138 replies to this topic

[CanadianCyrus]

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

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.

Let's not get carried away here, I'm not advocating for strict Lore where clan tech just rolfstomps IS. MWO has already set the base standard for what Clan and IS weapons will look like. IS ER SML/MEDs will likely remove or lower many/all energy range quirks. Fusion Engine will remove or lower a lot of structure quirks. FE doesn't mean XL will disappear, it'll likely still be the preferred engine for lights and some mediums. With heavier mechs it'll be up to the players discretion on whether he wants to trade weight for being more vulnerable when deciding between FE and XL.

As for LBX's would you be against them implementing the ability to toggle between solid slugs and scattershot? That is what they're supposed to be capable of doing (which I imagine if PGI is to implement new tech they would consider doing this as well since you know ATMs and all).

Edited by Funzo, 26 April 2016 - 07:21 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Funzo, on 26 April 2016 - 07:19 PM, said:

Let's not get carried away here, I'm not advocating for strict Lore where clan tech just rolfstomps IS. MWO has already set the base standard for what Clan and IS weapons will look like. IS ER SML/MEDs will likely remove or lower many/all energy range quirks. Fusion Engine will remove or lower a lot of structure quirks. FE doesn't mean XL will disappear, it'll likely still be the preferred engine for lights and some mediums. With heavier mechs it'll be up to the players discretion on whether he wants to trade weight for being more vulnerable when deciding between FE and XL.

As for LBX's would you be against them implementing the ability to toggle between solid slugs and scattershot? That is what they're supposed to be capable of doing (which I imagine if PGI is to implement new tech they would consider doing this as well since you know ATMs and all).

So, STDs remain worthless? Or do you balance them properly, to be more durable?


I don't expect to ever see ATMs. Lock code has been difficult for PGI, let alone the ammo swapping (let alone 3 ammo types) They can't balance a single weapon system, don't expect a balanced 3-in-one weapon system.

LBx should not be single shot. That should be an AC stable, to avoid overlap. A burst could substitute, more pinpoint but still spread.
Speaking of which: cACs are also rubbish, completely inferior to their cUAC alternatives.

[Lightfoot]

Alan Davion, on 26 April 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

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.

They added the charge-up in May 2013, long before the Grid Iron or any Quirks. You block the Gauss from being a brawling weapon by making the recycle 5.5 to 6 seconds at which point you force players to stay at long range with it or bring a mixed load-out because the Gauss could never keep up with UAC's or medium/small lasers. Very simple, always works. The reason the Gauss has the charge-up is that MWO mechs are too fragile and weak to damage so the charge-up removes it from the game for the most part.

However, the more advanced weapons make the Gauss look tame so MWO can't support them either. Trust me. Working ATMs, Arrow IV, Heavy Lasers, RACs, all make the Gauss look mediocre. Which means if they were added now they would be nerfed up like the Gauss. I don't want that. You all should be bugging PGI to make the mechs tougher first. They shouldn't be getting ripped by a few SP laser volleys, then the Gauss would not need the charge-up.

[CanadianCyrus]

Mcgral18, on 26 April 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

So, STDs remain worthless? Or do you balance them properly, to be more durable?


I don't expect to ever see ATMs. Lock code has been difficult for PGI, let alone the ammo swapping (let alone 3 ammo types) They can't balance a single weapon system, don't expect a balanced 3-in-one weapon system.

LBx should not be single shot. That should be an AC stable, to avoid overlap. A burst could substitute, more pinpoint but still spread.
Speaking of which: cACs are also rubbish, completely inferior to their cUAC alternatives.

Standards should be considered when you need the slots for weapons/heatsinks/ammo and have tonnage available. For instance Warhammers can't equip AC20s without using a standard engine so even FE isn't a given for some mechs where slots count for the build (for torso weapons anyhow). STD engines are already more durable between all 3 engines, losing a ST doesn't cripple it's move speed or outright destroy the mech.

As for ammo swapping systems, there's plenty of options available to round out the rough edges, cooldowns while swapping out ammo, or just the fact that ATM12s are 7ton weapons before ammo, losing one of those doesn't come cheap as far as weapon loadout balance goes. It's a single weapon capable of switching between SRM/MRM/LRM and it's ammo damages change according to the mode. The ammo change out time is IMO the best method of balancing it out and forcing the player to strategically gauge how the engagement will play out (no different than bringing an LRM to a brawl) if he has to consider loading time when switching firing modes.

[Khobai]

Quote

OP, you are mistaken with Light ACs. They are not straight upgrades, they do have shorter range than their full-weight counterparts

So basically theyre straight upgrades.

Because the shorter range doesnt matter since you typically dont fire AC2s or AC5s out to that range anyway.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Say it with me:

"Balance what we have first"

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 26 April 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

So basically theyre straight upgrades.

Because the shorter range doesnt matter since you typically dont fire AC2s or AC5s out to that range anyway.

I do, because at that range is the only way you can get the face time necessary to use AC/2 without getting demolished in three seconds flat.

And actually, people use AC/5 and UAC/5 out at that range, too. Even in comp drops and scrims.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 April 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

I do, because at that range is the only way you can get the face time necessary to use AC/2 without getting demolished in three seconds flat.

The way you do this is pop up enough to fire, and hold the trigger long enough to say "die m---------er, die" Then pop back down. same way I used to pull 900 damage games in a 6 ac2 jager lol

[Y E O N N E]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 11:16 PM, said:

The way you do this is pop up enough to fire, and hold the trigger long enough to say "die m---------er, die" Then pop back down. same way I used to pull 900 damage games in a 6 ac2 jager lol

I mean, I also often use it as brawl support from much closer ranges, but having the ability to smack something with relatively high DPS from far away has its uses. Light ACs with their cut-down range (AC/2 = 540 m and AC/5 = 450 m) and probable slower projectile dramatically reduces the potential use cases for them, restricting them to being purely push weapons rather than proper fire support.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Yeonne Greene, on 26 April 2016 - 11:22 PM, said:

I mean, I also often use it as brawl support from much closer ranges, but having the ability to smack something with relatively high DPS from far away has its uses. Light ACs with their cut-down range (AC/2 = 540 m and AC/5 = 450 m) and probable slower projectile dramatically reduces the potential use cases for them, restricting them to being purely push weapons rather than proper fire support.

you wanna talk the failure of proper fire support... lrms -.-

[Kargush]

If you want advanced tech, MWLL is still a thing.

We won't solve any issue MWO has (real or perceived) by adding more tech.

And if all you want is something new and shiny you might want to check out Magic, they have new stuff with some regularity.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kargush, on 26 April 2016 - 11:32 PM, said:

If you want advanced tech, MWLL is still a thing.

We won't solve any issue MWO has (real or perceived) by adding more tech.

And if all you want is something new and shiny you might want to check out Magic, they have new stuff with some regularity.

like every 3 months or so lol

[Kargush]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 26 April 2016 - 11:38 PM, said:

like every 3 months or so lol

You play Magic?

I am so sorry.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Kargush, on 26 April 2016 - 11:44 PM, said:

You play Magic?

I am so sorry.

I play commander.

Screw blocks lol

and standard

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 26 April 2016 - 11:46 PM.

[Moldur]

It is always the time for new tech.

What? You think PGI will balance what we have and everyone will be satisfied?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

but no seriously, tell me how that's been working out for the last almost 4 years.

[mark v92]

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.

Yeah guide by wire. Guess i mixed them up.

Dont realy want wires connecting the missile but it was easier to explain to people what i meant by following the cursor.

I guess like half life 2 and crysis did with their rocketlaunchers. Both by laser tag i think.
probably why MWLL used it, it was already in the crysis code they used.


But yeah, semi-active guided by infrared tag with the turn speed of lrm's or something.

[Widowmaker1981]

Afuldan McKronik, on 26 April 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

Balance should be achieved at the weaponry level. Obviously hard to do when IS can't get more than tech1 weaponry in the game though. And before I get shouted out for saying all tech2 will completely obsolete tech1, it could be balanced also.

While im not against adding some new tech for variety purposes, what you just said is a complete contradiction.

If its not possible to balance current IS tech with clan tech (i don't agree, but that is your premise), and it is possible to balance future IS tech with Clan tech, then by definition it is not possible to balance Future IS tech with Current IS tech.

edit: technically, IS has tech 2 (XLs, Pulse lasers, ERLLs, Endo, Ferro, DHS), what you are asking for is tech 3, but thats just semantics.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 27 April 2016 - 01:54 AM.

[Imperius]

The game has been stale for over a year...

I'm for adding new tech...

[Imperius]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 27 April 2016 - 02:15 AM, said:

I don't know what you are calling stale. I am finally having fun with this game for the first time in ages and binge playing it like crazy now.

I assume you're playing scouting 4v4 in CW (FW)?

Just proves the game should have stayed 8v8.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

so long as the non advanced tech is still unbalanced, no