305 replies to this topic

[Divine Retribution]

The big problem is still SRMs. You are hesitant to increase damage, but unlike the splatcat days SRM users don't get massive splash damage. Streaks are somehow ok at 2.5 damage per missile with much better registration and auto-aim (though spread over a mech). Meanwhile standard SRMs would be OP at 2.5 damage with hit-and-miss registration (also with damage spread over a mech because of the spread pattern change last year)? It still seems nonsensical to me. Shouldn't standard SRMs be the premier face-hugger weapon, ruining any mech's day at knife fight range, rather than just an acceptable close range weapon with no other practical uses?

Then AC/2s... If they have a shorter range and same DPS as the AC/5, is AC/2 heat per shot going down to compensate? There should be some advantage to taking a AC/2, but after re-reading the changes it looks like the only reason to bring an AC/2 is if you don't have the tonnage or crit slots to bring an AC/5.

Same DPS, shorter range, more heat per point of damage...

Edited by Divine Retribution, 11 April 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[Ice Bones]

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.

you have got to be kidding me. The AC/2 will now have a SHORTER range than the AC/5?!?!?!

Does PGI have any clue as to the design and purpose of the different ACs? The damage vs range is on an inverse scale. The AC/2 MUST have a longer range than the AC/5 and do less damage.

This can't be serious,.... oh wait it's PGI , of course this is serious.

Don't get me started on the launch module, just don't. I've been considering it vaporware for a long time and this just helps to confirm that feeling.

Chris Robert's SAVE US!



--Free Victor Morson

Edited by Ice Bones, 11 April 2014 - 04:12 PM.

[Deux]

So 6 new variants of mechs already in the game, how is that fixing the problem of no new mechs?

[Monsoon]

Deux, on 11 April 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

So 6 new variants of mechs already in the game, how is that fixing the problem of no new mechs?

What problem? It's not like there's a lack of mechs in the game anymore... Sure I'd love to see a new Chassis, but if we're not getting one, I wouldn't call it a problem...

[AlmightyAeng]

The nerf to the AC2 and AC5 is moronic. Considering that those weapons, at their fire rate, are only effective as long as you're turned toward the enemy the whole time, this is a stupid move. Way to make AC20, turn, wait, fire again tactics even MORE effective by comparison.

How about you try removing the equally stupid 3x range modifier for ballistics? See how that shakes things up...

Sad to hear you still haven't managed to figure out how to unfuck SRM's.

More mechs? Greeaaaat...I wonder if one of the Locusts will be less dead on arrival than 2 out of the current 3.

Have you even started coding CW? If it's "still too soon" to discuss details, then it's my duty to inform you that you're "still two years late on delivery."

Edited by Ghost Badger, 11 April 2014 - 04:14 PM.

[Sereglach]

Regardless of the fact that most people seem to thrive off something to complain about, I think the overall progress has been great, and I appreciate the update. I do have a few questions of curiosity that I cordially request answers to:

1. Last we were told, flamers were undergoing an engineering overhaul. Can you give us any word on their progress or decided upon mechanics and numbers? As an avid fan of the BattleTech flamers I would greatly like to see them being made truly viable for MWO and look forward to the results of the engineering overhaul.

2. I am not going to complain about the changes to autocannons, as we haven't gotten to wield the changes in game. However, I am curious. What brought about the decision to make the AC2 shorter range than the AC5? Or was it just meant to be a relative decrease to bring it in line . . . i.e., will the AC2 still have farther reach, but merely decreased to not have such an exponential range reach over the (U)AC5?

3. If weapons ranges are such a drastic issue, then why do we have drop-off damage ranges that go 2x weapon range for energy weapons and 3x weapon range for ballistic weapons, yet no damage drop-off ranges for missiles?

I'm not saying we should have a damage drop-off range for missiles. Quite the contrary, as I believe having streaks that could reach out to 540m (ESPECIALLY since they're fire and forget and that's within the optimal range for LRM's flight time) and LRMs reaching 2k would be game breaking. However, why do the drop-off ranges of ballistics and energy not get reigned into at least 50% over standard range instead of double and triple? This could theoretically help close the gap between the commonly deemed "useless" brawling weapons and the long range snipers.

Thank you again for the update, and thank you for the increasingly more detailed information being put out about development and balancing over time. These communications are greatly appreciated and I look forward to reading them every time they show up.

[Rhialto]

About AC, just curous if at one point there will be a kind of adjustment on the way ammo fly to fit with gravity. I mean a laser is a beam of light which should just hit the target where the crosshait is, whatever the distance is, but a bullet should suffer a bit when it reach long distance, no? Or maybe in 3050 there is an autocorrection system that is able to put bullet where the crosshair is, whatever the distance?

I don't know about TT and that universe, I just play MWO and was wondering.

[elsie]

Most of it looks OK.

But, TBH, I think the best solution for the ACs would have been to just go with 2x range instead of 3x, and scale the damage down on the last half. Some maps are too small as it is and 3x range just makes it worse.

[Deux]

There’s a traffic jam on the old ‘Mech highway and the tow trucks have removed the blockage… prepare yourself for 6 more variants of the Phoenix ‘Mechs on April 15th. Yes you read that right… 6! <------ well by implying there was a jam on the ole mech highway says there was a problem! To alleviate this they are giving us 6 new variants of already existing mechs.

[Tremendous Upside]

Wow... so this is like the third big "update" in a row where they've said the same EXACT thing in regards to CW. I thought back in December they'd already finalized the design and were assigning resources? What is going on in that studio?! I don't think it's unreasonable for fans to want a detailed update for why this keeps slipping - and hasn't even started yet. Instead we just get the same tired lines about how the plans have been finalized and they're underway! .Third time's a charm I guess...

[Cimarb]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 11 April 2014 - 12:37 PM, said:

Weapon Balance
I’ve taken a look at some smaller incremental changes to the AC/2 and (U)AC/5 (Note, I’m using the term (U)AC/5 to mean both the AC/5 and Ultra AC/5) and have worked with Russ on looking at bringing these two weapons into line with their roles on the battlefield. The first steps we’ll be taking is bringing the DPS of the two weapon systems back into line with the AC/20 and AC/10.

The (U)AC/5 was very slightly higher than normal. The AC/2 was much higher than normal.
To address this we have lengthened the cooldown for each weapon. The (U)AC/5 is now normalized with the AC/20 and AC/10 in that it will do 3 DPS compared to 5 for the AC/20 and 4 for the AC/10.

The AC/2 however will still have a slight DPS buff in that it will also be doing 3 DPS. The tonnage of the weapon is a major drawback if we drop the DPS too low. 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.

I really, really like this. Normalization is SOOOOOOO needed with the ACs, and this is a good start!
(oh, and if any devs read this, see the link in my signature for further suggestions)

Rhialto, on 11 April 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

About AC, just curous if at one point there will be a kind of adjustment on the way ammo fly to fit with gravity. I mean a laser is a beam of light which should just hit the target where the crosshait is, whatever the distance is, but a bullet should suffer a bit when it reach long distance, no? Or maybe in 3050 there is an autocorrection system that is able to put bullet where the crosshair is, whatever the distance?

I don't know about TT and that universe, I just play MWO and was wondering.

There IS a dropoff. Go equip some ACs and try to hit something at 1500-2000 meters and it is quite noticeable.

Edited by Cimarb, 11 April 2014 - 04:25 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

Also, since I forgot in my righteous indignation over AC2's facing impending doom.

SRM6 vs SRM4 will turn into a roughly 11% damage increase per second for SRM6's at the cost of 50% more weight and 33% more heat.

In which reality is this helping SRMs become more useable weapons???

[Zeede]

Increasing the cool down on AC/2's means the heat generated per minute will go down.

[FupDup]

Jonathan Paine, on 11 April 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

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.

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.

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2014 - 04:38 PM.

[SirLANsalot]

Divine Retribution, on 11 April 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

Then AC/2s... If they have a shorter range and same DPS as the AC/5, is AC/2 heat per shot going down to compensate? There should be some advantage to taking a AC/2, but after re-reading the changes it looks like the only reason to bring an AC/2 is if you don't have the tonnage or crit slots to bring an AC/5.

Same DPS, shorter range, more heat per point of damage...

My exact Concern too.

The AC5 "nerf" was good, but there NEEDS to be a reason to take the AC2 other then "I can't fit an AC5", The AC2 was fine where it was actually, it wasn't broken at all and this nerf is completely uncalled for (for the AC2). It did break the heat system because of its high RoF, but reducing the heat to .5 instead of 1 would of fixed that, and making it the light rapid fire weapon it needed to be. As it stands now, this nerf isn't going to stop the PPC/AC debacle, its going to ENCOURAGE it. The AC5 needed an adjustment, that I agree, but the AC2 DID NOT NEED TO BE TOUCHED!

On the flip side of this "nerf" this dose make room for the UAC2 with that RoF increase, making it a .3sec weapon. That might still break the game in some way but at least it leaves a little more breathing room for the game.

[aniviron]

I know that ACs need tuning, but this is going to fix nothing. PPCs are still too good to not run them, but they're also too hot to run more than two of them. So the obvious trade is to pair them with another low-heat, accurate weapon. The AC2 was already on the fringes, but it's gone now. The AC5 will probably still see a fair amount of use thanks to its low heat, long range, and good accuracy. the "big" change is that now we'll see some people swapping two AC5s for an AC10 or an AC20.

Realistically, what else are they going to use? Lasers? Too hot with 1.4 dissipation when paired with PPCs. SRMs? Not in this netcode. LRMs? They're better than they used to be, but at the levels of play where build matters this much, you won't find many people who leave cover enough for them to be useful- and they're still surprisingly hot, too. I don't think gauss, MG, and flamers are even worth discussing at this point.

[Rhialto]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

There IS a dropoff. Go equip some ACs and try to hit something at 1500-2000 meters and it is quite noticeable.

Ok, it's called dropoff, I knew there was a term but didn't know it. Just tested AC/5 at 1K distance, there is a very small one. But now I remember that I notice it when I use LB 10-X so all is fine. Thanks.

[Cimarb]

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.

The AC2 had an immense DPS increase and needed to be brought back down. They shouldn't even have the same DPS as AC5s, IMO, but this is at least a good start.

BTW, no one in their right mind has only AC2s as weapons, so I'm not sure what you mean by "AC2 carriers". My Phract with 2xAC5 and 2xAC2 is tons of fun, though, and provides enough screen shake to make most return fire ineffective unless I am an idiot and stand still or rush straight ahead.

[East Indy]

Quote

SRM6 vs SRM4 will turn into a roughly 11% damage increase per second for SRM6's at the cost of 50% more weight and 33% more heat.

A volley's still half again as damaging. With hardpoints, efficiency matters less.

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

The AC2 had an immense DPS increase and needed to be brought back down. They shouldn't even have the same DPS as AC5s, IMO, but this is at least a good start.

You base this conclusion on what evidence, exactly?

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

BTW, no one in their right mind has only AC2s as weapons, so I'm not sure what you mean by "AC2 carriers". My Phract with 2xAC5 and 2xAC2 is tons of fun, though, and provides enough screen shake to make most return fire ineffective unless I am an idiot and stand still or rush straight ahead.

I have a strange idea.

How about let's just reduce the damn cockpit shake instead of pushing people even further towards high-alpha peekwars mindset and discourage auxiliary roles such as fire support or suppression? We have too many pogostickwarriors as it is.