524 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

But if you do get your way, remind me to to tell you "I told you so" when the game is as stale as 2 week old bread.

Will do. (Returning the favor before given: "We have FLD Autocannons, and the game is as stale as 2 week old bread.)

Until next time, Bishop.

[Lykaon]

Creovex, on 14 June 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

No. Burst fire = clan tech.... an improvement on the refire rate of the IS AC is the only acceptable change in my eyes.

Let's not try and bastardize all the new clan weapons for the sake of IS but rather go back and retune IS weapons while STILL keeping them different to really make the sides seem different. I HATE games that give up on uniqueness and jump on the "make them all play the same" bandwagon.

Ironicly many people have been requesting I.S. ACs be given this burst fire mechanics for well over a year (honestly I recall the topic being put forward 2 years ago but with less popularity).This is something that should have been done then because it's an effective mechanic to fix the issues these weapons have.

And if it had been done then we wouldn't even have this disagreement about uniqueness.Honestly Uniqueness?

CLan AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.
I.S. AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.

How unique can it be?

[Livewyr]

RampancyTW, on 14 June 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

If you add that same difficulty of use to the IS systems, they're just outright inferior. Lower damage potential and range for higher weight. It just doesn't cut it.

We're not talking about adding the same level of difficulty.

The clan Burst fire mode is a heavy nerf, necessitated by easier mounting and double-tap capability.

The proposed IS nerf would change very little in fighting heavier mechs. (I don't think opponents are grasping just how quick the shells are, both in velocity and succession.) It would, however increase the survivability of lighter, less armored chassis.

Lykaon, on 14 June 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Ironicly many people have been requesting I.S. ACs be given this burst fire mechanics for well over a year (honestly I recall the topic being put forward 2 years ago but with less popularity).This is something that should have been done then because it's an effective mechanic to fix the issues these weapons have.

And if it had been done then we wouldn't even have this disagreement about uniqueness.Honestly Uniqueness?

CLan AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.
I.S. AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.

How unique can it be?

Further more, it gives more area for fine-tuning balance. (Changing the burst rate.)

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Lykaon, on 14 June 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Ironicly many people have been requesting I.S. ACs be given this burst fire mechanics for well over a year (honestly I recall the topic being put forward 2 years ago but with less popularity).This is something that should have been done then because it's an effective mechanic to fix the issues these weapons have.

And if it had been done then we wouldn't even have this disagreement about uniqueness.Honestly Uniqueness?

CLan AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.
I.S. AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.

How unique can it be?

Do you even firearm?

An M240B is a big gun that shoots bullets.
An M82 is a big gun that shoots bullets.

[Pariah Devalis]

Livewyr, on 14 June 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

We're not talking about adding the same level of difficulty.

The clan Burst fire mode is a heavy nerf, necessitated by easier mounting and double-tap capability.

The proposed IS nerf would change very little in fighting heavier mechs. (I don't think opponents are grasping just how quick the shells are, both in velocity and succession.) It would, however increase the survivability of lighter, less armored chassis.

Further more, it gives more area for fine-tuning balance. (Changing the burst rate.)

Agreed. Either faster burst or a smaller number of total shells in a given burst would give an IS AC an advantage over a single fired Clan ultra. Personally, I favor the reduced number of shells so the IS specifically get a slight Front Loaded Damage buff in comparison to the Clan guns. The flip side, the IS mech can carry more autocannons compared to the Clan mech. Roughly double, actually, if you get what I am insinuating here. (Hint: Double the guns or double the fire rate? Call that a wash!)

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 14 June 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lykaon, on 14 June 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Ironicly many people have been requesting I.S. ACs be given this burst fire mechanics for well over a year (honestly I recall the topic being put forward 2 years ago but with less popularity).This is something that should have been done then because it's an effective mechanic to fix the issues these weapons have.

And if it had been done then we wouldn't even have this disagreement about uniqueness.Honestly Uniqueness?

CLan AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.
I.S. AC is a big gun that shoots bullets.

How unique can it be?

and is it possible it WASN'T done because..they realized it would be a great balancing mechanic to differentiate the Clans vs the IS?

[Livewyr]

JohanssenJr, on 14 June 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Do you even firearm?

An M240B is a big gun that shoots bullets.
An M82 is a big gun that shoots bullets.

M240B is a Medium Machine Gun. (Which could be accurately described as a small Autocannon.)
It can fire only one round, but its effectiveness is in the multi-round bursts.

M82, if I'm correct and you're referring to the Barrett, is a (Sniper) Rifle. (Which could not be accurately described as an Autocannon at all.)
You cannot hold down the trigger and get more than 1 round.

Edited by Livewyr, 14 June 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Coralld]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Yes, the guy who walks into a movie theater where people are screaming fire because a person is smoking a cigarette is the one overreacting. Brilliant! Got to love the preemptive call to arms to fix EVERYTHING before it really even gets any sort of decent test to see if it is actually broken. That's why I seldom pay your posts any mind, high on overreaction and emotion, ramping up to turbo, far too fast.


3rd paragraph, you mean the one where I point o0ut how it balances the two factions? Bravo on proving...nothing?


IS has better FLD, Never argued they didn't. Clans have multiple other advantages. FLD is not some tactical nuke that trumps all other things, except in the minds of those who refuse to look outside the box and see the total picture. If you feel that I am trying to describe YOU with that, well maybe you should think about it, then.

Funny, I don't pay your posts that much attention either because I see you and your ideas in the same light.

So lets agree to disagree as this vitriol gets us no where.

[Adridos]

General Taskeen, on 14 June 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

AC's were burst fire in most MW games, so I don't see what the problem is. Did people complain about "differences" back then? Because I don't remember much of that, usually just more of the same old-same old about min/maxing.

The most recent implementation from MW4 was actually hitscan.

The VFX showed a burst of shots, but the weapon dealt damage instantly and on a single point.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

and is it possible it WASN'T done because..they realized it would be a great balancing mechanic to differentiate the Clans vs the IS?

Like:

Livewyr, on 14 June 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Further more, it gives more area for fine-tuning balance. (Changing the burst rate.)

[Bishop Steiner]

Coralld, on 14 June 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

So lets agree to disagree as this vitriol gets us no where.

first time I can recall agreeing with you.

Next thing you know I'll start agreeing with the silly sods over at KONG.

Livewyr, on 14 June 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Like:

except still waiting to see how that actually WOULD do so. But I am trying NOT to argue with you, remember? Doesn't mean I will refrain from commenting on other people's posts.

[Pariah Devalis]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

and is it possible it WASN'T done because..they realized it would be a great balancing mechanic to differentiate the Clans vs the IS?

And it is possible it WASN'T done because... PGI up until recently could barely keep up with producing new mechs, let alone balancing weapon systems rapidly?

They have stated the FLD issue is a problem. This seems like an ideal, clean way to solve it. Shots per burst / burst speed / heat are all balancing mechanics you can play with easily within a burst system. What you call lazy, I call efficient. Make IS ACs burst (with a slightly heavier FLD amount or a faster burst than Clan UACs), suddenly there is no need to code additional jump jet shake. Poptarts and FLD are related issues, but that does not mean there is any requirement to make two changes when one is enough, and does so in a way that absolutely changes the dynamics of the game in a good way.

The test server's gameplay environment is what MWO should have been. What it can easily become. Between working SRMs, slightly improved laser hit detection (they discovered and fixed 10% missing laser damage in time for the first PTS), and burst AC, the entire gameplay shifted to something altogether much more fun. The goal should be replicating that sort of fun no matter what you go with, while maintaining enough differences to differentiate the tech trees.

There is enough room in burst mechanics to achieve that.

Edit:

Ultimately our point of contention (your feelings vs my own, that is) is that whereas I feel there is room for differentiation within burst ACs, you feel it results in sameness. I feel the one change would improve the game tremendously as the current gameplay is stale, whereas you feel it would make things stale.

I am not sure there is a resolution here, outside of them simply making the change and testing it out in a live environment.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 14 June 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[Livewyr]

Adridos, on 14 June 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

The most recent implementation from MW4 was actually hitscan.

The VFX showed a burst of shots, but the weapon dealt damage instantly and on a single point.

Which was terrible. Along with the Hitscan Lasers and the non-functioning missiles.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Livewyr, on 14 June 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

M240B is a Medium Machine Gun. (Which could be accurately described as a small Autocannon.)
It can fire only one round, but its effectiveness is in the multi-round bursts.

M82, if I'm correct and you're referring to the Barrett, is a (Sniper) Rifle. (Which could not be accurately described as an Autocannon at all.)
You cannot hold down the trigger and get more than 1 round.

The M240 General Purpose MG relies sustained fire to inflict casualties. Can be considered an 'autocannon' for the sake of the debate.

The M82 Anti materiel rifle relies on a single large projectile to render equipment and personnel non operable. It also considered an 'autocannon' as the user does not have to manually cycle the weapon.

They are both in general terms "big guns that shoot big bullets." But once you get down to the mechanics and parameters they suddenly are very different. Each one being very unique and very useful.

[Adridos]

Livewyr, on 14 June 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Which was terrible. Along with the Hitscan Lasers and the non-functioning missiles.

In multiplayer, anyway.

However, if I can chime in on this discussion, normal ACs can work. MW:LL has proven so.
I'd rather if Hunchie stayed Hunchie (same goes for Urbie... that kick to the teeth potential is the basis behind these and many other IS mechs, although the MW:O meta has done nasty things to such ideals) and like the doubling of the weapons pool as opposed to IS getting the Clan treatment.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pariah Devalis, on 14 June 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

Edit:

Ultimately our point of contention (your feelings vs my own, that is) is that whereas I feel there is room for differentiation within burst ACs, you feel it results in sameness. I feel the one change would improve the game tremendously as the current gameplay is stale, whereas you feel it would make things stale.

I am not sure there is a resolution here, outside of them simply making the change and testing it out in a live environment.

Ultimately true, though my feelings are only involved as toward my desire to play what I envision with all DoT mechanics. I have yet to see that done well, IMO.

My posts about the nature of mechanics themselves are based purely on my play and observation over the last 2 years, not any adherence to a particular style of weapon, since I tend to run counter meta, anyhow. My prefered mechs are a Griffin with all of 1 PPC, and spread/DoT weapons backing it, and a Summoner with a UAC/10, 2 Mediums and a LRM launcher.

So it's not like i am trying to protect my play style. What I am trying to protect, is the variety of the game. One of the big selling points to me, since inception, was the differing damage mechanics, which gave a great variety of feel and immersion to the game.

I'm a lore guy, but in general single shot ACs are not lore (with 2 possible noted exceptions, Cauldron Born and Demolisher). But I put that on hold because the differences in FLD, Pinpoint, Hitscan, DoT weapons give MWO a very different feel from virtually every other game I have played.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot envision everything going to variations of DoT and maintaining that, whereas I can very easily see ways to tweak FLD into line with the other weapons, and maintain the feel. And that "feel" has been one of the few things to get rave reviews in MWO since it's beginning.

[Livewyr]

JohanssenJr, on 14 June 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

The M240 General Purpose MG relies sustained fire to inflict casualties. Can be considered an 'autocannon' for the sake of the debate.

The M82 Anti materiel rifle relies on a single large projectile to render equipment and personnel non operable. It also considered an 'autocannon' as the user does not have to manually cycle the weapon.

They are both in general terms "big guns that shoot big bullets." But once you get down to the mechanics and parameters they suddenly are very different. Each one being very unique and very useful.

"It also considered an 'autocannon' as the user does not have to manually cycle the weapon."

You have to pull the trigger for each round. That's a cycle. (Not in the same vain as the bolt action version, but it is still a cycle.)

The 240B was used in Bursts (to maximize cover effect/damage and to extend the longevity of the barrel and ammunition.) Trust me, that was my other Crew-serve.

Autocannon = 240B
Gauss Rifle = M82

[Bishop Steiner]

JohanssenJr, on 14 June 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

The M240 General Purpose MG relies sustained fire to inflict casualties. Can be considered an 'autocannon' for the sake of the debate.

The M82 Anti materiel rifle relies on a single large projectile to render equipment and personnel non operable. It also considered an 'autocannon' as the user does not have to manually cycle the weapon.

They are both in general terms "big guns that shoot big bullets." But once you get down to the mechanics and parameters they suddenly are very different. Each one being very unique and very useful.

autocannon meaning literally "auto-loading cannon".

[SgtMagor]

I would like to keep the IS tech separate from the Clan please don't tweak the weapons to make them like Clan tech.. when I pilot a Clan or IS mech I really want them to be different in every way possible.

[Pariah Devalis]

Bishop Steiner, on 14 June 2014 - 09:18 AM, said:

Perhaps I am wrong, but I cannot envision everything going to variations of DoT and maintaining that, whereas I can very easily see ways to tweak FLD into line with the other weapons, and maintain the feel. And that "feel" has been one of the few things to get rave reviews in MWO since it's beginning.

See, that is what I do not get about your argument. Do not get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from, I understand your concerns, but I do not see it translating the same way. And I have been playing the game just as long as you have. :\

Even if all the autocannons in the game were burst fire, that makes it no more different than all lasers being DOT, all Gauss being FLD PP, and all SRMs being FLD AOE. There is no lack of damage types in the game, but an excess of front loaded damage types. For the same reason charging gauss was good to differentiate it as a ranged weapon vs a AC20 which is a brawling weapon, it would be good to have a sustained fire option that fills that role without pushing out the weapons most dedicated to the long range pinpoint role. I feel, if anything, it would actually increase the variety of weapons we see in game. Increase the variety of damage types we see in game.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 14 June 2014 - 09:28 AM.