138 replies to this topic

[Alan Davion]

Lightfoot, on 26 April 2016 - 02:50 PM, said:

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.

The reason they added the charge up was 2 fold.

1. Because the Grid Iron was able to fire the Gauss faster than pretty much literally every other weapon system in the game.

2. To limit the Gauss rifles effectiveness in CQB, which is supposed to be the realm of Small/Pulse lasers, SRMs and AC20s.

Find a way to limit the Gauss rifles effectiveness in CQB without the charge up mechanic, and I'm all ears.

[Snowbluff]

mark v92, on 26 April 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

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.

That's not fly by wire. Fly by wire is a computerised control scheme for an aircraft. You mean guide by wire, which is still wrong, because them mech moving in front of you would interfere with the wires. The term I think you're looking for is semi-active guided/homing, either by radar or infrared tagging.

Still cool though.

Edited by Snowbluff, 26 April 2016 - 04:25 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Snowbluff, on 26 April 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

That's not fly by wire. Fly by wire is a computerised control scheme for an aircraft. You mean guide by wire, which is still wrong, because them mech moving in front of you would interfere with the wires. The term I think you're looking for is semi-active guided/homing, either by radar or infrared tagging.

Still cool though.

Good examples of the above.

Fly By Wire: F-16 Falcon fighter jet
Wire Guided: BGM-71 TOW
Laser Targeting (or however you want to describe it): AGM-65E Maverick ATGM

Edit: Had to change some of what I'd written, as what I thought were wire guided missiles actually weren't.

Edited by Alan Davion, 26 April 2016 - 04:50 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 10:06 AM, said:

I guess the real question for this is what advanced tech is allowable in the current year of the game? Because the timeline seems to be the ONE rule from fluff or story that CANNOT be crossed in this game. Which to ME anyways seems pretty crazy given all the other things that have had to been dumped by the wayside so far.

Errr, Russ has been pretty clear that he doesn't really care about the timeline, either. The only hard requirement is that things use current in-game tech, and that's not "fluff" reasoning but simply because that's what exists in game. They also prefer that at least one variant exists in the "current" time, but even that is pretty nebulous being roughly 3052.

Hence the Kodiak.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Wintersdark, on 26 April 2016 - 05:00 PM, said:

Errr, Russ has been pretty clear that he doesn't really care about the timeline, either. The only hard requirement is that things use current in-game tech, and that's not "fluff" reasoning but simply because that's what exists in game. They also prefer that at least one variant exists in the "current" time, but even that is pretty nebulous being roughly 3052.

Hence the Kodiak.

The funny part is the guy who had argued back with me was doing it by way of a quote FROM russ so yeah going by his word only works so long as its their position at the time.

[Wintersdark]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 05:34 PM, said:

The funny part is the guy who had argued back with me was doing it by way of a quote FROM russ so yeah going by his word only works so long as its their position at the time.

That's true.

But their position now is very much "Whatever, as long as it fits in the current tech, but preferably at least one current variant". Russ was very clear about that, repeatedly, over the last while.

That may change in the future, of course, and as much as we like to mock them for "Their position at the time", things change. That's normal for every game. Design evolves, business realities intrude, etc.

Whatever, anyways, the current position is as above.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Wintersdark, on 26 April 2016 - 05:43 PM, said:

That's true.

But their position now is very much "Whatever, as long as it fits in the current tech, but preferably at least one current variant". Russ was very clear about that, repeatedly, over the last while.

That may change in the future, of course, and as much as we like to mock them for "Their position at the time", things change. That's normal for every game. Design evolves, business realities intrude, etc.

Whatever, anyways, the current position is as above.

Ill have to find the quote that guy used as his argument but it seems russ gives a **** about the timeline as long as the variant ever used earlier tech... which is why I then argued that that means there IS no cares given about the timeline because any mech is gonna be based on earlier tech lol

[Trauglodyte]

The only tech that we need right now is:

IS Er Small and ER Medium Lasers
Streak 4/6
LB2/5
UAC2
MRMs (possibly)

We don't need Light/Heavy MGs or Machine Gun Arrays because we still don't have a functional standard MG. Anyway, the Array doesn't do anything for MW:O as it's only use in TT was that it linked all MGs together so that you had one to-hit and location roll.

X-Pulse would be nice but what's the point of it? The second that you put in Pulse Lasers with the same range as normal Lasers, then the choice is no longer a choice.

Rotary ACs, while nice, just opens up a mess and, again, makes normal UACs no longer needed. Same with the Light and Heavy Gauss Rifles which, btw, would further obsolete regular ACs.

We had this discussion in the other thread and, for some reason, people aren't getting it. The point of new tech is to fill gaps that currently exist. That Clan standard ACs exist is a direct future picture of what you'd be painting because that is where IS Standard and Ultra ACs would go, where standard Pulse Lasers would go, etc. As it is, we still don't have great balance with a lot of weapons so adding new weapons with even more errors is bad.

[LordNothing]

i think ive built everything that can be built, be it viable, trolworthy, or even totally useless. i think we need new toys.

[Hit the Deck]

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

...
X-Pulse would be nice but what's the point of it? The second that you put in Pulse Lasers with the same range as normal Lasers, then the choice is no longer a choice.

Rotary ACs, while nice, just opens up a mess and, again, makes normal UACs no longer needed. Same with the Light and Heavy Gauss Rifles which, btw, would further obsolete regular ACs.

We had this discussion in the other thread and, for some reason, people aren't getting it. The point of new tech is to fill gaps that currently exist. That Clan standard ACs exist is a direct future picture of what you'd be painting because that is where IS Standard and Ultra ACs would go, where standard Pulse Lasers would go, etc. As it is, we still don't have great balance with a lot of weapons so adding new weapons with even more errors is bad.

Not speaking about certain weapon systems but I'd like new weapons because I' getting bored with what we have. As for certain systems obsoleting some others in TT (or theoretically in MWO), we still have some parameters to adjust like cooldown time, projectile speed,number of projectiles, charge up time, and we even could introduce a completely new mechanics for certain weapons like RACs.

[LordNothing]

i dont think pgi has the capability to implement new mechanics, but there are a lot of weapons that can be implemented now that dont really need any new mechanics. id love new mechanics but thats up to pgi and their capabilites, maybe one of the new guys has some brains.

Edited by LordNothing, 26 April 2016 - 06:28 PM.

[CanadianCyrus]

I can't understand people complaining about needing to balance the current weapons before adding the advanced tech. The Advanced Tech IS BALANCE . Right now in MW's timeline it is comparable to WW2 when the first skirmishes with German and British tanks occurred. British Tanks were poorly armed and lacking in comparison to the Germans. So instead of spending time trying to balance this specific timeline wherein the clans were clearly better armed, with a bunch of mumbo jumbo quirks and whatever other Disney Magic BS, just add the weapons that better equipped the IS to combat the clans by advancing the timeline.

IS Fusion Engines? Goodbye to the majority of existing structure quirks (no way Atlas is rocking its structure quirks with Fusion Engines around). MRMs? Yes please! Right now Missile hardpoints fall into either SRM Pure Brawler (limited range) or LRM support fire (Min Range + Travel Time), MRMs add the ability to skirmish at medium range which completes the relative trio that the other hardpoint types allow for in their own way. Just more variety in builds in general with advanced tech. It's not like other MW games haven't tackled this tech before, it's not new ground, the relative balancing around these weapons mechanics has already happened.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Trauglodyte, on 26 April 2016 - 06:01 PM, said:

MRMs (possibly)

We already have them. The only difference is they lock. Seriously. Try using the supposed lrms at 800-1k range

Hit the Deck, on 26 April 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

charge up time

screw that

[Mcgral18]

Funzo, on 26 April 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

I can't understand people complaining about needing to balance the current weapons before adding the advanced tech. The Advanced Tech IS BALANCE . Right now in MW's timeline it is comparable to WW2 when the first skirmishes with German and British tanks occurred. British Tanks were poorly armed and lacking in comparison to the Germans. So instead of spending time trying to balance this specific timeline wherein the clans were clearly better armed, with a bunch of mumbo jumbo quirks and whatever other Disney Magic BS, just add the weapons that better equipped the IS to combat the clans by advancing the timeline.

IS Fusion Engines? Goodbye to the majority of existing structure quirks (no way Atlas is rocking its structure quirks with Fusion Engines around). MRMs? Yes please! Right now Missile hardpoints fall into either SRM Pure Brawler (limited range) or LRM support fire (Min Range + Travel Time), MRMs add the ability to skirmish at medium range which completes the relative trio that the other hardpoint types allow for in their own way. Just more variety in builds in general with advanced tech. It's not like other MW games haven't tackled this tech before, it's not new ground, the relative balancing around these weapons mechanics has already happened.

New tech is not balance
New tech creates Legacy Tech if the old stuff remains worthless

New stuff does not magically make the old stuff good.

[CanadianCyrus]

Mcgral18, on 26 April 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

New tech is not balance
New tech creates Legacy Tech if the old stuff remains worthless

New stuff does not magically make the old stuff good.

Yeah well I don't see people kicking Russ' door down screaming for Clan Non-ER Lasers. Besides ER has it's pro's and con's compared to regular as we've already seen with its implementation. It's more options. ER-Meds give more range but more heat and cost players who tend to alpha large #s of them, it's give and take.

[Mcgral18]

Funzo, on 26 April 2016 - 06:44 PM, said:

Yeah well I don't see people kicking Russ' door down screaming for Clan Non-ER Lasers. Besides ER has it's pro's and con's compared to regular as we've already seen with its implementation. It's more options. ER-Meds give more range but more heat and cost players who tend to alpha large #s of them, it's give and take.

Which changes the viability of normal Small Lasers how?
They're rubbish weapons, who have suck in all categories
Too short range (ER does help there)
Too low damage (ER is identical)
Too hot (ER makes that worse, ER is natively CURRENT heat)


LBx family of weapons remains rubbish
LRMs remain rubbish

STD engines, completely inferior to cXLs without balancing. LFEs in the same category, but less rubbish


New tech doesn't fix imbalances. Unless PGI diverges significantly, the isERML is worse than the cERML. Currently, the ML has lower Dam/tick, and the isERML isn't exactly going to have a shorter duration.

[CanadianCyrus]

Mcgral18, on 26 April 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Which changes the viability of normal Small Lasers how?
They're rubbish weapons, who have suck in all categories
Too short range (ER does help there)
Too low damage (ER is identical)
Too hot (ER makes that worse, ER is natively CURRENT heat)


LBx family of weapons remains rubbish
LRMs remain rubbish

STD engines, completely inferior to cXLs without balancing. LFEs in the same category, but less rubbish


New tech doesn't fix imbalances. Unless PGI diverges significantly, the isERML is worse than the cERML. Currently, the ML has lower Dam/tick, and the isERML isn't exactly going to have a shorter duration.

That won't change, you're advocating for Symmetry between two things which were designed to add an element of Asymmetry. IS tech won't equal Clan tech ever at any point, so not adding new tech that at least bridged the gap closer is asinine.

[Metus regem]

Mcgral18, on 26 April 2016 - 06:49 PM, said:

Which changes the viability of normal Small Lasers how?
They're rubbish weapons, who have suck in all categories
Too short range (ER does help there)
Too low damage (ER is identical)
Too hot (ER makes that worse, ER is natively CURRENT heat)


LBx family of weapons remains rubbish
LRMs remain rubbish

STD engines, completely inferior to cXLs without balancing. LFEs in the same category, but less rubbish


New tech doesn't fix imbalances. Unless PGI diverges significantly, the isERML is worse than the cERML. Currently, the ML has lower Dam/tick, and the isERML isn't exactly going to have a shorter duration.

You are right, but it would be easer to balance IS-ERML (slighty shorter range, slightly cooler) vs cERML (slightly longer range, slightly hotter), rather than two totally different weapons, meaning one has to either be buffed to a silly degree or the other heavily nerfed to create a sense of balance, as I'd the case of the MLas vs cERML.

A good example of balanced between Clan and IS are LRM launchers, IS Launchers do cluster fire but weigh more, Clan Launchers do a trickle fire but weigh less and are more vulnerable to AMS.

[Mcgral18]

Funzo, on 26 April 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

That won't change, you're advocating for Symmetry between two things which were designed to add an element of Asymmetry. IS tech won't equal Clan tech ever at any point, so not adding new tech that at least bridged the gap closer is asinine.

Too bad
Things are symmetric 12 VS 12
To whatever degree, but we cannot have 5 OP AF Clams to 12 IS mechs.

Also, the STD is universal. It sucks universally too.

LBx and MGs are mechanically identical, and both suck equally. isLB10x more, because heavier, but both suck nonetheless.

Edited by Mcgral18, 26 April 2016 - 07:01 PM.

[Alan Davion]

Mcgral18, on 26 April 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

Too bad
Things are symmetric 12 VS 12
To whatever degree, but we cannot have 10 OP AF Clams to 12 IS mechs.

Also, the STD is universal. It sucks universally too.

LBx and MGs are mechanically identical, and both suck equally. isLB10x more, because heavier, but both suck nonetheless.

Fixed that for you.