524 replies to this topic

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

No, because not nerfing one style into oblivion does not mean that the other cannot still use some buffs. And I HAVE SUGGESTED VERY REASONABLE METHODS TO MAINTAIN (stupid laptop keyboard...always hit caplock, sorry) to reduce the efficacy of FLD while not removing it. The biggest thing with a longer cooldown is now, people who relied entirely on FLD leave themselves very vulnerable. For most non top tier comp players, this will lead, hopefully, to packing more weapon variety, as having the ac20 still provides the "hammer" just not as often. Make them burst, and IMO, I'd generally be better off packing a pair of pulse lasers, or something that requires no ammo.

A: Do you think that would be the case if AC20s and 10s did their damage in half the time the LPL or MPL does its own damage? (AC 5s would be even faster than that, being 1/6th the time of the MPL/LPL)

B: I am already on board with reducing the RoF of PPC (and Gauss), but PPFLD Autocannons still present a major problem for mediums. (As you stated earlier, the AC5s are used to ward off opponents that might be closing while the heat cools down, the same would apply to PPCs recycling.) But the 30pt PPFLD would still crush mediums.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 15 June 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

A: Do you think that would be the case if AC20s and 10s did their damage in half the time the LPL or MPL does its own damage? (AC 5s would be even faster than that, being 1/6th the time of the MPL/LPL)

B: I am already on board with reducing the RoF of PPC (and Gauss), but PPFLD Autocannons still present a major problem for mediums. (As you stated earlier, the AC5s are used to ward off opponents that might be closing while the heat cools down, the same would apply to PPCs recycling.) But the 30pt PPFLD would still crush mediums.

and how can fld remotely be defensible for PPC and Gauss, and yet somehow either be indefensible for AC, or the same fixes (like slower cooldown) that are "acceptable" for PPCs nuke AC use into oblivion or otherwise be unacceptable? Your reasoning has no consistency.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 05:44 AM, said:

I am not rehashing everything with you Live, just because you refuse to acknowledge what I wrote could possibly be correct. Go reread my posts, and think very carefully about the implications of what I say, and the answer is there. As I said, I am done arguing with you ,as it is serving no purpose. Which is why I was a little pissed to see you painting me, inaccurately, with the broad brush in your little spat with another poster.

I could reiterate my reasoning, with technicolor slides, and you would refute to acknowledge it, so why should I waste my time when your mind has been set on burst AC fire pretty much since MWO inception?

Why don't you just state it plainly, Bishop, along with the reasons that a 0-0.3 second burst would not achieve the same thing?

(Remember that the longest burst, being the AC20 is *half* that of the MPL/LPL)

(And your addition to that post was because he was directly agreeing with you for the same reasons- my disagreement with literally extended to my disagreement with you. My apologies if you felt personal slight, that was not the intention.)

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

and how can fld remotely be defensible for PPC and Gauss, and yet somehow either be indefensible for AC, or the same fixes (like slower cooldown) that are "acceptable" for PPCs nuke AC use into oblivion or otherwise be unacceptable? Your reasoning has no consistency.

That's pretty simple:
PPCs are massive in heat, and Gauss is a premeditated weapon. (You cannot simply *click* and fire the Gauss the same way you can an AC.) That has been my consistent position.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 15 June 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Why don't you just state it plainly, Bishop, along with the reasons that a 0-0.3 second burst would not achieve the same thing?

(Remember that the longest burst, being the AC20 is *half* that of the MPL/LPL)

(And your addition to that post was because he was directly agreeing with you for the same reasons- my disagreement with literally extended to my disagreement with you. My apologies if you felt personal slight, that was not the intention.)



That's pretty simple:
PPCs are massive in heat, and Gauss is a premeditated weapon. (You cannot simply *click* and fire the Gauss the same way you can an AC.) That has been my consistent position.

and ACs are massive in weight and ammo consumption, and the dread ac20 makes 70% of the heat of the PPC, with far worse GH penalties.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

and ACs are massive in weight and ammo consumption, and the dread ac20 makes 70% of the heat of the PPC, with far worse GH penalties.

That does not say why a .3 second burst would not achieve the same thing.

I agree with you on most things (clan outlook, med laser heat) but here, you're not, thus far, answering my question.

Edited by Livewyr, 15 June 2014 - 05:56 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 15 June 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

That does not say why a .3 second burst would not achieve the same thing.

I agree with you on most things (clan outlook, med laser heat) but here, you're not, thus far, answering my question.

I have answered it, multiple times. That you disagree with, or refuse to see may answer as being one, is why I am not wasting my time reposting it. Good day. Dont drag me into your arguments with other people, and I will be happy to leave sleeping dogs to lie. If you feel because I have the temerity to "like" posts I agree with, that means you should drag me into your spat, than we have an issue.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 June 2014 - 05:59 AM.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 05:57 AM, said:

I have answered it, multiple times. That you disagree with, or refuse to see may answer as being one, is why I am not wasting my time reposting it.

I re-read the entire thread this morning before posting. (to make sure I didn't miss anything).

An answer was not provided.

Perhaps you can quote yourself for me?


(and just for emphasis, if you have a smartphone or stopwatch, please to examin how long .3 seconds is, as well as .1 second.)

Edited by Livewyr, 15 June 2014 - 06:00 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 15 June 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

I re-read the entire thread this morning before posting. (to make sure I didn't miss anything).

An answer was not provided.

Perhaps you can quote yourself for me?

Nope. If you cannpt get it from what is written, that is on you, as I said, I am done with this conversation. Leave me out of it in the future, and it can stay that way. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend my mornign butting heads with you.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 June 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Nope. If you cannpt get it from what is written, that is on you, as I said, I am done with this conversation. Leave me out of it in the future, and it can stay that way. I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend my mornign butting heads with you.

Then the question goes out to anyone else who is determined that the Single Round ACs are required for some reason.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain to me the necessity of having a single round AC over an AC with 0-0.03 second round burst.

I can give you a solid reason to do it, can you give me a solid reason why not?

[Pariah Devalis]

I think, after stepping away from this thread for a day, the best counters to burst fire AC argument are that 'the durability of Clan XL engines allow for additional face time' and that 'unifying autocannon mechanics will hurt damage diversity.' I do not think they are an adequate counter, but I understand the logic behind them:

The argument:
Clan mechs can lose a side torso without dying, therefore they can afford to take more damage, therefore it is ok for them to have to stare down an enemy mech.

The counter-argument:
Their CT is just as squishy as an IS mech's.

Well. That got shut down fast.

OK, let us try the other good argument against burst fire:

Argument:
Making both Clan and IS AC burst fire will result in sameness and will lead to a stale gameplay with all weapons essentially being the same.

Counter-Argument #1:
Clan lasers function identical to IS lasers, just take longer to discharge, and that is enough of a difference for everyone. The same should hold for Clan vs IS ACs. Alternative sources of damage exist in pinpoint hitscan DOT lasers, frontloaded pinpoint charged Gauss slugs, frontloaded HOT pinpoint PPC, AOE FLD SRMs, guided quasi-FLD LRMs. Damage type variety is plentiful.

Counter-Argument #2:
Gameplay before flavor. A game needs to play well to be fun and successful, even if it comes at the expense of some superficial flavor. The game was significantly more fun with burst fire AC, and it would be in the best interest of the game to extend said fun to the entire game and not just one faction of mechs.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 15 June 2014 - 06:35 AM.

[SleepTrgt]

ThisMachineKillsFascists, on 15 June 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

If the IS Ac´s could do like 15 % +15% to the next component and do the rest of the dmg to the hitten location , i would be happy.

You could think it as an Highexplosive shell. The above meantioned number could be changed to up to 25%.

Yes this could mean, less pinpoint but still something very different than clan AC.

[East Indy]

I missed the party, but to Livewyr's OP:

If Inner Sphere PPCs (per Reno's thread) were split into arcing damage, I think it would be enough to break AC/20s, AC/10s and (U)AC/5s into two-shell bursts per trigger.

[Livewyr]

Pariah Devalis, on 15 June 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

I think, after stepping away from this thread for a day, the best counter to burst fire AC argument is simply the durability of Clan XL engines. I do not think it is an adequate counter, but I understand the logic behind it:

The argument:
Clan mechs can lose a side torso without dying, therefore they can afford to take more damage, therefore it is ok for them to have to stare down an enemy mech.

The counter-argument:
Their CT is just as squishy as an IS mech's.

Well. That got shut down fast.

OK, let us try the other good argument against burst fire:

Argument:
Making both Clan and IS AC burst fire will result in sameness and will lead to a stale gameplay with all weapons essentially being the same.

Counter-Argument #1:
Clan lasers function identical to IS lasers, just take longer to discharge, and that is enough of a difference for everyone. The same should hold for Clan vs IS ACs. Alternative sources of damage exist in pinpoint hitscan DOT lasers, frontloaded pinpoint charged Gauss slugs, frontloaded HOT pinpoint PPC, AOE FLD SRMs, guided quasi-FLD LRMs. Damage type variety is plentiful.

Counter-Argument #2:
Gameplay before flavor. A game needs to play well to be fun and successful, even if it comes at the expense of some superficial flavor. The game was significantly more fun with burst fire AC, and it would be in the best interest of the game to extend said fun to the entire game and not just one faction of mechs.

What of IS mechs facing IS mechs? (IS mediums still have the vulnerable XL, which is lampooned by 30pt-PPFLD.)

That's the problem of the last year I'm talking about.

ThisMachineKillsFascists, on 15 June 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

I participated into the Pts matches. The fights amazed me as brawling was back and you could get hit but the bullets or lazers on the clan mechs never did too much pinpoint dmg on your mech. In order the matches were so much mmore fun. I really loved them.

Thats why i would like to see pinpoint dmg on Is mechs either be changed.

I wont suggest a Clan Ac like implemantation for the IS Ac´s but a similar system to the Clan erppc.

If the IS Ac´s could do like 15 % +15% to the next component and do the rest of the dmg to the hitten location , i would be happy.

You could think it as an Highexplosive shell. The above meantioned number could be changed to up to 25%.

I'm not a huge fan of that mechanic, but it would solve the problem of a full 30 points to 1 component.

East Indy, on 15 June 2014 - 06:27 AM, said:

I missed the party, but to Livewyr's OP:

If Inner Sphere PPCs (per Reno's thread) were split into arcing damage, I think it would be enough to break AC/20s, AC/10s and (U)AC/5s into two-shell bursts per trigger.

Before I comment on that, can you link me to "Reno's thread?"

[DarthPeanut]

No, single shot for IS keeps each tech unique, fun, and can balance just fine imo. Given it is just my novice 2 cents.

From watching Clan mech tests it seems as simple as this for me.

Clan mechs can bring plenty of firepower to the fight, more than the average IS I would say. Burst AC's make them DPS monsters and lets not forget the better range as well.

IS AC's simply cannot match those things. IS counters with their ability to accurately deliver damage with fast strikes and more limited exposure.

[Livewyr]

DarthPeanut, on 15 June 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

No, single shot for IS keeps each tech unique, fun, and can balance just fine imo. Given it is just my novice 2 cents.

That is placing importance on aesthetic difference, which would be achieved in your rounds traveling faster, and in much shorter bursts. (And you can add a different sound to boost immersion difference.)

DarthPeanut, on 15 June 2014 - 06:34 AM, said:

From watching Clan mech tests it seems as simple as this for me.

Clan mechs can bring plenty of firepower to the fight, more than the average IS I would say. Burst AC's make them DPS monsters and lets not forget the better range as well.

IS AC's simply cannot match those things. IS counters with their ability to accurately deliver damage with fast strikes and more limited exposure.

0.-0.3 seconds is still very fast (think half the time of a medium pulse laser) or for a more direct sensation, grab a stop-watch or stop watch app, and guage at .1 and .3 seconds.

Still much more limited exposure, and still generally pinpoint when dealing with heavies and assaults- but spreads the damage to mediums and lights.

Edited by Livewyr, 15 June 2014 - 06:40 AM.

[Livewyr]

ThisMachineKillsFascists, on 15 June 2014 - 06:46 AM, said:

Its a good way to balance the Pinpoint acppc jump fest as it gets abused by competitive players. Suddenly someone jumps up behind cover and your side torso is cored while other parts are completly ok. Thats my problem with this game since a year.

Plus the IS Ac would still be different than the clan ac´s

That seems like another suitable alternative. (Though it could be considered a damage nerf if applied the same way it is to CERPPC. -vanishing damage on an arm or leg hit.)

Either way you look at it, the IS ACs are going to need a buff at the same time. (RoF, and projectile speed, IMO, which would further enhance the limited exposure concept people are championing.)

[EDIT]
East Indy, where were you about 8 pages ago.. lol

(I think given a damage arc, that would forgo the need to split the bullets, letting the IS ACs keep their current aesthetic contrast, while also dealing with the PPFLD problem faced by lighter armored mechs.)

Edited by Livewyr, 15 June 2014 - 07:00 AM.

[Lootee]

I'm for it. Make the regular PPC do 8 + 1 + 1 dmg too.

The single location instant hit Death Star strikes kill the whole BattleTech feel. Since they won't/can't get rid of group fire & won't/can't do anything about convergence then the best they can do is spread the damage out over time or spread it out over multiple hit locations like the clan ERPPC.

I did the math a long time ago but with the perfect convergence FLD meta mechs are taking damage hundreds or even thousands of times faster than they would in TT. The more weapons you duct tape together to fire at once to hit the same spot the more broken it gets.

Lasers are already changed to DOT weapons when they're supposed to be front loaded pin point dmg too, so it wouldn't be inconsistent to apply this mechanic to all ACs. Just make the ACs do damage in bigger chunks with fewer shells/pulses, speed up the projectiles considerably to offset the change to burst fire.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 15 June 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Livewyr]

PanchoTortilla, on 15 June 2014 - 07:01 AM, said:

I'm for it. Make the regular PPC do 8 + 1 + 1 dmg too.

I wouldn't cry if they did that, but I don't think it is necessary. The CERPPC already does 10 damage to a single component before splash.

[DarthPeanut]

Livewyr, on 15 June 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

0.-0.3 seconds is still very fast (think half the time of a medium pulse laser) or for a more direct sensation, grab a stop-watch or stop watch app, and guage at .1 and .3 seconds.

Still much more limited exposure, and still generally pinpoint when dealing with heavies and assaults- but spreads the damage to mediums and lights.

Unless my math is off, it is still slower and the caveat to it is removing the equally important accuracy. No.

The very point of the difference in firing mechanics is to counter/ balance against Clan advantages in range, DPS, and firepower.

Edited by DarthPeanut, 15 June 2014 - 07:07 AM.

[Grimlox]

A potential compromise could be in keeping the single shell for ACs but adding the burst delay to any additional ACs fired in the same group which penalizes AC boaters but not the lighter mechs just running a single AC like YLW.

This keeps some more of the flavour of the IS ACs as well.

I'm not advocating any change until we see how things shake down but I wanted to put this out there as a compromise based on what I read from both sides of the debate.

Food for thought.