305 replies to this topic

[Archon Adam Steiner]

DPS, in the sense of someone 'holding down the trigger' on an AC-toting 'mech isn't much of a problem; it's the high-Alpha of those weapons. The BNC-3E with 2x PPC and 3x AC/5 is the perfect example. It is not so much the DPS as opposed to the 35-point Alpha that is the problem.

[Bhael Fire]

Homeless Bill, on 11 April 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

• Autocannon Changes - This is just dumb. The AC/2 and AC/5 are in a good place. The AC/2's DPS is limited by its excessive heat. They're already only good when you've got three of them. They should have higher DPS because they require you to face your target. That's the whole point of fire support. I dislike everything about this change.

ALL of this.

Again, I'm baffled as to why this went in. Many of the weapon changes seem so arbitrary and without any real justification.

[Hordamer Mendelbaum]

Paul: Thanks for the update.
I've become of the opinion that the autocannon is overpowered relative to energy weapons because of the roles that heat and pinpoint damage play in the game. When Paul mentioned in the vlog that they were taking a run at the autocannon, I was expecting a reasonable nerf of all of them, not just the -2 and -5s. Instead, this just makes the lighter ACs a little less overpowered, but leaves the high-pinpoint-damage -20 untouched.
I'm mildly disappointed.

[Deathlike]

CW - lol, "90 days"

As to the AC nerfs (the AC10+AC20 nerfs were early this year), I'm pretty much thinking Paul is a numbers guy, than an actual player.

For instance, AC2's original problem BEFORE ghost heat was literally HEAT. The ability to fire so much dakka comes at a crazy heat generation, so while the AC2 has slowly and steadily dying off (I stopped seeing 4+ AC2 Jager-DDs in general), the AC2 isn't even a real problem UNLESS you are foolish enough to expose yourself often (aka, the bad-LURM effect).

In any case, this translates into a cooldown of .66 or .67 (up from .53) which kind avoids the original ghost heat problem, and yet makes the weapon worse.

The AC5/UAC5 is FINE. I'm not sure why it needs a nerf. Even the quad AC5 Jager or even the Ilya tri-UAC5 dakka is the same kind of threat. Again, the problem is people NOT KNOWING HOW TO GET COVER TO REDUCE THE EFFECT.

With that said, this translates into a cooldown of 1.66 or 1.67 (up from 1.5), which does little to nothing for what this fixes.

So... in other words... thanks for missing the point.

Edited by Deathlike, 11 April 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[mooky]

I'm going to re-iterate what I said on /r/outreachhpg ....

I don't mind the nerf via slower cooldown, but the range, WHY? JUST WHY??

The AC is a heavy weapon and needs ammo, it was pretty good if a little high on the DPS, but to nerf its range, doing both is like your LRM 175m/s buff .... overcompensation!

And that the AC2 will have a lower range than the (U)AC5, makes no sense, its not consistent.

Range (logical...from least to most)
AC20 -> AC10 -> (U)AC5 -> AC2

Range (PGI logic... from least to most)
AC20 -> AC10 -> AC2 -> (U)AC5


HUH???

[Arcturious]

Really not sure about the weapon nerfs.

I think it's completely ignoring many of the variables that should be considered when adjusting balance.

You have so many factors:

Weight
Ammo per Ton
Heat
Range (max, minimum, effective, multiplier)
Damage
Cooldown
Crit Slots
Component Health
Projectile Speed
Ballistic droop
Critical hit chance

Take LRM's for example. Loading up a single LRM10 can take up to 6.5T - 1.5 BAP, 1 TAG, 1T ammo, 2T launcher, 1T Artemis.

That costs 7 crit slots and would contribute less than 100 damage if you're lucky.

Obviously, not balanced in the slightest. It's clear that many of the factors have been ignored. Instead it's as if you have gone out of your way to ensure these systems will be boated and chain fired in a complete opposite to canon / meaningful design considerations.

I fear the same thing is going to happen again to the AC2 specifically. You are making the most simplistic system I have ever encountered. Trying to balance disparate weapon systems by arbitrarily deciding they need to be in a 3/3/4/5 model? What madness is this? Where is any consideration of themeatic use? Weapons for different purposes beyond just what the numbers on the DPS meter say? Where is the unique benefits that can be considered when trying to choose a weapon system to fit a play style? Where is the Cost / Benefit rationalisation?

It seems like every patch this game gets dumbed down and over simplified. It plays into the meta builds by reducing even further alternate play styles and forcing players to either go 2x PPC / 1x AC20 or 2x PPC / 2x AC5 etc. Simply because by balancing on a DPS consideration only is poor design that allows meta dominace by simply using a calculator.

Removal of custom LRM flight patterns, removal of LRM individual object models, removal of mechs feet adjusting to terrain, removal of custom damage models and textures to be replaced by bullet holes, removal of decent volumetric lighting / god rays, removal of full HDR, removal of splash damage, removal of SRM damage and probably more I'm forgetting.

The game currently reads as a long list of things that were better in the past. We need variation in weapons. We need to have more than just a DPS counter. Each weapon system should bring something unique to the game that is more than the sum of its parts. There needs to be more in the pro / cons columns to make choosing a weapon system to be a personal and meaningful choice.

I'm tired of seeing such basic modifications being made to complex systems that ignore the multiple factors that could be adjusted, while continually removing features to shoe horn the game into stompy robots online and certainly not the Mechwarrior many of us are familiar with and desire to play.

It's the same with Community Wherefare. Or the horrendous massive changes without testing - variances of 30-40% changes in each patch (or 400% in the case of artillery etc). No subtle or minor adjustments that would speak of confidence in design. Rather we get mammoth swings followed by immediate adjustments. It just seems like there is a core of confusion and a lack of over arching design methodology that is preventing truly innovative progress.

Respectfully, Arcturious.

[Windsaw]

Althogh I thought that the ACs were generally in a good place right now, I expected the nerfs.
However, in exchange for the expected DPS nerf for AC2s I also expected a range buff, since it was IMO already in an unfortunate position compared to AC5s. After all, once the bullet reaches the maximum range its effectiveness in put in half, while the AC5 only loses a fifth and doesn't drop as fast. In long range battles I already only use AC5 and not my AC2.

Why should it get a further range nerf?
To me, it doesn't make any sense from the game perspective and it is disastrous from the lore perspective.
I will not argue that changes from lore mustn't me made at all, but they must only be done when absolutely necessary.
This change seems completely unnecessary.

[o0Marduk0o]

Gunnysgt, on 11 April 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

I was looking forward to a reduction of the speed of LRM. I want to be constructive in my reply but the game is less interesting with the change of the LRM.

You want to make them slower? Maybe remove them altogether?

[Name140704]

Quote

The final phases of Community Warfare are going through design review and high level scope assessment. The general idea has been generally accepted and a few holes need to be patched here and there. As a whole, the design has changed slightly to ensure that everyone playing the game will be able to influence the overall Inner Sphere conflict. While it is still much too soon to discuss details, I just wanted to let you know that the very large design for CW is fully underway and is being looked at by all members of the development team for maximum thoroughness and buy in for delivering the final feature.

Not bad for a feature that was ready to go February 2013 ...a few weeks after U.I. 2.0...By Fall 2013 at the latest...A few weeks after launch...SOON^tm


I saw the powerpoint, you know the one, with the Dragons on the planet and the missing faction in the faction point bar, YEAH that one...the one you put together a few days, if not the night before the "launch party".


You weren't just leading us on, were you? Nah, never. I bet you are really sorry and you'll never do it again, either.

[AntharPrime]

Not seeing any logic on making the AC2 have a shorter range than the (U)AC5s. Unless the recent success of the Shadowhawk with the AC2s skewed the numbers and PGI is making an odd (read insanely disconnected) change based solely on the numbers generated from those Shadowhawk builds. I'm thinking that since the smaller ACs are used mainly by more maneuverable mediums and the boatable Banshee that the numbers on them are skewed. We haven't had a problem with the small caliber ACs with the Jagers and Cataphracts for a long while now.

[Simbacca]

Arrachtas, on 11 April 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

DPS, in the sense of someone 'holding down the trigger' on an AC-toting 'mech isn't much of a problem; it's the high-Alpha of those weapons. The BNC-3E with 2x PPC and 3x AC/5 is the perfect example. It is not so much the DPS as opposed to the 35-point Alpha that is the problem.

The easiest way to solve that issue without nerfing the weapons would be ACs (and originally the Gauss Rifle with no charge mechanic) and PPCs cannot fire within 2 seconds of each other.

[Jonathan Paine]

Too bad PGI is to lazy to implement some version of Konniving's suggestions on how to balance ballistic weapons....

[xCico]

Mofwangana Bogogono, on 11 April 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the update. Any thoughts to giving the AC/2 and (U)AC/5 minimum ranges, just like in TT?

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE

[Archon]

Bhael Fire, on 11 April 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

ALL of this.

Again, I'm baffled as to why this went in. Many of the weapon changes seem so arbitrary and without any real justification.

I absolutely agree. Autocannons are enough of a challenge as it is. Precision weapons require precision aiming. It really makes no sense to punish players who use a certain weapon type just because they know how to aim.

[Vercinaigh]

AC's still OP compared to all other weapons equal tonnage investment (Heatsinks etc, the ac/2 being the least offender). Meta isn't gonna change builds arn't changing. We keep telling you, you keep ignoring. if you want to make people live longer, nerf AC's hard, don't want them to live longer, buff other weapons, but pick, this tiny nit picking an't gonna help.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

I understand normalizing the AC DPS, and fully endorse halving the range of AC2, but why stop there? Every AC in the needs to have its range reduced by 33%. The AC2 is going to disappear in favor of the AC5 which retains its overwhelming reach advantage, and no heat problems.

[Roadbeer]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 11 April 2014 - 03:32 PM, said:

I understand normalizing the AC DPS, and fully endorse halving the range of AC2, but why stop there? Every AC in the needs to have its range reduced by 33%. The AC2 is going to disappear in favor of the AC5 which retains its overwhelming reach advantage, and no heat problems.

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

[SgtMagor]

6 new Phoenix variants, so I guess each mech will get a new variant

Battlemaster
Thunderbolt
Shadow Hawk
Locust
Wolverine
Griffin

[Bishop Steiner]

Sniper09121986, on 11 April 2014 - 01:27 PM, said:

My high school knowledge of physics tells me that the range of a firearm depends on barrel length to barrel caliber ratio, and since the Mechs' construction dictates a roughly equal barrel length of all the AC's, the AC/2 has to have the lowest shell drop, followed by AC/5 etc in order of caliber, with the natural exception of the Gauss. So I do not see what they did there either, it makes no more sense to ride AC/2 chainfire shotgun anymore.

high school physics should also tell you that a lighter projectile loses its momentum much faster, which can be a limiting factor. Plus lighter projectiles are much more subject to the vagaries of the external environment. There is a reason that long range shooters use things like a 338 Lapua Mag or 50 BMG, instead of a super hot 22.

basically, there are too many factors,projectile velocity, projectile mass, sectional density, projectile shape, etc, to make such a sweeping statement.

[Monsoon]

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

2 Battlemaster
2 locust
1 Shadowhawk
1 Thunderbolt..

You are welcome

Except that Reddit is implying 2 Shadowhawk variants, which would be giving us 7 mechs, so obviously there's an error...