138 replies to this topic

[Snowbluff]

Imperius, on 27 April 2016 - 02:14 AM, said:

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

I'm for adding new tech...

Oh man, the kingfisher looks like a dud... if only there was a 90 tonner with an XL engine that is also within the optimum engine rating range for it's weight...

[Beartech]

Snowbluff, on 27 April 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

Oh man, the kingfisher looks like a dud... if only there was a 90 tonner with an XL engine that is also within the optimum engine rating range for it's weight...

LOL I see what you did there ;p

[wanderer]

Quote

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.

Actually, an ATM using it's HE ammo is dealing 3/missile (at SRM ranges), standard is 2/missile (but at longer ranges than SRMs), and ER is LRM damage with about 25% better range. Given hardpoint restrictions, it'd really squeeze a lot more punch out of missile hardpoints for many 'Mechs, in addition to meaning "LRMs" don't equal sacrificing missile hardpoints that could spit out SRMs instead.

The IS MML is in the same boat- less efficient tube counts but the capacity to use it as LRM or SRM means it easily finds a role limited only by payload- although again, the lack of multiple ammo types cramps it's style.

[wanderer]

Also, regarding AC's- it'd have been a helluva lot more straightforward if they'd simply made -all- AC's burstfire, which is what they are in TT to begin with.

And then simply given IS AC's shorter bursts than Clan ones, much like burn time adjustments for lasers.

[Alan Davion]

wanderer, on 27 April 2016 - 02:21 PM, said:

Actually, an ATM using it's HE ammo is dealing 3/missile (at SRM ranges), standard is 2/missile (but at longer ranges than SRMs), and ER is LRM damage with about 25% better range. Given hardpoint restrictions, it'd really squeeze a lot more punch out of missile hardpoints for many 'Mechs, in addition to meaning "LRMs" don't equal sacrificing missile hardpoints that could spit out SRMs instead.

The IS MML is in the same boat- less efficient tube counts but the capacity to use it as LRM or SRM means it easily finds a role limited only by payload- although again, the lack of multiple ammo types cramps it's style.

This is part of the problem that PGI faces with Tech 2/3, whichever level it is I can't recall.

How do you add ATMs and MRMs without completely invalidating LRMs and SRMs?

As it is LRMs are probably the least used weapon system in the whole game, and the only LRMs I usually see any more are 5s. MAYBE an occasional LRM10, but the 15 and 20 are utter garbage.

SRMs are still quite useful, but with the MRMs, even just the MRM10, you've got 4 more missiles over the SRM6, and somewhere around double the range... I don't know about you but I don't think anyone would bother with SRMs at that point either.

Edited by Alan Davion, 27 April 2016 - 02:45 PM.

[Beartech]

Alan Davion, on 27 April 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

SRMs are still quite useful, but with the MRMs, even just the MRM10, you've got 4 more missiles over the SRM6, and somewhere around double the range...

You make some good points there on the missiles. The DEVs would need to give us a reason to pick LRMS/SRMs over the new stuff. Sounds vague I know but basically, Make the below weapons the defacto choice, give them a sweet spot like damage, speed, targeting speed based off range.
- LRMs - I choose LRMs because I want to use missiles at mechs far away indirectly and directly
- MRMs - I choose MRMs because I want to use missiles around 300 to 500 directly
- SRMs - I choose SMRs because I want to use missiles point blank to 300 directly

[Y E O N N E]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

You make some good points there on the missiles. The DEVs would need to give us a reason to pick LRMS/SRMs over the new stuff. Sounds vague I know but basically, Make the below weapons the defacto choice, give them a sweet spot like damage, speed, targeting speed based off range.
- LRMs - I choose LRMs because I want to use missiles at mechs far away indirectly and directly
- MRMs - I choose MRMs because I want to use missiles around 300 to 500 directly
- SRMs - I choose SMRs because I want to use missiles point blank to 300 directly

Slower rate of fire on MRMs relative to SRMs would do the trick. That turns them into trading weapons, assuming they get some good velocity, while SRMs keep their brawl niche (which, as short-range missiles, is pretty much exactly what they were designed to be great at).

For both LRMs and MRMs, I propose an acceleration curve. Like, MRMs would have a velocity of, say, 750 m/s, but it takes about a half-second to get there. LRMs get a velocity of 1000 m/s, but it takes one second to get there.

[Hit the Deck]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 11:34 AM, said:

The problem is that the IS version would be vastly superior to the Clan version. If we are going for balance keeping in mind. I bet if you asked Clan pilots that use UACs how they would like them to fire... they would all say less slugs and more boom per slug.

Placing 2 20 damage slugs into an enemy mech is way more devastating than 8 5 Damage slugs spread all over the target.

This leads me to believe they the Devs will have to streamline the UACs to operate the same.

Like I said earlier, we have some variables not present in TT to adjust like cooldown time and the time required to clear a jam. Another one is delay time for the sceond shot from double tapping. All of these can be adjusted so "single shell" isUACs are not straight up superior to the Clan version, or even their own ACs.

Heck, we can also make the UAC projectiles fly slower if all of those aren't enough already. It's definitely doable to balance anything within certain parameters since there are so many variables to adjust.

Edited by Hit the Deck, 27 April 2016 - 03:49 PM.

[LastKhan]

I wouldnt advance the tech yet when we have stuff like clan ACs that are i cant put it into nicer words, garbage. I would like PGI to do something with them and do their tweaks.

[Beartech]

Hit the Deck, on 27 April 2016 - 03:47 PM, said:

Like I said earlier, we have some variables not present in TT to adjust like cooldown time and the time required to clear a jam. Another one is delay time for the sceond shot from double tapping. All of these can be adjusted so "single shell" isUACs are not straight up superior to the Clan version, or even their own ACs.
Heck, we can also make the UAC projectiles fly slower if all of those aren't enough already. It's definitely doable to balance anything within certain parameters since there are so many variables to adjust.

Why not just have them operate the same. Wouldnt that also be easier for PGI to balance? They are in essence the same. Ultra Auto Cannons... Why fight for them to be different. Again unless you like the single slugs... Which I agree and most clan pilots I believe would agree is superior.

LastKhan, on 27 April 2016 - 03:52 PM, said:

I wouldnt advance the tech yet when we have stuff like clan ACs that are i cant put it into nicer words, garbage. I would like PGI to do something with them and do their tweaks.

This ^

[Alan Davion]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

Why not just have them operate the same. Wouldnt that also be easier for PGI to balance? They are in essence the same. Ultra Auto Cannons... Why fight for them to be different. Again unless you like the single slugs... Which I agree and most clan pilots I believe would agree is superior.



This ^

Single slugs are superior for PPFLD, but the IS ACs continue to irk me in that they are not rapid fire weapons like the Clan AC/UAC. All ACs have always been rapid fire weapons in every MW PC game since I started playing them.

And now, having them /not/ rapid fire just drives me absolutely batty.

[Imperius]

More options to the tech allows for more wiggle room of current weapon systems.

This game will never be balanced! You know why? Because everyone has a different opinion on balance!

[Naduk]

I would rather see a expansion of our current tech to increase its tool set

What your proposing will obsolete most of the weapons we have now
That's a really stupid way to balance a game and exactly how we landed in the IS vs Clan balance mess we got now
It was a great idea 25 years ago if you only look at it from a story and enforced limitations point of view

Plasma rifles , inferno srm's , Mech longtoms, arrow IV , cluster lrm, snub ppc, rockets
There are more and I'm ignoring timeline , however it's better to balance what we have vs including stuff that instantly obsoletes current tools

Take machine guns for example
They only need a slight buff to be fantastic
Introducing machine gun arrays would destroy any use for the older type
People say they are for hardpoint starved mechs but units like the arrow will quadruple their power instantly
Nobody will ever use standard machine guns ever again

A nicer result is to buff mg and encourage more of their use by making flame weapons better

This weapon dynamic is mimicked across the board , MRM for example if built wrong will obsolete LRM and SRM in one go

[Kali Rinpoche]

I'm fully against a full time jump to every weapon pre-dark age. People would say it's all great, but would tire quickly of them and we would right back to complain-fest that the last 6 months have been. A jump to say 3056 I could live with.

[LastKhan]

Naduk, on 27 April 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

This weapon dynamic is mimicked across the board , MRM for example if built wrong will obsolete LRM and SRM in one go

Pretty much. Why take regular LRMS? when i can have infernos or MRMs. while we have Clan AC's that are just a failure on pgi's part just sit there continued to be unused.

Edited by LastKhan, 27 April 2016 - 04:18 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Imperius, on 27 April 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

More options to the tech allows for more wiggle room of current weapon systems.

This game will never be balanced! You know why? Because everyone has a different opinion on balance!

But most logical people can agree on certain aspects:

• isSLs Terribad
  
• MGs are a terrible investment
  
• AC2s below mediocre
  
• PPCs mediocre
  
• LRMs Terribad
  
• STD VS cXL is no choice at all

That's all balance issues with current tech, and by no means a complete list, without even considering the IS VS Clam differences.
Things like the Gauss, Flamer and MG being outright superior due to identical performance, for less weight.

[Hit the Deck]

Beartech, on 27 April 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

Why not just have them operate the same. Wouldnt that also be easier for PGI to balance? They are in essence the same. Ultra Auto Cannons... Why fight for them to be different. Again unless you like the single slugs... Which I agree and most clan pilots I believe would agree is superior.

I have stated my reasoning and in fact you replied to it already:

Hit the Deck, on 27 April 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

I'd like to have different flavors for IS and Clans. That's why I proposed to make the two Gauss Rifles operate differently.

If you favor an easy balancing process then just make everything the same (the XL engines, (double) heat sinks, weapons, ES & FF slots, etc.) between the two sides. I can't agree with that for sure.

[wanderer]

Alan Davion, on 27 April 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

This is part of the problem that PGI faces with Tech 2/3, whichever level it is I can't recall.

How do you add ATMs and MRMs without completely invalidating LRMs and SRMs?

ATMs are less effective at one job than a given missile launcher, but can perform multiples.

SRMs honestly should have increased spread without lock and actually have lockons matter, as they're not dumbfired like they are in MWO. Seriously. They benefit from Artemis. It's not because they're nothing but rockets without any guidance whatsoever. MRMs should have to deal with the increased spread of unlocked missiles ala unlocked SRMs.

Quote

As it is LRMs are probably the least used weapon system in the whole game, and the only LRMs I usually see any more are 5s. MAYBE an occasional LRM10, but the 15 and 20 are utter garbage.

See one reason I'm leery of adding huge swathes of 3060-era tech in right now. (Also, increased velocity, normalized and reduced spread for larger launchers so bigger isn't worse for LRMs.)

Quote

SRMs are still quite useful, but with the MRMs, even just the MRM10, you've got 4 more missiles over the SRM6, and somewhere around double the range... I don't know about you but I don't think anyone would bother with SRMs at that point either.

See above. Also, MRMs only deal ONE damage per missile, not TWO like SRMs- a full MRM10 for example is basically dealing 5 SRMs worth of damage, and more scattered to boot. Even MRM 40's are going to scatter damage pretty darn badly, and should from the start- they have to fire in a wider pattern to avoid fratricidal explosions due to no course-correction ability. They're also likely going to be undervelocity compared to even NARC or SRMs, in part to simulate the difficulty MRMs have in hittng anything (in TT, they get a base +1 to hit). There's a "Artemis" for MRMs called Apollo, but it has the drawback of making the MRM cloud even more spread (-1 on cluster hit rolls) in order to make them more accurate (in MWO terms, Apollo FCS would increase spread AND velocity).

There's always ways to make weapons balance and harmonize with the current system- if we get everything decently set up as it stands now. PGI's inability to perform basic functions for weapons makes jumping ahead a bad tradeoff- we get more variations on current themes, but very little that is truly new- and none of it balanced with what is missing entirely.

[Hit the Deck]

wanderer, on 27 April 2016 - 06:03 PM, said:

MRMs...

...They're also likely going to be undervelocity compared to even NARC or SRMs, in part to simulate the difficulty MRMs have in hittng anything (in TT, they get a base +1 to hit).

I think we should ignore that +1 hit malus. The made-up reasoning is that MWO as an FPS can simulate the difficulty to land a cluster of missile at that optimal range of MRMs (farther than SRMs). In fact, I think that we should make them (the missiles) fly faster so the weapon system could be somewhat useful at its intended range.

Or, make it wire guided like has been suggested (copying MW:LL's mechanics).