305 replies to this topic

[ChallengerCC]

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

nothing about a new map?

Not to loud! Map is a bad word, you cant earn money with it. If PGI hear it you will be in big trouble. ^^

[Cimarb]

Rhialto, on 11 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

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.

My pleasure. I do think it should be a little more noticable, though.

aniviron, on 11 April 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

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.

Swapping to an AC10 or 20 in some situations is a good thing - it will be nice to have a use for the AC10 again. Any change to normalize autocannons is a good start, though I think there is a lot more that needs done (see sig).

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

You base this conclusion on what evidence, exactly?

I'm not sure what conclusion you need evidence for.

As far as the DPS increase, you can see the thread in my signature - we have went over pretty much everything there.

If you meant my opinion, I don't need any evidence because it is just my opinion?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, I imagine that AC/2 range will be 720 m to ~1,700 m

Shaving off ~460 M, give or take, from the current 2,160 m max range



I wonder if at least (U)AC/5s will also be linked with ER/PPC's to receive heat penalties when fired together?

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 04:56 PM, said:

I'm not sure what conclusion you need evidence for.

As far as the DPS increase, you can see the thread in my signature - we have went over pretty much everything there.

If you meant my opinion, I don't need any evidence because it is just my opinion?

You made two claims:

1. The AC/2's "immense damage increase" "needed to be brought down."

2. The AC/2 shouldn't have the same DPS as the AC/5.

Those are what I was referring to.


EDIT: I took a glance at your sig post. You're basing it off of Tabletop fluff descriptions and damage ratios...bad idea. Turn-based doesn't always translate to real-time very well (i.e. our current heat system, TT armor distribution in a game with aiming, etc.).

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

East Indy, on 11 April 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

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

Actually, thanks to the increased spread, you are less likely to hit with all your SRM6's than your SRM4's, and what missiles hit will impact further apart. There is a reason why LRM5's are popular compared to bigger racks - easier to have more missiles hit even when guided.

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

You made two claims:

1. The AC/2's "immense damage increase" "needed to be brought down."

2. The AC/2 shouldn't have the same DPS as the AC/5.


EDIT: I took a glance at your sig post. You're basing it off of Tabletop fluff descriptions and damage ratios...bad idea. Turn-based doesn't always translate to real-time very well (i.e. our current heat system, TT armor distribution in a game with aiming, etc.).

I did more than a glance at that thread to write it all, and to be honest, I don't feel like repeating all that work right now.

So here is the short version:

1. When you compare the DPS from TT for all four autocannons, then compare them to the DPS in MWO, there is a HUGE discrepancy with the AC2. It got a boost magnitudes higher than any other weapon.
2. Autocannons are classified by their DPS - read the descriptions in the rule books, or Sarna if you don't have the rules - and if two autocannons share the same DPS, they are the same class autocannon by definition. That means that the AC2 and AC5, if they share the same DPS, are BOTH either an AC2 or AC5.

Edited by Cimarb, 11 April 2014 - 05:10 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Come the hell on guys, did anyone seriously worry about the AC/2? Was it REALLY on the top of everyone's mind when we discussed nerfing AC's?

Lets stop all the bull crap arguing. Gameplay for good players in this game has been about putting as much damage via a single FLD pinpoint alpha into a mech as possible. Then turning away/landing to protect themselves while readying for another shot.

THIS DOES NOT FIX THAT.

It doesn't even come close.

After these changes go live, the game will continue to play the exact same way it has for over a year now.

Don't we want something better? I get that some people are in an ELO place where they get to see a variety of loadouts...I envy you....but that is not the case for everyone. And it's a total mess.

[Cimarb]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 11 April 2014 - 05:11 PM, said:

Come the hell on guys, did anyone seriously worry about the AC/2? Was it REALLY on the top of everyone's mind when we discussed nerfing AC's?

Lets stop all the bull crap arguing. Gameplay for good players in this game has been about putting as much damage via a single FLD pinpoint alpha into a mech as possible. Then turning away/landing to protect themselves while readying for another shot.

THIS DOES NOT FIX THAT.

It doesn't even come close.

After these changes go live, the game will continue to play the exact same way it has for over a year now.

Don't we want something better? I get that some people are in an ELO place where they get to see a variety of loadouts...I envy you....but that is not the case for everyone. And it's a total mess.

I do agree with you - this is not going to fix much - but it IS a start. Now, we just need to have ACs switched to burst-fire, PPCs spread their damage over a beam duration or splash, and fix the heat system (courtesy of MustrumRidcully).

[East Indy]

Jonathan Paine, on 11 April 2014 - 05:03 PM, said:

Actually, thanks to the increased spread, you are less likely to hit with all your SRM6's than your SRM4's, and what missiles hit will impact further apart. There is a reason why LRM5's are popular compared to bigger racks - easier to have more missiles hit even when guided.

Regardless of what I think of it, the only place your point leads is that a more meaningful decision might be introduced between 6-racks and smaller racks, whereas before 4-racks were a solution to weight constraints and 2-racks were avoided in favor of Streaks — which is funny, because it appears that in order to be at peace with another all-or-nothing standard, you're arguing that 6-racks are now never worth considering. Welcome to your private hell, I guess.

The vast majority of LRM-5 builds are for taking advantage of constant cockpit shake.

[Threat Doc]

Alright, Niko, since I read what you and MiSs wrote about the forums, earlier, and now what Paul is saying about CW, I need to address two things, in particular, that need to happen.

1) The interface chat system is beyond the pale horrible: it does not retain messages, and it does not express to someone in another part of the conversation that the Launch button has been hit. These need to be done, conversations recorded for a night full of dropping, and then a purge done once a player has been logged out for a certain amount of time, like 15 or 20 minutes, for that player's conversations, while retaining conversations for people who've dropped into a game and remain logged into the interface.

2) We absolutely need to have an in-game VoIP, and it can't be C3. C3 is garbage, I've used it on a couple of occasions, and have zero interest in using it, again. TeamSpeak is the only game in-town, but better than that, if an in-game voice could be added, especially around the time Association launches, and everyone could talk in the general unit lobby, and then it could be split up for Company and Lance Commands, where the Company Commander can talk to their Lance and Lance Leaders, but not hear or talk to the other MechWarrior's in the other Lances, and then Lance Leaders could talk to their own Lances, that would be just right. What would be even better is a means of clicking something on-screen or hitting preset buttons on the keyboard to address only one's Lance, only the Lance Leaders, to address each specific Lance, or to address the whole Company, that would be cool, too.

3) It might not hurt to gear MWO toward military/BattleTech-style elements, rather than to PUG'ers, and then the PUG'ers would either need to get into a unit to have communication and have this game universe act the way it's supposed to, or they can continue to drop individually, as they have been.

4) Oh, Elo has to go, replace it with an open-ended system that makes sense and allows player groups to choose their weight/BV limits. 3/3/3/3 is not going to fix anything, it's just going to piss players off and make them leave. I had an also, but my new upstairs neighbors are slamming things against the walls and floors so suddenly and so loudly, I can't remember what it was.

That's my feedback about what's going on.

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 11 April 2014 - 05:08 PM, said:

I did more than a glance at that thread to write it all, and to be honest, I don't feel like repeating all that work right now.

So here is the short version: autocannons are classified by their DPS - read the descriptions in the rule books, or Sarna if you don't have the rules - and if two autocannons share the same DPS, they are the same class autocannon by definition. That means that the AC2 and AC5, if they share the same DPS, are BOTH either an AC2 or AC5.

The flavor text misses a lot of important factors -- there's more to weapon than just the /number rating assigned to it.

There's tonnage, crit slots, range, ammo, damage, heat, any secondary mechanics (i.e. pulse laser to-hit modifier, etc.) and on top of those you also have to consider the ratios between those factors. I.e. the Medium Laser does less raw damage than the PPC, but it does far more damage per ton of weight than the PPC.

If we look at the autocannon lineup, the core idea was that they had a higher upfront weight cost but less heat meant they didn't need as many heatsinks. Energy weapons were meant to have "hidden weight" in heatsinks to make up for their low weight. However, in actual practice, the hidden weight of energy was usually far lower than the upfront weight of autocannons. This, plus the very high risk of ammo explosions, made most autocannons suck balls in Tabletop.


Let's look at some examples from actual TT stock builds that were built by people who aren't very good at SSW:

Clint 2-3T: Replace the AC/5 and ammo with a PPC, Medium Laser, and heatsink. You now gain DOUBLED damage in the 10-18 hex range bracket, while retaining identical damage up close due to the Medium Laser. You also now have infinite ammo and no ammo explosion worries. And if you're desperate, you have the option to spike your heat to the sky by firing everything all at once.

Urbanmech R60: Replace the AC/10 and ammo with a PPC, 3 Medium Lasers, and 3 heatsinks. Your main gun now has 3 more hexes of range, plus you become more powerful within 9 hexes thanks to the trio of MLas. Also, no more ammo worries. Another straight upgrade.

Centurion 9-A: Replace the AC/10 and ammo with a PPC, 2 Medium Lasers, and some heatsinks. It gains the same advantages as the Urbie and Clint. Notice a trend here?

Commando 1-C: Remove the AC/2 and ammo for 2 LRM5, 1 ton of ammo, and 2 Medium Lasers. You gain 5 times greater damage at long range for only 3 hexes of shorter range, and you become 5 times more powerful in close quarters. You now can also operate even if you run out of ammo. If you really want more ammo, you can remove a Medium Laser for another ton of ammo while still remaining superior to the stock build.

Mauler 1-R: Remove the quartet of AC/2 and the 2 ammo bins to free up 26 tons to play with. Add in 2 more LRM15, 4 more tons of ammo, and some DHS. You'll have to switch armor from FF to standard to free up some critslots. The new LRM racks deal almost four times as much damage as the original 4 AC/2, while having a shorter range of only 3 hexes. Stuff the ammo in your head and legs to reduce the chance of it getting hit.

---------------

What's the point of all of this seemingly irrelevant min-maxing? Well, the point is that using the TT definitions for how ACs should work isn't the best idea because the TT implementation of ACs sucked for the most part (with some exceptions like the '20 or future Light AC/5).

Let's look at the AC/2 in particular. The logic that was used in its design was a thought used in the creation of nearly all TT weapons: longer range = less damage per ton. The problem with the AC/2, however, was two-fold. Firstly, the amount of damage was so low that the extra range gain was never worth it. Secondly, other long-range weapons like LRMs could reach out almost as far as the AC/2 while dealing vastly superior damage. The recipe for a trash-tier weapon was cooked for perfection.

The AC/2 fundamental design actually makes it very very crappy in long-range engagements, in spite of having such a long range "on paper." Why is this, you ask? Well, the answer is simple. If you're peeking your head up to fire off a salvo at some unsuspecting enemy robot at very long range, you don't want to peek your head up very long. You want to stay exposed for as little time as possible, and maximize the amount of damage dealt by your long-range alpha strike. You want to be clean and quick. The problem with the AC/2 is that it does not deal enough burst damage to make it an effective sniper weapon. It is simply impossible for a 6-ton weapon with a burst damage of 2 to be truly effective in long-range sniper battles. It simply cannot happen. The only way you could make the AC/2 be a good sniping weapon is if you made it deal more than 2 damage per shot, and then you could lower the RoF significantly to emphasize that you want it to be used from long range only.

The current role the MWO AC/2 fulfills seems weird compared to what the weapon was supposed to be in TT, but in reality that's the only role that the weapon can ever be viable at unless you change its burst damage. If it does a low burst, having it fire quickly means it can make up for that lack of burst damage if you get your target dead-to-rights. This usually happens in close quarters, where OPFOR has a hard time running away from you or taking cover from your shots. Yes, it feels awkward to take the long-range pea shooter and turn it into a medium-short range scrapper. But that's the only role it can ever be good at while it only does 2 damage for each click of your mouse.

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2014 - 05:54 PM.

[TheSteelRhino]

Ac changes sound reaonable. Kind of like that lower caliber doesn't necessarily mean longest range... With AC2 having same DPS as AC5 it's now a matter of preference...more rounds down range vs bigger round that does more dmg.

SRMS need more love...especially considering the state of machine guns.
Sorry..but the MG's are a bit much...

Have you considered taking the existing maps and converting ? For example:..how about making a Cold mountain lake version of terra therma? Or Canyon network with a heavy rain, and the river in flood stage.......

Nice with the mechs..although I still think I'll pass on the locust ...


Good update, look forward to more srm fixing.

[Rvannith]

My feedback: I only grabbed Founders based on the promise of Community Warfare, and I only grabbed Phoenix because you promised it was three months out. That was seven months ago. I want my money refunded because I am so over being lied to and like so many other people here am completely done with your excuses.

[DeadlyShade]

Since this patch I have cannot log into the game. When I try it says unknown error. I have run the repair tool 2 times now and reinstalled the game. Is there anything i can do to fix this issue?

[BourbonFaucet]

So AC/2's are going to be... shorter ranged than the AC/5?

Why? It's a BB gun in comparison to the 5. Keep the range, keep the DPS decreases for both cannons.

Also, your community warfare paragraph seemed to be a large number of buzzwords...

[Cimarb]

GalaxyBluestar, on 11 April 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

quick cruddy mockup



alterations as follows

shins shorter and knee joints thinner, avoid one long slab for a leg

arm weapon pods lengthened

cockpit torso lenghtened, aviod sphere shape make more oval

arms thinner avoid one long box tube being too large compared to the torso area

I stared at this for a good five minutes before I could even tell where you extended the arms and legs. I think I possibly see the cockpit change, but it may be my eyes crossing...

Regardless, the changes are so minor, I can't believe you even spent the time doing them. The overall look is exactly the same.

[redacted]

Kay Wolf, on 11 April 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

Alright, Niko, since I read what you and MiSs wrote about the forums, earlier, and now what Paul is saying about CW, I need to address two things, in particular, that need to happen.

1) The interface chat system is beyond the pale horrible:

Spoiler

it does not retain messages, and it does not express to someone in another part of the conversation that the Launch button has been hit. These need to be done, conversations recorded for a night full of dropping, and then a purge done once a player has been logged out for a certain amount of time, like 15 or 20 minutes, for that player's conversations, while retaining conversations for people who've dropped into a game and remain logged into the interface.

2) We absolutely need to have an in-game VoIP, and it can't be C3.

Spoiler

C3 is garbage, I've used it on a couple of occasions, and have zero interest in using it, again. TeamSpeak is the only game in-town, but better than that, if an in-game voice could be added, especially around the time Association launches, and everyone could talk in the general unit lobby, and then it could be split up for Company and Lance Commands, where the Company Commander can talk to their Lance and Lance Leaders, but not hear or talk to the other MechWarrior's in the other Lances, and then Lance Leaders could talk to their own Lances, that would be just right. What would be even better is a means of clicking something on-screen or hitting preset buttons on the keyboard to address only one's Lance, only the Lance Leaders, to address each specific Lance, or to address the whole Company, that would be cool, too.

3) It might not hurt to gear MWO toward military/BattleTech-style elements, rather than to PUG'ers,

Spoiler

and then the PUG'ers would either need to get into a unit to have communication and have this game universe act the way it's supposed to, or they can continue to drop individually, as they have been.

4) Oh, Elo has to go,

Spoiler

replace it with an open-ended system that makes sense and allows player groups to choose their weight/BV limits. 3/3/3/3 is not going to fix anything, it's just going to piss players off and make them leave. I had an also, but my new upstairs neighbors are slamming things against the walls and floors so suddenly and so loudly, I can't remember what it was.

That's my feedback about what's going on.

1) In-game chat sucks, I agree. At least allow addons to handle this log, such as Elephant for WoW.
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.
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.
4) AMEN. Elo is FUBAR.

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

The flavor text misses a lot of important factors -- there's more to weapon than just the /number rating assigned to it.

There's tonnage, crit slots, range, ammo, damage, heat, any secondary mechanics (i.e. pulse laser to-hit modifier, etc.) and on top of those you also have to consider the ratios between those factors. I.e. the Medium Laser does less raw damage than the PPC, but it does far more damage per ton of weight than the PPC.

If we look at the autocannon lineup, the core idea was that they had a higher upfront weight cost but less heat meant they didn't need as many heatsinks. Energy weapons were meant to have "hidden weight" in heatsinks to make up for their low weight. However, in actual practice, the hidden weight of energy was usually far lower than the upfront weight of autocannons. This, plus the very high risk of ammo explosions, made most autocannons suck balls in Tabletop.

Spoiler

---------------

What's the point of all of this seemingly irrelevant min-maxing? Well, the point is that using the TT definitions for how ACs should work isn't the best idea because the TT implementation of ACs sucked for the most part (with some exceptions like the '20).

Let's look at the AC/2 in particular. The logic that was used in its design was a thought used in the creation of nearly all TT weapons: longer range = less damage per ton. The problem with the AC/2, however, was two-fold. Firstly, the amount of damage was so low that the extra range gain was never worth it. Secondly, other long-range weapons like LRMs could reach out almost as far as the AC/2 while dealing vastly superior damage. The recipe for a trash-tier weapon was cooked for perfection.

The AC/2 fundamental design actually makes it very very crappy in long-range engagements, in spite of having such a long range "on paper." Why is this, you ask? Well, the answer is simple. If you're peeking your head up to fire off a salvo at some unsuspecting enemy robot at very long range, you don't want to peek your head up very long. You want to stay exposed for as little time as possible, and maximize the amount of damage dealt by your long-range alpha strike. You want to be clean and quick. The problem with the AC/2 is that it does not deal enough burst damage to make it an effective sniper weapon. It is simply impossible for a 6-ton weapon with a burst damage of 2 to be truly effective in long-range sniper battles. It simply cannot happen. The only way you could make the AC/2 be a good sniping weapon is if you made it deal more than 2 damage per shot, and then you could lower the RoF significantly to emphasize that you want it to be used from long range only.

The current role the MWO AC/2 fulfills seems weird compared to what the weapon was supposed to be in TT, but in reality that's the only role that the weapon can ever be viable at unless you change its burst damage. If it does a low burst, having it fire quickly means it can make up for that lack of burst damage if you get your target dead-to-rights. This usually happens in close quarters, where OPFOR has a hard time running away from you or taking cover from your shots. Yes, it feels awkward to take the long-range pea shooter and turn it into a medium-short range scrapper. But that's the only role it can ever be good at while it only does 2 damage for each click of your mouse.

The AC2 was made for suppression fire and anti-aircraft duties. It was not meant for front-line fighting. In this respect, it is very similar to the flamer, which was made for crowd control, not brawling.

Autocannons in general did not suck. Gauss and Pulse Lasers were pretty much the top dogs, but autocannons were by no means horrible.

Edited by Egomane, 13 April 2014 - 09:38 AM.
responding to removed content

[PoLaR]

AC 2 debuff... wow, totally just killed off all my excitement....

[FupDup]

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

The AC2 was made for suppression fire and anti-aircraft duties. It was not meant for front-line fighting. In this respect, it is very similar to the flamer, which was made for crowd control, not brawling.

Autocannons in general did not suck. Gauss and Pulse Lasers were pretty much the top dogs, but autocannons were by no means horrible.

You can shoot down aircraft with lots of different weapons, AC/2 are hardly the only option. Suppression fire from such a dinky weapon would be laughable. Spending that much weight on that little damage is a bad idea from a mech construction standpoint, and as your opponent I would suffer more damage from laughing my pants off than from the actual shots from the weapon.

And actually, autocannons in general DID suck. Did you see my examples of taking various TT stock builds and replacing their ACs with other weapons (namely PPCs and Medium Lasers) to make them stronger while maintaining similar heat efficiency? I can repost them if you want, or even make some new ones.

Edited by FupDup, 11 April 2014 - 06:17 PM.

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 11 April 2014 - 06:12 PM, said:

You can shoot down aircraft with lots of different weapons, AC/2 are hardly the only option. Suppression fire from such a dinky weapon would be laughable. Spending that much weight on that little damage is a bad idea from a mech construction standpoint, and as your opponent I would suffer more damage from laughing my pants off than from the actual shots from the weapon.

And actually, autocannons in general DID suck. Did you see my examples of taking various TT stock builds and replacing their ACs with other weapons (namely PPCs and Medium Lasers) to make them stronger while maintaining similar heat efficiency? I'll repost them if you want, or even make some new ones.

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.

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.