105 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

FupDup, on 07 March 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

I think that the LG would probably be more desired than the AC/10 due to velocity and range, outside of a few specific AC/10 enthusiasts...

The cooldown probably should be a bit shorter than normal Goose, but also longer than AC/10. I'm leaning towards 4.0 or 4.5 seconds?

It takes up 5 slots.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 11:31 AM, said:

5

So 2 in an empty actuator arm. A crab with 4 costs 48 tons, for 32 PPFLD?
...I'd stick to Dual Gauss.

Would single or paired mounts fare any better? Better velocity and range than the normal Gauss?

I cannot see the appeal.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

So 2 in an empty actuator arm. A crab with 4 costs 48 tons, for 32 PPFLD?
...I'd stick to Dual Gauss.

Would single or paired mounts fare any better? Better velocity and range than the normal Gauss?

I cannot see the appeal.

Yes, Light Gauss was significantly longer ranged...in fact, in TT, it had the longest range of any ballistic, and would likely have a 1000m range in MWO.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:45 AM, said:

Yes, Light Gauss was significantly longer ranged...in fact, in TT, it had the longest range of any ballistic, and would likely have a 1000m range in MWO.

Try 750m.

It had a range of 25 hexes in TT, Gauss had 22.

Which is one of the many reasons MW4 changed things so that it was much better.

12 damage at 1200m every 6 seconds was a really nice alternative to 18 damage at 800m every 7-8 seconds.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 11:49 AM.

[FupDup]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

So 2 in an empty actuator arm. A crab with 4 costs 48 tons, for 32 PPFLD?
...I'd stick to Dual Gauss.

Would single or paired mounts fare any better? Better velocity and range than the normal Gauss?

I cannot see the appeal.

I think that 2+ LG would be pointless. It seems like something for mechs that only have enough weight for 1 of them.

Range will definitely be higher, although the default TT value isn't that great (+90 meters). That can maybe be modified.

Velocity should be equal at worst, maybe a little bit higher to emphasize the super-duper-extremo range.


I wonder how a Panther 10P with a quirked LG would do...

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 08:35 AM, said:

That is power creep, thus not really a solution to balance, but a bandaid.

Clans were power creep...so balancing them out with the tech that should do it is a better solution

Quote

It is a legit truedub for 3 tons, not 1.5 tons, we have had this discussion before. Compact Heat Sinks are worthless.

It does not *have* to be 3 tons...

Quote

Keyword being could, Heavy Gauss would be a bit sad with the damage decay though.

A 12 damage, 12 ton Gauss rifle with significantly higher velocity, and 1000m range has no appeal? I find that odd...

Quote

You may want to double check your numbers, because I'm pretty sure they are past experimental prototypes before the end of the Jihad.

There is no entry anywhere, even in TRO 3145 for any Clan RAC that is not strictly experimental. The Clan RAC2 was an experimental prototype since 3069, and never gained traction.

Quote

They would have to go faster than SRMs to be remotely useful at mid-range, that or have lock-on which I doubt will be the case. McGral is right, they will probably compete with SRMs for brawling.

Heaven forbid SRMs get a mild lock like LRMs, and MRMs become a 100 m/s faster dumbfired SRM...

Quote

Ummmm, wat. The Plasma Rifle is not a better Gauss Rifle, the Heavy PPC is the closest Gauss Rifle counterpart and even it is short in the range department. It is a PPC with ammo, slightly less range, and adds heat to target, that's it. It would be neat, but considering how look it took for flamers to be useful, probably outright inferior for 2 years next to the PPC.

Yes ammo, 10 damage, 6 tons, 2 crits, no minimum range, and optimum range similar to gauss rifle. 20 ammo per ton, and applies heat damage. The Clan version does almost all heat damage, weighs as much as a gauss rifle, and has less range.

Quote

They probably would, but keep in mind these are the IS version of ER Pulse. As it stands currently, they would probably only match the range of the Clan's standard pulse ranges. They could be nice but doubtful.

It would be a great weapon judging by how OP pulse lasers are atm.

Quote

1.5x the tonnage with what advantages?

Tighter spread, higher damage per missile...??

Quote

The UAC10 would be nice, but the 20 would probably hit ghost heat on every double tap which limits its usefulness. Not to mention the tonnage requirement and slow velocity. Not saying it wouldn't be a complete upgrade of the AC20, but even the AC20 is somewhat lackluster these days.

I doubt the ghost heat issue at all. As for tonnage requirements, I mean, what mech outside a few mediums built specifically around it make a decent AC20 mech as it stands under 65-70 tons?

Quote

Wouldn't change the fact they would suck, just like the LBX10 vs the AC10.

If the spread was reduced enough, they would be useful, and longer ranged versions of regular ACs for less tonnage...

Quote

First, Clans develop XXL engines as well, and second, with the omnimech construction rules, several IS omnimechs are gimped on Mist Lynx levels, some like the Strider and Owens are even locked into SHS.

I know clans get them too...but even then, it would be great for IS lights/mediums.

As for IS omnimechs...well...yes...there are some gimped models...but not all were gimped...the Templar and Fafnir come to mind off the top of my head as being good...

Edited by Gyrok, 07 March 2016 - 12:20 PM.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

You know about designing games!?

I do it for a living...what do you do besides troll people and pretend to know about balance?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Clans were power creep...so balancing them out with the tech that should do it is a better solution

You completely missed the point, rather than introducing future tech, we could just balance out the existing tech and then LFEs wouldn't invalidate options.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

It does not *have* to be 3 tons...

If you are expecting PGI to alter the tonnage of CHS you are fairly naive.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

A 12 damage, 12 ton Gauss rifle with significantly higher velocity, and 1000m range has no appeal? I find that odd...

It was 8 damage at 750m, and I doubt it would be much different until a year after it was introduced.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

There is no entry anywhere, even in TRO 3145 for any Clan RAC that is not strictly experimental. The Clan RAC2 was an experimental prototype since 3069, and never gained traction.

That doesn't mean it wasn't produced.....the production date will be in the Tech Manual or TacOps I believe.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Heaven forbid SRMs get a mild lock like LRMs, and MRMs become a 100 m/s faster dumbfired SRM...

They would need to be faster than 100m/s to be useful at their expected mid-range. As for mild lock for SRMs, I doubt this will happen since it has been asked for longer than people have complained about spooky heat.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Yes ammo, 10 damage, 6 tons, 2 crits, no minimum range, and optimum range similar to gauss rifle.

By similar optimum range to a Gauss Rifle, you mean a Large Laser right? IS Plasma Rifles have 15 hex range, which means 450m range, shorter than PPCs.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

The Clan version does almost all heat damage, weighs as much as a gauss rifle, and has less range.

Please stop using Mektek's version as a source, the Clan Plasma Cannon is half the weight of the IS version does no actual damage, does triple the heat damage (potentially) of the IS Plasma Rifle and has more range, equal to the IS PPC.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

It would be a great weapon judging by how OP pulse lasers are atm.

Depends on whether heat is the only trade-off.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

Tighter spread, higher damage per missile...??

Spread is rather pointless for streaks, and the extra damage is not worth the extra tonnage (what is it, .1 per missile?).

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

I doubt the ghost heat issue at all. As for tonnage requirements, I mean, what mech outside a few mediums built specifically around it make a decent AC20 mech as it stands under 65-70 tons?

It would help mechs like the Hunchback sure, but be power creep equivalent to the LFEs, so it would probably not be single shell and thus less useful and awesome.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

If the spread was reduced enough, they would be useful, and longer ranged versions of regular ACs for less tonnage...

Hinges a lot on PGI finally fixing the the LBX in general to be useful, doubtful. As for the range, that is like saying the standard SRM range quirks were useful.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

I know clans get them too...but even then, it would be great for IS lights/mediums.

It would be nice, sure, but goes back to the LFE problem.

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:

As for IS omnimechs...well...yes...there are some gimped models...but not all were gimped...the Templar and Fafnir come to mind off the top of my head as being good...

Fafnir wasn't an omni, and the Templar has an XL so it hinges on having high mounts to be useful.



Gyrok, do you even check half the things you say, or are you pulling half these stats out of thin-air?

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 12:11 PM.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

Compact Heatsinks are 1.5 tons each, and a half Crit slot each, while dissipating a single point of heat per turn.

I know what they are in TT...however...since no stock builds contain CHS, they could be adapted to MWO to be a balance solution.

Quote

Sure, you can fit 20 in a 250+ engine but that costs you 10 tons for the same dissipation as 10 TrueDubs...which would cost you 0 tons and 0 Crit Slots.

#read my whole post next time

Quote

LFEs are still outright inferior to cXLs, at 75% weight savings VS 50%.

Combined with CHS, you would be on mostly equal terms, because far less crits occupied by CHS means Ferro is a more reasonable option on IS mechs now...

Quote

I can't see an 8 damage 12 ton weapon with a charge being worthwhile. hGauss has that significant damage falloff...which equated to something to the tune of a 300M range with 3x drop off, no? I'd need to Math that out again.

It has more range, more ammo per ton, and allows mechs like the RFL to carry 2 + lasers, or whatever you wish....since CERPPCs in TT were 15 and in MWO, they are 10, why could the LGauss not be 12 damage for 12 tons?

Quote

RACs are smaller for IS, but Clams have their own at the same tonnage.

Not according to any TRO that lists Clam RACs...they are experimental only...and there are no stock mechs with Clam RACs in any accepted variant listed.

Quote

How do you expect MRMs to be amazing? Likely sub 300M/s, with extreme spread or volley fire.
They will function like slower SRMs with even more spread. How else will PGI implement them?

Since they are 1 damage each, the spread can be quite tight in comparison...make SRMs have a mild lock similar to LRMs (as they should anyway....) make MRMs 100 m/s faster with dumbfire and massive salvos.

Quote

A 10 heat Gauss Rifle does not a Plasma Rifle make. Good for the tonnage, more akin to a extra heat instead of extra spread damage cERPPC which requires ammo.

A 6 ton, 2 crit slot, 10 damage weapon, with no minimum range, 200 damage per ton ammo counts, and heat damage applied to the enemy...

Quote

Because the XPLs infringe on a few categories. Normal laser range for Pulse durations and ridiculous heat? Less heat but outright better than normal lasers? Fudge those details up

What categories would that be? IS pulse lasers? Sure...IS STD/ER lasers? Not really...

Quote

You refutal is rubbish for isOmnis.

You cherry pick bad examples...the Templar, Sunder, Fafnir, and several others were good...yes, they had **** omnimechs too...so do clans...

Quote

How would you make the isStreaks not absolutely inferior to the lighter Clam options? Shorter cooldown? Lel

Tighter spread, higher velocity, more damage per missile (a la SRMs)...?

Quote

You may want to double check the isLBX resources...IIRC they are identical weight aside from the LB10x
UACs, however, are not the same weight and will most certainly not be fully PP FLD. Was the isUAC10 13 or 14 tons? Compared to 10, it had damn well perform better.

The IS UAC5 is PP FLD...why would PGI do anything differently?

Edited by Gyrok, 07 March 2016 - 12:17 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

I do it for a living...what do you do besides troll people and pretend to know about balance?

I've got to assume you're the one trolling, because the majority of your suggestions are not thought through and have SIGNIFICANT bias.

That isn't how you balance a game, and if that's what you do for a living...Paul, is that you?

[Gyrok]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

Gyrok, do you even check half the things you say, or are you pulling half these stats out of thin-air?

I thought the Fafnir was an omni...however...the sunder is...

Also, a lot of what I am saying proposes ways that these things could be adjusted. Many of them are things that are not typical in TT, and, in the case of CHS, are so uncommon that there are no stock builds that implement them...so changing their weight will not "break" anything.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

I thought the Fafnir was an omni...however...the sunder is...

So 1 or 2 in 12 mechs would even be decent with some being top contenders for worst mechs in the game? Yeah that is a huge positive.....

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Many of them are things that are not typical in TT, and, in the case of CHS, are so uncommon that there are no stock builds that implement them...so changing their weight will not "break" anything.

Weight is something that would set a precedent, and it is the last thing I would expect them to do. Making things lighter would never break a stock build, but you don't see them making things lighter to reduce the balancing burden. As for made up stats, again, this hinges a lot on PGI to correct, going off simple TT stats though, most of these weapons outside of RACs (which Clans get) would not be all the great. It would help out the less fortunate mechs in regards to hardpoints, but that is about it. I also don't want to imagine the dynamic hardpoints for MRMs.....

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 12:49 PM.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

I've got to assume you're the one trolling, because the majority of your suggestions are not thought through and have SIGNIFICANT bias.

That isn't how you balance a game, and if that's what you do for a living...Paul, is that you?

No...actually, I am not showing bias. If I was, I would be advocating for 5 vs 12, full glory clan mechs, screw the IS.

I am outright trying to get the tech trees equal to balance the game the way the original creators intended it to be balanced. Instead of taking a "shoehorn the crap into a balanced state" approach that you are advocating.

News Flash: Not all weapons will be relevant, ever, and there will *always* be something that is OP in this game, and something that is UP.

The sooner you get over this nirvana-esque ideal that 400 year old tech can compete with clan tech from the golden century, the better off your perspective of balance will be.

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 07 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:

So 1 or 2 in 12 mechs? People complain about the Summoner, but classics like the Avatar are even worse.



Weight is something that would set a precedent, and it is the last thing I would expect them to do. Making things lighter would never break a stock build, but you don't see them making things lighter to reduce the balancing burden. As for made up stats, again, this hinges a lot on PGI to correct, going off simple TT stats though, most of these weapons outside of RACs (which Clans get) would not be all the great. It would help out the less fortunate mechs in regards to hardpoints, but that is about it. I also don't want to imagine the dynamic hardpoints for MRMs.....

Technically, since gravity in game is significantly stronger than it should be...everything should be lighter anyway to compensate

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 12:48 PM, said:

No...actually, I am not showing bias. If I was, I would be advocating for 5 vs 12, full glory clan mechs, screw the IS.

I am outright trying to get the tech trees equal to balance the game the way the original creators intended it to be balanced. Instead of taking a "shoehorn the crap into a balanced state" approach that you are advocating.

News Flash: Not all weapons will be relevant, ever, and there will *always* be something that is OP in this game, and something that is UP.

The sooner you get over this nirvana-esque ideal that 400 year old tech can compete with clan tech from the golden century, the better off your perspective of balance will be.

So, you can change the proposed VERY mediocre selection of FutureTech™ as you see fit...but you cannot for current tech?



Your bias is showing again.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 12:17 PM, said:

Quote

I know what they are in TT...however...since no stock builds contain CHS, they could be adapted to MWO to be a balance solution.

Weight has been one thing not adjusted.Of course, neither have half crit items. They'd just become a 3 ton DHS for 1 Crit slot...most certainly not worth it.

Quote

Combined with CHS, you would be on mostly equal terms, because far less crits occupied by CHS means Ferro is a more reasonable option on IS mechs now...

So, pay more in terms of weight for the heatsinks, to get less weight back from the engine...and Ferro still remaining at 14 Crits?

Go ahead and try building...say, a Stalker (a Crit starved mech) with your proposed LFE, Endo, Ferro and CHS.
I have a feeling it won't turn out very well, and the 10 engine TrueDubs would still remain superior with 10 external PoorDubs, with whatever amount of LLs you want.

Quote

It has more range, more ammo per ton, and allows mechs like the RFL to carry 2 + lasers, or whatever you wish....since CERPPCs in TT were 15 and in MWO, they are 10, why could the LGauss not be 12 damage for 12 tons?

Wow...8 more damage per ton in the source. Currently 150 in MWO, which is the typical amount. Light Gauss is likely to remain there, or possibly at 20 shots (for 160 damage).

Those 90 extra Meters sure let it outrange that Gauss...all 270M at the 3x maximum range the lGauss isn't guaranteed to get.

The cERPPC does deal 15 damage, but not all PP FLD.
Why would a Rifleman pay 24 tons for 16 PP FLD, when it could pay 15? Add whatever for ammo (generally 3).
They'd need significant buffs to be anything but mediocre garbage (like it's competition, the isAC10).

Quote

Not according to any TRO that lists Clam RACs...they are experimental only...and there are no stock mechs with Clam RACs in any accepted variant listed.

Hunch IIC4 mounts a pair of RAC5s, along with a WarHammer IIC and a Cauldron Born variant.

They are experimental, but does that mean they don't exist?

Quote

Since they are 1 damage each, the spread can be quite tight in comparison...make SRMs have a mild lock similar to LRMs (as they should anyway....) make MRMs 100 m/s faster with dumbfire and massive salvos.

No, actually, that's not the case. If 2 missiles hit the same hitbox, it has the same effect as an SRM.

Why the hell would MRMs have FASTER(?!) velocity than SRMs? Unless you're talking about LRMs, which would be 265M/s, which again falls into the category of Mediocre (because you can't use them at range), or outclassing SRMs because of their enormous damage in comparison.

Quote

A 6 ton, 2 crit slot, 10 damage weapon, with no minimum range, 200 damage per ton ammo counts, and heat damage applied to the enemy...

100* damage per ton, 10*10 does not make 200.
As I said, it's like a cERPPC substitute (but 5 dam for x heat), which could invalidate the isPPC.

20 heat for 20 damage is not the best of trades, and if the velocity is horrible, it will see just as much use as the PPC...which isn't very much.

Quote

What categories would that be? IS pulse lasers? Sure...IS STD/ER lasers? Not really...

Pulse Lasers, because durations and damage (and class), STD lasers, because they have the same range as them (450 LXPL, 270 MXPL, 150 SXPL VS 90M isSL).
That's without PGI's fudging.

So, the Small even matches the isERSL, as terrible as all 3 of them are.

Quote

You cherry pick bad examples...the Templar, Sunder, Fafnir, and several others were good...yes, they had **** omnimechs too...so do clans...

Templar, unable to mount an AC20, hardlocked 340 isXL on an 85 tonner along with a single hardlocked (half ton, 1 crit) case in the RT.
Thankfully, Endo instead of Ferro, which gives it a whopping 40 tons of guns, for largely (but not entirely) mediocre hardpoints.

Sunder, a 90 tonner without Endo or Ferro, and a 360 engine (PeaceDoce speed, 69Kph).
All 35 tons of guns, with 5 hardwired DHS.

Fafnir, as stated, is not an Omni.
Those above Omnis have a nearly acceptable engine, but due to TT construction, they are not optimal. They're also very fragile isXLs, and neither have very small STs, from the looks of it.

Quote

Tighter spread, higher velocity, more damage per missile (a la SRMs)...?

Tighter spread for RNGeesus? Would you focus the legs, because they're almost a hard counter to Lights, but nothing else? Or return the monstrosity of CT seeking missiles?

+0.15 damage is pathetic. You always mention that, but it just goes to reinforce your bias.
"No, REALLY, half the weight is TOTALLY a counter for +0.9 damage on the largest available launcher"

Quote

The IS UAC5 is PP FLD...why would PGI do anything differently?

Because 5 damage !=10 or 20

Do we really need to go through that?

[Y E O N N E]

It is entirely possible that there are way too many guns in BT than can be placed into the game without creating destructive overlap.

Also, the argument that we can touch any weapon to bring it up to par is the same argument that can be used to crush the idea that any two items...including engines...should be made identical. All that is required is that the trade-offs for a given item be worth it to make that item useful in the tangible game. Anything beyond that is not our concern as players.

[Gyrok]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Weight has been one thing not adjusted.Of course, neither have half crit items. They'd just become a 3 ton DHS for 1 Crit slot...most certainly not worth it.

IN TODAY'S VERSION OF MWO ACCORDING TO MCGRAL, IDEAS HE DISLIKES ARE HAND WAVE DISMISSED...MORE NEWS AT 10.

Quote

So, pay more in terms of weight for the heatsinks, to get less weight back from the engine...and Ferro still remaining at 14 Crits?

Is there an echo in here?

Quote

Go ahead and try building...say, a Stalker (a Crit starved mech) with your proposed LFE, Endo, Ferro and CHS.
I have a feeling it won't turn out very well, and the 10 engine TrueDubs would still remain superior with 10 external PoorDubs, with whatever amount of LLs you want.

Sure...already done the theory crafting: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...74440ed9ba82b62

That build, for example, would be a 310LFE with 6 LLs, and total of 9 CHS according to what I put forth, and you would still have room for plenty of other things...could probably get a 10th CHS with Ferro on there...and your cooling efficiency off the proposed 10 CHS = 2.00 per second with heat cap impact of +20.

Tell me that is as bad as you tried to make it out to be again, please? I want to laugh so badly...

Quote

Wow...8 more damage per ton in the source. Currently 150 in MWO, which is the typical amount. Light Gauss is likely to remain there, or possibly at 20 shots (for 160 damage).

Those 90 extra Meters sure let it outrange that Gauss...all 270M at the 3x maximum range the lGauss isn't guaranteed to get.

The cERPPC does deal 15 damage, but not all PP FLD.
Why would a Rifleman pay 24 tons for 16 PP FLD, when it could pay 15? Add whatever for ammo (generally 3).
They'd need significant buffs to be anything but mediocre garbage (like it's competition, the isAC10).

Once again...we are watching rerun episodes of: THE WORLD OF MWO ACCORDING TO MCGRAL.

The RFL could pay 24 tons for 24 damage with greater range.

Quote

Hunch IIC4 mounts a pair of RAC5s, along with a WarHammer IIC and a Cauldron Born variant.

They are experimental, but does that mean they don't exist?

I would be curious as to the timeline of that mech with experimental RACs...also, seeing as it is an experimental tech on a second line mech that is significantly out of timeline, and otherwise the same as the primary variant...I see little impact...

Quote

No, actually, that's not the case. If 2 missiles hit the same hitbox, it has the same effect as an SRM.

Yes, but you can put 24 SRMs on a single hit box...for 48+ damage...why the hell should you not be able to get 40 MRMs on a single panel for 40 damage at the right range?

Quote

Why the hell would MRMs have FASTER(?!) velocity than SRMs? Unless you're talking about LRMs, which would be 265M/s, which again falls into the category of Mediocre (because you can't use them at range), or outclassing SRMs because of their enormous damage in comparison.

SRMs now have the ability to track targets a la LRMs in that proposal...MRMs are dumbfired, and hence would be faster

Quote

100* damage per ton, 10*10 does not make 200.
As I said, it's like a cERPPC substitute (but 5 dam for x heat), which could invalidate the isPPC.

20*10=200

The same IS PPC which has all but invalidated the IS ERPPC (unless on uber quirked mechs...)

Quote

20 heat for 20 damage is not the best of trades, and if the velocity is horrible, it will see just as much use as the PPC...which isn't very much.

I would bet the velocity is good enough it would see solid use....a 6 ton AC10 with same/same ammo counts? LOL...show me anyone who turns that down...heat or no...

Quote

Pulse Lasers, because durations and damage (and class), STD lasers, because they have the same range as them (450 LXPL, 270 MXPL, 150 SXPL VS 90M isSL).
That's without PGI's fudging.

1.) Pulse Lasers is basically expected...no real surprise McGral...The trade off there would be heat/duration vs more range (possibly tonnage, maybe not).

2.) STD lasers...not really...the trade off there would be tonnage/heat vs. duration

Quote

So, the Small even matches the isERSL, as terrible as all 3 of them are.

In the world according to McGral^TM

Quote

Templar, unable to mount an AC20, hardlocked 340 isXL on an 85 tonner along with a single hardlocked (half ton, 1 crit) case in the RT.
Thankfully, Endo instead of Ferro, which gives it a whopping 40 tons of guns, for largely (but not entirely) mediocre hardpoints.

Want to bet if they would remove the flamer from the ADR, that case is not hardlocked either?

Quote

Sunder, a 90 tonner without Endo or Ferro, and a 360 engine (PeaceDoce speed, 69Kph).
All 35 tons of guns, with 5 hardwired DHS.

Still not bad...can be energy boat...

Quote

Fafnir, as stated, is not an Omni.

No, it is not...but the very idea of 2 heavy gauss in torso mounts is ridiculous...

Quote

Those above Omnis have a nearly acceptable engine, but due to TT construction, they are not optimal. They're also very fragile isXLs, and neither have very small STs, from the looks of it.

Clans do not have small STs, but hitboxes can be manipulated by PGI...yes?

Quote

Tighter spread for RNGeesus? Would you focus the legs, because they're almost a hard counter to Lights, but nothing else? Or return the monstrosity of CT seeking missiles?

If nothing else, the velocity increase, and added damage should be enough...

Quote

+0.15 damage is pathetic. You always mention that, but it just goes to reinforce your bias.
"No, REALLY, half the weight is TOTALLY a counter for +0.9 damage on the largest available launcher"

The weight argument is completely ********. Want to know why? Because you cannot mount clan tech on your IS mechs, and never will. Clans cannot have IS single projectile ACs, STD PPCs, or the tighter spread SRMs either...so it is what it is.

Wish I could put 6 IS LPLs on my WHK...would completely wreck the wrecking ball BLR...

Quote

Because 5 damage !=10 or 20

Then you are going to wreck the UAC5?

Something has to give...what is it going to be?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

The RFL could pay 24 tons for 24 damage with greater range.

ERPPC has more range than Light Gauss outside of your imaginary world where PGI gives it 1000m range.....

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

The same IS PPC which has all but invalidated the IS ERPPC (unless on uber quirked mechs...)

The same IS PPC that is still used less than AC5s in the current meta.....

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

I would bet the velocity is good enough it would see solid use....a 6 ton AC10 with same/same ammo counts? LOL...show me anyone who turns that down...heat or no..

Just like the 6 PPC Stalker before it, it would be a joke build, except in this case, the ammo count would be lower or you would sacrifice more speed. Not to mention it would have ghost heat and shorter range. So I'm pretty sure any reasonable person will turn it down just like they turn down the 4 PPC Stalker now.....

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

Want to bet if they would remove the flamer from the ADR, that case is not hardlocked either?

We are still waiting for the Mist Lynx to have the cAP to be unlocked, so that isn't a safe bet.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 07 March 2016 - 05:24 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gyrok, on 07 March 2016 - 04:21 PM, said:

1.) Pulse Lasers is basically expected...no real surprise McGral...The trade off there would be heat/duration vs more range (possibly tonnage, maybe not).

2.) STD lasers...not really...the trade off there would be tonnage/heat vs. duration

Quote

IN TODAY'S VERSION OF MWO ACCORDING TO MCGRAL, IDEAS HE DISLIKES ARE HAND WAVE DISMISSED...MORE NEWS AT 10.

Have you not seen what PGI has been doing? Are you going to ignore the reality of MWO? The closest thing to weight change has been AMS ammo being doubled, but the base item remained the same.

Quote

Sure...already done the theory crafting: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...74440ed9ba82b62

That build, for example, would be a 310LFE with 6 LLs, and total of 9 CHS according to what I put forth, and you would still have room for plenty of other things...could probably get a 10th CHS with Ferro on there...and your cooling efficiency off the proposed 10 CHS = 2.00 per second with heat cap impact of +20.

Tell me that is as bad as you tried to make it out to be again, please? I want to laugh so badly...

So, you want 6 LLs, 9CHS (ignoring the source rules entirely? Or the 3 ton, 1 Crit 2H/s thing?)

With Max Armour, and a 310 LFE (5 tons more than a 340LFE, minus a Crit slot for the 325 heatsink).

Your heatsinks would not fit under those 3 ton rules, only 13 tons remaining at max armour, with FF and Endo.
That's with 2 engine slots plus 3 spare Crits.
So, 5 effective slots left for heatsinks...

With your INSANE half weight, double dissipation CHS (do you really expect that? Honestly...), they would fit, but be rather outrageous due to those extreme buffs.

Proposing a 50% heavier, 50% more powerful and 2/3 smaller heatsink isn't exactly ideal.
2.1 H/s heat, 1.5 tons each, and 1 Crit slot each?
That's as opposed to
1.4 H/s, 1 ton, 3 Crit slots

That's from your 2 CHS = 3 PoorDubs
3 tons each, but in order to equal 4.2 H/s dissipation from 1.4*3, each CHS would need 2.1H/s

Let me guess...you also want them to have 10 full TrueDubs?

Under those extreme rules, you'd get 9 Hyper Compact Heat Sinks with 0 slots remaining, Endo+Ferro

Quote

Once again...we are watching rerun episodes of: THE WORLD OF MWO ACCORDING TO MCGRAL.

The RFL could pay 24 tons for 24 damage with greater range.

That would be the world of PGI, notice how no Ballistic has had its base damage changed from the listed value...(MGs are Lasers in MWO, FYI)

The MWO World of Gyrok is a strange place...

Quote

I would be curious as to the timeline of that mech with experimental RACs...also, seeing as it is an experimental tech on a second line mech that is significantly out of timeline, and otherwise the same as the primary variant...I see little impact...

3075

The technology is the focus here, not the robot.

Quote

Yes, but you can put 24 SRMs on a single hit box...for 48+ damage...why the hell should you not be able to get 40 MRMs on a single panel for 40 damage at the right range?

A 6.6M CoF!=same hitbox...on anything. Not even a Whale.

Quote

SRMs now have the ability to track targets a la LRMs in that proposal...MRMs are dumbfired, and hence would be faster

Faster travel speed is arguably better than being guided, especially when throwing around 40+ damage from 500M.

Quote

20*10=200

Honestly, go read Sarna or SSW.
Hell, here you go:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Plasma_Rifle

10*10=100
Get over it.

Quote

The same IS PPC which has all but invalidated the IS ERPPC (unless on uber quirked mechs...)

Exclusively due to PGI failing at balance.

Quote

I would bet the velocity is good enough it would see solid use....a 6 ton AC10 with same/same ammo counts? LOL...show me anyone who turns that down...heat or no...

Are you seriously not going to mention that it has over 3 times the AC10 heat?
That's pretty damn significant.
Along with DOUBLE the ammo per ton (though, we can expect to see the PR increased to 140ish)

Quote

In the world according to McGral^TM

You seriously going to argue the Spheroid Smalls are in any decent place?
Clams Smalls are great, both of them, but the Spheroid ones, at the same/worse Dam/tick, with less range and damage...at the insane cost of 1 (33%) more heat.

Quote

Want to bet if they would remove the flamer from the ADR, that case is not hardlocked either?

Yes, one...pretend Maria is a Myth Lynx

Quote

Clans do not have small STs, but hitboxes can be manipulated by PGI...yes?

...Clams do not die upon ST loss...

Quote

If nothing else, the velocity increase, and added damage should be enough...

The +0.9 damage? Seriously, we've been through this!

Velocity...with a 270M weapon? Works for SRMs, but you need to lead those, not so with exclusively locking weapons.

Quote

The weight argument is completely ********. Want to know why? Because you cannot mount clan tech on your IS mechs, and never will. Clans cannot have IS single projectile ACs, STD PPCs, or the tighter spread SRMs either...so it is what it is.

Gyrok, Gyrok, Gyrok...weight is not an invalid statement.

HALF THE BLOODY WEIGHT, for a ONE METER CoF difference. 4.5 VS 5 Spread.
That's with 0.9 damage difference.

Quote

Wish I could put 6 IS LPLs on my WHK...would completely wreck the wrecking ball BLR...

See, this is your bias showing again...2 cLPLs with a 600M range is 26 damage, for 12 tons.
2 and 2 makes for 52 damage at 600M optimal, extensions available via TCs and the module.

A Trio of isLPLs (a fine weapon selection as well) is 33 damage at...365M without quirks. Extensions available only to Quirks and the Module.

That's also 20 heat per salvo VS 21 (unquirked).
Duration is one of the few things in the isLPLs favour, and quite significantly.
cLPL has 1.16 Dam/tick to the 1.64 of the isLPL

Now, that PeaceDove can safely handle those 4 cLPLs with 28DHS and move at 69Kph...suboptimally, but it's an Omni, what can you do?

Hexa LPL
That...that's not very good. It's slower, hotter, shorter ranged, with greater firepower.
However, that's with an isXL, you know, the 1 ST to death one, on a BattleMaster (which don't exactly have small STs).

Optimize that if you want...but it doesn't scream superior to me. The mounts are the good thing, with a trio of LPLs, not 6 of them.

Quote

Then you are going to wreck the UAC5?

Something has to give...what is it going to be?

Or, think about it logically, and keep in step with the current layout of shells.
uAC5=1
uAC10=2
uAC20=3

Wow...look at that, not PP FLD isUAC20s.

[Mcgral18]

Yeonne Greene, on 07 March 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

It is entirely possible that there are way too many guns in BT than can be placed into the game without creating destructive overlap.

Also, the argument that we can touch any weapon to bring it up to par is the same argument that can be used to crush the idea that any two items...including engines...should be made identical. All that is required is that the trade-offs for a given item be worth it to make that item useful in the tangible game. Anything beyond that is not our concern as players.

Similar != the same

As it stands, there is not a trade off.
It's straight up inferior.

[Y E O N N E]

Mcgral18, on 07 March 2016 - 06:14 PM, said:

Similar != the same

As it stands, there is not a trade off.
It's straight up inferior.

There isn't a trade-off as it stands, no, and that can be said for a lot of things and is a problem that needs to be addressed, but is not specifically what I'm talking about here.

What I am talking about is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. All of the changes you, personally, have ever proposed have only focused on making two dissimilar factions perform more similarly rather than by emphasizing their respective strengths at the expense of their opposite's respective weaknesses (things that PGI inadvertently created but that we can run with).

It's unimaginative and, honestly, does show that you only have a rudimentary understanding of what it means to create a fair playing field when you have two deliberately dissimilar factions. You don't ignore the fact that they are dissimilar in the pursuit of fairness, because that ignores the style of the game, and the style of the game is its entire selling point. Instead, you are expected to turn those dissimilarities into checks and balances. IIRC, you are still in college, right? I suggest taking some game design courses if they are available. I spent a whole year doing that.

I'm not saying Gyrok is right, and what I'm reading says he really needs to stop posting for a day and actually do some more thorough background research on both the TT rules and MWO's mechanical trends, but you yourself only ever parrot one solution when there exist many solutions, some even already demonstrated to work even if they were applied in haphazard fashion. There is only one never-changing truth to the play in this game, and that is that maximizing damage-out over damage-in is the meta. You have an incredible amount of room to work with that. Do so.