524 replies to this topic

[Pale Jackal]

3 2 2 1 split for IS autocannons.

Or 2 for all.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

On the bright side, Heavy Gear looks like it might not be a bad game to play after this one is totally nerfed into Oblivion......

at least until everyone quits this, migrates there and causes the same fail.

GG!

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 16 June 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

hope you still feel as smug when you find out that balancing Clan to IS when they all share identical mechanics isn't as smooth and easy as you assumed.

[MischiefSC]

Oh, dont be so melodramatic bish. This is fixingan issue that should have been fixed long ago. Same as missiles and lasers, acs will be different.

Its all good stuff. Unbunch your panties and see how it shakes out.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 16 June 2014 - 03:29 PM, said:

Oh, dont be so melodramatic bish. This is fixingan issue that should have been fixed long ago. Same as missiles and lasers, acs will be different.

Its all good stuff. Unbunch your panties and see how it shakes out.

Any melodrama is purely in the posts about how game breaking and unfixable FLD is.

Would rather to see how Clans vs IS shake out, first. But hey, it's all good. Just give me more time for other pursuits, as I can all but promise this will not end well.

If I'm wrong I'll say so, but I have not seen one single "burst AC" post that actually answered the power balance gap between clans and IS. (Sorry Livewyr, that means yours, too, which I am thoroughly unconvinced by.)

and my panties are my business. And thongs don't really bunch.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 June 2014 - 03:34 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

On the bright side, Heavy Gear looks like it might not be a bad game to play after this one is totally nerfed into Oblivion......

at least until everyone quits this, migrates there and causes the same fail.

GG!

Ive been a big Heavy Gear fan since the first game...Activision did it right...and I cant wait to get back into a Kodiak!

[Creovex]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

hope you still feel as smug when you find out that balancing Clan to IS when they all share identical mechanics isn't as smooth and easy as you assumed.

Listen to you all logical today bish.

[Bishop Steiner]

Creovex, on 16 June 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Listen to you all logical today bish.

I strive for logic most of the time. I tend only to drift when given incomplete information, or I tire of listening to the same "argument" being spouted. But I am sure that is how everyone views their own PoV.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 June 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 16 June 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

In BT lore, those "ticks" are called "cassettes". A ton of AC/20 ammo isn't really five individual shells, it's five cassettes - each cassette containing anything from three to 100 individual shells, depending on the burst fire rate of the AC in question.

For example, the GM Whirlwhind AC/5 on the Marauder supposedly fires in three-round bursts, so every ton of AC ammo it had held 20 cassettes with three rounds each (60 rounds total per ton), whereas the Pontiac 100 AC/20 on the Victor and Yen-Lo Wang uses 100-round cassettes (and therefore carry 500 rounds per ton, and fires 100-round bursts).

100 shells doing 0.2 damage per... would not feel at all like a gut wrenching BFG. And at 1.333 damage per shell would be a whirlwind of miss and just lame.

[MischiefSC]

Ive given hga and sc growing chunks of my cash. I hope they are all awesome. Pigeonholing IS mechs into fld makes a bad thing worse.

Two words - chassis qwerks.

I hope ac fire isnt the only new factor coming to is mechs.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

(Sorry Livewyr, that means yours, too, which I am thoroughly unconvinced by.)

Well, it is impossible to convince someone to solve a problem they seem determined to believe does not exist. I do not feel any less for it.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 16 June 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

Well, it is impossible to convince someone to solve a problem they seem determined to believe does not exist. I do not feel any less for it.

And it's impossible to reason with someone who reads into or cherry picks with what he wants from a conversation, since I never once stated there was nothing wrong with the state of FLD. Only that FLD in and of itself as a damage mechanic was fine, but needed to be adjusted.

Funny how that works.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

And it's impossible to reason with someone who reads into or cherry picks with what he wants from a conversation, since I never once stated there was nothing wrong with the state of FLD. Only that FLD in and of itself as a damage mechanic was fine, but needed to be adjusted.

Funny how that works.

You never explained any adjustment to FLD. You only recommended RoF decreases for PPCs, which I agreed with.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 16 June 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

You never explained any adjustment to FLD. You only recommended RoF decreases for PPCs, which I agreed with.

actually shows how little you read, then, since I also listed RoF adjustments to each ballistic, as well as the possibility of FLD ballistics carrying less ammo, possibly (extreme idea) having a CoF outside of the "stock" ranges and the concession that a UAC5 being burst fire would make a nice bridge between IS and Clan Tech.

The fact you said that any such RoF adjustments would "nuke ACs" but still magically allow them to be situational death beams to Lights, of course means you felt they have no merit. much different than me never having said anything though.

And those were just a few of MY ideas. I'm sure others could provide other interesting ones, instead of throwing out 2 years of game design.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 June 2014 - 04:20 PM.

[Davers]

If Clan mechs used the same mechanics as IS they would be grossly overpowered. Why can't people see if IS used Clan mechanics they would be underpowered?

If all ACs were DoT then the Clans have a huge advantage. It won't matter if the IS is firing 3 shells to the Clan's 5 if the Clans can double tap all their much lighter and longer range ACs.

[Livewyr]

Davers, on 16 June 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

If Clan mechs used the same mechanics as IS they would be grossly overpowered. Why can't people see if IS used Clan mechanics they would be underpowered?

If all ACs were DoT then the Clans have a huge advantage. It won't matter if the IS is firing 3 shells to the Clan's 5 if the Clans can double tap all their much lighter and longer range ACs.

2 things:
A: If the burst is much shorter, it keeps the damage grouped tighter. (Keeping some of the advantage IS has now.)
B: An alternative solution of keeping the big round but giving it arcing damage was suggested, which would solve the problem of PPFLD, while keeping the advantage of "snap shot."

Regardless of route taken, the balance should be weighed in other areas, like accuracy (projectile speed, and perhaps minute of angle) as well as a potential RoF increase.

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

Bishop, this is an example of someone cherry picking a post.

ERMEHGERD SAME MECHANIC

(skips shorter burst and increased projectile speed- along with the RoF increase mentioned)

It would break the IS!

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

And you like it.

Edited by Livewyr, 16 June 2014 - 04:27 PM.

[wanderer]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

Any melodrama is purely in the posts about how game breaking and unfixable FLD is.

Would rather to see how Clans vs IS shake out, first. But hey, it's all good. Just give me more time for other pursuits, as I can all but promise this will not end well.

If I'm wrong I'll say so, but I have not seen one single "burst AC" post that actually answered the power balance gap between clans and IS. (Sorry Livewyr, that means yours, too, which I am thoroughly unconvinced by.)

and my panties are my business. And thongs don't really bunch.

You'd tweak everything else, too. Making the IS depend on a single meta-style for "balance" is no balance at all, and shoves IS 'Mechs into "can you meta, or do you suck?".

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 16 June 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

actually shows how little you read, then, since I also listed RoF adjustments to each ballistic, as well as the possibility of FLD ballistics carrying less ammo, possibly (extreme idea) having a CoF outside of the "stock" ranges and the concession that a UAC5 being burst fire would make a nice bridge between IS and Clan Tech.

The fact you said that any such RoF adjustments would "nuke ACs" but still magically allow them to be situational death beams to Lights, of course means you felt they have no merit. much different than me never having said anything though.

And those were just a few of MY ideas. I'm sure others could provide other interesting ones, instead of throwing out 2 years of game design.

I stand corrected, I do remember that now.

I did respond to them:
RoF adjustment: agreed with for PPC.
[Edit: I propose increased RoF for ACs[
Less ammo (I don't remember that one) would be an even bigger nerf to weapons that already weigh more.
CoF, i said, would be a bigger nerf than going burst. (if the clans already have increased stock range, why would you want to nerf the IS weapon in its falloff range?)

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

And none of that addresses the "Meta or die" approach.

Edited by Livewyr, 16 June 2014 - 04:33 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

wanderer, on 16 June 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

You'd tweak everything else, too. Making the IS depend on a single meta-style for "balance" is no balance at all, and shoves IS 'Mechs into "can you meta, or do you suck?".

Yes, you keep saying that....except I also demonstrated that by by slowing ROF of the ballistics, you would actually need to supplement them with lasers and SRMs and RLMS or risk having easily exploitable vulnerabilities. It's actually buffing the energy weapons. And hey if DoT is soooo perfect already a mechanic, that means that they had to already be good against the Clans, quinaff? (BTW, I have also advocated changes to buff the lasers, precious. Because they are not too bad against he clans, but need some tweakign too.)

But of course, by taking the hyperbolic, myopic, adjusting one thing means ignoring everything else rhetoric approach, I suppose that has eluded you?

especially since you are speaking to a pilot that has never adhered to Meta, yet doesn't get panty bunched at the mention of it, like you seem to.

So I mean if we're just going to descend to demeaning and inaccurate rhetoric, why don't you just distill it to classic gamer speak, and we can just start yelling "L2P" at each other?

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 16 June 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

I stand corrected, I do remember that now.

I did respond to them:

(if the clans already have increased stock range, why would you want to nerf the IS weapon in its falloff range?)

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

And none of that addresses the "Meta or die" approach.

(if the clans already have increased stock range, why would you want to nerf the IS weapon in its falloff range?)

Gosh, because if FLD is such a huge game breaking bugbear, having it, and just being slightly less accurate with it at extreme ranges should still more than compensate? And a CoF still lands the damage to ONE place, as opposed to spread across 2-3?

And yeah, I have, many times. Because you see, balance, and meta? It's not based off of tweaks to any one single thing...it's interactively balancing everything. But you see, I try to actually keep threads on point..and have ballistic ones talk about...idk..ballistics? And them talk about lasers on posts about....lasers? Or maybe you forget my MediuM laser buff Topic already?

And you keep talking about how horrible it is because a single "lucky" shot could gimp the poor precious Light mech-.

What do you think an ac20 is supposed to do? Yes TT uses random hit, and with an ac20, wherever you randomly hit a Light Mech, fell off. Every time.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 June 2014 - 04:39 PM.