524 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2014 - 07:45 PM, said:

Hm, so, while I do not know what unit would use this 300mm, it does say "single shot" right there in print.

A naval unit would use that. That blurb is talking about military jargon in general. If you have a naval unit (be it traditional or space navy), or artillery unit (possibly even a Long Tom, but that would be the only mech-level weapon), THEN you can have your 300mm cannon.

stjobe, on 18 June 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

Sure does, and if you had followed the link I gave to that post from February you'd have seen me acknowledge as much. Find me a description of an AC/20 that fires a single 200 kg shell, an AC/10 that fires a single 100 kg shell, an AC/5 that fires a single 50 kg shell, or an AC/2 that fires a single 20 kg shell, and I'll be the first to agree with you that weapon is a single shot AC.

I seriously doubt you'll find one though, since there are no actual lore description of single-shot ACs - every single AC that is described is described as burst-fire or continuous-fire. ACs themselves are described in Tech Manual, p.207 as "gigantic machine guns", and the lore abounds with mentions of "streams of bullets" and "hails of shells" and other descriptions of burst- or continuous-fire ACs.

The issue is settled; ACs in BT are burst- or continuous-fire weapons that are classified depending on how much weight they can throw down-range in 10 seconds.

Now that the Clan ACs have shown that there's no technical issue with burst-fire weaponry (the servers can handle it), IS ACs should be re-implemented to burst-fire and both them and the Clan ones re-balanced.

I really wish the forums would let me filter your posts regarding autocannons, just so I could link my signature to all of the great info you have posted...

[Cimarb]

Tombstoner, on 19 June 2014 - 05:46 AM, said:

Except that many players are accustomed to the current game and changing things now for some degree of balance improvement many not be justified no mater the strength of the argument. ( I favor the change but being objective it should happen only if both flavors are added)

At this point both FLD and Burst need to be offered side by side or not at all and yes i am one of those players who would use IS burst fire over FLD simply for the fun cool daka daka ness of it all. i could care less about the meta... i play for fun. I dont think i'm alone in this.

BTW isn't 4 x ac-2 with 2 damage per shot every .6 seconds burst fire.....? it fires 5 x 2 point shells in 3 seconds per ac. for a total of 20 shells and 40 damage in 3 seconds..... how is that not a burst fire weapon.....?

Most players are "accustomed" to the horrible heat system too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.

See my signature link for how I think it should be done, which covers having burst-fire variants as well as retaining (balanced) FLD variants. I don't want to take that playstyle away from anyone, but I want to have some variety!

Regarding the AC2: for a long time, we had four versions of the AC20. Every single AC did 14-20 damage in the same five second timeframe, making them by definition a Class-20 AC, with the lowest DPS AC actually being the AC5. The only difference was the rate of that DPS, range it was done at, and size of the weapon.

Many people were up in arms about the normalization that happened over the last three or so months, but I relished it, as I had been calling for it for 6-8 months before that. Now, the complaints have died down as everyone realized that it wasn't the end of the world, and many have finally begun to understand that burst-fire ACs are just as fun (if not more) and much more balanced than the FLD method.

[Coralld]

spectralthundr, on 18 June 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Do you read the forums? The reason the game is in perpetual constant rebalancing is because every time PGI makes a change people QQ about it. MG's upped to 1 damage? NERF MACHINE GUNS A JAGER WITH 4 KILLED ME! When all that player had to do was move about 260 meters away from said Jager.

People complained about the high damage of the Gauss, so what did PGI do to try and quell that? Add a charge timer that realistically makes no sense to be there since a charged capacitor in the real world can certainly hold a charge for a hell of a lot longer than how Gauss currently work.

There is no pleasing everyone, there's always going to be the go to high damage weapons that the meta players will use, no amount of ghost heat or nerfing, regardless what it is, will change that.

I agree that the MG nerf was uncalled for but in regards to the Gauss charge mechanic, well, that is actually realistic. A real Electromagnetic based weapon loads a round first and then needs to be charged before firing, other wise you run a risk on an accidental discharge and the thing rips its self apart.
Yes its kinda not realistic that the weapon has such a short hold time before powering down as a real large Rail/Coil gun can hold a charge far longer, problem is the ammount of heat that is generated in the prosses as soon as you start charging the weapon. In truth the Gauss rifle should not be producing 1 pt of heat upon discharging but something closer to a PPC, and that's just firing the damn thing, charging it and holding the charge would double the heat generated easily if not more so.

I have said it before in regards to the Gauss rifle, perception vs reality.

Sorry for taking things off track but hearing people say the charge mechanic is not real really urks me when I used to work with people who actually worked on a REAL Rail Gun in GAASI who say otherwise.

Anyways, back on topic.

Edited by Coralld, 19 June 2014 - 07:11 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Coralld, on 19 June 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

I agree that the MG nerf was uncalled for but in regards to the Gauss charge mechanic, well, that is actually realistic. A real Electromagnetic based weapon loads a round first and then needs to be charged before firing, other wise you run a risk on an accidental discharge and the thing rips its self apart.
Yes its kinda not realistic that the weapon has such a short hold time before powering down as a real large Rail/Coil gun can hold a charge far longer, problem is the ammount of heat that is generated in the prosses as soon as you start charging the weapon. In truth the Gauss rifle should not be producing 1 pt of heat upon discharging but something closer to a PPC, and that's just firing the damn thing, charging it and holding the charge would double the heat generated easily if not more so.

I have said it before in regards to the Gauss rifle, perception vs reality.

Sorry for taking things off track but hearing people say the charge mechanic is not real really urks me when I used to work with people who actually worked on a REAL Rail Gun in GAASI who say otherwise.

Anyways, back on topic.

I expect it would take a decent amount of time to charge up or it would start to over heat and that's very bad. So a charge up mechanic is reasonable and more accurately should be generating heat during the charge up.

So a Gauss charging could be making 1 heat per second for x seconds and 1 heat when it fires. The delay between charging and shooting should be removed. where does the power go exactly if you dont fire. but then you loose the intended nerf and that's to prevent snap shots.

One alternative is to gain heat over time the longer you hold the charge. This could be balanced to disrupt inter weapon synergy with the PPC. The trade off for longer charge hold times is higher heat generation and posably damage to the weapon.

Personally i think charge times should have been added to the ppc. It takes time to make the particles. That's the trade off for unlimited ammo along with high heat and tonnage. also a duration for the beam, something like .5 seconds.

Edited by Tombstoner, 19 June 2014 - 07:48 AM.

[Cimarb]

Tombstoner, on 19 June 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Personally i think charge times should have been added to the ppc. It takes time to make the particles. That's the trade off for unlimited ammo along with high heat and tonnage. also a duration for the beam, something like .5 seconds.

Several ideas for how to make the PPC more interesting and balanced:

Cimarb, on 16 June 2014 - 01:26 PM, said:

PPC VARIANTS

Spoiler

For PPCs (both standard and ER), the delivery method is the best way to differentiate them while keeping balanced. Here are some descriptions of proposed ways to alter the damage delivery of PPCs. I have made some up myself, while some are taken from what other's have described in the past.

All damage and associated numbers are open to adjustment, of course, and this is solely about the actual DELIVERY of that damage. Heat and all other metrics would remain the same unless otherwise noted or balance required.

Since manufacturers of PPCs didn't really get to detailed (correct me if I missed any references), I won't bother assigning any manufacturers to these. Instead, I'll just name them descriptively.

• Man-made Lightning (random arc spread): The PPC shoots a lightning bolt that hits the target point for {6} damage, then arcs to two random spots anywhere on the mech for an additional {2} points each. For example, if the PPC hits the front RT, it does {6} points of damage, then arcs to the rear LT for {2} points of damage and the RL for another {2} points of damage, for a total of {10} points of damage. (OPTIONAL: the lightning can hit internal structure even if their is armor remaining on that section)
  
• Plasma Blob (energy LBX): The PPC functions like a small-radius LBX, with 10 plasma blobs that fire in a cone from the barrel, spreading to a {20m} cone at max range and dealing {1} point of damage per blob that hits.
  
• Electrolaser(charge): The PPC charges up for {0.5} seconds. During this time, a tag-like laser shows where the beam will shoot. After {0.5} seconds, the PPC discharges, shooting a beam of ionized particles along the laser to instantly do {10} points of damage. (NOTE: This may function like the Gauss charge, or possibly fire automatically after the charge up)
  
• Electropulse (duration): This functions like the Electrolaser, charging for {0.5} seconds, but then delivers {3} points of damage every {0.5} seconds after that for as long as the trigger is held. (Optional: Heat grows exponentially as the beam is held (so {1} heat the first tick, {2} the second, {4} the third, etc.))

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Hey, I'm just using your lore to show you that is says that there are single shots, right there in print.

I'm well aware of the fact, and as I said in the comment I linked to but you haven't read, I have to acknowledge the possibility of single-shot ACs in the BattleTech Universe. And I do.

But there's not a single instance of lore describing them as far as I know - the multitude of descriptions of ACs are ALL, down to the last one, descriptions of burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Sure, there may be single-shot ACs out there, single shot "rapid-fire, auto-loading heavy ballistic weaponry - gigantic machine guns, in other words" (Tech Manual, p.207) - but I haven't seen a single description of one.

So pardon me if I find it disturbing that every single AC in MWO (before the Clans arrived) is single-shot.

And now that Clan ACs have shown that it can be done I think it should be done - make all ACs burst-fire and rebalance them. For example they could make the IS ACs have shorter bursts and smaller burst-size, with higher projectile speeds and lower heat than the Clan ones.

Bishop Steiner, on 18 June 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

(Hey I get it, you jockey Lights. But your Lights have a heck of a lot more survivability here than in any previous MW title, or TT, FLD or not)

Uncalled for, Bishop. If you want to attack my arguments, do that - I don't mind a discussion. But please refrain from the cheap ad hominems. I "jockey" all kinds of 'mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

I'm well aware of the fact, and as I said in the comment I linked to but you haven't read, I have to acknowledge the possibility of single-shot ACs in the BattleTech Universe. And I do.

But there's not a single instance of lore describing them as far as I know - the multitude of descriptions of ACs are ALL, down to the last one, descriptions of burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Sure, there may be single-shot ACs out there, single shot "rapid-fire, auto-loading heavy ballistic weaponry - gigantic machine guns, in other words" (Tech Manual, p.207) - but I haven't seen a single description of one.

So pardon me if I find it disturbing that every single AC in MWO (before the Clans arrived) is single-shot.

And now that Clan ACs have shown that it can be done I think it should be done - make all ACs burst-fire and rebalance them. For example they could make the IS ACs have shorter bursts and smaller burst-size, with higher projectile speeds and lower heat than the Clan ones.


Uncalled for, Bishop. If you want to attack my arguments, do that - I don't mind a discussion. But please refrain from the cheap ad hominems. I "jockey" all kinds of 'mechs.

See now you are getting touchy. Stop that. It was not a serious shot at you, but mixing in a little humour, such as when it was suggested by another post that Livewyr was biased because he wanted clans to be superior. If people are getting so touchy that one can't leaven some humour (even bad attempts at it) then we all just need to stop posting.

That said, Mediums (I'm the Medium junkie, recall?) and Lights ARE far more survivable, in MWO, even without random hits, because of the doubled armor and structure. Yes focused alphas take off limbs and can kill them. Gauss and AC20s killed and maimed in a single blow too (as did PPCs to most Lights) and even with RNG, a Lance of Heavies and Assaults fire on a Light, or Medium, it pretty well disintegrated. In lore.

Yes, you like burst fire. I disagree with your assessment it is the fix, as I do not think it can be adjusted to the degree that the IS are not just plain inferior to the Clans with burst fire, unless it's done to the point of making it blatantly superior.

Yet somehow in this game of FLD, since HSR has been implemented even, Lights have been one of the most dominant forces in the game, so you will have to excuse me if I feel that their imminent death is somewhat overstated.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cimarb, on 19 June 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

A naval unit would use that. That blurb is talking about military jargon in general. If you have a naval unit (be it traditional or space navy), or artillery unit (possibly even a Long Tom, but that would be the only mech-level weapon), THEN you can have your 300mm cannon.


I really wish the forums would let me filter your posts regarding autocannons, just so I could link my signature to all of the great info you have posted...

the example given was for an AC20, not a naval version (which is actually an NAC20, and totally different. Standard Nautical and dropship mounted ac20s, are just as the article describes, a generic catch all for a 14 ton, 20 damage, gun.). That article was implicitly using the ac20 as an example, and demonstrating the generic nature of it. Thus it would make no sense in context to be referring to some exclusive Naval (wet or black) version.

I love how much this is bending people tbh. How dare we dissent, lol!

There are a lot of discrepancies in lore (the dorsal AC on the Marauder is often described as tracking and otherwise acting like it's on a turret.) Bad art and game design communication cause all sorts of Mechs to have weapons in wrong areas, or like the Stone Rhino, a single barrel for 2 Gauss rifles. Physics are rarely consistent. In one novel (Decision At thunder rift) lasers are invisible to the naked eye, in others they are rainbow pewpews.

All that should matter is if it give the game more flavor, and if it can be balanced. It does, and it can. We can agree to disagree over what we want in the game, but basing much off of fluff (not really, IMO the same as lore).

And yes, the AC on the HBK is described as vomiting a stream of metal, but when one sees a bore that size, it certainly makes a heck of a lot more sense it's a single shot. But it is neither here or there. I think any "relevant" points for either argument were made long ago, and now it's jsut rehashing for the sake of keeping the argument alive, or I suppose to "win" the debate.

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

See now you are getting touchy. Stop that. It was not a serious shot at you, but mixing in a little humour, such as when it was suggested by another post that Livewyr was biased because he wanted clans to be superior. If people are getting so touchy that one can't leaven some humour (even bad attempts at it) then we all just need to stop posting.

That said, Mediums (I'm the Medium junkie, recall?) and Lights ARE far more survivable, in MWO, even without random hits, because of the doubled armor and structure. Yes focused alphas take off limbs and can kill them. Gauss and AC20s killed and maimed in a single blow too (as did PPCs to most Lights) and even with RNG, a Lance of Heavies and Assaults fire on a Light, or Medium, it pretty well disintegrated. In lore.

Yes, you like burst fire. I disagree with your assessment it is the fix, as I do not think it can be adjusted to the degree that the IS are not just plain inferior to the Clans with burst fire, unless it's done to the point of making it blatantly superior.

Yet somehow in this game of FLD, since HSR has been implemented even, Lights have been one of the most dominant forces in the game, so you will have to excuse me if I feel that their imminent death is somewhat overstated.

Speaking for myself, who doesn't drive lights or many mediums and has very little trouble killing them with mixed loadouts (SRMs, LRMs, UACs, lasers, whatever), this has absolutely nothing to do with lights or mediums. For me, it has to do with TTK and tactics. My primary mech is an Atlas DDC with SRMs and UAC5s. I am the largest, supposedly most powerful mech in existence, yet it takes two hits from a PPC+ACs combo to open up and often disable an entire side of my mech. That is eight seconds against a single enemy with even a modicum of skill. Yes, I can torso twist, but all the enemy has to do is adjust his aim slightly or wait a couple seconds to get another clear shot and BAM - bye bye side.

Making all of the ACs and PPCs spread damage, at least a little, will greatly fix this issue, as you can see with the Clan weapons. It can also be balanced so that the IS still has "more" FLD in comparison to Clans, such as Clan UAC20s do five rounds of four damage and IS AC20s doing four rounds of five damage. Both burst, yet the Clan AC is lighter and smaller, while the IS AC does it's damage quicker and in bigger chunks.

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

All that should matter is if it give the game more flavor, and if it can be balanced. It does, and it can.

And yes, the AC on the HBK is described as vomiting a stream of metal, but when one sees a bore that size, it certainly makes a heck of a lot more sense it's a single shot. But it is neither here or there.

It can be balanced by making all ACs burst-fire and PPCs spread in some way, which is why we are trying to propose that solution to the problem.

I'm not at all getting bent around this subject, but I will keep debating it until it is implemented, just like I did before the Clan versions came out - which is a huge step in the right direction.

You mention the visual bore of the Hunchback, yet say that the visual aspect has always been very inconsistent (regarding the Marauder). The text descriptions, on the other hand, have been very consistent regarding ACs: they are a large machine gun shooting bursts of shells.

I don't want to ruin anyone playstyle, which is why my proposal has manufacturer variants, allowing balanced versions of slow, high FLD weapons and fast, dakka-type weapons, and everything in between. I want my Gatling Guns, and I want Joe Mallen to have his BFG! I just want them both balanced at the same time.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

Bad art and game design communication cause all sorts of Mechs to have weapons in wrong areas, or like the Stone Rhino, a single barrel for 2 Gauss rifles.

I always laughed cause It is where the Torso mounted SMALL laser should be! Sarna Changed the placement IF my memory holds true.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cimarb, on 19 June 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

Speaking for myself, who doesn't drive lights or many mediums and has very little trouble killing them with mixed loadouts (SRMs, LRMs, UACs, lasers, whatever), this has absolutely nothing to do with lights or mediums. For me, it has to do with TTK and tactics. My primary mech is an Atlas DDC with SRMs and UAC5s. I am the largest, supposedly most powerful mech in existence, yet it takes two hits from a PPC+ACs combo to open up and often disable an entire side of my mech. That is eight seconds against a single enemy with even a modicum of skill. Yes, I can torso twist, but all the enemy has to do is adjust his aim slightly or wait a couple seconds to get another clear shot and BAM - bye bye side.

Making all of the ACs and PPCs spread damage, at least a little, will greatly fix this issue, as you can see with the Clan weapons. It can also be balanced so that the IS still has "more" FLD in comparison to Clans, such as Clan UAC20s do five rounds of four damage and IS AC20s doing four rounds of five damage. Both burst, yet the Clan AC is lighter and smaller, while the IS AC does it's damage quicker and in bigger chunks.


It can be balanced by making all ACs burst-fire and PPCs spread in some way, which is why we are trying to propose that solution to the problem.

I'm not at all getting bent around this subject, but I will keep debating it until it is implemented, just like I did before the Clan versions came out - which is a huge step in the right direction.

You mention the visual bore of the Hunchback, yet say that the visual aspect has always been very inconsistent (regarding the Marauder). The text descriptions, on the other hand, have been very consistent regarding ACs: they are a large machine gun shooting bursts of shells.

I don't want to ruin anyone playstyle, which is why my proposal has manufacturer variants, allowing balanced versions of slow, high FLD weapons and fast, dakka-type weapons, and everything in between. I want my Gatling Guns, and I want Joe Mallen to have his BFG! I just want them both balanced at the same time.

And yet, most people on your side of the fence insist that it is impossible to balance FLD vs DoT. It get's very old, very fast, because it is patently untrue. Whether it is because they can't accept modifications that argue against their own "grand vision", honestly can't see or understand how it is explained, etc, IDK.

I freely admit, I don't SEE how you can make everything DoT and not have the Clans outright superior, as I have said many times. Doesn't make me correct, but I have yet to hear it explained in a manner where I can agree with it. And yes, my desire to maintain the diverse flavor of the game is also likely coloring my view, something I can admit, but most arguing against me, seem incapable of, admitting their view may be biased.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 June 2014 - 11:54 AM.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

See now you are getting touchy. Stop that. It was not a serious shot at you, but mixing in a little humour, such as when it was suggested by another post that Livewyr was biased because he wanted clans to be superior. If people are getting so touchy that one can't leaven some humour (even bad attempts at it) then we all just need to stop posting.

I'm happy we cleared that up; accept my apology for not seeing the intended humour.

As you are probably aware, I've been discussing these things for a long time now, and against people far less reasonable than you are; people that aren't afraid of using my (well-known to those who read my posts) love for lights as a way to dismiss any argument I make on game balance.

Anyway, moving on:

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

That said, Mediums (I'm the Medium junkie, recall?) and Lights ARE far more survivable, in MWO, even without random hits, because of the doubled armor and structure. Yes focused alphas take off limbs and can kill them. Gauss and AC20s killed and maimed in a single blow too (as did PPCs to most Lights) and even with RNG, a Lance of Heavies and Assaults fire on a Light, or Medium, it pretty well disintegrated. In lore.

There was no such thing as a "focussed alpha" in TT; a light could conceivably survive a dozen PPC hits given that the RNG gods smiled on them. And yes, a lance firing on a single target will kill it; that's a given. It's also mudding the waters, since this is not about being outnumbered but out-mechanic-ed (yes, that's a perfectly cromulent word). 1 v 1, all other things equal, the 'mech with the FLD weapon will win against the 'mech without.

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Yes, you like burst fire. I disagree with your assessment it is the fix, as I do not think it can be adjusted to the degree that the IS are not just plain inferior to the Clans with burst fire, unless it's done to the point of making it blatantly superior.

I don't "like" burst fire, I see it as a true-to-lore implementation of the AC family. The only reason that weapons were "single shot" in TT was that it was a board game and nobody would ever have played it if it entailed rolling 100 hit locations for one shot of a Pontiac 100 AC/20 - or for that matter ten hit locations for a laser beam. It was enough of a hassle rolling big LRM flights 5-damage hits.

As for balancing, I don't believe FLD can ever be balanced versus any non-FLD mechanic; it's just so much better. Any weapon that spreads damage over time or space will be inherently inferior to a weapon that doesn't. It's just that simple, really. And since Clan ACs have shown that we don't have to have FLD ACs, I think we shouldn't. Balancing IS ACs against Clan ACs can be done with other factors.

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Yet somehow in this game of FLD, since HSR has been implemented even, Lights have been one of the most dominant forces in the game, so you will have to excuse me if I feel that their imminent death is somewhat overstated.

I don't see this as an issue of weight class at all.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

As for balancing, I don't believe FLD can ever be balanced versus any non-FLD mechanic; it's just so much better. Any weapon that spreads damage over time or space will be inherently inferior to a weapon that doesn't.

unless the weapon that is DoT has other advantages, like higher DPS, RoF, less neat, ammo etc. There ARE factors that can be brought to bear. In most cases, people who have a choice between 1 gun that does massive damage, in one shot, but only fires every 10 seconds, lets say, vs DoT guns that over time add up to substantially more damage? I don't see the issue. Especially since with the BFG, you miss, you go a long way to try again.

The Issue is not FLD, it is the current implementation of it. Exacerbated by too high RoF for it, too many nerfs on many DoT weapons (like medium laser heat) and perfect multi weapon convergence.

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

And yet, most people on your side of the fence insist that it is impossible to balance FLD vs DoT. It get's very old, very fast, because it is patently untrue.

I'm on the burst-fire side of that fence, and the grass is wonderfully green over here, but I don't see a fence. You can draw a line at any "point" by saying FLD is X-amount (2, 5, 10, 15 or 20), and I would say the line should be right above 5 personally, but I prefer not to do that. Instead, I just want to give options and balance "more FLD" with "less DPS" in general.

That way, Joe can have a 24-point howitzer on your mech that only shoots once every 8-10 seconds and costs 100,000 cbills per round (15 DP5S), while I have my Gatling Gun that shoots 100 rounds per second constantly, doing 0.04 damage per round at 10 cbills per round (20 DP5S).

I don't want to eliminate FLD, because that definition is subjective to the player, but I do want to lower the amount of FLD currently on the field to increase TTK and tactics.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

unless the weapon that is DoT has other advantages, like higher DPS, RoF, less neat, ammo etc. There ARE factors that can be brought to bear. In most cases, people who have a choice between 1 gun that does massive damage, in one shot, but only fires every 10 seconds, lets say, vs DoT guns that over time add up to substantially more damage? I don't see the issue. Especially since with the BFG, you miss, you go a long way to try again.

And why can't burst-fire IS ACs be balanced against burst-fire Clan ACs with the help of all these factors?

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

The Issue is not FLD, it is the current implementation of it. Exacerbated by too high RoF for it, too many nerfs on many DoT weapons (like medium laser heat) and perfect multi weapon convergence.

So, basically the whole game?

No, but seriously; the problem is the unholy trinity of pin-point, perfect accuracy FLD damage. And PGI is on record as saying they can't or won't do anything about pin-point (i.e. convergence), that they can't or won't do anything about perfect accuracy - so what's left?

Personally, I'd love to see slow convergence and a Cone of Fire (preferably motion-based), but those seem to be off the table. So we'll have to make do with burst-fire ACs to reduce the FLD and thereby reducing the impact of the above problem.

Oh, and since I'm wishing, I'll have a sane heat system too, and with all the above we could probably go back to regular BT single-armour values as well.

I'd buy that for $120 - oh, wait, I thought I did?

[Cimarb]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

unless the weapon that is DoT has other advantages, like higher DPS, RoF, less neat, ammo etc. There ARE factors that can be brought to bear. In most cases, people who have a choice between 1 gun that does massive damage, in one shot, but only fires every 10 seconds, lets say, vs DoT guns that over time add up to substantially more damage? I don't see the issue. Especially since with the BFG, you miss, you go a long way to try again.

The Issue is not FLD, it is the current implementation of it. Exacerbated by too high RoF for it, too many nerfs on many DoT weapons (like medium laser heat) and perfect multi weapon convergence.

I'm too slow of a typist while at work, sorry. Takes me an hour to get the time to finish an intelligent thought (not that I have many...).

You are saying the same thing as me, for the most part. I am what people like to call a "compromiser" (does the obscenity filter block that word yet?).

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

And why can't burst-fire IS ACs be balanced against burst-fire Clan ACs with the help of all these factors?


So, basically the whole game?

No, but seriously; the problem is the unholy trinity of pin-point, perfect accuracy FLD damage. And PGI is on record as saying they can't or won't do anything about pin-point (i.e. convergence), that they can't or won't do anything about perfect accuracy - so what's left?

Personally, I'd love to see slow convergence and a Cone of Fire (preferably motion-based), but those seem to be off the table. So we'll have to make do with burst-fire ACs to reduce the FLD and thereby reducing the impact of the above problem.

Oh, and since I'm wishing, I'll have a sane heat system too, and with all the above we could probably go back to regular BT single-armour values as well.

I'd buy that for $120 - oh, wait, I thought I did?

still waiting, to be honest, to see the mythical 30 heat threshold proven. Not saying we don't need to figure out a better heat answer, but I keep hearing peopñle harp on this hardlocked "30 pt threshold" and that simply is not how heat was figured in TT. You always counted your HS first, so any heat on the "scale" was waste heat AFTER the HS were factored, thus they did increase the threshold.

(AS I demonstrated in my earlier Awesome alpha striking comment)

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

still waiting, to be honest, to see the mythical 30 heat threshold proven. Not saying we don't need to figure out a better heat answer, but I keep hearing peopñle harp on this hardlocked "30 pt threshold" and that simply is not how heat was figured in TT. You always counted your HS first, so any heat on the "scale" was waste heat AFTER the HS were factored, thus they did increase the threshold.

(AS I demonstrated in my earlier Awesome alpha striking comment)

I think we're on roughly the same page when it comes to the heat system.

I did make this thread about the problems with the MWO heat system, as well as this nice little chart (in this thread):



See something missing from the MWO scales? Yup, heat penalties. Major, major part of BattleTech (both the Universe and the board game) that's simply missing from MWO.

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2014 - 12:29 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

still waiting, to be honest, to see the mythical 30 heat threshold proven. Not saying we don't need to figure out a better heat answer, but I keep hearing peopñle harp on this hardlocked "30 pt threshold" and that simply is not how heat was figured in TT. You always counted your HS first, so any heat on the "scale" was waste heat AFTER the HS were factored, thus they did increase the threshold.

(AS I demonstrated in my earlier Awesome alpha striking comment)

Koniving's done some nice write ups on it. I'll see if I can dig one up.

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry3442512

Edited by Mcgral18, 19 June 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Koniving's done some nice write ups on it. I'll see if I can dig one up.

Indeed he has. That doesn't take away the fact that some of us like hard hitting FLD. And have done so for at least a full generation or two.