37 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 18 July 2014 - 11:42 AM, said:

Interesting.

Thanks.

Its a discussion TT players have discussed (heatedly) for a long time.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Its a discussion TT players have discussed (heatedly) for a long time.

I'm sure it's caused more than one argument.


Honestly, I'd be OK with 90m min range on the Gauss if it meant no charge up time.

I find charge up is more wonky mechanic, that encourages macro usage or just outright removes/reduces snapshot abilities - where as a minimum range you can't macro your way around, and gives short range builds a window into your undies.


I'd much prefer that over the hounding for longer recharge times - or the current charge up time.

[Sephlock]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Its a discussion TT players have discussed (heatedly) for a long time.

Please.... you've just opened the door for PGI to nerf autocannons AGAIN!

Oh I know, let's give THEM a firing delay too! And then let's make it so that ALL missile launchers have doors that have to be opened EVERY TIME THEY FIRE (no more weapon bay door toggle) so that THEY have a firing delay too!

Because nerfing things is a lot more anti-fun than giving us options like glazed or reactive armor... if anything, if we ever get ANY options they have to be like The One Ring, aka ECM, and when it becomes apparent that they are insanely OP, they'll only get a minor nerf that makes them "less than an absolute invincibility shield" vs the majority of a weapon type. Oh boy...



Quick, someone photoshop Paul's face onto Frodo's body.

Or Gollum's.

Ultimatum X, on 18 July 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm sure it's caused more than one argument.

You have no idea what goes on over a tabletop:

Edited by Sephlock, 18 July 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 18 July 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

I'm sure it's caused more than one argument.


Honestly, I'd be OK with 90m min range on the Gauss if it meant no charge up time.

I find charge up is more wonky mechanic, that encourages macro usage or just outright removes/reduces snapshot abilities - where as a minimum range you can't macro your way around, and gives short range builds a window into your undies.


I'd much prefer that over the hounding for longer recharge times - or the current charge up time.

60 meter min for Gauss
180 120 meters for AC2 (IIRC I didn't use them a lot)
120 90 Meter Min for AC5

It really bugged us military folk as Ballistic weapons use a pretty straight line from the barrel to the target ...in most cases. And at these ranges...No reason to lob em high!

Sorry Seph, though I am fine with no min range on ballistics, it is a very long standing rule on TT. I didn't agree with it, but used it all the same, so I am not the guy to complain if Ballistic minimums come back.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 18 July 2014 - 12:38 PM.

[Tynan]

Sephlock, on 18 July 2014 - 11:53 AM, said:

Please.... you've just opened the door for PGI to nerf autocannons AGAIN!

Oh I know, let's give THEM a firing delay too! And then let's make it so that ALL missile launchers have doors that have to be opened EVERY TIME THEY FIRE (no more weapon bay door toggle) so that THEY have a firing delay too!

Because nerfing things is a lot more anti-fun than giving us options like glazed or reactive armor... if anything, if we ever get ANY options they have to be like The One Ring, aka ECM, and when it becomes apparent that they are insanely OP, they'll only get a minor nerf that makes them "less than an absolute invincibility shield" vs the majority of a weapon type. Oh boy...

You're being sarcastic (and no, I wouldn't support any of those individual joke suggestions) but making weapon systems harder to deliver increases the skill differential. People use PPCs / IS ACs / Gauss because it's easier to deliver the necessary pinpoint damage to a single spot quickly and with less risk of return fire.

Putting the onus on the attacker (recoil mechanics, charge up mechanics for FLD weapons) to use weapons carefully / skillfully is a good thing overall, not just in respect to Gauss. Making people work for their crazy alpha strikes rather than just point mouse -> click one button -> goodbye leg / side torso adds to the game, as far as I'm concerned (not that all mechanics to this end are good ideas or well implemented, obviously).

[Sephlock]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

60 meter min for Gauss
180 meters for AC2 (IIRC I didn't use them a lot)
120 Meter Min for AC5

It really bugged us military folk as Ballistic weapons use a pretty straight line from the barrel to the target ...in most cases. And at these ranges...No reason to lob em high!

Sorry Seph, though I am fine with no min range on ballistics, it is a very long standing rule on TT. I didn't agree with it, but used it all the same, so I am not the guy to complain if Ballistic minimums come back.

Lemme see that sheet.

Edited by Sephlock, 18 July 2014 - 12:07 PM.

[Artgathan]

Ultimatum X, on 18 July 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Out of curiosity why did it have a min range on TT?

Based on the mechanics of TT, I would suggest that it may have had something to do with Targeting Computers. The behavior of weapons in BT leads me to believe that each weapon comes with it's own Targeting System (that's hard-coded into the weapon system) and the Battlemech's Targeting System simply tries to coordinate the independent systems. Certain weapons have targeting systems that are more effective at range (AC/2, Gauss), but suffer at close range. (Though if this was the case, I'd expect weapons like these to receive a to-hit bonus at longer ranges).

Lots of people forget that in BT the pilot doesn't actually aim the Battlemech's weapons. They sort of just guide the mech toward a target, and the computer takes care of the rest. Sort of like teaching a kid to play pool (billiards): you help them set up the shot, but they have to execute it - you can give them a perfect stance, but they can still ruin the shot.

There's also a degree of similarity with real-world weapons: using a sniper rifle to do house clearing. The weapon is difficult to maneuver in close quarters, which makes it harder to acquire and engage targets. Similarly, an M1 Abrams MBT will have trouble tracking targets at short range (rather than long range) because it's limited by the speed at which its turret can spin.

If that failed to convince you... Well then, because REASONS!

[Rhent]

Can someone actually post the link from the Dev Corner stating this change is coming? Because I haven't read anything to support any of these desynching statements from any poster yet.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sephlock, on 18 July 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

Lemme see that sheet.

I corrected my errors and added links to the previous post.

[EgoSlayer]

Ultimatum X, on 18 July 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

Honestly if the package was:

1) Nerf PPC/Gauss linked usage
2) but Gauss charge up removed


I would be all over this like it's the last drop of beer on Earth.

+1000
Would read again...

[EgoSlayer]

Rhent, on 18 July 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Can someone actually post the link from the Dev Corner stating this change is coming? Because I haven't read anything to support any of these desynching statements from any poster yet.

There isn't a link to it coming, Russ mentioned he had the mechanic put in game but it's disabled right now in the NGNG podcast.
http://mwomercs.com/...5-russ-bullock/

CN: New charge limit/max linked mechanic option that includes PPC's as well as Gauss. So any combination of Two, 2G or 2PPC, or 1G 1PPC.
Additional Plus - no need for Ghost heat on PPCs.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 18 July 2014 - 02:49 PM.

[Reno Blade]

The most logical reasons why ACs and Gauss had minimum range in TT would be because of burst fire and charge beeing harder to aim at a target that is closer to you than at a target further a way.
If the target moves the same distance lateraly to you it needs faster leading and tracking if its closer than if its further away.

On the other hand:
In theory, the other ACs should have the same issue then.
We can see this with the cUAC20 and its 5 shells compared to the UAC2 with 2 shells, but we have slower moving bullets also.

Edit:
also here is the other topic about this:
http://mwomercs.com/...auss-link-nerf/

Edited by Reno Blade, 18 July 2014 - 02:45 PM.

[Sephlock]

Reno Blade, on 18 July 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

The most logical reasons why ACs and Gauss had minimum range in TT would be because of burst fire and charge beeing harder to aim at a target that is closer to you than at a target further a way.
If the target moves the same distance lateraly to you it needs faster leading and tracking if its closer than if its further away.

On the other hand:
In theory, the other ACs should have the same issue then.
We can see this with the cUAC20 and its 5 shells compared to the UAC2 with 2 shells, but we have slower moving bullets also.

Edit:
also here is the other topic about this:
http://mwomercs.com/...auss-link-nerf/

Shhh, they are going to do it. You know how much they love nerfing.

[Sephlock]

Reno Blade, on 18 July 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

also here is the other topic about this:
http://mwomercs.com/...auss-link-nerf/

That really isn't so much a "topic" as a heaping pile of garbage moistened with the tears of the unskilled and the fun-hating.

[Sephlock]

[Pjwned]

Opinion train coming through.

The charge-up mechanic is fine as it is, if you have a high pinpoint damage weapon with very high range and projectile speed then I don't see how it's very good for the game to have it fire instantly, if you want what is essentially a souped up sniper rifle then it should behave like a sniper rifle where you need to hold the shot for at least a short amount of time, and if needed (which I don't think it is) then reduce the charge-up time slightly.

What does need to happen though is the gauss rifle needs to allow you to hold the shot for more time. Right now you can only hold the shot for 1.25 seconds before it dissipates, that is really ridiculous and it needs to be longer for when you're trying to shoot something far away or if you see an enemy coming around a corner, say 2 seconds or even 2.5 seconds would be great.

There's no need to limit alpha strikes with PPCs & gauss rifles together when gauss rifles need to be charged to fire, and gauss rifles should stay that way.

[Sephlock]

Because it was fun as hell and awesome as hell and that stuff you said applies to PPCs as well, and a big part of the reason why they added that **** in was to screw over people who were trying to alpha strike them with PPCs (heh, good job, PGI) which their upcoming tweak is going to address more directly.

Pjwned, on 20 July 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

There's no need to limit alpha strikes with PPCs & gauss rifles together when gauss rifles need to be charged to fire, and gauss rifles should stay that way.

See there is your problem. You:

1: Are using reason and logic to address balance changes. That never actually happens. Those don't get applied to the process of making changes.

2: Think that there is a chance in hell of their already-programmed fix not getting put into the game and remaining there until the end of time.

I envy you your naïveté.

[Sephlock]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

60 meter min for Gauss
180 120 meters for AC2 (IIRC I didn't use them a lot)
120 90 Meter Min for AC5

It really bugged us military folk as Ballistic weapons use a pretty straight line from the barrel to the target ...in most cases. And at these ranges...No reason to lob em high!

Sorry Seph, though I am fine with no min range on ballistics, it is a very long standing rule on TT. I didn't agree with it, but used it all the same, so I am not the guy to complain if Ballistic minimums come back.

On the contrary, as a former collaborator, you should be all the more qualified to opine on the PURE EVIL and illogic of it all!