LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 26 April 2016 - 10:23 AM
Hit the Deck, on 26 April 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:
HGR is actually not that good because it takes 11 slots (which means STD and ST mounted only), plus the short-ish range. 'Mech carrying it are slow, can't deliver long range punch, and not that great at short range either (charge up and has longer CD than AC/20 most probably).
Improved HGR Metus Regem mentioned could be straight up better, but at 20 tons a piece....
Even the normal HGR is still out ranging the AC/20 by a good 330m, mind you it's only doing 10 damage at 600m, and it's damage profile looks likes this:
and it is still 18t and 11 crit spaces, but considering that there are 12 crit spaces in the ST's it's not that bad...
The iHGR on the other hand is just beastly...
22dmg @ 570m
2 heat, 20t and 11 crti spaces....
The reason why I said PGI would likely go with the iHGR, is due to the fact that the normal HGR forces a pilot skill roll every time you fire it in TT to see if you fall on your butt, but the iHGR doesn't do that, so less work for PGI to deal with.
Alan Davion, on 26 April 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:
I personally cannot for the life of me understand why anyone wants the Clan Piranha mech in this game.
I like the Piranha, it's a damn menace in TT, cheep and highly effective... as for why it should be in MWO, for the name alone... I mean PGI is Piranha Games after all.
Even the normal HGR is still out ranging the AC/20 by a good 330m, mind you it's only doing 10 damage at 600m, and it's damage profile looks likes this:
It only matters at 390m or below. Granted, I think PGI will abandon that damage profile and devise a linear fall off curve starting from 180m so it could be better or worse. But I admit that that 390m limit is perhaps enough to make it valuable for quick play. I guess for FW, taking one (with that damage profile) would be questionable when we have Gauss Rifles.
I like the Piranha, it's a damn menace in TT, cheep and highly effective... as for why it should be in MWO, for the name alone... I mean PGI is Piranha Games after all.
Oh I'm sure in TT it's worth the cost, especially if facing infantry, then it's a damned nightmare.
But until we get that in MWO... Read: Never... Then the memory space for it would be better served by putting other, more currently useful mechs into it.
LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 26 April 2016 - 10:59 AM
Alan Davion, on 26 April 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:
Oh I'm sure in TT it's worth the cost, especially if facing infantry, then it's a damned nightmare.
But until we get that in MWO... Read: Never... Then the memory space for it would be better served by putting other, more currently useful mechs into it.
I don't know about that, 12MG's would be 9.6 heatless DPS, not something to out right ignore....
Any other time you'd probably be right, but remember the stink people made when the Kodiak 3 was listed among the available variants for that mech?
The only time that ive seen anyone make a stink over that (cause I was out of the game for a while) was when I used that as an example as to why there was no point in caring about a timeline jump, because THEY dont give a **** about the timeline.
The replies were:
Triordinant, on 14 April 2016 - 06:29 AM, said:
They put in the Kodiak 3 only because it uses 3053 or older tech. They don't care what year a particular 'mech is released but they said they'll make sure all its weapons and other tech are 3053 or older and it has variants that are pre-3053.
and when I said they opened the door for any mech at that point and it was even more evidence they didnt care about the timeline, the reply was:
Triordinant, on 14 April 2016 - 09:12 PM, said:
Nope. The 'mech has to satisfy BOTH conditions. It has to use ONLY pre-3053 tech AND it must have a variant built before 3053. That's why there's no Bushwacker, Cerberus or Flashfire (though I wouldn't be surprised if they moved it up a year just for the Bushwacker).
So thats the only time Ive seen the Kodiak 3 mentioned.
I don't know about that, 12MG's would be 9.6 heatless DPS, not something to out right ignore....
Any other time I'd agree with you, but the amount of face-time required with MGs currently is what still relegates them to the trash pile in the mech lab.
With every match being pretty much starting out as nothing but Alpha-Strike-Poke-Warrior, MGs are useless at the moment. It isn't until the mid-point of the game where people start rushing in that MGs begin to become marginally useful.
Even then, MGs only really do significant damage to internal structure currently because apparently before they were also very handy at chewing up armor and people didn't like that. But then maybe if people weren't so worried about PPFLD and stripped all but the minimal amount of rear armor from their mechs they wouldn't have reason to complain when a sneaky light comes along and takes a bite out of their big, armor-plated butt.
Edit: Oh for Christs' sake, really? We can't say *a*s*s* anymore?
Id like it if they did it the same as in MW living legends.
MRM missiles had a big spread but had a fly by wire system. The missiles would try to fly towards your cursor.
You still needed to fire in front of the enemy mech because the missiles had a very limited turn rate so you could adjust them a little bit if you aimed correctly.
Their slow speed and spread made them useless when you were fighting very close but the spread got better over range and the fly by wire was perfect for medium range fighting.
Here we see a Raven with a MRM20 and medium X-pulse in MWLL. Notice the missiles following the cursor:
Its time to balance the tech we have by the ppl er I mean person that does the balance actually starting to play the game rather than balancing by feel.
LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 26 April 2016 - 11:56 AM
How about we actually get the -current- weapons tech into the game before we even try feeding another game-decade's worth of weapon systems into the mix?
LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 26 April 2016 - 12:07 PM
wanderer, on 26 April 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:
How about we actually get the -current- weapons tech into the game before we even try feeding another game-decade's worth of weapon systems into the mix?
We're missing considerable chunks as it is.
Personally I don't see an issue with IS ERMLas / ERSLas, IS SSRM4 / 6, IS UAC 2/10/20 and LB 2/5/20 being added, once they are in, it would be easier to balance Clan Weapons vs the IS counter parts, as it is, making an IS-MLas roughly equivalent to a cERMLas is just stupid and has giving us the massive band-aids that are quirks, the nerfing of the range of Extended Range on Clan ER lasers.... hell at least the IS ERLL and cERLL are roughly equal, the Clan one has more range and more damage, but at the cost of a considerably longer burn time and higher heat.
Its time to balance the tech we have by the ppl er I mean person that does the balance actually starting to play the game rather than balancing by feel.
well balance has been getting better. the problem is the one patch a month... it takes FOREVER to change one thing. even obvious things everyone knows should change. itll take like 6 months or even longer to get it in a patch.
I would still like to see PGI do two patches a month... a content patch and a balancing patch that doesnt add new content but just balances things.
LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.
Posted 26 April 2016 - 12:16 PM
I do, simply because it'll mean both balancing those weapons against current IS models AND Clan versions.
And it'll be done before we even manage to get the entire artillery-style (ballistic arcing mortars and artillery cannons, plus Arrow IV's) systems put in. Those will be game-changing as it is.
We're missing the biggest (binary) laser weapon in the IS ranks still.
We're missing the entire ballistics section from just above the MG until you hit the AC/2 (rifles and mortars).
We're missing rocket launchers. Every missile type save standards, even 3025-era standbys like inferno rounds.
LB-X's still can't fire both their ammo types. In fact, no weapon can fire multiple ammo types as they should, nor can any weapon have multiple fire types, period. The Clan Advanced Tactical Missile system is...unadvanced as a result if we jump ahead.
There's gaps big enough to drive a Dire Wolf through. And we want to tack on dozens MORE?
It'd be great to see this list of weapons make it into MWO, but...
They can certainly be implemented in far better ways than described here (particularly 'all' autocannons in the OP's post. Single shot UACs in this fashion, combined with the quirks we already have, will be a power creep nightmare).
*Reserves space to pitch a more reasonable system.*
Will be back later tonight.
------------------
Back.
I'm going to address this in order.
Quote
Ultra 2/10/20 - Why aren't they in game? UAC20 alone would make HBK-4G downright scary. Same firing solution as all other IS AC, one shot, one pellet.
Do you have any idea how broken this would be?
First and foremost, the stock parameters of this weapon are:
7 heat (6 heat in MWO to match up with what we have already).
15 tons
10 crits
5 uses/ton (7 uses/ton MWO)
Accurate Range of 300 meters (in MWO this translates to full damage out to 300 meters).
Now start adding the average 12.5% quirk and 337.5 meters, or some of the 25% quirks and bam! 375 meters.
Single hit, 20 damage? Fire twice in 4 seconds = 40 damage for one UAC/20?
Compare to the Clan UAC/20 of 4 hits for 4 impacts of 5 damage or up to 8 hits in slightly over 5 seconds (due to time between 'shots' in a burst) for 8 impacts of 5 damage?
There is no end to how broken this would be.
Ages ago I made the idea of AC/2 being 1 shot, AC/5 being 2 shots, AC/10 being 3, AC/20 being 4 and the UAC/2 being 2, UAC/5 being 3, UAC/10 being 4 and UAC/20 being 5.
6 months later, the Clans came out and they took that UAC idea right with them.
Now Clans follow the AC mechanic I had.
Thus I'm forced to suggest this one instead:
U and AC/2 = 1 shot. U and AC/5 = 1 shot.
UAC/10 = 2 shots (of 5 damage each). UAC/20 3 shots (of 6.67 [rounded number] damage each). Would prefer it to be 4 shots but then we'll hear the tears about Clan UAC/20s being on par damage-wise.
Next.
Quote
LBX 2/5/20 - Why aren't they in game? I know the current implimentation are kinda weak, but they should be there as a choice for IS.
I'll be honest so long as Autocannons are using MWO's mockery of Battletech Heavy Rifles instead of Battletech lore as automatic explosive machine guns firing rounds like this and delivering their tally of damage over time... there isn't **** I could suggest to change or "save" LBX style weaponry; the big merits are crit-seeking and having an easier time hitting a target that would otherwise be too difficult to hit with standardized weaponry.
(Note: At 40mm, this is the smallest size an AC/2 comes in, and is the same size as the 40mm Whirlwind-L Autocannons used by the Blackjack. It's basically doing this... and landing 2 damage after a salvo.)
Now if a change were made to autocannons... You'd have your mind blown.
Quote
Light AC - Longer range, lighter AC, no brainer power creep? No, because this isn't TT, blah blah fluff blah, Light AC carry less shots per ton of ammo. Allows lights to carry a ballistic at the cost of ammo count, dakka boats could bring them but end up either ammo starved or carrying so much ammo in crit slots that it would explode upon loosing any armor.
...What...the ****...
Spoiler
Light ACs lore-wise carry more bullets per ton of ammo compared to the average AC, but need to spend A LOT MORE to get the same damage. Not that it changes the total "Use" count ammunition-wise, as you still get your full amount of weapon ratings per ton with no penalty there.
Mind you, the average AC is 80 to 120mm.
The Light AC/5 caps out at 60mm and the LAC/2 caps out at 40mm.
(With my personally worked out system based on lore, 40mm would be 0.2 damage per shot [based on Blackjack's 40mm AC/2s so 10 shots = 2 damage] and 60mm would be 0.333(repeating) damage (meaning 15 = 5 damage).
Anyway, this is MWO not Battletech.
Thus "Fluff blah blah"...
LAC/2: 2 shots.
LAC/5: 2 or 3 shots
The accurate range reduction of BT is based on the weapon being smaller, shorter barrelled, with a higher firing rate (of typically more shots compared to the average AC size of the same rating).
Considering the ranges of LAC/2 540 meters (MWO using PGI's AC/2 3x ballistic range that'd be 1,620 meters til zero damage) and LAC/5 450 meters (MWO's AC/5 2x ballistic range that'd be 900 meters = 0 damage), you'll be plenty close enough to make full use of the damage even with a little spread.
No ammo reduction what-so-ever.
Potentially, a miniscule firing rate increase to make up for 'burst' times though I'd prefer that rather than a burst, these would just fire more like rapid fire cannons and thus each bullet of the LAC/2 would be 1 damage, and each bullet of the LAC/5 would be 2.5 or 1.67 damage.
In other words the whole "burst" thing doesn't feel right. Just lemme hold the trigger and hear those little things roar.
Quote
Light Gauss - Same as light AC, more range and less tonnage. These could be the gauss rifles that explode when looked at. Make regular gauss have the standard weapon HP, so you can bring a light gauss that will explode, or a regular that might last through component destruction. Plus light gauss do less damage.
So... 750 meters range (being Gauss, x3 to 0 damage = 2250 meters).
8 damage.
16 shots per ton (given MWO's ammo convention PGI would probably give 19 shots per ton).
If the current standard Gauss Rifle has 5 health according to Smurfy, then give this guy 3 health.
PGI might make a 3 Light Gauss limit with these or some other crazy thing...
Because it's MWO, I'd suspect a 3 second base cooldown instead of 4 second.
And a 0.75 second charge time.
Following PGI's patterns AND Battletech's apparent pattern (now that I read on the Heavy Gauss Rifle), PGI will give the Light Gauss Rifle 20 rounds.
Quote
Heavy Gauss - shorter range, higher damage. Kind of balanced already, might make for a wonderful mid range or brawler. Very few shots per ton of ammo if its imbalanced.
First and foremost, calling it now. PGI would probably do a 6 second cooldown.
If PGI's guidelines take Battletech's guidelines into account at all, this weapon will have 5 shots per ton (instead of 4 shots).
It'd probably use the same 0.75 second charge time.
The damage system is....interesting. I'd have to see how this mechanically plays out.
Noticing something about minimum range, it goes up here to double the standard -- Heavy Gauss by translation of charge time would require 1.5 seconds to charge.
(Of further note: Light Gauss is in between standard and heavy gauss for min range, and would get a 1.125 charge time. With a 3 second reload time, this would still out-fire a standard Gauss in rate.)
Quote
Silver Bullet Gauss - Multiple gauss rounds? Sign everyone up! Nay, these spread shots like LBX, but higher damage per pellet.
This isn't half bad... but why would it do greater damage?
One idea is to have this throw them like a machine gun and the other is to have it fired like a shotgun.
Either way, this would get the Gauss 3x ballistic range advantage of 660 full damage and out to 1980 meters before being completely worthless.
To note: It still does full damage at 900 meters in Battletech.
I'd keep a much tighter spread on this to be useful at range and note the projectile speed would be immense and Gauss-like. Possible crit-seeker but don't want it to outperform the LBX in this regard.
Quote
ER lasers - IS versions of Small and Medium. Why haven't they been added. Extra range for extra heat.
Pretty much.
Quote
XPulse - IS regular range, much higher damage. No point to not bring them? Nay, heat, long burn times and tonnage per laser balances these.
Longer firing times is a Battletech staple if Mechwarrior 3 is to be believed (Pulse lasers took longer to deliver full damage).
However this is MWO, by 'standard' the Pulse lasers take less time to burn and PGI has removed excess heat from regular pulse lasers as it's "a burden and punishment".
Though yes, longer than typical pulse laser burn times (say Clan equivelant with their small, medium and large pulse burn times) with some increased heat should suffice.
So yeah, in agreement here.
Quote
LMG - Lighter ballistics, lower damage.
Straight forward.
Quote
HMG - Slightly heavier ballistics, lighter than AC2, damage in between MG and AC2.
Probably the range it will get in MWO.
The difference is higher caliber bullets -- but still not quite the explosive armor piercing shells being fired by an AC/2. MGs and AC/2s in BT do the same damage and HMG surpasses it. Though that wouldn't fly here.
The Battletech MG goes from 12.7mm to 20mm.
So, big bullets.
Your Heavy MG would be firing
and your Light MG probably using the 12.7mm round shown in the first picture.
Thus the MGs in Battletech deliver:
LMG: 1 damage in 5 seconds with 180 meter range.
MG: 2 damage in 5 seconds with 90 meter range.
BMG: 3 damage in 5 seconds with 60 meter range.
MWO translations:
LMG: 4 damage in 10 seconds with 210-240 meter range.
MG: 8 damage in 10 seconds with 120 meter range.
HMG: 12 damage in 10 seconds with 90 meter range.
For comparison: In MWO an AC/2 does 15*2 = 30 damage in 10.08 without any quirks.
An AC/5 does 7*5 = 35 damage in 9.96 seconds.
Hm.
Wouldn't work out this way with the Battletech Simulation design, but hey it's PGI and MWO.
Watch PGI throw cone of fire on all the MG types.
Quote
Machine Gun Arrays - For mechs that are hardpoint starved for ballistics but want lots of MG. 4 MG Clan and IS, same weight, just shoved into one ballistic slot. Limit the amountt that can be placed onto a mech so we dont get Array Boats.
Least you thought of the boat abuse.
"A Machine Gun Array allows 2-4 machine guns to be linked and fired as one."
Not sure if making them all go into a single slot is a good idea. Personally I'd do them as separate slots but take note that if the Array is destroyed, all the MGs linked to it stop functioning. An Array should automatically take as many slots as MGs it could hold + its own.
Note:
4 LMGs
OR
3 MGs
OR
2 HMGs.
Unlike regular MGs, I actually think the MG Arrays deserve a cone of fire.
Quote
RAC - Rapid fire autocannons. Why bring ultra when you can bring RAC? Have RAC jam chance start higher past one shot, and each shot brings the jam chance higher. Risk vs reward, it COULD out DPS an ultra, but if RNG hates you, it jams after second shot anyways. Balance this like the flamer heat cooldown so people don't macro abuse them.
RACs are typically in the 50mm range, meaning pretty small calibers. In other words yay, split-damage for bursts and each sequential bursts before a cooldown period ends (say 6 seconds for starters) = JAM!
Adjust cooldown as plays out.
Quote
IS Streak 4/6 - Again, no brainer. Why haven't they been added?
Got nothing here.
Quote
MRM - Fires like SRM, Longer range. Balance with worse spread and don't let them be affected by Artemis. Plus these things are huge and heavy. Picture a Cats ear twice the size for a 40 count MRM-40.
Fires like MWO's SRMs (big difference). MRMs are dirt stupid where SRMs have basic guidance in BT.
In MWO's sense, posts I saw called for twice the speed. I'm thinking maybe 1.5x the speed, keep the range increase. Enjoy! Would physically make the missiles smaller than LRMs/SRMs and note that MRMs have more missiles per ton (240 vs SRM 200 vs LRM [BT] 120).
Interesting mechanic, the faster speed would make AMS have trouble shooting so many down. Which covers the thought I had about "Smaller missiles, harder to shoot down."
Quote
Inferno SRM - What a wonderful weapon to use against heat heavy Clan mechs. Ammo switching is a nono, do the MW4 Mekpak route and add these as seperate launchers. Low damage, but acts like you are getting hit by a Flamer per missile hit for a few seconds. Effective, trolly, and actually a great counter for IS vs hot Clan mechs. Not a perfect solution, as normal SRM can launch these missiles, but a step forward.
Leave this for ammo switching.
Like the idea.
I'll leave it here.
I have far better balancing ideas, but they would be to balance a Battletech simulation, not MWO as it'd require massive overhauls first.
"PGI is one of the big reasons we cant have nice things."
Fixed that for you. I think I am going to take a nice long break from this game. I have more important things to concentrate on. I also get too worked up about stuff that should have been in here long ago. I need to concentrate on things that bring me joy in life, and this game no longer does.
No, you can't have all my stuff. Maybe this game will become worthwhile once the Devs realize they need to go back to square one.
Edited by Afuldan McKronik, 26 April 2016 - 02:59 PM.
MWO can't even support a Gauss Rifle without nerfing it up with a never-before-seen charge-up phase. How could it ever support more advanced weapons?
Gauss, PPCs, LRMs were all heavily nerfed because the MWO mechs can only barely handle laser damage. Anytime someone says, remove the charge-up from the Gauss the experts say, oh noes, the Gauss would be OP. But the Gauss Rifle is basic tech from 2500-ish, it's actually just above mediocre and only good for long range if balanced correctly. I think you can forget newer tech until they make the mechs more resilient to damage. Or you just get nerfed new tech that you will never use.
OP, you are mistaken with Light ACs. They are not straight upgrades, they do have shorter range than their full-weight counterparts. Combine that with the usual MWO-interpretation which includes lower velocity, and an ammo nerf is unnecessary.
5
Hit the Deck, on 26 April 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:
