156 replies to this topic

[Lightfoot]

theta123, on 20 May 2016 - 01:12 AM, said:

Yes it does, and i am a vivid gauss user even in its most nerfed status ever. If you drop the gauss rifle its charge up, it will again replace the AC 20 completly.

No, I think PGI devs just got waxed too often by 2xGauss Cat-K2's in closed beta or something. 4xUAC10's has been in MWO for a while, it's not a Kodiak thing, but you rarely see it. The reason the Kodiak uses it a lot is because it's the best ballistic loadout that will fit.

The Gauss charge-up was a response to jump-snipers more than anything else, but MWO's hover-jet replacement for actual jump-jets fixes that. Anyway, the Gauss Rifle just needs a 25% longer recycle than the AC20 to make the two weapons fill separate range niches and it almost has that now. 2xGauss would do 30 damage every 6 seconds and 4xUAC10's (with average recycle buffs) do 120 damage by the time the 2xGauss would reach 60 damage. So, you see the charge-up must go, is apocryphal, not from Battle Tech lore of the weapon, and is not needed for balance. The only balance it provides is to keep most players from using the Gauss Rifle and that is a failure, not balance.

If it is the aesthetic of an apocryphal mech sniper rifle that PGI wants that could be provided by the equally apocryphal Railgun, which pre-dates the Gauss Rifle by quite a bit.

Edited by Lightfoot, 20 May 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Robot Kenshiro]

Clan tech always better the IS. I believe in this. I always have throughout any mechwarrior/bt. Why make it 1:1. Clans have always be technologically superior. Making balances like this hinders this game even more. Imagine when they eventually move onto new tech??more time wasted on balancing weapons. When IS get their versions of uac10/20.....what will ppl say then

[Mister Blastman]

Gentleman Reaper, on 20 May 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

So it's fine that high-tier chassis become the meta just so unfortunately limited chassis become competent because of an unfair weapon? PGI will be pushing uber-quirks for Omnimechs that don't have Endo or have too much fixed equipment, so then the Summoner will hopefully become competitive.

It isn't an unfair weapon. The problem is in the robit (if there is a problem), not the gun.

[Phra]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 May 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

Tourmaline isn't THAT hot compared to other maps.

Tourmaline is the hottest map in the game, think I'm gonna stop arguing with someone who is this clueless for now.

Have a nice day

Edited by Phra, 20 May 2016 - 07:34 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Phra, on 20 May 2016 - 07:33 AM, said:

Tourmaline is the hottest map in the game

And the point I'm trying to make, is the disparity between something like Forest and Tourmaline is still not that substantial, it allows for what, maybe one more alpha?

Either way, 4 UAC10 is great for PUG stomping, but that's probably all, which is why you see so many comp players (and many non-comp surprisingly) dismissing all this QQ.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 May 2016 - 07:37 AM.

[Jman5]

Gentleman Reaper, on 19 May 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

It's generally accepted that the KDK-3 is the most powerful Kodiak because of UAC boating, but stick on a normal AC or an LB-X and it's even if not worse than the rest. When you have 4 UAC-10s, the number of them makes up for the jam chance, so it means that it will rarely stop firing if it's not being fired upon.

Make UACs have a longer cooldown if you double-tap, so you choose between burst-DPS or sustained DPS. Anyone have their own ideas?

Nerfing UACs to LBX levels would only serve to reinforce the laser-vomit meta further.

People just need to accept the fact that the kodiak is a 100 ton mech and understand what it entails. It's not a heavy so many have gotten used to playing in recent months. it can take a lot of hits and bring a boatload of weapons.

[CK16]

And yet quad IS UAC 5's are well known and thought of by many that they are far better then a quad clan UAC 5 build. If any UAC's need changes its the IS not clans.

[L3mming2]

Phra, on 20 May 2016 - 06:41 AM, said:

The problem is not the UAC10 itself, but the fact the KDK3 can spam 4 of them without giving a flying f about ghost heat.

double tapping 4 uac10's gives a total of 10,29 ghost heat making a alpha that would normaly be 24 heat 34,29 heat.. i would not call that nothing..

[L3mming2]

Phra, on 20 May 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

80 dmg in your face in about .5 is anything but fine.

its 0.5 (first volly) + 0.5 second volly + travel time

so no not 0.5s

[Gentleman Reaper]

Jman5, on 20 May 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

Nerfing UACs to LBX levels would only serve to reinforce the laser-vomit meta further.

GH2 is supposed to address that, and my idea wouldn't put it anywhere near as bad as an LB-X

Jman5, on 20 May 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

People just need to accept the fact that the kodiak is a 100 ton mech and understand what it entails. It's not a heavy so many have gotten used to playing in recent months. it can take a lot of hits and bring a boatload of weapons.

You haven't been playing it then, the Kodiak melts as easily as a heavy because of its massive profile, it's not a frontline mech.

CK16, on 20 May 2016 - 08:24 AM, said:

And yet quad IS UAC 5's are well known and thought of by many that they are far better then a quad clan UAC 5 build. If any UAC's need changes its the IS not clans.

If you had a modicum of an attention span and read my earlier posts, you would see that I think UACs in general need a rework, not just the Clan's...

[Coolant]

I'm ok with changes to the UAC's but if they get nerfed then it will just be back to laser-fest. Please bring on the new ghost-heat replacement mechanic. It should be a priority.

[Phra]

L3mming2, on 20 May 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

double tapping 4 uac10's gives a total of 10,29 ghost heat making a alpha that would normaly be 24 heat 34,29 heat.. i would not call that nothing..

Yet, it is mostly negligible if you willing to downgrade to a 375XL.

LL got ghostheat upped solely because of the 4N, don't see how it would hurt anything else but the KDK3 if they would have done the same in this case.

L3mming2, on 20 May 2016 - 08:37 AM, said:

its 0.5 (first volly) + 0.5 second volly + travel time

so no not 0.5s

Which is exactly .5s from the first salvo contacting.

[Mystere]

**** it! **** it all!

"Encourage" all players to chain fire their weapons by imposing a 10x ghost heat penalty for each simultaneously fired weapon. There, end of problem.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mystere, on 19 May 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

This 1:1 parity, Clan Mech/weapon/equipment must be equal to IS Mech/weapon/equipment line of thinking is a large part of what is holding back this game from reaching its potential. Heck, it's this line of thinking that is killing this game.

You are right. Keeping the IS on par with the Clans is holding this game back from being a lopsided mess where nobody wants to play the weak, slow, easily killed IS Mechs and everyone wants to use the powerful, fast, OP Clan mechs.

Let's try No.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gentleman Reaper, on 19 May 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

It's generally accepted that the KDK-3 is the most powerful Kodiak because of UAC boating, but stick on a normal AC or an LB-X and it's even if not worse than the rest. When you have 4 UAC-10s, the number of them makes up for the jam chance, so it means that it will rarely stop firing if it's not being fired upon.

Make UACs have a longer cooldown if you double-tap, so you choose between burst-DPS or sustained DPS. Anyone have their own ideas?

So make an already marginal weapon broke again.

GGClothes.


NO.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gentleman Reaper, on 19 May 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

It's generally accepted that the KDK-3 is the most powerful Kodiak because of UAC boating, but stick on a normal AC or an LB-X and it's even if not worse than the rest. When you have 4 UAC-10s, the number of them makes up for the jam chance, so it means that it will rarely stop firing if it's not being fired upon.

Make UACs have a longer cooldown if you double-tap, so you choose between burst-DPS or sustained DPS. Anyone have their own ideas?

My idea to remove the RNG still stands, though I know people like Bishop like their RNG.

Give all UACs burst fire (with IS having less shells or more velocity, or something) like the CUACs do now.

• Remove double tap and jam mechanic, leave that uniqueness to the RACs with a better mechanic that is less determined by RNG and more by fire control.
  
• Increase the damage potential of a single shot by 50% by increasing shell count appropriately (so UAC5 would shoot 3 projectiles at 2.5 damage rather than just 2).
  
• Change the IS UACs to match with either less projectiles, more velocity, or both.

Not that I think it is needed, I just like the idea because it makes RNG less of a problem.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 May 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

My idea to remove the RNG still stands, though I know people like Bishop like their RNG.

Give all UACs burst fire (with IS having less shells or more velocity, or something) like the CUACs do now.

• Remove double tap and jam mechanic, leave that uniqueness to the RACs with a better mechanic that is less determined by RNG and more by fire control.
  
• Increase the damage potential of a single shot by 50% by increasing shell count appropriately (so UAC5 would shoot 3 projectiles at 2.5 damage rather than just 2).
  
• Change the IS UACs to match with either less projectiles, more velocity, or both.

Not that I think it is needed, I just like the idea because it makes RNG less of a problem.

It's so much that I like RNG, as I dislike gameable mechanics. Jams and failures are not not really something one gets a warning bar for in combat, racing, etc.

If one can come up with a reasonable alternative that can't be gamed, I'm open to listen. So far, every one I have heard offered, has been easily gamed, so that it was still straight up batter than normal ACs, etc.

I think some element of RNG shoudl be present even if one used a "jam bar" like a give/take 5% just so that there is an element of risk to riding the redline.

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 20 May 2016 - 09:15 AM, said:

You are right. Keeping the IS on par with the Clans is holding this game back from being a lopsided mess where nobody wants to play the weak, slow, easily killed IS Mechs and everyone wants to use the powerful, fast, OP Clan mechs.

Let's try No.

Have people thought about using:

• drop weight (i.e. logistics, dynamically determined by current state of IS map)
  
• numbers (i.e. logistics, reinforcements, dynamically determined by current state of IS map)
  
• rearm and repair costs (i.e. logistics)
  
• different/dynamic victory conditions (again possibly determined by current state of IS map)
  
• different/dynamic game modes (again possibly determined by current state of IS map)
  
• reinforcements (possibly via a ticket system)
  
• equipment differences (i.e. range, networking capability, etc.)
  
• campaign structure (What campaign? )

But no, let's just keep the same old one-dimensional balancing system.

The main idea is to provide real depth in game play.

Oh! But I forgot. ESports is now priority numero uno! Everyone must therefore bow to the eSports GODS.



<Damn! Is there something wrong with the forum search function? I know I've got more but cannot remember them all. )

Edited by Mystere, 20 May 2016 - 10:30 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 May 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

I think some element of RNG shoudl be present even if one used a "jam bar" like a give/take 5% just so that there is an element of risk to riding the redline.

This I don't mind because even in MW4 it wasn't completely without RNG for RACs, the amount you would jam after straight fire differed a bit each time which I would be ok with as well.

[Steve Pryde]

Just don't go into effectiv range. The fall off from clan uac10s is just a joke. It's like firing cannons from a pirat ship from the past.