876 replies to this topic

[kosmos1214]

LordKnightFandragon, on 28 January 2015 - 07:23 PM, said:

Lol, im almost positive they never will as well, but I dream......and really, thats how you convince clanners to use other weapons, buff the others....and it doesnt take a huge sweeping buff to really make stuff nice.

yah really though to be fair they have had a lot going on lately

[Nori Silverrage]

I think either tightening up the shots, or reducing the number of shots would both work out well across all the weapons and I'd be ok with either. Though TBH I really don't see the need for 4 shots on the UAC5 or UAC2 (haven't used it but is it 4?).

As it is now, the ballistic hardpoints on my Timbers and Crows are either Gauss or sit gathering dust..

Edited by Nori Silverrage, 29 January 2015 - 12:09 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Nori Silverrage, on 29 January 2015 - 12:08 PM, said:

I think either tightening up the shots, or reducing the number of shots would both work out well across all the weapons and I'd be ok with either. Though TBH I really don't see the need for 4 shots on the UAC5 or UAC2 (haven't used it but is it 4?).

As it is now, the ballistic hardpoints on my Timbers and Crows are either Gauss or sit gathering dust..

Maybe they could base the shots on the size of the gun..

2s and 5s use 2 shots, for 1/1 and 2.5/2.5. The 10 uses 3, idk how that math adds up to 10, and the 20 stays at 4.

In each case the shot spread is tightened up so there is less travel time and spread on the shots.. That might work better...idk.

[Nori Silverrage]

LordKnightFandragon, on 29 January 2015 - 12:21 PM, said:

Maybe they could base the shots on the size of the gun..

2s and 5s use 2 shots, for 1/1 and 2.5/2.5. The 10 uses 3, idk how that math adds up to 10, and the 20 stays at 4.

In each case the shot spread is tightened up so there is less travel time and spread on the shots.. That might work better...idk.

I think this would work. As it it now the C-UAC5 is straight up terrible compared to the IS UAC5. Heck even two of em isn't that great. The 10 would be, 3.3/3.4/3.3

[LordKnightFandragon]

Nori Silverrage, on 29 January 2015 - 02:52 PM, said:

I think this would work. As it it now the C-UAC5 is straight up terrible compared to the IS UAC5. Heck even two of em isn't that great. The 10 would be, 3.3/3.4/3.3

UAC need a lesser jam chance...I have used UACs and they jam every like 3rd shot, its insane. I once took the Trial VTR9w/e C we used to have and its 2 UAC5....no joke, literally I jumped up a cliff, fired 1 shot, I didnt even get to double rate and it jammed....I fell down, fired a bit more and it jammed again, I died having dealt 74dmg.....

In the Training grounds I was toying with a Warhawk UAC10 build, I couldnt fire 5 consecutive rounds without it jamming, I literally got 7 jams inside of 12 shells....no joke....

UAC are useless cuz of that jam chance.

[kosmos1214]

LordKnightFandragon, on 29 January 2015 - 03:03 PM, said:

UAC need a lesser jam chance...I have used UACs and they jam every like 3rd shot, its insane. I once took the Trial VTR9w/e C we used to have and its 2 UAC5....no joke, literally I jumped up a cliff, fired 1 shot, I didnt even get to double rate and it jammed....I fell down, fired a bit more and it jammed again, I died having dealt 74dmg.....

In the Training grounds I was toying with a Warhawk UAC10 build, I couldnt fire 5 consecutive rounds without it jamming, I literally got 7 jams inside of 12 shells....no joke....

UAC are useless cuz of that jam chance.

mind if i ask how long ago this was uacs have changed quite a bit in the last 2/3ish months like they got the uac jam bug fixed
where they would jam on the 1st shot and as a side note to this if i remember right the jam chance right now is suposed to be 15%

[LordKnightFandragon]

kosmos1214, on 29 January 2015 - 04:12 PM, said:

mind if i ask how long ago this was uacs have changed quite a bit in the last 2/3ish months like they got the uac jam bug fixed
where they would jam on the 1st shot and as a side note to this if i remember right the jam chance right now is suposed to be 15%

Idk, it was several months ago, maybe 5.

[kosmos1214]

ok give them a try again the general openion right now seems to be if you can fit a uac5 why are you useing an ac5 at least on IS mechs

[LordKnightFandragon]

kosmos1214, on 29 January 2015 - 04:32 PM, said:

ok give them a try again the general openion right now seems to be if you can fit a uac5 why are you useing an ac5 at least on IS mechs

Experimenting with loadouts would be alot easier if we made more then 10 cents per game.....ive made like 200K in the last like 5 games I played...no joke. Iwas at like 4.9 million, im only right now at 5.1...

I sold all my UACs awhile back, vowing to never touch them again while they jam like they do.

[Karl Streiger]

as far as i can tell there are some serious issues with hit registration of hits that are inflicted in quick succession.
last time i "saw" it was on IS builds featuring 2 AC 2s...both fired in chain to increase the density of metal.
While i was able to walk the fire over multiple targets at effective range or slightly above - the "damage" inflicted on the "death" screen didn't look like i had expected from the "visual" hits.
And the "%" accuracy on my AC 2 is at "free" fall, same goes for the AC 5 that (on few mechs) is also used in chain fire instead of synchron fire.

On the other hand - the first shot is sometimes registering even when you shouldn't have hit the target. (For example - snap fire with ER-PPC on a Spider in midair at 1000m.... HIT - same for the Gauss)
Maybe my subconscious is better than me. But considering shots i have seen vanish at obstacles, that dealt damage and shots that visible hit the target and doesn't dealt damage; i can say for sure something is weird.

Increase the rate of fire won't fix the problem. You have to reduce the rate of fire - for all weapons.

Considering the Clan Guns - well i could live with another approach - for ballistic weapons in general. But this means - screw the numbers.
A AC 20 shouldn't deal 20 damage per "shot" - its nonsense. Because otherwise i highly recomend to rename the LargeLaser into a Laser8 and the IS large Pulse Laser into Pulse Laser 9.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karl Streiger, on 29 January 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

as far as i can tell there are some serious issues with hit registration of hits that are inflicted in quick succession.
last time i "saw" it was on IS builds featuring 2 AC 2s...both fired in chain to increase the density of metal.
While i was able to walk the fire over multiple targets at effective range or slightly above - the "damage" inflicted on the "death" screen didn't look like i had expected from the "visual" hits.
And the "%" accuracy on my AC 2 is at "free" fall, same goes for the AC 5 that (on few mechs) is also used in chain fire instead of synchron fire.

On the other hand - the first shot is sometimes registering even when you shouldn't have hit the target. (For example - snap fire with ER-PPC on a Spider in midair at 1000m.... HIT - same for the Gauss)
Maybe my subconscious is better than me. But considering shots i have seen vanish at obstacles, that dealt damage and shots that visible hit the target and doesn't dealt damage; i can say for sure something is weird.

Increase the rate of fire won't fix the problem. You have to reduce the rate of fire - for all weapons.

Considering the Clan Guns - well i could live with another approach - for ballistic weapons in general. But this means - screw the numbers.
A AC 20 shouldn't deal 20 damage per "shot" - its nonsense. Because otherwise i highly recomend to rename the LargeLaser into a Laser8 and the IS large Pulse Laser into Pulse Laser 9.

Well, one thing about the simplicity of the AC2, 5, 10 and 20 referring to damage, it is simple and easy to understand. Not unlike games now, that like to make **** convoluted, confusing and twisted to the point of making no sense.

Like World of Tanks

105mm T5E1, Tier 7 Heavy tank gun, its a 105mm gun, but it deals 320 avg. Then at T9, the medium gets a 105mm gun that deals 390dmg. But then go down a few tiers and look at the Russian 100mm gun only deals like 220, I think its 260 now, but it used to be 220, while the 90mm dealt 240....smaller caliber dealing more damage? That kind of ****......Or how heavy tanks are supposed to be the ones wiht good guns, yet the Heavies have less pen then the mediums......and in some cases, less damage per shot. While mediums are supposed to be faster firing and the American 90mm at Tier 7 fires way faster on the T6 heavy then it does on the T7 medium......

AC2, 5, 10 and 20.....its simple, it makes sense and its not twisted and confusing.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 30 January 2015 - 12:02 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

LordKnightFandragon, on 30 January 2015 - 12:01 AM, said:

AC2, 5, 10 and 20.....its simple, it makes sense and its not twisted and confusing.

but you got more problems as you want to have.
You said it your self - the IS pinpoint weapon - mixed with the double tap of the Ultra 20 is scary. So you can't have pinpoint and Ultra fire as it is in the same place.
To modify the damage is the way to go - and even when it "causes" you headache - with a modification of the factors:
heat, range, velocity, damage, RoF - you can have multiple weapons of each type.
you can have a long range VHAC (20) - with a awesome low firing rate - or you can have a LAC(2) that is awesome slow but has incredible RoF and damage.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Karl Streiger, on 30 January 2015 - 12:42 AM, said:

but you got more problems as you want to have.
You said it your self - the IS pinpoint weapon - mixed with the double tap of the Ultra 20 is scary. So you can't have pinpoint and Ultra fire as it is in the same place.
To modify the damage is the way to go - and even when it "causes" you headache - with a modification of the factors:
heat, range, velocity, damage, RoF - you can have multiple weapons of each type.
you can have a long range VHAC (20) - with a awesome low firing rate - or you can have a LAC(2) that is awesome slow but has incredible RoF and damage.

Yeah, an IS weapon with PP + double tap would be vicious.

But a Clan UAC with jam chance, maybe a 1s longer Cool down, and 2 shots per salvo, that would be neat.

Or, UAC, 2 shots, 1s longer after shot cooldown, and atleast a 1s delay before being able to double tap....

It could prolly be done...but meh.....

[kosmos1214]

Karl Streiger, on 29 January 2015 - 11:43 PM, said:

as far as i can tell there are some serious issues with hit registration of hits that are inflicted in quick succession.
last time i "saw" it was on IS builds featuring 2 AC 2s...both fired in chain to increase the density of metal.
While i was able to walk the fire over multiple targets at effective range or slightly above - the "damage" inflicted on the "death" screen didn't look like i had expected from the "visual" hits.
And the "%" accuracy on my AC 2 is at "free" fall, same goes for the AC 5 that (on few mechs) is also used in chain fire instead of synchron fire.

On the other hand - the first shot is sometimes registering even when you shouldn't have hit the target. (For example - snap fire with ER-PPC on a Spider in midair at 1000m.... HIT - same for the Gauss)
Maybe my subconscious is better than me. But considering shots i have seen vanish at obstacles, that dealt damage and shots that visible hit the target and doesn't dealt damage; i can say for sure something is weird.

Increase the rate of fire won't fix the problem. You have to reduce the rate of fire - for all weapons.

Considering the Clan Guns - well i could live with another approach - for ballistic weapons in general. But this means - screw the numbers.
A AC 20 shouldn't deal 20 damage per "shot" - its nonsense. Because otherwise i highly recomend to rename the LargeLaser into a Laser8 and the IS large Pulse Laser into Pulse Laser 9.

yes but at what ping im not going to say that hit reg is perfect but whats your ping and what the ping of the shooter it all maters iv seen ppl say stuff like this over and over and ever time i see one in a match they have like 350+ ping at that point hit reg is going to suck in most games with sever side hit reg

[Koshirou]

Okay, I haven't played in quite some time, but am I missing something?

PGI says:

- We want units of side A (Clan Mechs) to remain stronger than units of side B (IS Mechs.) (Right?)
- We want to have matches based on equal unit numbers and equal unit total basic resources (tonnage) of the two sides.
- We want matches to be balanced.

Now it's painfully obvious to anybody that you can pick only two of these things. So what's the plan?

[MadDrac]

Lets say for a Moment
What it there was a slight bonus to clan if they drop with less tonnage or categories 240 220 200 WTF ever
like placing a bid and saying you can do it for less ergo more LP and cbil

I mostly play IS as i like the challenge....and would Still not like to see clan stuff nurfed

maybe put in more of the IS weapon systems slave systems, melee weps, IS is on home base maybe better airstrike or arties, more ECM for IS

[LordKnightFandragon]

Draconion, on 01 February 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

Lets say for a Moment
What it there was a slight bonus to clan if they drop with less tonnage or categories 240 220 200 WTF ever
like placing a bid and saying you can do it for less ergo more LP and cbil

I mostly play IS as i like the challenge....and would Still not like to see clan stuff nurfed

maybe put in more of the IS weapon systems slave systems, melee weps, IS is on home base maybe better airstrike or arties, more ECM for IS

Only thing about giving one side more numbers then another in a game like MWO, it gives a massive advantage to the side with numbers, better equipment or not.

And by better Clan tech, that would mean lasers with similar burn times to IS yet lighter, smaller and dealing more damage. better DHS, a 15/15 CERPPC, 1 or 2 shot UACs with lower jam chance, more clumpy LRMs+ sub180m damage. All that fun jazz...and yet if you give the IS 2 more mechs, it might just swing hte favor over to the IS side time and again, cuz 10v12? Has no one paid attention to what happens when a side gets a simple 2 mech advantage now? it quickly turns 6-1, 9-1, 10-2, 12-2....cuz as one side gains momentum the other side just gets sucked under the steamroller and its over.....

Ofc, I cant quite come up with a logical explanation as to why I keep being on the side that is winning 6-1 and 6-3, 7-3 and suddenly we lose the game 6-12........but yeah..

[p4r4g0n]

Koshirou, on 01 February 2015 - 04:25 AM, said:

Okay, I haven't played in quite some time, but am I missing something?

PGI says:

- We want units of side A (Clan Mechs) to remain stronger than units of side B (IS Mechs.) (Right?)
-snip-

When did PGI ever say this? AFAIK, Clan mechs were supposed to feel / look different but not stronger than IS mechs to avoid everyone switching to using Clan mechs only just like in previous MechWarrior Iterations.

[Koshirou]

Okay, but that would mean nerfing Clan Weapons to the point where their performance is actually considerably worse than that of their IS counterparts, since they are still much lighter. And I don't see it.

[Karl Streiger]

Koshirou, on 02 February 2015 - 02:54 AM, said:

Okay, but that would mean nerfing Clan Weapons to the point where their performance is actually considerably worse than that of their IS counterparts, since they are still much lighter. And I don't see it.

This ship left the harbor a century ago - its already wrecked.

The only time frame where "weight" balance was possible is prior to the 4th SuccessionWar without the fancy SL Tech.
If you can balance this tech - for example Stock JaegerMech vs Thunderbolt 5S - is on the average a duel of equals you could move on.