198 replies to this topic

[Pygar]

geodeath, on 28 May 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Let them do it. Then it will be easier to boat Large Pulse Lasers. When they nerf those, boat something else. That is how the game is played. The devs **** around and nerf stuff in a misguided effort to make everyone equal, skilled and unskilled alike. Then the smart players start boating a different weapon system....and the cycle continues. When they grow a brain and make weapon system choice based on how you shoot and not what damage you do, then the game will actually be balanced.

Yeah, this exactly...now if everybody else would just figure it out already.

Khobai, on 28 May 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

I hardly ever see hunchbacks or YLW now. So it makes no difference.

The idea is changing things for the sake of not letting the "meta" become stale...so we should be looking at mechs people don't use and trying to make new reasons for them to use them, not to make mechs that are already rarely used entirely obsolete.

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

In all cases, I don't see this as a productive nerf- it isn't changing what people really want to change, all it is doing making it so that mechs that are good but not exactly meta will become junk instead.

[R Razor]

geodeath, on 28 May 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

And that is why you will be killed by the meta and eventually rage quit the game. You have no understanding of the willingness of the military mind to use the most deadly weapon system arrangement available at any given time.

Seriously??? It's a GAME genius, not a "kiwi in your colon, you're gonna die maggot" real life JARHEAD military.
I did my time wearing the green, now I choose to PLAY A GAME. For someone to come along and say you must be SMART to find and exploit a weakness in a game design mechanic is borderline asinine. There is a VERY limited amount of intelligence required to figure out what weapons will provide the maximum amount of pinpoint damage in the shortest time possible IN A GAME.

Edited by R Razor, 28 May 2014 - 04:09 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Kyle Wright, on 28 May 2014 - 04:00 PM, said:

Uh yeah it will. Say they drop the mach effective range on the AC20 to from 270 down to 200. that means the max range the weapons system reaches drops as well. Further that means the distance to which damage scales down forcing a medium to have to get even closer.

So if it doesn't make a difference then please explain?

...you know all it's doing is changing the max 3x range from 810M to 540M? Same 2x range as lasers, same 270M optimal range.

[Strum Wealh]

Kyle Wright, on 28 May 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

THIS IS B.S.!!!!!!

Nerfing Ac's especially the AC20 is goign to make mechs like the Hunchback and Yen Lo Wang DEAD!!!!

Why? Because as is these mechs have to get close as is, but now you are asking them to get even closer. All it will take is a decent alpha and there goes THE WANGS ARM, or pop pop pop goes the HUNCHIES HUNCH.

Mediums are out gunned and out armored and need every advantage possible. this will further force people to run Heavies and Assaults to withstand the onslaught up close.

The "why" is to bring the ACs more in-line with other weapons and to bring each AC in-line with the others.

With the 3x maximum-over-effective ranges,

• the AC/20 is dealing 10 units of damage out to 540 meters while the AC/10 is dealing 10 units of damage out to only 450 meters
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 5 units of damage out to ~675 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~756 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 5 units of damage out to 900 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1170 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/5 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1364 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters

The AC/20 should not be outperforming the AC/10 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, the AC/10 should not be outperforming the AC/5 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, and AC/5 should not be outperforming the AC/2 so far beyond the latter's optimal range.

As such, the options are to either make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear, to reduce the maximum range and retain the linear drop-off, or to both reduce the maximum range and make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear.
PGI seems to have chosen the second option.

[1453 R]

Yes. Do nerf the autocannons.

Use them inside their optimal ranges like you're supposed to and you'll see no difference. Try to hit something at gauss rifle ranges with an AC/20 and you should be seeing virtually no damage, if any at all. You want to deliver single giant smacks that far out, use a gauss rifle. The triple-range thing has needed kneecapping for as long as I've been playing this game, it really has. Since when are LRMs medium-range systems at best?

[Jolly Llama]

R Razor, on 28 May 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

Seriously??? It's a GAME genius, not a "kiwi in your colon, you're gonna die maggot" real life JARHEAD military.
I did my time wearing the green, now I choose to PLAY A GAME. For someone to come along and say you must be SMART to find and exploit a weakness in a game design mechanic is borderline asinine. There is a VERY limited amount of intelligence required to figure out what weapons will provide the maximum amount of pinpoint damage in the shortest time possible IN A GAME.

How is it asinine to play the game as efficiently as possible? How is is asinine to anger your opponent to the point that he is unable to play well? How is it asinine to win in the multi-dimensional battlespace by putting the most damage on the mind, mech, and spirit of an enemy, thereby causing him to fold before he fires? Please explain.

[Ecrof]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

The "why" is to bring the ACs more in-line with other weapons and to bring each AC in-line with the others.

With the 3x maximum-over-effective ranges,

• the AC/20 is dealing 10 units of damage out to 540 meters while the AC/10 is dealing 10 units of damage out to only 450 meters
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 5 units of damage out to ~675 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~756 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 5 units of damage out to 900 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1170 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/5 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1364 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters

The AC/20 should not be outperforming the AC/10 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, the AC/10 should not be outperforming the AC/5 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, and AC/5 should not be outperforming the AC/2 so far beyond the latter's optimal range.



As such, the options are to either make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear, to reduce the maximum range and retain the linear drop-off, or to both reduce the maximum range and make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear.
PGI seems to have chosen the second option.

Projectile speed, fire rate, heat, tonnage, slots, ammo, balancing buy damage at rang is silly with so many other variables.

Edited by Ecrof, 28 May 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[Ecrof]

geodeath, on 28 May 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

How is it asinine to play the game as efficiently as possible? How is is asinine to anger your opponent to the point that he is unable to play well? How is it asinine to win in the multi-dimensional battlespace by putting the most damage on the mind, mech, and spirit of an enemy, thereby causing him to fold before he fires? Please explain.

Its asinine to get angry on a forum about a video game. Chill out please

Edited by Ecrof, 28 May 2014 - 04:29 PM.

[Jolly Llama]

Ecrof, on 28 May 2014 - 04:25 PM, said:

Its asinine to get angry on a forum about a video game. Chill out please

I am not angry. I simply pointed out that we will always boat the most damaging systems that we can, no matter the nerf. Then suddenly I had to ask why that was asinine. Why is it asinine?

[Dracol]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

The "why" is to bring the ACs more in-line with other weapons and to bring each AC in-line with the others.

With the 3x maximum-over-effective ranges,

• the AC/20 is dealing 10 units of damage out to 540 meters while the AC/10 is dealing 10 units of damage out to only 450 meters
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 5 units of damage out to ~675 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~756 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 5 units of damage out to 900 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1170 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/5 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1364 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters

The AC/20 should not be outperforming the AC/10 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, the AC/10 should not be outperforming the AC/5 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, and AC/5 should not be outperforming the AC/2 so far beyond the latter's optimal range.


As such, the options are to either make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear, to reduce the maximum range and retain the linear drop-off, or to both reduce the maximum range and make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear.
PGI seems to have chosen the second option.

Thank you breaking down the math on this.

IIRC, what brought about ACs doing damage so far past optimal range was the non-realistic feel of having shells just popping out of existence at x2 range.

Personally, I would love to see bullet drop implemented with no limit on ballistic range. AC/20 would drop like a rock after optimal while AC/2 would continue on for a long while. From my understanding though, it would be a large drain on server resources and is most likely non-viable.

[Strum Wealh]

Ecrof, on 28 May 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Projectile speed, fire rate, heat, tonnage, slots, ammo, balancing buy damage at rang is silly with so many other variables.

That other parameters happen to exist does not, in this instance, discount the importance of the "damage vs range" parameter - especially with regard to the Autocannons, where per-salvo damage and effective range are inversely related (as opposed to, say, the Standard Lasers or the Pulse Lasers, where per-salvo damage and effective range are directly related).

That the AC/20 (a very-short-effective-range, high per-salvo-damage weapon) can exceed the damage output of the AC/2 (a very-long-effective-range, low per-salvo-damage weapon) at the latter's considerably-longer (by nearly a factor of three) effective range (or, as demonstrated above, that the AC/20 can deliver the same per-salvo damage at a greater range than the AC/2 can deliver the same per-salvo damage) demonstrate that the ACs' current 3x damage fall-off is inherently broken & in need of adjustment - and PGI (or, more specifically, Paul) has evidently seen fit to deliver that adjustment in the form of reducing the ACs' effective-to-maximum range multiplier.

[Ecrof]

geodeath, on 28 May 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

I am not angry. I simply pointed out that we will always boat the most damaging systems that we can, no matter the nerf. Then suddenly I had to ask why that was asinine. Why is it asinine?

You used the word "asinine" so much I thought you must be angry. Playing any way you want is fine with me poptart to flamer boat I don't care.

[Ecrof]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

That other parameters happen to exist does not, in this instance, discount the importance of the "damage vs range" parameter - especially with regard to the Autocannons, where per-salvo damage and effective range are inversely related (as opposed to, say, the Standard Lasers or the Pulse Lasers, where per-salvo damage and effective range are directly related).

That the AC/20 (a very-short-effective-range, high per-salvo-damage weapon) can exceed the damage output of the AC/2 (a very-long-effective-range, low per-salvo-damage weapon) at the latter's considerably-longer (by nearly a factor of three) effective range (or, as demonstrated above, that the AC/20 can deliver the same per-salvo damage at a greater range than the AC/2 can deliver the same per-salvo damage) demonstrate that the ACs' current 3x damage fall-off is inherently broken & in need of adjustment - and PGI (or, more specifically, Paul) has evidently seen fit to deliver that adjustment in the form of reducing the ACs' effective-to-maximum range multiplier.

Its being changed to X2 max range. AC/20 rounds go slow as death and drops like a rock super fun at 756 meters.

Edit With only 7 ammo for each ton missing can be a big deal with an AC/20.

Edited by Ecrof, 28 May 2014 - 04:51 PM.

[Lightfoot]

There is no pin-point alpha. Move laterally and the damage is spread across the Mech. Mouse pilots have problems with this because the Mouse has no lateral axis, just torso tilt and rotate. Just saying what's going on. You could make everything hit-scan and there would still be too much pin-point damage for them.

Autocannons are fine. The mechs are too weak to damage on 2xRecharge is what the problem is, was, and will remain. Weird nerfs won't fix it, they never have.

[Kyle Wright]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

The "why" is to bring the ACs more in-line with other weapons and to bring each AC in-line with the others.

With the 3x maximum-over-effective ranges,

• the AC/20 is dealing 10 units of damage out to 540 meters while the AC/10 is dealing 10 units of damage out to only 450 meters
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 5 units of damage out to ~675 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/20 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~756 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 5 units of damage out to 900 meters while the AC/5 is dealing 5 units of damage out to only 620 meters (after having its optimal range increased from the canonical 540 meters)
  
• the AC/10 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1170 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters
  
• the AC/5 is dealing 2 units of damage out to ~1364 meters while the AC/2 is dealing 2 units of damage out to only 720 meters

The AC/20 should not be outperforming the AC/10 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, the AC/10 should not be outperforming the AC/5 so far beyond the latter's optimal range, and AC/5 should not be outperforming the AC/2 so far beyond the latter's optimal range.


As such, the options are to either make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear, to reduce the maximum range and retain the linear drop-off, or to both reduce the maximum range and make the drop-off rates exponential rather than linear.
PGI seems to have chosen the second option.

Okey that makes sense. Sorry if I was a little peeved.

[Jolly Llama]

Ecrof, on 28 May 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

You used the word "asinine" so much I thought you must be angry. Playing any way you want is fine with me poptart to flamer boat I don't care.

I used it in response to being told I was borderline asinine for suggesting that playing effectively would anger the "aggrieved" responder to the point he would rage quit because he failed to grasp the concept of doing as much damage as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. I am just wondering, why is that asinine?

[IraqiWalker]

IanDresariAce, on 28 May 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Funny

But the point is, Autocanons have difficulties of their own (weight, ammo, aiming) and it's not necessary to nerf them so hard.

It's hilarious that you think this is a nerf

If anything, this is a buff. It's bringing AC5s in line with PPCs, even more so now than ever.

Don't just look at the numbers in front of you. Look at the big picture.

[Ngamok]

Pygar, on 28 May 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

Yeah, this exactly...now if everybody else would just figure it out already.


The idea is changing things for the sake of not letting the "meta" become stale...so we should be looking at mechs people don't use and trying to make new reasons for them to use them, not to make mechs that are already rarely used entirely obsolete.

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

In all cases, I don't see this as a productive nerf- it isn't changing what people really want to change, all it is doing making it so that mechs that are good but not exactly meta will become junk instead.

I still use my Hunchback and still get 400-700 damage a match with it.

[Xoxim SC]

Nerf em.

[Jman5]

Dracol, on 28 May 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

Thank you breaking down the math on this.

IIRC, what brought about ACs doing damage so far past optimal range was the non-realistic feel of having shells just popping out of existence at x2 range.

Personally, I would love to see bullet drop implemented with no limit on ballistic range. AC/20 would drop like a rock after optimal while AC/2 would continue on for a long while. From my understanding though, it would be a large drain on server resources and is most likely non-viable.

That may have been a problem in the past, but currently the way it works is that the projectile will still hit you beyond max range making a noise and shaking you around. It just wont do any damage.

You can see this a lot on Alpine where people take pot shots from 2000 meters. You hear and feel the bullets smacking you but your paper doll doesn't change.