305 replies to this topic

[Appogee]

If you're nerfing the AC2 then you'd better nerf its ghost heat, too.

[Jabilo]

To avoid overcooking it (like you did with LRMs) may I suggest a degree of caution and patience?

Introduce the DPS nerf first and let us TEST it for a couple of weeks.

If further tweaks are necessary we can move on to range adjustments.

AC2s are already subject to:

High weight (for it calibre)
High heat
Ghost heat
A lot of tonnage required for ammo

A DPS nerf is probably reasonable, but a range nerf in addition to that may reduce its viability. In addition, its very long range is part of the lore and uniqueness of the weapon and it would be a shame to lose that.

[The Doctor]

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.

[Felio]

Appogee, on 11 April 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

It seems surreal to me that we are here in April 2014, two years after closed beta, six months after the game has launched, and still being told that "The final phases of Community Warfare are going through design review and high level scope assessment".

UI 2.0 was the bottleneck for the launch module, which is the bottleneck for CW. Or something like that. Bottleneck.

[Chemie]

Jabilo, on 11 April 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

To avoid overcooking it (like you did with LRMs) may I suggest a degree of caution and patience?

Introduce the DPS nerf first and let us TEST it for a couple of weeks.

If further tweaks are necessary we can move on to range adjustments.

AC2s are already subject to:

High weight (for it calibre)
High heat
Ghost heat
A lot of tonnage required for ammo

A DPS nerf is probably reasonable, but a range nerf in addition to that may reduce its viability. In addition, its very long range is part of the lore and uniqueness of the weapon and it would be a shame to lose that.

AC2 now 3 DPS for 6 tons....
or you could run 6 ML for same tonnage and 7.5 dps.....

I think they want to stop all use of AC and return to energy. They are ignoring dps per ton metric.

AC2 is likely in the bin with LBX10 and MG

Appogee, on 11 April 2014 - 01:41 PM, said:

It seems surreal to me that we are here in April 2014, two years after closed beta, six months after the game has launched, and still being told that "The final phases of Community Warfare are going through design review and high level scope assessment".

Yes. I think they said basically the same thing back in Dec command chair post on CW. 4 months later they are still finalizing the design......

Edited by Chemie, 11 April 2014 - 02:11 PM.

[Vyx]

Magos Titanicus, on 11 April 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

nothing about a new map?

Can't sell new maps.

[Flying Blind]

SRMs do zero damage past 270m and once you are in that range they still have a hard time keeping up with the other guns when they should clearly outpace them at shot range. They are also the hardest weapon to aim with, so can we please explore some small buffs for them?
Nearly everyone wants brawling to be effective so please do anything that will make SRMs effective. How about a speed buff?

[Malorish]

There's nothing wrong with the damage the AC 2 does, it's the fact that its range is 3x.

Overall the game would be vastly more fun (and more welcoming to new players) if we brought the ranges of PPCs, AC 2 & 5's, and LRMs more in line with ER LLs.

Benefits to AC 2 / 5 (current)
- Great DPS rate
- Superior Range to Lasers
- Superior HPS ratio to energy weapons
- Causes enemy screen shake
- Does not expose position like ER LL fire does

Cons
- High weight requirements (but usually mitigated during the mech design stage, rather than in combat)
- Requires carrying ammo (also mitigated in the design stage, though one can run out of ammo in combat)

Overall, the benefits of A/C 2 & 5's just crush the cons when compared to alternative weaponry. Bring the range down to make carrying weapons an actual decision again.

Edited by Malorish, 11 April 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[Featherwood]

No Grand Dragon, sigh. Maybe we'll get Griffin GRF-2N then?
Rest of Paul's smalltalk was boring and irritating as usual. There is such a thing: mathematical modeling. It is used by professional game designers on early stages of projects, it helps to build effective mechanics, predict bottlenecks and so on - very useful contraption. Paul's discourse about DPS normalization per ton have happened after FPS-robots game had been released for 2 years <facepalm> Why, why that dude works as game designer?! Who would believe to Paul's words about "final review of CW design" if his previous words are living prove that entire class of weapons has not been properly "designed" and "reviewed" for two f*** years?

[Malorish]

Chemie, on 11 April 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

AC2 now 3 DPS for 6 tons....
or you could run 6 ML for same tonnage and 7.5 dps.....

I think they want to stop all use of AC and return to energy. They are ignoring dps per ton metric.

AC2 is likely in the bin with LBX10 and MG

Right now ACs are just far too versatile. Sure you could sport 6 MLs (of course we're totally ignoring this thing called hardpoints, but let's just go with your assertion) instead of the AC2, and I'll pick you apart while you try and close that distance every time.

[Obelus]

Community Warfare -- "While it is still much too soon to discuss details..."

...

Edited by Obelus, 11 April 2014 - 02:21 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

Wow Paul - you really don't have a great appreciation for balancing weapons, do you? The AC 2 is currently mostly a NOVELTY weapon whose only claim to life is pestering LRM's (and energy snipers) at extreme range. Landing consecutive hits in the same location (explanation: this is how we destroy mechs) is very hard with AC 2's compared to the current ruling combo of the battlefield:

2xPPC + 2x(U)AC5.

For your info, dropping DPS from 3.8 to 3 IS NOT A SLIGHT NERF. A slight nerf would be LESS THAN 10%, not close to 30%.

TL;DR
The powers that be must be playing a different game if they think that the AC2 requires a nerf.

[A Man In A Can]

Nice to see the team has met the stretch goal of having tonnage be factored into the first build of the launch module. That should be nice come the 29th.

Good to see the team has 4 Clan mechs ready by now. Seems like you guys are on track to delivering all 8 chassis come June.

Good changes with the AC2 AC5 DPS. Feels clean with the 3/3/4/5 setup and is to be expected with the advent of cUAC2s. The range bit with the AC2, I'll have to see what you mean by that before I jump the gun.

The 2/3/4 recycle times with regular SRM weapons is a welcome change and also feels clean. Keep up the work with getting to the bottom of whatever is causing the HSR issues.

Whatever work you do on Faction Warfare now is better than no work for sure. Thanks for the update.

Looking forward to seeing which of the phoenix designs you pick to be the supplemental chassis.

All in all, thanks Paul.

[Sinister Maestro]

Vyx, on 11 April 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

Can't sell new maps.

We need Premium Maps, only for PremiumTime Players aviable.
More Maps for the players, more money for PGIIGP

[C E Dwyer]

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.

caliber of a weapon is the bore of the weapon in multiples as an example a 10 mm round in a 100mm long gun would be 10 calibers, a longer barrel imparts more spin and makes a shell more accurate, the charge of the shell is what gives the range, though on a small caliber weapon a great range is pointless as it would impart so little spin as to be wildly inaccurate this is now in our tech obsolete as all modern shells are fin stablised above a certain diameter, the other limiting factor to range is recoil, if that can't be controlled and this become more of a problem the more range you want the larger charge you have to have.

Though all this is pointless in BT/ MWO as none of the weapons would work in the ways the mechs designs hint at, as the ammo feeds on a multi jointed metal man just won't work, or would have to be stored in the same location as the weapon limiting the number of shots, and the recoils just couldn't be reduced to give even in game ranges, even using battle tech faff physic's the gauss would be by far the most accurate weapon, asumming the 'rails' magnetic pulses could be given enough energy ( yes even with a fusion reactor) as it requires a very fast pulse in a very short distance.

the ac2 getting its range dropped below the ac5/uac5 does actually make a lot of sense if you asume that the differences in the ac's are the size of the rounds as the bullet is smaller it can't take so big a charge.


until HSR for SRM works properly they need a speed buff though ppc's do seem a bit shakey the biggest problems are the slower weapons hits and false detection seems to drop with a faster round, its a reasonable asumption that the ac20 started getting problems when it was nerfed for much the same reason. slow speeds confuse the software

[DONTOR]

Felio, on 11 April 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

The AC/2 DPS was too high, so it's getting a longer recycle time but an overall DPS buff? And a range nerf to make it shorter than the AC/5?

Its not getting a DPS Buff its getting nerfed, but better than it "should be" compared to the AC5 / AC10 / AC20. Right now the AC2 is around 4 DPS, and they are nerfing it to 3 DPS.

Also if they are doing this to the AC2 they better make it 4 for the Ghost Heat scale. Or change the burst fire / chain fire rule.
PLEASE!

Edited by DONTOR, 11 April 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Rhialto]

About SRMs, will you also normalize this?
Just curious if there is a reason...

[Homeless Bill]

Copied from my post on /r/OutreachHPG:

• Launch Module - Good to hear they're actually ahead of the curve on this one. I'm waiting for this to come back full-time. Here's to hoping nothing blows up and gets delayed.
  
• 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.
  
• SRMs/HSR - Don't care until I see some real fixes. Glad they're seriously investigating, though.
  
• Community Warfare - Don't care. The design work should have been done ages ago, when they told us they were working on it. It's just vaporware until proven otherwise.
  
• Phoenix Variants - Again, I don't really care. It's nice to see them giving old chassis some love, but I'd rather they have finished updating dynamic hardpoints on the Awesome, Cataphract, Stalker, etc.

Overall, I'm excited for Launch module and just about nothing else. Why are they attacking DPS builds when peek-and-shoot is still, far and away, the dominant playstyle? It just boggles the mind.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 11 April 2014 - 02:42 PM.

[Bhael Fire]

First off; Big Sad Face on AC nerfs. I really hate nerfs to any weapon system, but I can deal with it.

Second; SRMs: Instead of trying to track each individual missile for hit detection, wouldn't it be easier to just set them up as a direct cone fire type weapon that spreads damage between all components within the cone? You could set a maximum damage limit per component to solve the problem with splat cats at point blank range.

For example, at point blank range an SRM/6 does 12 points of damage. You could set a maximum of 6 points of damage per volley to a single location then the other 6 points are distributed evenly to adjoining components. That way, the most a splat cat could do is 36 points of damage at point blank range to a single component. Factor in the alpha strike heat penalty and damage decay from range, this should balance out effectively.

Then you could use that cool-looking corkscrew firing pattern as just a cosmetic FX that visually defines the boundaries of the cone.

Sure, it's "faking" it from a realistic point of view, but ultimately it would look better and function better. Seems like less fuss than trying to wrangle HSR.

Edited by Bhael Fire, 11 April 2014 - 02:47 PM.

[Jakob Knight]

Malorish, on 11 April 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

There's nothing wrong with the damage the AC 2 does, it's the fact that its range is 3x.

Overall the game would be vastly more fun (and more welcoming to new players) if we brought the ranges of PPCs, AC 2 & 5's, and LRMs more in line with ER LLs.

Benefits to AC 2 / 5 (current)
- Great DPS rate
- Superior Range to Lasers
- Superior HPS ratio to energy weapons
- Causes enemy screen shake
- Does not expose position like ER LL fire does

Cons
- High weight requirements (but usually mitigated during the mech design stage, rather than in combat)
- Requires carrying ammo (also mitigated in the design stage, though one can run out of ammo in combat)

Overall, the benefits of A/C 2 & 5's just crush the cons when compared to alternative weaponry. Bring the range down to make carrying weapons an actual decision again.

You also forgot to list the almost minimal heat generation for the damage done to both AC/2 and (U)AC/5, which is one of the biggest advantages of these weapons compared to other similar weapons (unless you meant that by HPS...the difference between ACs and any other weapon is so great that a ratio doesn't actually capture just how important an advantage this is, in my opinion).

The hard truth is that the single most unbalancing aspect of Autocannons is the rate of fire that allows these weapons to do more damage than they were ever supposed to be capable of (an AC/2 was a very long range weapon that would do 1/5th the total damage of a PPC within the standard time period of combat..not a weapon that would do equal or greater damage over a much greater distance for less heat), and this is what should be changed. Reducing the fire rate so the ACs have similar refire rates to PPCs, Large Lasers, and Gauss Rifles would eliminate the troubles with these weapons and put them in their proper place. The desire to thrill users with dakka-dakka is no reason to completely destroy the intended place of these weapons, as has been the case to date.

I have to agree with others dissatisfied that CW is not further along by this point. It is already significantly behind the due date (launch), and should be at least into the initial testing stages if it is the priority we've been told it is.

Similarly, the news that the Launch Module, which is due out very soon, is not even in the testing phase, also causes me to wonder if this will be provided on time or be another example of a missed deadline by the staff.

6 new variants for the Phoenix mechs. Honestly, while I welcome new options for players, I have to wonder if we needed so many at this time. We'll have to wait to see what these are, and if any clearly remove current models from viable play. Not enough info here.

SRM2/4 fire rate increase. Interesting that the SRM6, which has the same problems, did not seem to rate the same increase for the same reasons. Also, increasing the fire rate is not really a solution as that also increases the heat buildup from using these weapons, countering the effectiveness of putting more missiles downrange by forcing the user to fire less. That's a zero-sum change, so not really an effective countermeasure for the HSR issues that continue to make missile users select only LRMs or Streaks for their hardpoints.

All in all, a rather lackluster update. I'm hoping for better news next time.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 11 April 2014 - 02:46 PM.