356 replies to this topic

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Quote

Paul Inouye
Weapon Changes
First off... AutoCannons. All AutoCannons have had their fall off range reduced in the same manner as the AC/2. Instead of having triple the max range, all AutoCannons are now double. This is going to bring AutoCannons into brawling ranges and also slightly affect the PPC/AC combination at long range.

AC/5 and UAC/5 have had their max range reduced from 1700m to 1240m
AC/10 has had its max range reduced from 1350m to 900m
AC/20 has had its max range reduced from 810m to 540m

This has been a looooong time coming.
You have to keep in mind that range burst damage is extremely effective in this game. And that heat is primary limiting factor on burst damage, so when you make ACs both low heat and high burst, it destroys other gameplay aspects.
For balance purposes Long range should be dispersed type damage, DOT lasers, micro-burst ACs, Arcing PPCs, and Splash LRMs.
Short range is where the burst damage should come into effect. High cooldown burst weapons like heavy ACs, spread damage like SRMs, and heat bound Pulse Lasers.

Quote

Paul Inouye
Last on this list is Air Strike and Artillery Strike. The intention of these has always been an area denile system for getting enemies to not camp in a single spot. It is working but the amount of damage is still a bit high and even noted in the current tournament as being a little over powered. The following changes have been made:

Air Strikes have had the spacing between shells increased by 20%. This is around 8-9 meters.
Artillery Strikes have had their area of effect increased from 60m to 75m (spacing out the shells more).
Both Air Strikes and Artillery Strikes have had their base damage reduced from 40/shell to 35/shell.

Just a FYI, we are constantly monitoring weapon usage and will continue to make balance changes when we can and where we can.

It has already been mentioned in this thread that an Area Denial weapons is low damage long duration (thinks land mines). People down use these consumables to prevent enemies from holding a critical location, they do not use them for their massive burst damage; currently 20x more powerful than the best weapon in the game (40 damage x 10 impacts = 400 damage, compared to an AC20).

The changes you are suggesting fail to change the weapons primary function from a burst damage tool, to an area denial tool.

Try reducing the damage to 10 and adding a 10 second duration (10 shells x 10 seconds x10 damage, is a 1000 point area denial function).

And make air strikes an anti-artillery module, if artillery is called, players can call an air strike that destroys artillery for the rest of the match, or puts a 2 minute cooldown on it.

[Reno Blade]

Agent, we had 10 damage before and nobody used the strikes.
10 bombs with 10 damage with the old, current or new spread does nothing to you, if you don't get hit by the bomb point blank.

I agree that the 40 or even 34 is too high, but 10 is like nothing if you consider, that you take like 2-5 damage with the splash only.

I'd like to have Airstrike with a dmg of 30, with the rest as of now (or planed by paul), but Artillery to do something like 20-30 damage with double the duration and double the cooldown.
with 20 damage and 20 bombs in 10-20 seconds, thats how I would expect area denial.

The improved accuracy module is loughable atm and it could reduce the duration of the strike so you get the 20 bombs in 50-75% of the time, which would increase damage taken and reduce the time you could run away.

[AzureDragoon]

Let's see here.

AC Max range changes: I can live with this. Even though I've recently been trying the Boom'Jaeger build, I will admit, dealing with mechs that pack AC/20s as much as possible is nasty, and even if you survive, its rarely ever with an intact mech. Seeing the AC/20 be pushed more into design for aggressive fighting, or as a close range defensive weapon sounds cool.

While the AC/5 and 2 changes makes me cringe a bit, I'll admit, they should be more second line fire support weapons, and they have the range to do so already. Overall, I like this change.

SRM changes: Not much to say here, sounds good, no complaints, moving on.

Laser Changes: No complaints here.This makes SLas more worthwhile, and the Medium Pulse changes make them a bit more viable for the heavier weight classes. I suspect BOAR's HEAD mech warriors are cheering right now.

'Strike Changes: This was the one that worried me most, especially since one of the first 15k upgrades I got, is the Improved Artillery strike. I was fearing that would be nerfed to something useless. Thankfully it hasn't been hit too much with the nerf bat. If anything, I actually kinda like the increased spread of the shell fall, because now I have a bit more lee way to call it in, and still get some hits even with a more spread out enemy force.


Overall while a few of these changes cause me concern, it's more concern over how my playstyle will change, not actual gameplay issues, (I.E. no "RUINED FOREVER!" Issues) I like them for the most part. Well played PGI, well played.

[Bront]

RancidSnivel, on 29 May 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

I do not know why you hold mine the table top rules. It's a simulator is not it? If I want to play table top, I play with. But this is supposed to be a simulator, so be realistic too ... 900 m radius of the AC/10? At the 30th century?? And please ... 240 m radius of the MG? My air gun can do more ....

I do not know why you need to be clot-bound...

900 Meter Radius? so the AC10 would damage an area 2.54 square km?

Want!

[Bront]

Reno Blade, on 01 June 2014 - 09:34 AM, said:

Agent, we had 10 damage before and nobody used the strikes.

The idea he had was a 10 damage bombardment (IE, you keep taking 10 damage if you don't move out), and increase the duration.

You could combine the 2. The arty stikes could be low damage long durration bombardments, while the air strikes could be actual strikes similar to how they are now. Make them function significantly differently, spread out the damage on the Air Strikes a bit more, and you'd probably be ok.

[Nightmare1]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 31 May 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

The only issue I have with strikes is that they can head shot a 'mech (and often do ... about 60% of my head shot kills are from strikes). Good (maybe lucky) direct fire should occasionally head shot you ... purely lucky AC/40s from the sky should not.

Yes, most of my headshots also come from strikes. It makes sense though. Many cockpits are located on the tops of the Mechs - a direct hit should be expected to deal most of its damage to the top of the Mech, where the head is located (even if it is on the front/face of a Mech, rather than on the very top). Point is, an arty shell is a nasty thing, canonically, and would savage Mechs horribly. Air strikes were very similar. This game has done a good job replicating the effects - if anything, I think that there should be more shells per strike.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 31 May 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

I don't think they do too much damage overall, but the overlapping splash damage seemed a bit random (I think increasing the spread will fix that). I would be perfectly OK with twice as many shells doing half as much damage each, spread over a pattern that minimized the chance of a medium 'mech taking damage from more than three splashes.

While I agree with most of this statement, I take issue with your mention of a pattern to minimize damage. That is really rather laughable. Strikes, historically and fictionally, are always patterned to deal the most damage possible - read saturation. Asking PGI to construct strikes designed to avoid dealing damage is pretty ridiculous.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 31 May 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

Balance cannot be achieved with cost, particularly now that you can directly buy CB with MC.

Of course it can! You simply make it more expensive. Free-to-play gamers already don't purchase many consumables, and even a lot of pay-to-play gamers I know prefer not to purchase them. If the cost were boosted to about 60,000 C-bills, then it would become cost prohibitive. In fact, losing a match may cost you money if you use a module. Alternatively, if PGI doesn't want to raise the cost (which I would prefer they don't since I am primarily F2P myself), then they could restrict the use of strikes to Lance Commanders and Brigade Commanders only. This would bottleneck the number of usable strikes and provide a balance without directly altering the usability or effectiveness of the strikes.

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 31 May 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

No. With only 2-4 module slots available, two strikes will almost always be more useful than one tighter strike. Maybe if one accuracy module tightened the spread for both strikes ... maybe.

Again, I disagree. Some people prefer one strike over another. In fact, I know a few that will not run Air Strikes because it is too frustrating for them to line up the shot. I use both personally, but there have been times that I wished I had the Grouping Module equipped on an Arty, rather than an Air Strike. Air Strikes already take a great deal of skill to place, and are easily avoided - I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've been hit by them. However, Arty strikes are unpredictable and can deal more massive damage since they saturate.


All-in-all, I really don't see many strikes in play, currently. There are perhaps four or less on average per match. I don't think that is unreasonable. Now, I have been in matches that had six or more - those got to be rather ridiculous. However, there are simple things PGI can do, such as limiting their use to Commanders, that will balance them without the need to nerf yet another feature of the game.

To be honest, these nerfs are really becoming frustrating. For someone who played this during Closed Beta, back when SRMs were fearsome, AC/20s rocked, and Mechs could fall down, the amount of nerfs PGI has been funneling at us are disappointing. If they would stop trying to nerf everything until it's no longer usable, and focus on the more important features we have been awaiting for some time now (like CW, new maps, better stability, reporting system, VOIP, etc.), then perhaps there would be more people playing the game and less people raging.

Personally, I'm a huge BattleTech fan who is still really enjoying this game. The fact that PGI is still operating as though the game is in Beta is troubling though - it's time to look ahead and stop tweaking things beyond belief. I really want the game to succeed, but every time PGI nerfs content, people quit. My guild has lost several good pilots to this - they became disheartened, then disinterested, and then stopped playing entirely and went to other, more promising games.

So let's get the bugs fixed first PGI, then you can try all your balancing if you still feel like it. Frankly, I think the game plays well as it is (and this from someone who doesn't run metas or quad-ballistic Jagers). Why keep skewing it?

There, epic long muse is done.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

OK ... we disagree (I can live with that) ... and here's why we disagree ...

Quote

All-in-all, I really don't see many strikes in play, currently. There are perhaps four or less on average per match. I don't think that is unreasonable. Now, I have been in matches that had six or more - those got to be rather ridiculous.

I've played with and against (it seems like mostly against, but I'm sure that's just my perception) 4-mans that each bring one or two strikes. We (they) feel like we "must" bring them in order to win. I'm guessing that you watched some of the team tournament matches ... if not, you should. While strikes may not have been the deciding factor, they did significantly affect the outcome in most of them. In the Antares Scorpion-Steel Jaguar semi-final, for example, Siriothrax got six kills with two strikes. Granted that was in a "best case" scenario, where nearly the entire remaining AS team was piled onto the +SJR+ cap point, it still demonstrates why strikes are brought ... when all that matters is whether you win or lose, you bring whatever helps your team win, period. Right now that's strikes.

[Nightmare1]

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 June 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

OK ... we disagree (I can live with that) ...

I believe your opinion is wrong, but I will defend to the death your right to maintain it.

If you can, then I can. Kudos!

Kageru Ikazuchi, on 01 June 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

I've played with and against (it seems like mostly against, but I'm sure that's just my perception) 4-mans that each bring one or two strikes. We (they) feel like we "must" bring them in order to win. I'm guessing that you watched some of the team tournament matches ... if not, you should. While strikes may not have been the deciding factor, they did significantly affect the outcome in most of them. In the Antares Scorpion-Steel Jaguar semi-final, for example, Siriothrax got six kills with two strikes. Granted that was in a "best case" scenario, where nearly the entire remaining AS team was piled onto the +SJR+ cap point, it still demonstrates why strikes are brought ... when all that matters is whether you win or lose, you bring whatever helps your team win, period. Right now that's strikes.

Meh, again, I just don't see that many employed overall. As a rep for my Unit, I talk to a lot of other Units and have dropped with a lot of pilots in Pugs and 12s (I reeeeeally need to trim that Friends list! ). A lot of them disdain the strikes - they think they're kind of a cheat and won't use them, can't afford them, can't justify them, etc. Personally, I like and use Arty strikes a lot, but I also make 200,000+ C-bills frequently and can afford a bit of mad money to pilfer on them.

While they can be bought for MC, I'll never understand why people do purchase those - it seems like a waste of money to me when you could save up for Mechs, Bays, etc.

No, I'm afraid that I haven't watched the Tourney. I'm not hardcore and can't get excited about watching videos of complete strangers play the game (better things to do with my time or at least play it myself ). It seems to me that the strikes are most overpowered in the competitive arenas where pilots and Units can coordinate who equips what and when they use it. Most of the matches I've had where there were more than four strikes were 12s - I just don't see that many in Pug matches.

Assuming that the overuse of strikes is primarily restricted to the competitive 12s as has been my experience, then simply limiting the number of strikes to the number of Lance Commanders would be an easy and effective way to limit overuse in the competitive circuit. Besides, in real-life, not just anyone can call down strikes. You have to possess authority or be a spotter who's job it is to place said strikes. Restricting who can use strikes in a competitive match would be an excellent way to balance them without nerfing them.

Of course, if the role-play-specific skill trees were in place, like they were advertised when this game initially broke into the news, then only Commanders could wield them. Brawlers and Scouts wouldn't be able to do so.

...But that's a failed promise on PGI's part. I'm still hoping for CW, if we can ever get past PGI's favorite game of Nerf-darts.

[Kyrs]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 01 June 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

It has already been mentioned in this thread that an Area Denial weapons is low damage long duration (thinks land mines). People down use these consumables to prevent enemies from holding a critical location, they do not use them for their massive burst damage; currently 20x more powerful than the best weapon in the game (40 damage x 10 impacts = 400 damage, compared to an AC20).

The changes you are suggesting fail to change the weapons primary function from a burst damage tool, to an area denial tool.

Try reducing the damage to 10 and adding a 10 second duration (10 shells x 10 seconds x10 damage, is a 1000 point area denial function).

And make air strikes an anti-artillery module, if artillery is called, players can call an air strike that destroys artillery for the rest of the match, or puts a 2 minute cooldown on it.

Yup it seem pretty common sense but I would increase the denial to 20 sec but with ac5. And I would greatly increase the saturation zone and splash diameter.
For the air strike I would got for napalm that burn for 20 sec or 30sec. (Think apocalypse now)
Paul!!! Kilgore's talking to you; "do you smell that!"
http://youtu.be/sBksHaTQCbU

Now that you done the full circle with the nerf... with debateble result (concerning the concentrated damage ac ppc combo), I hope you will final consider switching the charge shoot from gauss to ppc.

I enjoy the ppc pre-HSR, it was risk versus reward. Now it no risky all reward.

Edited by Kyrs, 01 June 2014 - 03:06 PM.

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

I have this psychic moment...

All the CLAN AC's will have about the range of pre-nerf IS AC's. Since giving them a range buff that would be consistent would make it so mechs could make shot past the ingame visual rendering range of said mechs. Right?

Not that this actally bothers me too too much. But it seems a more obvious reason than balance. Especially after years of saying the AC balance was fine, just fine...

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 01 June 2014 - 05:41 PM.

[Nightmare1]

The funny/sad thing is that PGI keeps re-balancing everything, but they never do it incrementally. Here we have a large number of weapons changes coming such that very few weapons will be left untouched. This isn't a tweak to balance an over-powered weapon - this is basically a re-write of half our weapons system specs! There won't be any balance after this for a while. Players will kick around with the new weapons, find a new meta, and then abuse that until PGI decides to nerf the Mech(s) and weapons used on the meta, thus kicking off a whole 'nuther round of re-balancing.

For now, I grieve for my Hunchbacks. I started playing them in Closed Beta, back when the weapons were (in my opinion) at their best. Slowly but surely, I've been giving them up a little at a time. Ghost Heat nearly killed my 4P. I found a new arsenal that breathed new life into it, barely, but my 4G and 4H will be ruined by this nerf update.

Hopefully, the Clans will be all we wish for; otherwise this game is in trouble if we can't get past all these balancing and nerfing issues.

[William Knight]

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

I've edited the initial post that you have since responded to that it includes the following:
The AC nerfs may seem all fine and dandy on paper, but it's going to make it that much harder for brawlers to approach meta builds since we won't be able to suppress and close in on them as effectively.
This was not the most effective way to go about combating the meta.

It feels as if these changes are cutting of the legs we use to rush meta players.

additional edit
I'm not trying to be a **** here, it can be hard to decipher the tone of text, I really want to know why this change seems to knock brawlers more than the people who abuse the meta
Why not target the meta directly?

Damn, looks like you're going to need the help of direct fire support mechs!

Team work O.P plz nerf.

Nightmare1, on 31 May 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

While I don't like seeing the ACs nerfed, I admit that it does make sense, especially in light of the Clans coming out next month.

That being said, why on earth nerf the AC/20? You already have to get pretty close to use it! Who in their right mind would waste shells beyond 500 meters anyways, before the nerf (Not enough damage return in exchange for the range)? Now I have to scoot my Hunchbacks in too close for them to be particularly effective - the game just got handed over to the PPC'ers and LRM'ers. Long before my AC/20s are in range, my Mech will be too badly damaged to brawl.

Too close, if you're in an ac 20 brawler Hunch then you should be actively looking to get within 240m or less and staying there! If you want to engage long range mechs on approach then build a different mech, otherwise I suggest you start looking at the terrain for "safe" approaches.

Edited by William Knight, 01 June 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[QuaxDerBruchpilot]

Good to hear on the Arty / Airstrike modification.

[Masterrix]

Arty-Strike:

the problem is "not" that an arty can instantly kill you
the problem is that it happens "too often",
although the "cockpit-hitbox" is very small on every mechmodel,

so if arty-head-shots are happening so often on a very small cockpit hitbox, there must be something wrong with the "mechanics"

for me 35-40 damage is ok, makes the arty usefull, the changes should be made to the hit location mechanics, not to damage

[Thrudvangar]

Good changes on the AC side...

Now add penalties to the boating and poptart sh.it!

Its ridiculous facing a 4xAC5 cataphract, 3xUAC5 Jager and these jumping double ppc, double ac5 losers... ppl should use a mix of weapons no matter what mech they are piloting, force them to do it otherwise mwo is just another shooter.

Give mechs more armor or lower those high pinpoint alphas. Its almost senseless to brawl or engage mid-range fights when your arms, legs or sidetorsos are blown of within 0,1 second (1 mouse click)....

Theres always a gimp atlas, ac40 jager coming around the corner and your ******* arm is history, or, to speak as an Protector pilot, your sidetorso is **** fisted...

JJ for heavy and assault mechs should have increased tonnage per JJ.

Overall the damage your mech suffer from any distance and in a short period of time is way too high, making me feel like i am sitting in a paper robot.

9 medium laser hunchback, wtf?
All the lights who boats medium lasers wich ripping mechs wich weight is 3 times higher than the light itself apart... without any penalty..firing alpha after alpha..

An alpha should be used as an last resort and not permanent...

Decrease damage and/or add more armor to make matches lasts longer and this game is much more fun.

- max 2 of medium (pulse) laser can be fired at once, more will double the heat
- 1 LL, second fired simultaneously = double heat, same with ppc
- max 1 AC, second will shoot but "jams" for 15 seconds, same with UAC or any other ac
- lrms only chainfire, more missile spread and needs LOS, otherwise only 50% of them will hit, increased lock on and firing speed to not making them useless. Or, with no LOS they fly light they do now with only 50% of them hit, WITH LOS they acting like streaks.
- MGs need more range...

Something like that

[William Knight]

Nope,

Enzlaved, on 02 June 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Good changes on the AC side... Now add penalties to the boating and poptart sh.it! Its ridiculous facing a 4xAC5 cataphract, 3xUAC5 Jager and these jumping double ppc, double ac5 losers... ppl should use a mix of weapons no matter what mech they are piloting, force them to do it otherwise mwo is just another shooter. Give mechs more armor or lower those high pinpoint alphas. Its almost senseless to brawl or engage mid-range fights when your arms, legs or sidetorsos are blown of within 0,1 second (1 mouse click).... Theres always a gimp atlas, ac40 jager coming around the corner and your ******* arm is history, or, to speak as an Protector pilot, your sidetorso is **** fisted... JJ for heavy and assault mechs should have increased tonnage per JJ. Overall the damage your mech suffer from any distance and in a short period of time is way too high, making me feel like i am sitting in a paper robot. 9 medium laser hunchback, wtf? All the lights who boats medium lasers wich ripping mechs wich weight is 3 times higher than the light itself apart... without any penalty..firing alpha after alpha.. An alpha should be used as an last resort and not permanent... Decrease damage and/or add more armor to make matches lasts longer and this game is much more fun. - max 2 of medium (pulse) laser can be fired at once, more will double the heat - 1 LL, second fired simultaneously = double heat, same with ppc - max 1 AC, second will shoot but "jams" for 15 seconds, same with UAC or any other ac - lrms only chainfire, more missile spread and needs LOS, otherwise only 50% of them will hit, increased lock on and firing speed to not making them useless. Or, with no LOS they fly light they do now with only 50% of them hit, WITH LOS they acting like streaks. - MGs need more range... Something like that

I strenuously , yet respectfully, disagree with just about every one of your suggestions.
Every boat has a weakpoint or weakness. Target/exploit it.

Edited by William Knight, 02 June 2014 - 02:12 AM.

[smokefield]

i can't even laugh at the suggestions some ppl make. boating is main course to take in lore. as william said..all boats have weaknesses..if you dont know how to exploit them, learn and stop complaining.

[Nightmare1]

William Knight, on 01 June 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

Too close, if you're in an ac 20 brawler Hunch then you should be actively looking to get within 240m or less and staying there! If you want to engage long range mechs on approach then build a different mech, otherwise I suggest you start looking at the terrain for "safe" approaches.

I'm a very good HBK pilot who knows how to run the Mech, although I appreciate your effort to educate me.

What I was driving at, is that you often find yourself in a less-than-ideal situation. When that happens, being able to hit someone at 500 meters, and deal damage, is very advantageous when you are seeking to close, find better cover, etc. Now that the Brawler HBK's range will be reduced so drastically, it will be regulated to hunkering with its head-down until the end of the match when the enemy team pushes forward to roll the HBK's team, or when there are few enough Mechs for it to come out of cover without getting ripped asunder by PPCs, Gauss, LL's, LRMs, etc.

I have multiple HBKs with a variety of builds. Some are being buffed by this patch, like my 4P. Some are getting buffed and nerfed simultaneously like my GI and 4H. My overall contention is that the AC/20-packing HBKs are already at enough of a disadvantage that they don't need this nerf. The AC/20 forces them to sacrifice substantial speed to pack the weapon, so they can't close quickly if caught in the open (that is one of the counters to the brawler HBK - outmaneuver and shred it before it can close to range).

What I predict, is an exodus from the AC/20 HBK Brawler field and more AC/5 builds if people keep their 4G's and 4H's. Otherwise, we will see them start to vanish until only the other variants are often seen.

Enzlaved, on 02 June 2014 - 01:49 AM, said:

Good changes on the AC side...

Now add penalties to the boating and poptart sh.it!

Its ridiculous facing a 4xAC5 cataphract, 3xUAC5 Jager and these jumping double ppc, double ac5 losers... ppl should use a mix of weapons no matter what mech they are piloting, force them to do it otherwise mwo is just another shooter.

Give mechs more armor or lower those high pinpoint alphas. Its almost senseless to brawl or engage mid-range fights when your arms, legs or sidetorsos are blown of within 0,1 second (1 mouse click)....

Theres always a gimp atlas, ac40 jager coming around the corner and your ******* arm is history, or, to speak as an Protector pilot, your sidetorso is **** fisted...

JJ for heavy and assault mechs should have increased tonnage per JJ.

Overall the damage your mech suffer from any distance and in a short period of time is way too high, making me feel like i am sitting in a paper robot.

9 medium laser hunchback, wtf?
All the lights who boats medium lasers wich ripping mechs wich weight is 3 times higher than the light itself apart... without any penalty..firing alpha after alpha..

An alpha should be used as an last resort and not permanent...

Decrease damage and/or add more armor to make matches lasts longer and this game is much more fun.

- max 2 of medium (pulse) laser can be fired at once, more will double the heat
- 1 LL, second fired simultaneously = double heat, same with ppc
- max 1 AC, second will shoot but "jams" for 15 seconds, same with UAC or any other ac
- lrms only chainfire, more missile spread and needs LOS, otherwise only 50% of them will hit, increased lock on and firing speed to not making them useless. Or, with no LOS they fly light they do now with only 50% of them hit, WITH LOS they acting like streaks.
- MGs need more range...

Something like that

...I heard about you - you're whining is legendary! Haven't had the misfortune to drop in game with you yet (fortunately!) though.

Just fyi, since you clearly don't know much about MechWarrior: The ability to boat and build whatever you want on your Mech is a cornerstone to the game since it's inception. The MechWarrior game series has always had this in it (haven't played TT, so I can't speak for it). Furthermore, canonically, the books often featured boats and pop-tarters.

Learn to deal with it. Sure, it's no fun to get rained on by an LRM boat, but that probably means you weren't using cover effectively. Sure, it's no fun to get boomed by a Boom Jager, but that probably means you weren't cognizant of your surroundings, or you charged down his throat. PPC and Gauss snipers are difficult to counter, but again, proper use of cover can foil them until you can close to range.

Each Mech build has its own advantages and disadvantages. Simply because you are not good at reading the sensor data to determine those factors and then decide how to fight that enemy does not mean that the game should be bent out of whack into something unrecognizable.

Non-UAC's jam? No way!
Increase the tonnage per JJ? Doesn't make any sort of logical sense...
Lights boating lasers? Well, they're too light to fit AC/20's (except that one Raven...) so you should be thankful!
9 ML HBK? Sure, but he has to deal with the heat load and be able to pilot effectively - there are downsides!
Alpha as last ditch effort? Sure, but a good pilot can also use it as a starter to drive a wedge into enemy armor - learn to use it yourself.
Decrease damage and add armor? Not canonical bud - get used to it. You can't take over a dozen years of precedent (game-wise, not counting the books) and turn it on its head.
Max of 2 MPL fired before Ghost Heat? That's already in the game bud.
1 LL...PPC...Double heat? Also in-game already.
LRM chainfire...etc. Not canonical and really ridiculous. I can't stand LRM boaters but, love 'em or hate 'em, your demand is really unreasonable!
MGs are good as they are - buy the range extension module if you need extra (I did - it was worth it!)

[Artillery Witch Viridia]

Changing srm damage to 2.15 is basically non-existent for a buff. Srm6+buff 12.90 damage up from 12. That's not even a full damage increase even if they all connect and or register. going from 6-5.7 meter spread with or without artemis is a joke as well. The logic fails me. It's like hey we recognize srms suck as brawling weapons but our wisdom dictates we change a few numbers that amount in practicality a big tangible nothing. It doesn't even begin to bandaid the hit reg issue or damage inferiority. Honestly a velocity increase with a spread reduction of actual value is needed. Without putting a srm6 up to 14-15 damage at the very least people simply won't take them seriously. They are just another spread damage weapon. People see missile hardpoints and go lol srms or lol lrms. The instant target loss module will further neuter lrms in much the same way tagging a poptart who is in ecm cloud does. As soon as you lose tag lock when they fall behind the hill the ecm takes over and your missiles harmlessly impact terrain. That's one mechanic in the game that already hard counters advanced target decay making lrms useless against a proper poptart, while you still take the damage from having to be exposed to maintain tag. Everyone knows spread lrm damage simply can't handle ballistic mech damage in a faceoff either. I don't understand why pgi increased missile speed when they are just going to come up with ways to push an already inferior hardpoint class further into the dirt with a module like that.

Edited by Azoic23, 02 June 2014 - 06:26 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

smokefield, on 02 June 2014 - 04:03 AM, said:

i can't even laugh at the suggestions some ppl make. boating is main course to take in lore. as william said..all boats have weaknesses..if you dont know how to exploit them, learn and stop complaining.

OH now I'm curious.
So tell me where is the weakness of a Quad AC 5 build - or a LRM 60 boat that is guarded by an AC40 Jaeger.


Wait - you will start to argue - just shoot at the arms of a BoomJager....or run into the minimum range of a LRM boat - or use cover. Generalism at its best - and complete nonsense. A single player is dead a less coordinated team is dead no matter what the other team uses - they will even kill with LBX, SRMs and Small Pulse Lasers - as long as their coordination is better

Edited by Karl Streiger, 02 June 2014 - 06:37 AM.