183 replies to this topic

[Aleski]

Gasoline, on 16 April 2014 - 03:41 AM, said:

Maybe because they'll be introduced in 3071 and 3079 respectively?

Because PGI has break the time line since the Clan wars, so why not? It's possible to design them for MWO.

[Xx Albain xX]

Ummm, you forgot to make the game fun again AKA = TAKE GODLY status off the LRM's PLEASE. My god worst decision you have ever made in MWO.

[Gasoline]

Aleski, on 16 April 2014 - 03:50 AM, said:

Because PGI has break the time line since the Clan wars, so why not? It's possible to design them for MWO.

We can agree on the first part. The thing about those chassis is, we don't have MASC yet, we have no ER small/medium lasers for the IS yet, no light FF armor, no small cockpit.

I'm with you in regards of putting some use in the Locust, but... yeah... the best use of a Locust is probably not to use it at all.

[Aleski]

Gasoline, on 16 April 2014 - 04:12 AM, said:

We can agree on the first part. The thing about those chassis is, we don't have MASC yet, we have no ER small/medium lasers for the IS yet, no light FF armor, no small cockpit.

I'm with you in regards of putting some use in the Locust, but... yeah... the best use of a Locust is probably not to use it at all.

HA HA =)

Yes, you are right, i haven't see the "light ferro fibrous" armor. I was thinking it was a normal ferro fibrous armor... But the MASC is out of the timeline too?

The problem is that i really like my locust! I use the 3M. The problem is that they can be so more cool with little ameliorations...
Damned! I think i'm a little masochist to use them............ ='(

[Magna Canus]

Just a question regarding the AC2 ROF; The AC2 suffered from Ghost heat because "Fast Fire" dropped the ROF below 0,5s. If I remember correctly GH kicks in at/below 0,5s. Has anybody tested if the new ROF+Fast Fire takes the AC2 out of GH?
If so then the new ROF is a benefit, but the range mod was uncalled for I believe.

As for the AC5/UAC ROF changes. O.o why? MWO is not a DPS game in the moment. It is peek&Alpha / JJ+Alpha. The only time DPS becomes relevant at all is when you catch somebody in a corner with their pants down.

The other changes look ok.

As for the C-bill for MC thing... well, if they want to spend real money for something that a bit of play can do too then more power to them. I still think spending the money on Premium time + Hero Mech would be a "better value". I wonder if bought C-Bills count towards the "Richer than Blake" achievement?

[Smitti]

My thoughts.

New Phoenix variants:

Six new variants, why not spread it over the six Phoenix chassis? Wolverines especially need an alternative to the 6K

Cbill packages:

I don't think this will make a lick of difference regarding the amount of time players spend in-game. Speaking for myself and the guys I play with, we don't play the game to grind cbills. There is no target for cbills earned each night. I am lucky enough to be able to purchase most of my mechs with MC, that's my choice, I usually just hoard the cbills. That said, my stable is only ever stocked with the Battlemechs I'm interested in so I haven't shelled out in a while. The other guys I drop with are mostly less free with their wallets, some are freeloaders, but not one of us ever plays just to grind in-game currency.

Autocannon balance:

I recognise the (piecemeal) attempt to mitigate the 2 x AC/5 2 x PPC pinpoint bullshit, but seriously, convert them to DOT in line with lore and be done with it.

Moar beer!

[mack sabbath]

By the way, SRMs are NOT fixed. They don't fail to reg quite as often, true, but they also still fail to do all their full damage at least a third of the time.

Maybe on the next series of fixes then?

[Ngamok]

Joe Decker, on 15 April 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

Those are just other Reasons.

If People can buy CBills for MC they don't have to play for their CBills. This WILL reduce the Activity. Simple Logic.

Why would people buy C-Bills for MC if they won't be playing much? I mean I won't put money into a game and then log in to play 1 match a week. That's just crazy.

[Ngamok]

Archon, on 15 April 2014 - 12:31 PM, said:

I'm very frustrated about the changes to the AC's, especially the speed nerfs. Please consider reverting these changes and stop trying to overbalance weapons that are already fine. It seems like whichever weapon happens to be even moderately effective ends up getting nerfed. It's really sucking the fun out of this game.

Counterpoint, they should have stuck to 2x range on ballistics like they did with energy weapons and there would be no complaining.

[Voivode]

The Fresh Prince of New Avalon, on 15 April 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

I am glad that the AC 5 nerf does something to mitigate the last year of PPC/AC5 meta. Now we can have PPC/Gauss meta. The AC2 was one of the only weapons that can effectively counter meta build since it was effective beyond PPC max range. [redacted]

PPC + Gauss will actually take way more skill. If someone is a skilled sniper then hey, more power to them, but sniping should never be the easy - go to method of fighting. It should always be among the more advanced playstyles.

[Ngamok]

Xx Albain xX, on 16 April 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

Ummm, you forgot to make the game fun again AKA = TAKE GODLY status off the LRM's PLEASE. My god worst decision you have ever made in MWO.

You are wrong and you liked your own post.

[Mechteric]

Koniving, on 15 April 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Meanwhile, the lore is that they are automatic and burst fire weapons that fire -- and mind you not just one but MANY -- tank rounds until sufficient rounds are fired down range to meet the damage rating. So they would look even cooler while being much easier to balance due to not being max upfront damage anymore.

...

If you're wondering what AC/20 requires a 100 shot burst, it happens to be the Victor's Pontiac 100.
As for the AC/2 that requires 10 shots? Whirlwind-L AC/2 (30 to 32mm) on the Blackjack-1.

...

But that's...just a rant from someone sick of PGI spitting on the lore. We don't have SRMs in MWO, we have glorified short range MRMs SRMs have soft-locked guidance and chase after NARC beacons! Why the heck do you think the Kintaro or the Raven 3-L have NARC? To mark enemies for LRMs? Pfft as if! It's to mark enemies for their SRMs!!

I'm with you on all of these, and completely desire autocannons to finally be implemented this way. I think they are just taking the easy/lazy way out just because they don't want to do something new and instead just copy what Mechwarrior 3 and Mechwarrior 4 did for the weapons.


As for SRMs, perhaps they could use the old beta Streak SRM code (which locked on but did not guarantee 100% hit), but also allow them to be dumbfired without lock for existing SRM behavior.

[CeeKay Boques]

I still want to buy 4000 MC for 6.5 Million Cbills.

Now THAT's a good deal.

[doodlemander]

So are these new varients Phoenix mechs? And does that mean they come with 30% C-bill bonus or anything else? There's nothing in the store to tell you this so I wasn't sure.

[Ngamok]

cleverember, on 16 April 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

So are these new varients Phoenix mechs? And does that mean they come with 30% C-bill bonus or anything else? There's nothing in the store to tell you this so I wasn't sure.

No, they are standard.

[doodlemander]

Ngamok, on 16 April 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

No, they are standard.

Ok, thanks.
So they're just available for MC as an 'early adopter' sort of thing. Guess I'll wait.

[Bront]

Ngamok, on 16 April 2014 - 06:08 AM, said:

Counterpoint, they should have stuck to 2x range on ballistics like they did with energy weapons and there would be no complaining.

Yeah, if they finish up by reducing all other balistics to 2X range, then I'll be happy. Make the AC20 a close in only weapon, give the AC10 a reason to exist as a large punch mid-range weapon, and AC2 reigns supreme as a ranged weapon along with Gauss.

[DeathlyEyes]

Koniving, on 15 April 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

The sad irony is, in order to do the nerf Paul had to get permission from Russ, after making a case about how autocannons are just obscenely overpowered.

O.o; Russ might be the one that needs to go. He wants autocannons that do lots of damage in a single shot because it looks cool.

Meanwhile, the lore is that they are automatic and burst fire weapons that fire -- and mind you not just one but MANY -- tank rounds until sufficient rounds are fired down range to meet the damage rating. So they would look even cooler while being much easier to balance due to not being max upfront damage anymore.

Inner Sphere's largest Mech or Tank mounted AC/20 is the 4 shot Chemjet Gun (TRO-3026), 185mm at 5 damage per shot.
What MWO is featuring is "Rifles", the obsolete technology ditched and dumped because a single shot modeled off of old tanks couldn't do jack. The one Heavy Rifle I found in lore is described as "190mm." It fired a single shot, took a while to 'prime' to fire again, and does 9 damage. However, against 3050 military grade armor, it only does 6 damage. It happens to weigh 8 tons.

Meanwhile your average AC/5 is between 40mm (that's 20mm above mech-mounted machine guns) to a maximum recorded (so far) size of 120mm. That 120mm AC/5 is the GM Whirlwind/5 (Hunter ridge & Wolves on the border) and is described as a 3 shot burst to deal 5 damage (each shot dealing 1.666666666666667 damage).

That's 3 shots of this, having to hit one place, to deal 5 damage.

The AC/2 ranges from 30mm (10mm higher than an MG) to 80mm. Here's a middle ground at 40mm.


Now mind you, the 'ammo count' is not an actual count of the individual bullets but of the 'uses' it has. More specifically for the burst fire sort each 'payload' is loaded in a cassette (magazine) that is ejected after its emptied. In the GM Whirlwind/5's case a ton of ammunition (since source gives '15' units when MWO gives 30) would have 15 cassettes and thus 15 uses of the AC/5. Considering each 'use' is 3 shots you'd actually have 45 rounds per ton. In another case with the Imperator-A 80mm AC/5 (Price of Glory) it's a 5 shot automatic-fire gun with each 'shot' doing 1 damage. If it were a burst fire, it'd have 15 cassettes, each cassette would have 5 shots, for a total of 75 shots. Since it's a chain fed automatic, it simply has 75 shots per ton and an AC5's 'cooldown rate' is how long it takes to make 5 shots.

If you're wondering what AC/20 requires a 100 shot burst, it happens to be the Victor's Pontiac 100.
As for the AC/2 that requires 10 shots? Whirlwind-L AC/2 (30 to 32mm) on the Blackjack-1.

So with a glimpse of that, how powerful are 20mm machine guns? Well while people frequently refer to the Gau-8, that is unfortunately incorrect as that's an AC/2 sized weapon at lighter tonnage (got to remember the barrels for AC/2s are huge and long and half the weight of the weapon system, plus feeding plus ejection and then component materials and so on). Well here's a glimpse. That's the correct caliber. Ultimately, an MG managed the same damage as an AC/2 in 10 seconds from source (that being 2 damage), but unlike the AC/2 which had to stop and cool and reload the machine gun could squeeze off non-stop. Its range issues had to do less with recoil and more with the fact that in the books they are tilted downward at the ground so that the pilot could fire them without even paying attention to what he's aiming at and keep his wits about him for real threats.

But that's...just a rant from someone sick of PGI spitting on the lore. We don't have SRMs in MWO, we have glorified short range MRMs SRMs have soft-locked guidance and chase after NARC beacons! Why the heck do you think the Kintaro or the Raven 3-L have NARC? To mark enemies for LRMs? Pfft as if! It's to mark enemies for their SRMs!!

...Sigh.
Oh well.

Sadly Russ can't go. He's the CEO of PGI.

I have a feeling due to the fact that SRMs have hit detection issues and I notice when I fire autocannons rapidly I have hit detection issues, converting Autocannons to burst fire weapons will only result in hit detection issues. This might be the actual reason for them not doing it. If they do convert Autocannons to burst fire weapons, I want slug fire LBX as an option. That is if we are following lore. Autocannon 20's would also need to have the similar balistic traits as the smaller AC's since they will be firing the similar projectiles just more of them.

That being said, Paul needs to go. Nothing he posts seems to generate any sort of positive feedback. At best it results in some borderline neutral feedback. He has failed consistently to balance the game and that seems to be the main point to his job at PGI. He needs to be moved to a new position so someone else can balance the game properly.

Edited by SLDF DeathlyEyes, 16 April 2014 - 02:05 PM.

[Helsbane]

Here's a crazy thought for the devs to consider...

Instead of looking at weapons that are high in use and deal good damage and then nerfing those back in line with weapons that suck, how about looking at the weapons that are lagging behind in use and damage output and, call me crazy, buffing them to increase their popularity and effectiveness to the same levels as the popular weapons.

This 'cut off the top level to achieve balance' approach shows the Devs really have no f*cking idea of how to make this game work. I stand by my sig.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Helsbane, on 16 April 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

buffing them to increase their popularity and effectiveness to the same levels as the popular weapons.

They have repeatedly stated they feel one of the biggest issues with the game is mechs dying to easy (remember - these are supposed to be nigh-unkillable machines here)

So - yes - you are crazy - that is not going to happen.