118 replies to this topic

[PlayerUnknown]

Dr Hobo
FTW, just saying, hes chill , good player, much to learn from. plus he was my first urbie kill :-D

Edited by JayRtech, 20 February 2017 - 11:49 AM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 11:46 AM, said:

My Issue with the HGR, espically the iHGR, is that they will completely out class the isAC/20. at least the HGR has damage drop off, so that it is doing about as much damage as an AC/10 out to guass rifle ranges, but in AC/20 ranges it's doing 25% more damage than an AC/20... on the other hand iHGR is doing 10% more damage than an AC/20 out to nearly GR ranges (570m vs 660m), that's going to make it one hell of a long range sniper, even if your mech is going to be slow thanks to the standard engine.

All in all though, I am taking a wait and see approach with this, it will be interesting to see what PGI is going to do.

Willing to bet we DON'T get the iHGR, and also willing to bet that the HGR just does a flat amount of damage up to a certain range and then falls off like a normal Gauss rifle. I'm guess it will be 20 damage at somewhere around 400-450 meters, which essentially means you are paying 4 extra tons and one extra slot to have a faster projectile velocity and an extra ~50% more range, at the cost of not being able to use an LFE and having bombs strapped to your chest.

[MechaBattler]

I certainly agree with you on that regard GasGuzzler. They need to identify every facet of what makes a mech bad and good. And quirk accordingly. Instead of nerfing and buffing based on usage data. We had a better balance until they started systematically nerfing all of the IS meta mechs.

I remember them saying they had a formula when they were first introducing the quirks. Clearly they didn't or something went horribly awry.

[Dr Hobo]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

Willing to bet we DON'T get the iHGR, and also willing to bet that the HGR just does a flat amount of damage up to a certain range and then falls off like a normal Gauss rifle. I'm guess it will be 20 damage at somewhere around 400-450 meters, which essentially means you are paying 4 extra tons and one extra slot to have a faster projectile velocity and an extra ~50% more range, at the cost of not being able to use an LFE and having bombs strapped to your chest.

On top of that it seems like not many mechs could use it. Nor does it seem beneficial over the current GR.

[Metus regem]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 11:49 AM, said:

Willing to bet we DON'T get the iHGR, and also willing to bet that the HGR just does a flat amount of damage up to a certain range and then falls off like a normal Gauss rifle. I'm guess it will be 20 damage at somewhere around 400-450 meters, which essentially means you are paying 4 extra tons and one extra slot to have a faster projectile velocity and an extra ~50% more range, at the cost of not being able to use an LFE and having bombs strapped to your chest.

It's debatable, that's why I said it will be interesting to see what PGI does, the damage profile on the HGR already works with what they've done with optimal ranges and max ranges, they would just have to tweak it a little, where as the iHGR would be easier for them to program as it's more or less taking the standard Gauss Rilfe, adding %50 more damage and cutting the optimal range by about 90m, while adding 5t and a few more slots.

It's like the large bore UAC/s for the IS, there is precedent for them to go single shell or go burst fire with them, and depending on how they go about it will be the difference between being bordering on OP and hot garbage. IS LB/2/5/20 need so much help, it's almost silly... RAC/s they need to be very careful with, if they do a RAC/5 as a 6 shot burst for 5/pellet it would be OP I think, not to mention completely obsolete the AC/5 and UAC/5 in one go....

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 11:57 AM, said:

It's like the large bore UAC/s for the IS, there is precedent for them to go single shell or go burst fire with them, and depending on how they go about it will be the difference between being bordering on OP and hot garbage. IS LB/2/5/20 need so much help, it's almost silly... RAC/s they need to be very careful with, if they do a RAC/5 as a 6 shot burst for 5/pellet it would be OP I think, not to mention completely obsolete the AC/5 and UAC/5 in one go....

Which is why they REALLY need to rethink how they do ACs in general. They have always needed to rethink them, but new tech just puts more urgency on the issue.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 February 2017 - 11:59 AM.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Which is why they REALLY need to rethink how they do ACs in general. They have always needed to rethink them, but new tech just puts more urgency on the issue.

That can be said for all weapons save for laser class and Gauss Rifle class weapons I think Quicksilver....

Hell I'd love it if they could show some consistency on minimum range as well...

This is ignored on AC/s, a charge on Gauss Rfiles, a dead zone for PPC/s and missiles....

[Gas Guzzler]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

Which is why they REALLY need to rethink how they do ACs in general. They have always needed to rethink them, but new tech just puts more urgency on the issue.

IMO, Clan ACs should be single shot ACs. IS ultras should be burst but with 1 less slug than the Clan counterpart. So..

IS UAC/2 - 1 slug
IS UAC/5 - 1 slug
IS UAC/10 - 2 slugs
IS UAC/20 - 3 slugs

That's my opinion anyway, and I think it would work out pretty well. Any glaring balance issues there?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 12:02 PM, said:

That can be said for all weapons save for laser class and Gauss Rifle class weapons I think Quicksilver....

Even the lasers class need the same thing, with potentially 4 different versions of the same size of laser per tech base (with the IS potentially having an extra set with VSPL and RE lasers).

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 12:06 PM, said:

Even the lasers class need the same thing, with potentially 4 different versions of the same size of laser per tech base (with the IS potentially having an extra set with VSPL and RE lasers).

VSPL's are bad... and RE Lasers are only important if we get some of the more specialized armour... That being said I find the DoT (damage over time) for lasers to be appropriate for them. PPC's I'd like to see a charge mechanic on them personally...

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

IMO, Clan ACs should be single shot ACs. IS ultras should be burst but with 1 less slug than the Clan counterpart. So..

IS UAC/2 - 1 slug
IS UAC/5 - 1 slug
IS UAC/10 - 2 slugs
IS UAC/20 - 3 slugs

That's my opinion anyway, and I think it would work out pretty well. Any glaring balance issues there?

That seems okay to me.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

IMO, Clan ACs should be single shot ACs. IS ultras should be burst but with 1 less slug than the Clan counterpart. So..

IS UAC/2 - 1 slug
IS UAC/5 - 1 slug
IS UAC/10 - 2 slugs
IS UAC/20 - 3 slugs

That's my opinion anyway, and I think it would work out pretty well. Any glaring balance issues there?

Yes, because you still have the issue of roles.

ACs should be single shot
UACs should be burst fire and no double tap (but increased damage potential to justify the burst fire)
LBX should fire some cluster based shell (though should have some better control over spread)
RACs should be stream fire with jam bar
HVACs are basically superpowered ACs, in-between of ACs and Gauss
LACs are more compact ACs that should honestly emulate proto-ACs on the Clan side meant to fit lights/mediums better.

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

VSPL's are bad...

For the tonnage, sure, but not for the BV.

That said, they are still something that needs to be considered.

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 12:09 PM, said:

That being said I find the DoT (damage over time) for lasers to be appropriate for them.

I don't necessarily mind the DoT mechanic, just the fact that pulse are being treated as "accurate" versions of standard lasers which means one is generally chosen over the other for the role they compete over. MW4 did a smart thing by trying to make one DPS oriented while the other was more burst oriented.

[Mcgral18]

Probably Not, on 20 February 2017 - 10:45 AM, said:

Clan ACs have a very underwhelming sound. I like the silly little "pew!" that IS Small Lasers do, though.

cACs sound pretty awesome, IMO
They're just worthless as weapons.

A more hollow sound, for lack of a better word

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

IMO, Clan ACs should be single shot ACs. IS ultras should be burst but with 1 less slug than the Clan counterpart. So..

IS UAC/2 - 1 slug
IS UAC/5 - 1 slug
IS UAC/10 - 2 slugs
IS UAC/20 - 3 slugs

That's my opinion anyway, and I think it would work out pretty well. Any glaring balance issues there?

Still not sure cACs should be single shot
I like fast velocity (and their normalized cooldowns, hurray)

Agree on burst count, with perhaps some other alterations.
cACs are still lighter than isACs, so identical performance shouldn't be achieved. But, isACs could also get a speed boost, to compete against their upcoming UAC alternatives

[MechaBattler]

Don't forget special ammo for regular ACs and light ACs. Caseless ammo would make light ACs on lighter mechs more of a possibility.

There's so many potential goodies. But we still have no clue what they're gonna be willing to add!

[Bishop Steiner]

Gas Guzzler, on 20 February 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

IMO, Clan ACs should be single shot ACs. IS ultras should be burst but with 1 less slug than the Clan counterpart. So..

IS UAC/2 - 1 slug
IS UAC/5 - 1 slug
IS UAC/10 - 2 slugs
IS UAC/20 - 3 slugs

That's my opinion anyway, and I think it would work out pretty well. Any glaring balance issues there?

honestly feel the dropped the ball bu not making the IS UAC5 into a burst gun. give it a higher velocity or faster burst rate, but otherwise the same as C-UAC5. But that's just my opinion on it.

And still wonder why they can't add a toggle or the like to simply constrict the choke (aka spread) of LBX cannons from Spread to essentially "solid shot". If I recall correctly it's just an XML file correction... and it would mean one wouldn't have to program alternate ammo, etc for it. Choke it enough, it will essentially emulate a solid shot.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 20 February 2017 - 12:49 PM, said:

And still wonder why they can't add a toggle or the like to simply constrict the choke (aka spread) of LBX cannons from Spread to essentially "solid shot".

Well you would have to limit it such that the LBX10 wouldn't completely invalidate the AC10. Honestly given that the LBX10 originally invalidated the AC10 and the fact they tried to "fix" that with the later IS LBX, I think the idea that ammo-switching isn't supported for at least IS LBX is fine. I'd much prefer they make the spread less horrible at longer range than actually worry about ammo-switching (at least for LBX).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 February 2017 - 01:09 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well you would have to limit it such that the LBX10 wouldn't completely invalidate the AC10. Honestly given that the LBX10 originally invalidated the AC10 and the fact they tried to "fix" that with the later IS LBX, I think the idea that ammo-switching isn't supported for at least IS LBX is fine. I'd much prefer they make the spread less horrible at longer range than actually worry about ammo-switching (at least for LBX).

I'm simply commenting om the "inability" to make it work. Select ammo may indeed be beyond them, but i know things like spread, Paul can literally change on the fly, same as gravity, etc. So why having a line of code tied to a toggle to do it, I don't see the issue.

Since they refuse to make them into the street sweepers of MW4, we need them to actually be good at something. And no, I don't really considering pairing them with Splat weapons "good" since in all those cases, the SRMS would be better off with less spread, too, for efficient killing.

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

Well you would have to limit it such that the LBX10 wouldn't completely invalidate the AC10. Honestly given that the LBX10 originally invalidated the AC10 and the fact they tried to "fix" that with the later IS LBX, I think the idea that ammo-switching isn't supported for at least IS LBX is fine. I'd much prefer they make the spread less horrible at longer range than actually worry about ammo-switching (at least for LBX).

Honestly, I think that LB's should operate like they do right now, provided you do not have your target locked on to, if you do have a lock then the grouping should be much, much tighter...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 01:22 PM, said:

Honestly, I think that LB's should operate like they do right now, provided you do not have your target locked on to, if you do have a lock then the grouping should be much, much tighter...

I'd much rather they have a projectile that splits at a certain range (preferably once it is within a certain range of target).

[Metus regem]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 February 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

I'd much rather they have a projectile that splits at a certain range (preferably once it is within a certain range of target).

That would be ideal, as LB should be canister shot anyways, as that would make them effective out to their maximum range... As they are capable of landing all of their sub munitions at max range after all, provided you can roll well on the missile chart.

How ever for PGI's ability, I would take what had said....

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Metus regem, on 20 February 2017 - 01:43 PM, said:

How ever for PGI's ability, I would take what had said....

That really doesn't help them be useful outside making them probably near pinpoint at short range (since you are more likely to get steady locks at short range than long range). I'd just rather they add more damage and keep everything else as is.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 February 2017 - 01:46 PM.