effective weapons there are.
I doubt that devs aren't even reading these feedbacks 'cause they just carry on this nerfing madness.

[Mawai]

Hi,

I would just like to add my voice to many others that the range reduction for AC/2 really doesn't make much sense.

It is already quite difficult to hit at range. An Ac/2 does 2 damage ... the nature of high ROF tends to spread the damage avoiding much of the high alpha issue. Ac/2 is supposed to be the highest range AC. Any target movement at a range of 1km will mean that the AC/2 will miss or ... due to instantaneous convergence ... if you aim in front of a moving target ... the rounds will not hit the same spot if they hit at all.

So ... threre is no weapon based reason for a range nerf.

If the high ROF and long range is putting strain on the servers calculating the trjaectories and HSR ... requiring a nerf for technical reasons ... then you REALLY need to state that in your dev blog because otherwise an AC2 range nerf really doesn't make much sense.

[Egomane]

I'd like to remind you that verbal attacks against any user, including staff members, are against the code of conduct. Please keep it to feedback.

If you have a problem with a specific change, then declare that and if possible provide an alternative solution.

Edited by Egomane, 13 April 2014 - 04:41 AM.

[Clint Steel]

I get that ballistics needed to be tuned, but this doesn't like its the right thing to do.

The fact that the DPS of an ac20 is all pinpoint means it should be lower than a weapon that spreads it all over. (if i'm reading that right, was a weird sentence)

I've stopped using ac2's for the most part due to the ghost heat anyway, the only thing that made them interesting (range and speed) is being nerfed..

[Nehkrosis]

these are atleast attempts to make things balanced.

Pitchforks down, people.

[PeRRaKo]

Nehkrosis, on 13 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

these are atleast attempts to make things balanced.

Pitchforks down, people.

Two years attempting and failing says a lot.

[ciller]

Was their such a horrible proliferation of AC2 builds that it needed such a substantial nerf? Did AC2 loaded mechs dominate so much in both damage and kills that it needs 1/4th of its damage taken away? If I may hazard an answer to these questions it would be a very resounding no.

The answer to the pinpoint alpha issue is to make short range weapons more deadly. In particular, SRM weapon systems need a straight up buff, hit detection fixing is not enough, and pulse lasers could use tweaking so they are a viable weapon system.

It would be nice to see slight buffs to under utilized weapon systems then ever continuing nerfs to mechs and weapons that become dominant on the battlefield.

[Daekar]

AC/2s might've were fine the way they were, and their excessive range was due to 3x falloff. Nerf AC falloff to 2.5x or 2x and the problem disappears because applied dps will be lower regardless of what is is at the muzzle.

[Gorgo7]

Lord Perversor, on 11 April 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

2 Battlemaster
2 locust
1 Shadowhawk
1 Thunderbolt..

You are welcome

1 Battlemaster
1 Locust
1 Shadowhawk
1 Thunderbolt
1 Griffon
1 Wolverine

No sir, you are welcome!

[Prezimonto]

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

I actually still think they're dealing with the consequences of not having a normalized 10 second recycle time, and didn't do enough to balance defensive against the offensive power. The sped up fire rates, increased heat threshold, increased range, increased ammo count on AC's. What did they do to increase defense? Doubled armor values.. That doesn't quite account for the increased fire rate.. and there's still all the other factors out there. AC's are rightfully taking a turn at weapon balance.

Oh yea, rampant mech upgrades everywhere also give us much more free tonnage for large weapons. So even if they get balance in single numbers of AC's decent our mechs carry so much more firepower than a comparable IS mech of this 2050 era it's pretty silly.

[Aidan]

Will PGI support AMD Mantle?

[Mister Blastman]

Nehkrosis, on 13 April 2014 - 05:03 AM, said:

these are atleast attempts to make things balanced.

Pitchforks down, people.

Using dry concrete powder to pave a sidewalk without any water is not an attempt.

[Nehkrosis]

yes it is.
just a bad one.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

Are you saying the AC/5 will have a longer range than the AC/2? Why? The AC/2 is a sniping weapon and always has been the AC/2 had the worse in ghost heat. My mechs now use AC/5 and I seem to be doing better with them than I ever did with AC/2. So why hurt the AC/2?

I think that this is a sticking point that a lot of people aren't understanding. Right now, we've got the following:

AC2 - 720m (optimum range), 2160m (max range)
AC5 - 620m (optimum range), 1700m (max range)
UAC5 - 600m (optimum range), 1800m (max range); not sure why the UAC5 has a much longer max than the AC5
Gauss - 660m (optimum range), 1980m (max range)

In TT, the U/AC5 has an optimum range of 540m. PGI buffed it a year or so ago to make it more "sniper" in relation to the other ACs. Later on, they added in the charge mechanic for the GR because they wanted it to be the premium sniper weapon in game. What I believe that they're going to do is drop the optimum range of the AC2 down to around the UAC5 while keeping the maximum range unchanged (this is what they did to the AC5). It is my thought and understanding that they look at the AC2 like a 6 ton machine gun that can reach out and touch someone but want it to be less of a burst fire GR. Furthermore, all you need to do is look at the LRMs and see how the larger launchers have greater DPS in relation to the smaller ones - it is the same with the energy beam weapons and now the ACs. PGI is trying to keep the DPS curve similar while allowing for some weapons to be more sniper-ish and others to be more fast fire grindish.

So, if you look at these changes along that line, it makes sense.

[Jonathan Paine]

Biggest balance problem right now is dual PPC plus dual AC, compounded by no reticle shake while on the descent from jump jetting.
Potential real solutions:
Reticle shake for any kind of movement, especially JJ.
Randomize slightly hit locations
Induce tiny charging period for firing multiple PPCs, none for chain fire
Slightly decrease ballistics speed for u/ac5s
Induce slight reticle shake for firing 10 or more points of ac fire at once

AC2s? Pretty good where they are. Consider lessening the screen shake and visual disturbance on the target.
The damage, range and rate of fire is FINE.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 13 April 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 13 April 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

I think that this is a sticking point that a lot of people aren't understanding. Right now, we've got the following:

AC2 - 720m (optimum range), 2160m (max range)
AC5 - 620m (optimum range), 1700m (max range)
UAC5 - 600m (optimum range), 1800m (max range); not sure why the UAC5 has a much longer max than the AC5
Gauss - 660m (optimum range), 1980m (max range)

In TT, the U/AC5 has an optimum range of 540m. PGI buffed it a year or so ago to make it more "sniper" in relation to the other ACs. Later on, they added in the charge mechanic for the GR because they wanted it to be the premium sniper weapon in game. What I believe that they're going to do is drop the optimum range of the AC2 down to around the UAC5 while keeping the maximum range unchanged (this is what they did to the AC5). It is my thought and understanding that they look at the AC2 like a 6 ton machine gun that can reach out and touch someone but want it to be less of a burst fire GR. Furthermore, all you need to do is look at the LRMs and see how the larger launchers have greater DPS in relation to the smaller ones - it is the same with the energy beam weapons and now the ACs. PGI is trying to keep the DPS curve similar while allowing for some weapons to be more sniper-ish and others to be more fast fire grindish.

So, if you look at these changes along that line, it makes sense.

It makes sense ONLY if you don't see what the "application" of the AC2 happens to be. That's the major discrepancy. Hitting targets at long range with the AC2 is difficult (it guarantees a TT-like spread) but more importantly it requires effective MG-like uptime to realize its DPS. Both things make the suggested nerfs silly. That doesn't even consider the fact that the heat generation on the AC2 is pretty high EVEN if you are avoiding Ghost Heat.

Also, the reason why the UAC5 has a "greater max range" is because PGI has not actually bothered to make the AC5 "consistent" with the 3x max range rule when the range was buffed slightly.