88 replies to this topic

[1Grimbane]

i like my laser vomit builds thank you very much, very very effective at stripping components off

[Troutmonkey]

Karl Streiger, on 19 October 2015 - 09:05 PM, said:

So you simple want to add another system?
Firing 6 small lasers for 3 tons without spread but 3 large Lasers for 15ton is not intuitive.
Firing 4 Ac5s without spread or even 10 AC2s - without spread is rightous wrong.
You can't choose Alpha DMG - other reason should 2 Uac20 use spread or not.

But if you say Ok guys you can fire one weapon where you aim at, but the targeting computer got some problems when you want to place 6 shots in the same penny

In most shooters bigger gun = more recoil. It's pretty intuitive. Weapons produces different heat, and people manage to work that out too. A simple bar alongside heat could be used, or you could hide it and just bloom the reticule instead. People will figure out pretty easily that "shooting lots == bad aim"

Weapons can be balanced around this factor instead of hard coding it around damage. Small lasers right now aren't a balance issue, Large Pulse Lasers are. Why punish that Jenner with 4 MLAS the same amount that you would punish a Stalker with 4 LPL? It doesn't make sense from a balance perspective. The CPU factor also need to be in place to stop people working around the firing x weapons at a time by just macro'ing weapons .1 second after each other.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 19 October 2015 - 09:25 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Troutmonkey, on 19 October 2015 - 09:24 PM, said:

In most shooters bigger gun = more recoil. It's pretty intuitive. Weapons produces different heat, and people manage to work that out too. A simple bar alongside heat could be used, or you could hide it and just bloom the reticule instead. People will figure out pretty easily that "shooting lots == bad aim"

Weapons can be balanced around this factor instead of hard coding it around damage. Small lasers right now aren't a balance issue, Large Pulse Lasers are. Why punish that Jenner with 4 MLAS the same amount that you would punish a Stalker with 4 LPL? It doesn't make sense from a balance perspective. The CPU factor also need to be in place to stop people working around the firing x weapons at a time by just macro'ing weapons .1 second after each other.

Well you are right as well. The 4 LPL build is currently a balance issue but isn't a 8 ML build a balance issue either?

x LPL vs x ML is not a problem - a LPL is good balanced vs all other energy weapons as long as you only compare 1 weapon.

6 Small Laser are complete imbalanced in comparison with 2 Large Lasers - the Small Laser even got a shorter beam duration so the 6 Laser build got "twice" the power - considering its 3ton - you can mount them even on a Locust and again range is not a problem.

....wait this guy said the Locust is imba???? LOLS
Exactly,
Simple because balance is not the typical behaviour - can kill np - l2p noob
Balances is math - maybe not simple but its still math.

And math says when stuff weighting 3tons heat of 6 deal more damage faster as 10tons heat 14 and you can eliminate the range as a factor - its a problem that demands a solution.

Considering you shooter example: when you can fire 20 Glock that simultaneously hit the same target and the cumulative recoil is nil - would you even consider to take a bigger gun in CQB combat?

[Troutmonkey]

Karl Streiger, on 19 October 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

And math says when stuff weighting 3tons heat of 6 deal more damage faster as 10tons heat 14 and you can eliminate the range as a factor - its a problem that demands a solution.

Considering you shooter example: when you can fire 20 Glock that simultaneously hit the same target and the cumulative recoil is nil - would you even consider to take a bigger gun in CQB combat?

Range is a very important factor.

I can peak at 450m, fire off a burst, and then retreat into cover. I can do this many times in a game.
Those small lasers with their tiny range? Getting in closer enough without exposing myself to a dozen or so mechs is tough. It requires careful positioning and timing, and runs the risk of getting spotted and focused down if you're not fast enough to get away. You can't pull that off every 4 seconds, which is why you don't see friggin heavy mechs boating small lasers.

That other factor is hardpoint limitation. Not every mech has the hardpoints to pull of boating smaller lasers. Outliers to this are a few light mechs which aren't really a problem outside of maybe Cheetahs and Firestarters, and the occasional Thunderbolt or Gargoyle boating pulse lasers. Even then all of these mechs are second class to Timbers boating LPLs and larger lasers, so clearly small / medium lasers aren't as big of an issue.

That said, the CPU system will still hit these builds and should hopefully force them to bind more than one weapons group.

[ThisMachineKillsFascists]

aha i smell robocraft mechanics in ops suggestions. Robocrft is superior to this game. Paul pls learn from a succesfull f2p robo game.

[kapusta11]

Troutmonkey, on 05 October 2015 - 09:49 PM, said:

Want to solve the TTK issue?
Want to stop laser vomit?
Want to encourage mixed load outs?

What issue?
Why?
Yes.

[Troutmonkey]

kapusta11, on 20 October 2015 - 03:57 AM, said:

What issue?
Why?
Yes.

Time to Kill is pretty low, lower than is what in 2014 and 2013. The introduction of Clans and 12v12 has lead to mechs dying really quickly. With long rounds and no respawns, peaking around a corner and dying instantly isn't fun.

Laser vomit (+Gauss) is dominating the meta right now. This leads to everyone eventually building the same mech's and loadouts, which cuts down on diversity and causes stagnant game play. Missiles and Ballistics should be viable weapons.

"Yes" - You just answered question 2 for yourself.

[1Grimbane]

Time to kill is no where near CoD times, it can honestly take a while to finally go down, i have been in plenty of full ten min trading shots 3-2 for half the match kinda games, i have no idea why so many people have issues with tkk in mwo, not a clue

[AllSpark]

Why don't we just make the guns fire SLIGHTLY out of sync when firing more than one of them at the time? That would create more damage spread when you need to hold the crosshair on the targeted location for the duration of the firing sequence.

Firing full alpha would still be way faster than chain firing your weapons, they would just fire slightly out of sync (like 0.1 - 0.3 seconds apart or so - big guns more than the little guns).

Fluff reason could be that your targeting computer cant find firing solutions to all of your guns simultaneously or the strain to your core would be too big if firing all of these high energy weapons exactly at the same time.