305 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

For those of you complaining about the ac2 Nerf, saying that it is not needed...


At the top elo's ac2's are not used, so nerfing them make ZERO difference.

At mid and low Elo's AC2's are used in groups of 3 plus to tear up players who do not move well or twist their torsos between shots. You can say 'play better', but the reality is that some of us are just not that good and never will be.

In those Elo's the AC2 is overpowered and nwedewd a Nerf.

Does it need 2 nerfa....prolly not. But in the end I think the people who use them now in those Elo's will continue to do so.

[FupDup]

Sprouticus, on 14 April 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

For those of you complaining about the ac2 Nerf, saying that it is not needed...


At the top elo's ac2's are not used, so nerfing them make ZERO difference.

At mid and low Elo's AC2's are used in groups of 3 plus to tear up players who do not move well or twist their torsos between shots. You can say 'play better', but the reality is that some of us are just not that good and never will be.

In those Elo's the AC2 is overpowered and nwedewd a Nerf.

Does it need 2 nerfa....prolly not. But in the end I think the people who use them now in those Elo's will continue to do so.

Using that logic, we should also nerf LRMs because some people "are just not that good and never will be."


The idea that weapon balance is based on Elo is not true. Weapon stats are identical across the board no matter what level you're at. A Medium Laser is a Medium Laser is a Medium Laser, all day 'erryday. The only difference is that players' ability to make use of certain items/tactics changes as Elo changes.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Sprouticus, on 14 April 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

For those of you complaining about the ac2 Nerf, saying that it is not needed... At the top elo's ac2's are not used, so nerfing them make ZERO difference. At mid and low Elo's AC2's are used in groups of 3 plus to tear up players who do not move well or twist their torsos between shots. You can say 'play better', but the reality is that some of us are just not that good and never will be. In those Elo's the AC2 is overpowered and nwedewd a Nerf. Does it need 2 nerfa....prolly not. But in the end I think the people who use them now in those Elo's will continue to do so.

If this is how we are balancing the game, we might as well just all quit now and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

[Jonathan Paine]

Sprouticus, on 14 April 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

For those of you complaining about the ac2 Nerf, saying that it is not needed...


At the top elo's ac2's are not used, so nerfing them make ZERO difference.

At mid and low Elo's AC2's are used in groups of 3 plus to tear up players who do not move well or twist their torsos between shots. You can say 'play better', but the reality is that some of us are just not that good and never will be.

In those Elo's the AC2 is overpowered and nwedewd a Nerf.

Does it need 2 nerfa....prolly not. But in the end I think the people who use them now in those Elo's will continue to do so.

For most players who play MWO, they start off bumping into walls and loving lrms. They progress into weapons like the AC2. Neither of these periods last - as you get better, win more matches and your Elo increase you will run into more and more meta.

At that point, most weapons become irrelevant and we are left with a game filled with pop-tarts and pin-point instant damage. If weapon balancing continues to be based on players with less experience, the game eventually turns into utter blandness for everyone who kept playing. Until they stop.

If people at the infamous top of Elo mountain start running diverse builds, you have succeeded. When most of them run completely similar builds, you have failed game balance. Noobness passes.

[Egomane]

Jonathan Paine, on 14 April 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

For most players who play MWO, they start off bumping into walls and loving lrms. They progress into weapons like the AC2. Neither of these periods last - as you get better, win more matches and your Elo increase you will run into more and more meta.

At that point, most weapons become irrelevant and we are left with a game filled with pop-tarts and pin-point instant damage. If weapon balancing continues to be based on players with less experience, the game eventually turns into utter blandness for everyone who kept playing.

Luckily, I'm not most players!

If I run into waves of meta-builds, I'll either hand them their behind with my inferior builds, or I'll accept my loss (or losses) until I get back into a playing field where I can play the way I want to.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Egomane, on 14 April 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

or I'll accept my loss (or losses) until I get back into a playing field where I can play the way I want to.

That's depressing.

[Egomane]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 April 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

That's depressing.

How so? I still have a positive W/L and K/D and can play the way I want without some "meta" dictating how I should play.

I have fun! Isn't that the most important thing about a game?

I never understood the obsession with being competetive or to only run the best builds. In my oppinion those things take the fun away instead of adding to it. They do give a special thrill, but that is hardly the same.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Egomane, on 14 April 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

How so? I still have a positive W/L and K/D and can play the way I want without some "meta" dictating how I should play.

I have fun! Isn't that the most important thing about a game?

I never understood the obsession with being competetive or to only run the best builds. In my oppinion those things take the fun away instead of adding to it. They do give a special thrill, but that is hardly the same.

It means balance is out of whack.

For a simplistic explaination, you have 3 classes. A, B and C.

When balance is bad you have the below:

A 500 damage per match

B 300 damage per match

C 100 damage per match

In this instance, it's SUPER obvious which you choose.

When balance is good you have something more like this

A 500 damage per match

B 475 damage per match

C 450 damage per match

Keep in mind, the numbers and damage per match are just arbitrary examples. But the differences between A and C are small enough, that you could choose either and be successful.

So when you talk about LOSING to drop yourself out of a bracket where only A exists and nothing else, it means balance sucks.

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 April 2014 - 05:35 AM, said:

Increasing the heat doesn't do anything, because typically if you get into brawl range with a poptart, they are starting at pretty minimal heat to begin with.

And Paul in his infinite wisdom has decided to keep our gigantic heat cap, with no penalities. So if you do get into range, he'll have more than enough heat available to kill you.

You'd have to up the AC/5 heat an insane amount to make it matter.

Don't suggest ghost heat to Paul. You already saw the effect on AC2 usage... and then removing tri/quad-AC5s from brawling? More alpha-meta poptarting for all!

Edited by Deathlike, 14 April 2014 - 12:43 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Don't suggest ghost heat to Paul. You already saw the effect on AC2 usage... and then removing tri/quad-AC5s from brawling? More alpha-meta poptarting for all!

Yeah... I was kind of surprised that wasn't the direction he went.

And it wasn't what I meant lol. But I see what you mean. Damnit.

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 14 April 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:

Yeah... I was kind of surprised that wasn't the direction he went.

And it wasn't what I meant lol. But I see what you mean. Damnit.

For AC2s, even BEFORE ghost heat was a applicable, using 4+ was unsustainable because it generated stupid amounts of heat because of the high ROF. Some would say that a heat reduction would have been very beneficial for the AC2... but you know, the AC2 wasn't really meta-worthy in the first place (unless your complete role was suppression).

That's just a reference for "cause and effect". Just because the dakka annoys you (knocking the cockpit), it didn't mean ghost heat had to be applied. It was literally a L2P issue with possibly a small reduction the cockpit knock.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Deathlike, on 14 April 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

For AC2s, even BEFORE ghost heat was a applicable, using 4+ was unsustainable because it generated stupid amounts of heat because of the high ROF. Some would say that a heat reduction would have been very beneficial for the AC2... but you know, the AC2 wasn't really meta-worthy in the first place (unless your complete role was suppression).

That's just a reference for "cause and effect". Just because the dakka annoys you (knocking the cockpit), it didn't mean ghost heat had to be applied. It was literally a L2P issue with possibly a small reduction the cockpit knock.

I didn't understand AC/2 Ghost Heat then, I don't understand it now. just as I don't understand the nerf to AC/2's.

AC/2's have never been something I've ever been remotely worried about in this game.

Even 5's aren't really that scary, UNTIL you pair them with PPC's.

Now I will say UAC5's can be scary, due to the burst.

But generally the small AC's have a draw back of having to stare down your opponent to use them.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

Don't suggest ghost heat to Paul. You already saw the effect on AC2 usage... and then removing tri/quad-AC5s from brawling? More alpha-meta poptarting for all!

It still surprises me that we haven't seen ACs attached to PPCs in Ghost Heat. Then again, it still surprises me that they never ent back and adjusted the PPC GH numbers after they pushed the heat from 8 and 12 to 10 and 15.

[Solahma]

Eglar, on 14 April 2014 - 03:20 AM, said:

no they are not. most jump sniper builds get a majority of their damage from sustained fire not from jump-sniping.

A constant fire 2AC5+2PPC overheats before it can be considered "sustained" unless you are only firing the AC5s. What this patch means to say a highlander is just this: nothing. A highlander will alpha, torsotwist to shield components, then fire again when PPCs have recharged and/or mech has cooled down. Do you spot the issue? The AC5 "nerf" and increased cooldown will not effect this type of play-style which is the current dominant meta. Victors, Highlanders, and Cataphracts will still play exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the sustained fire from AC5 and AC2 dependant mechs. These are mechs that are build around that single primary ballistic weapon to make them effective. A mech with 2AC5 and a good amount of medium lasers requires a constant stream of bullets to be made effective. This only hurts the builds that relied on facing the enemy head-on A.K.A Brawlers and mechs with a single AC5 as a primary weapon.

[Zordicron]

Guess I will post on this soon to be pointless threadnaught in hopes Paul will actually revisit this.

I hate what is in the works for AC2. it is going to get range nerfed? You realize Paul the actual offender for range is the AC20 which eclipses the AC10 in almost every way? That you put massive heat penalties into the AC2? mounting just a single AC2 is not particularily effective and almost impossible on lighter mechs. Putting 2 of them on is a significant tonnage incvestment especially considering heat sinks required. So nerf the DPS, making non-boats of the AC2 even worse off? DAFUQ?

Want to tweak ballistics? reduce range ACROSS THE BOARD, make ammo actually explode. Now the higher DPS of AC2(still not seeing why it is bad for an AC2 to have....less DPS then an ac20.... wait so we want it to be even more...less?) is partly countered by being in closer range for effective return fire against it as no matter what you do to it, it will still be hindered by heat and the fact you have to stand and face your target to get that DPS. It also allows other weapon systems to get a chance at effective return fire against the bigger balllistics. seriously an AC20 at double range is more powerful then a LL at optimum range. BETTER NERF AC2 and not AC20! /sarcasm

I just dont see how this is a correct change for the small autocannons. it is going to push people to running AC10's more, and especially AC20 when they can over a pair of AC2. Were twin AC2 mechs totally OP or something? These changes will REDUCE the variety of loadouts on the battlefield. I still cant even understand ac5 longer range then ac2....WUT?

DO NOT APPROVE.

Edited by Eldagore, 14 April 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Selbatrim]

Would it be at all possible to organise several feedback threads for the changes separately instead of in one big massive heap? Like the patch feedback. Should make it easier for you (if you do care about the feedback) to follow our hive mind responses and for us to get up to speed on the particular issues we want to contribute to.

Edited by Selbatrim, 15 April 2014 - 04:57 AM.

[catspider]

Good work.

[Karl Streiger]

Its really interesting...the range nerf....for the AC 2 means - that the damage drops faster:
considering average battle distance of ~ 1000m you did have lost 24% of damage.

Considering you have a Tripple AC 2 build ....we are talking about 1.2dmg per 3 grenade shot

with the additional reduced RoF - at 1000m you deal 60% DPS of the pre patch AC 2...60% of nothing is still nothing... so people raging about nothing....
If the AC 2 is a sniper weapon... it can't compete with a poptarting ER-PPC build...that deals even at pre patch AC 2 more damage as a single AC 2 at almost any range.

So if it is a brawling weapon - you hardly use it beyond 720m - so the range reduction doesn't matter.

So folks please tell me - why are your raging?

[Joseph Mallan]

Are we getting 6 new Variants or 6 new Mechs? Getting new variants of what we already have is a bit less exciting.

[Karl Streiger]

only variants .... that would have saved tons of cbills if they were original part of the phx packages.
the blr 3s looks promising ... lrm 20 and 6 med las sound like a plan