305 replies to this topic

[Gyrok]

VanillaG, on 11 April 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

The AC/2 is getting a buff in regards to the normalization of DPS between the various classes of AC. He stated the AC/20 is 5 DPs, AC/10 is 4 DPS, (U)AC/5 is 3 DPS so following that logic the AC/2 should have been 2 DPS. So it is buffed since it has the same DPS as the (U)AC/5 class at 3 DPS since there is only a 2 ton difference between the weapons.

It is being nerfed from 3.8 to 3.0...not sure where that is a buff? Also, AC2 range should be the longest...only the Gauss should actually have comparable range. The fact that you are nerfing the AC2s so hard makes me wonder...what was wrong with those? The DPS reduction should have solved any issues you had...range was causing what problems? Additionally, if you are going to be doing this, why not take ghost heat off AC2 and make it viable to run 4 again?

Edited by Gyrok, 12 April 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[ShinVector]

Gyrok, on 12 April 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

It is being nerfed from 3.8 to 3.0...not sure where that is a buff? Also, AC2 range should be the longest...only the Gauss should actually have comparable range. The fact that you are nerfing the AC2s so hard makes me wonder...what was wrong with those? The DPS reduction should have solved any issues you had...range was causing what problems? Additionally, if you are going to be doing this, why not take ghost heat off AC2 and make it viable to run 4 again?

I don't know.. Like someone before said... An easy way to make Clan weapon seem better than IS ?

Edited by ShinVector, 12 April 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[Deathlike]

Cimarb, on 12 April 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

I'm not sure if you are for that change or against it. I am for it, though you can see the link in my sig for a little more in-depth analysis. Basically, we should have 4-5+ versions of each CLASS of autocannon, with each class being more distinct as far as DPS, but varying as far as the implementation of that DPS (i.e. some have long bursts with short cooldowns, others have short bursts with long cooldowns, etc.)

I'm a bit indecisive about it. What I remember most about ACs in older MW games is that they had far different properties and characteristics that defined the game. For instance, the UACs in MW2 were like MGs, so they ate ammo like nothing and when you were done, that was it. MW3 had multiple projectiles (I think like 4?) for each UAC, requiring you to have a greater skill cap to make them all hit (and they had low cooldowns). For MW4, they made the UAC literally two projectiles and also reducing the damage (AC20 was not 20 damage projectile), but while having a fairly long cooldown.

Whatever the solution happens to be, the bigger cannons are generally more favorable in this game because their cooldown is wickedly awesome and you just need 1 bullet to hit its target. Breaking them down would not bother me. The AC5/UAC5 right now work "perfectly" (or as much as possible) with the PPC, so breaking them down into multiple projectiles will "easily" desync them, making them primarily brawling or suppression weapons (as the AC2 is already functioning like that).

YueFei, on 12 April 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

Wouldn't it make more sense from a game-balance perspective to de-sync PPC and AC/5 by changing their projectile velocities so they are more different?

It ain't the DPS of the AC/5 that makes it amazing. It's the fact that its projectile velocity and range syncs so well with PPC. Otherwise you'd you'd see people use PPC with AC/10, same damage in 1 shot, 4 less tons invested. But you don't see that being as effective because of the difference in projectile speeds between PPC and AC/10.

I imagine if you're playing against good players who are coordinated, exposing yourself for several seconds at a time (and face-tanking everything) to use a DPS weapon just gives the enemy more time to designate you as a focus target and erase you from the game with a couple shots.

I'm using the AC10 with PPCs only because it makes more sense tonnagewise, and while it will never have perfect convergence. At this point, I'm not even sure if Paul is exposed to qualified poptarts on a regular basis to understand the impact of the current meta... let alone see what the optimal use of the AC2 happens to be.

[Cimarb]

East Indy, on 12 April 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

One alternative might be a "progressive jam," or mechanical slowing that increases cooldown to a maximum, and ultimately requires a "clear time" to return cooldown to normal.

So, no frustrating jams; just slowing rate of fire.

Ultra AC/5
Base Cooldown	Slow Factor	Maximum Cooldown	Clear time
0.75 seconds	20% additional	~2.67 seconds	0.5 seconds plus current cooldown

If my math is right, players firing four-round bursts before holding off for about 1.7 seconds would maintain DPS of 3.43 (what the Ultra works out to currently). To factor in the proposed nerf, base cooldown would be increased to about 0.85 seconds (four-round clear time, ~1.9 seconds). [Edit, math].

I think that's a great idea. I am more inclined to have a version that has a progressive chance to jam, with the jam duration increasing proportionally (so the longer you hold the trigger, the higher your jam chance and the higher the jam duration), but your idea would be good too.

Gyrok, on 12 April 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

It is being nerfed from 3.8 to 3.0...not sure where that is a buff? Also, AC2 range should be the longest...only the Gauss should actually have comparable range. The fact that you are nerfing the AC2s so hard makes me wonder...what was wrong with those? The DPS reduction should have solved any issues you had...range was causing what problems? Additionally, if you are going to be doing this, why not take ghost heat off AC2 and make it viable to run 4 again?

The AC2 SHOULD have a DPS of 2.0 when you look at the rest of the weapons - that's what he means. It is a nerf, but it is less of a nerf than it should have been.

I think the range drop was to offset that "not as much of a nerf". I personally don't mind, as I pair 2xAC2 with 2xAC5 on my Phract, so this will actually make it sync better, even if it will probably still be a nerf overall.

That being said, I don't really agree with the range nerf. The AC2 should still have the longest range, but all autocannons should be brought down to a x2 (or possibly x2.5) range modifier across the board. The AC2 should then have a DPS of 2.0 or 2.5 to bring it down below the AC5 like it should be.

Deathlike, on 12 April 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm a bit indecisive about it.

Spoiler

What I remember most about ACs in older MW games is that they had far different properties and characteristics that defined the game. For instance, the UACs in MW2 were like MGs, so they ate ammo like nothing and when you were done, that was it. MW3 had multiple projectiles (I think like 4?) for each UAC, requiring you to have a greater skill cap to make them all hit (and they had low cooldowns). For MW4, they made the UAC literally two projectiles and also reducing the damage (AC20 was not 20 damage projectile), but while having a fairly long cooldown.

Whatever the solution happens to be, the bigger cannons are generally more favorable in this game because their cooldown is wickedly awesome and you just need 1 bullet to hit its target. Breaking them down would not bother me. The AC5/UAC5 right now work "perfectly" (or as much as possible) with the PPC, so breaking them down into multiple projectiles will "easily" desync them, making them primarily brawling or suppression weapons (as the AC2 is already functioning like that).

Exactly. Making autocannons burst-fire and PPCs either beam or splash would make tons of other issues go away, such as Ghost Heat.

[Vyx]

Sinister Maestro, on 11 April 2014 - 02:28 PM, said:

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

Actually, this is a great idea. It would likely encourage many to enroll in Premium Time.
Very good suggestion.

[VanillaG]

Gyrok, on 12 April 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

The fact that you are nerfing the AC2s so hard makes me wonder...what was wrong with those?

My guess would be that it made the UAC/2 too powerful if they kept the same DPS. We are probably going to be seeing more weapon tweaks in the run up to June so that the Clan weapons come into the game pretty balanced.

[YueFei]

East Indy, on 12 April 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

Maybe, but it sidesteps the fundamental issue as well as affects performance of a single weapon. Plus, since it's already been done with AC/10s and AC/20s, and optimizers will invariably look for a substitute, velocity changes could lead right back to another problematic combination (slow AC/5s, players shrug and return to 10s/20s; accelerate AC/5s and the weapon could become too powerful; accelerate PPCs, and players can more easily counteract the Gauss' charge).

If by "fundamental issue" you're referring to pin-point convergence, I agree with you, and I loved Homeless Bill's TCL idea, but from a practical standpoint of what is possible for PGI to achieve, I think the only thing they can do is muck with projectile speeds.

Then again, there are very simple changes they could make with just XML edits, and yet those don't happen. It's not about the feasibility or difficulty of making a change, it's about how do we convince PGI to even *try* certain changes to see if it helps.

Edited by YueFei, 12 April 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Onlystolen]

gaSyeraSS, on 12 April 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

AC/2 will become useless. 6 Tons for 3 DPS down from 3.85... decreasing the DPS by almost 30%. there is no mech avaiable (competetive drops, I am not addressing this towards PUGs) where this weapon will make any sense after it is nerfed. Free 2 tons more, get AC5 and hf.

The Range will be the problem, Not the dps.

Is everyone seriously just skimming over the range portion of this? Range will make the ac/2 useless not the dps

Edited by Onlystolen, 12 April 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[Chavette]

Mister Blastman, on 12 April 2014 - 09:48 AM, said:

The hilarity of this entire circus is that the problem is not DPS... the problem is pinpoint single-shot alpha.

Two years later the developers (Paul) STILL do not understand this.

If you had to guess, when will he?

[YueFei]

Deathlike, on 12 April 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm using the AC10 with PPCs only because it makes more sense tonnagewise, and while it will never have perfect convergence. At this point, I'm not even sure if Paul is exposed to qualified poptarts on a regular basis to understand the impact of the current meta... let alone see what the optimal use of the AC2 happens to be.

I also tried using AC/10 with PPCs, also for tonnage reasons and to fit a STD engine. I can clearly see that on a laterally moving target, sometimes only the PPCs hit, and sometimes only the AC/10 hits. And sometimes even when both the PPCs and the AC/10 hits, they strike different hitboxes. Projectile speeds can make a huge difference. Although I'm not sure what the speeds should be set at for the different projectiles.

When is the last time anyone saw Paul in a game?

I tried using AC/2 lately, and basically against people who seem to be asleep at the keyboard, it will shred them quickly. Against anyone who is awake, as soon as I land 2 hits, they are turning to fire at me and I better duck into cover, or else I'm eating 30+ damage to the face in one instant. And that's a situation where I see them first and land the first hit.

The AC/2 *fails* as a suppression weapon because it isn't scary. I am more scared of PPC + AC/5 / Gauss fire coming my way because that's a lousy trade to make if I dish out 12 to 16 scattered damage and they hit me with 30 to 35 damage, with a high chance of landing most of that in one spot on my chest. I don't suppress snipers, they suppress me.

AC/2 really is *fire support*. It's when someone else on your team has grabbed attention, and you can stand there and blaze away uninterrupted. But in a situation like that, the other team should probably swap targets and focus you, instetad of firing into your teammate's shoulder (assuming your teammate realizes he's being focused and does his best to tank).

[Cimarb]

YueFei, on 12 April 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

If by "fundamental issue" you're referring to pin-point convergence, I agree with you, and I loved Homeless Bill's TCL idea, but from a practical standpoint of what is possible for PGI to achieve, I think the only thing they can do is muck with projectile speeds.

Then again, there are very simple changes they could make with just XML edits, and yet those don't happen. It's not about the feasibility or difficulty of making a change, it's about how do we convince PGI to even *try* certain changes to see if it helps.

Making autocannons burst-fire, and PPCs beam, would solve the same problem, but is a purely XML change.

I do agree that the biggest issue is getting PGI to even try it, though...

[Mister Blastman]

Chavette, on 12 April 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

If you had to guess, when will he?

Since I'm a betting man, I put 6 - 1 odds on never.

[YueFei]

Cimarb, on 12 April 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Making autocannons burst-fire, and PPCs beam, would solve the same problem, but is a purely XML change.

I do agree that the biggest issue is getting PGI to even try it, though...

While I've been generally against the idea of burst-fire, I did see a suggestion by another player named "wanderer" that I really like.

My main objection to burst-fire autocannons is that it nerfs mechs which don't boat them, like the single AC/20 Hunchback, in an attempt to curtail the raw focused-damage of combos like AC/40 or AC/20+2xPPC.

But "wanderer" had this idea for a mechanic similar to the missile tube count, but for autocannons. So the Hunchback's AC/20 could fire in a very short and concentrated burst, owing to the large bore of its cannon. But a mech chassis not designed to carry it, like a Jagermech, would fire an AC/20 spread out over a much longer burst. For example, the HBK could fire in a rapid 4-round burst over a 0.3 second duration, while an AC/20 fired from a Jagermech's hardpoint could be a 10 round burst over a period of 1 second.

[Carrioncrows]

Few things that I find displeasing and I can't help but feel a bit of despair.

1. (?) Let me put it this way, If I hire someone to paint a wall then that person goes to someone else to get help to paint that wall, then that does not inspire confidence.

2. The changes seem very illogical, right up there with the recent LRM changes and continue to address things that are fine and ignore the real issues with the game.

Electronic Warfare - Needs retooled from the ground up
LRM's - (only able to indirect fire if the target is being Narc'd or Tagged)
SRM lock on ability (All missiles need partial lock on abilities, Missile not rocket. MISSILE, Not ROCKET)
ECM (year + of this broken equipment, can we get someone to remove the blinders and fix this? Same 5 mechs dominate)
Command console (Does what?)
Flamers (If it took 1.5 years to get Mguns buffed how many years will it take to get flamers worthwhile?)
Mguns (Millions ways to do it better and still a square pegged rammed into a circular hole just because)
Pulse lasers (Million and two ways to do it better and still same old dogged stubbornness to stick to a bad concept)
PPC (The one weapon that deserves to be a charge weapon is still constantly ignored)
ERPPC (See above and give it a 90m minimum range. Because it makes sense, even the common kind)
AC10 (The only balistic weapon that needed tweaking. For a year + now I have been saying it needs a buff to range. 450 -> 500 / 520m. Then that is it.)

Weapon Modules

Biggest waste of your money in the universe.

Instead of making + Range modules make Modules that change the equipment as well as the way the equipment deals damage.

Make a module that changes the core functionality of a Weapon itself:



That is a "Meaningful" step in the right direction, instead you are just pissing away time and money on something that will never be used by anyone that thinks about it for more than 3 seconds.

I suppose this is one way to go about fixing weapon balance.

Can't manage to balance weapons we'll just grab the ones that are balanced and make sure we break them to fit in with the others.

Edited by Carrioncrows, 12 April 2014 - 06:20 PM.

[L Y N X]

I echo the sentiments that type AC2 should be longer ranged than the (U)AC5's, The AC2's under the original cannon where intended for anti-aircraft, but were found to also be effective for anti-armor/mech. Most mech-heads accept this w/o reference as fact.

Nothing was mentioned about ongoing support for UI2.0... does this...should this infer that UI2.0 support has been placed in pause mode? It seems as though it has in deed.

[murtaugh]

Community warfare is the feature your community cares about the most. Why has it taken 2 years and it's still not out? Why did you spend so much time barely working on it until recently? As a founder and early closed beta player, I would like some details on community warfare, not this "still much too soon to discuss details" bullshit. Any why the **** is this game considered released whithout the core feature of the game even implemented.

Still a great game and I love it and wilkl keep playing it, but, you guys have really failed the community.

[EgoSlayer]

GravityDog, on 12 April 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

The promise of Community Warfare is the reason most founders funded this game.

Just saying.

FTFY

[East Indy]

YueFei, on 12 April 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

If by "fundamental issue" you're referring to pin-point convergence, I agree with you, and I loved Homeless Bill's TCL idea, but from a practical standpoint of what is possible for PGI to achieve, I think the only thing they can do is muck with projectile speeds.

(At least) one other solution that shouldn't require new tech is adding global cooldowns to PPCs and autocannons. Very brief, like, rat-a-tat-tat for a quad group; tenths of seconds. But that's longer than simultaneity, to be sure, and it retains burst for larger calibers and doesn't affect single weapons.

Damage over time, as described by Cimarb, is the other way, though it may be more controversial. Or maybe less. But no one knows for sure yet.

Quote

It's not about the feasibility or difficulty of making a change, it's about how do we convince PGI to even *try* certain changes to see if it helps.

That can get frustrating: I mean, just try something, no promises. It does tend to be the way most developers operate, although Karl Berg's latest engagement suggests more can be done to at least explain why things take time.

Cimarb, on 12 April 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I think that's a great idea. I am more inclined to have a version that has a progressive chance to jam, with the jam duration increasing proportionally (so the longer you hold the trigger, the higher your jam chance and the higher the jam duration), but your idea would be good too.

And there's nothing more irritating for that first double-tap to do it. Worse, it makes a single Ultra less satisfying than two or more, since one jam will get lost in the shuffle.

As far as my suggestion, the unknown is whether very disciplined players could ride the clear time interval and keep up extremely high DPS, in which case a slightly higher interval, base cooldown or slow factor would be necessary. But, hey.

Edited by East Indy, 12 April 2014 - 08:39 PM.

[Saber Avalon]

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

Clan Mechs/Tech
[color=#00FFFF]That special build I’ve been playing with now has 4 Clan ‘Mechs available and you’ll be seeing in-game renders of them as we get more of the supporting features online like the new weapon effects that will come with Clan Technology.[/color]

In Vlog #2 David said:

David:
“And people have been asking for the previews of the hard points and load outs of clan ‘mechs, and that information should be coming very soon, if not out already by the time this video gets out to you guys.”

Paul:
“We’ll hold that to him."


That was posted back on Feb 11 and it is now April 12th, two months later, and all you have offered is in game renders of them. Where is the information we have you on video saying we would get months ago?! I have been patient but come on guys, this is ridiculous.

We have only been given the prime variants hardpoints of the clan mechs so far and they are listed as "subject to change". When are we getting the others and if you have a build in game with 4 clan mechs then surely you must have finalized hardpoints by now? You did not even give us the other variants of the Timber Wolf with its reveal post. I am sure some people are holding off on buying till they see this information and they are losing out on monthly rewards. You still have not held David to what he said either and it has been two months since he said this info would be out. We still do not have it.

Also, there is very little information on the Gold Khan mechs. Just that they are a gold skin, get a 30% c-bill bonus and a unique module. Are they going to be a 4th mech of that type? So the prime and Khan would each have a 30% c-bill bonus then the 2 variants for a total of 4 mechs? Or is the prime going to be given a gold skin and you have 2 variants for 3 total mechs of that type? In the 4 mech case, would the Khan be its own variant or a duplicate of one of the others(ex/2 primes, one gold and one not or the 3 variants then a fourth unique gold variant)? or would the skin be moveable to any of that type of mech it was purchased for and the skin gives them the 30% bonus?

Then there is all the other items you have yet to define in the FAQ, such as warhorns and the unique modules(regular clan collections and khan). There is only two months until this goes live, so you know what they are by now but are not telling us. If you do not know by now... you guys are in trouble with a fast approaching dead line. We have had nothing on the clans for two months, when you said we would have a bunch more information by the time Vlog #2 was out, and then the best you have for us is in game renders!? Where is the information you said you were going to hold yourselves to giving us?!

You guys are slipping on the communication again, you were doing good for a while and some of this post is good as is the technical update, but this clan information.... do not go back to the old ways. I want to support you, but you are making it very difficult.

[VXJaeger]

Just move charge system from gauss to PPCs, leave ACs as they are and balancing is done.