145 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 June 2017 - 07:58 AM, said:

Only increases to weight and size breaks stock builds, though. But yeah.

I actually lije your LGR changes, though I still think range to 810 would be appropriate.



Only increases to weight and size breaks stock builds, though. But yeah.

I actually lije your LGR changes, though I still think range to 810 would be appropriate.

Even reducing weight breaks some stock builds as they are now under weight., but you are right increasing crit sizes and weight does break builds as well. How ever crit reductions make some mechs possible in MWO that currently are not, such as the BSW-1L Bushwacker that mounts a LB-20X crit split between the RA and RT.

[Y E O N N E]

Metus regem, on 29 June 2017 - 08:01 AM, said:

Even reducing weight breaks some stock builds as they are now under weight., but you are right increasing crit sizes and weight does break builds as well. How ever crit reductions make some mechs possible in MWO that currently are not, such as the BSW-1L Bushwacker that mounts a LB-20X crit split between the RA and RT.

Reducing isn't breaking those builds, though, just making them inefficient.

[Metus regem]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 June 2017 - 08:06 AM, said:

Reducing isn't breaking those builds, though, just making them inefficient.

True, but still doesn't make them match up... not that I am opposed to it. I'm in the camp that thinks that the Battle Tech universe needs a reboot from the ground up to be more in line with where we are now, rather than where we were 30 years ago.

[Khobai]

hardly anyone plays stock builds so adhering to stock builds is asinine. period.

change the tonnage of light gauss from 12 to 10

change the crits of heavy gauss from 11 to 10

im okay with that change now that ive used the heavy gauss and I dont think it would be OP with a non-std engine.

fixt.

Quote

Reducing isn't breaking those builds, though, just making them inefficient.

technically theyre not inefficient because they still have the exact same loadouts as before.

yes theyll be at a disadvantage compared to non-stock builds but people who are using stock mechs typically play stock vs stock anyway. and in stock vs stock it performs exactly the same.

if youre using stock vs non-stock youre a super potato.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[TheArisen]

Metus regem, on 29 June 2017 - 08:09 AM, said:

True, but still doesn't make them match up... not that I am opposed to it. I'm in the camp that thinks that the Battle Tech universe needs a reboot from the ground up to be more in line with where we are now, rather than where we were 30 years ago.

It'd be pretty interesting to see how that'd play out.

[Metus regem]

TheArisen, on 29 June 2017 - 09:22 AM, said:

It'd be pretty interesting to see how that'd play out.

I've been toying with a re-write...

So far I am most happy with how I've done the AC/s.

It's been under going testing with my group, so far things are looking okay, needing a bunch of tweaking, but so far we like the AC/s, missiles and gunnery. Primary and secondary weapons with limited build options depending on mech and load out to limit the amount of customization that is possible.

Lasers are being problematic how ever, it's hard to get the feel just right for them, with out making them too good or too bad.

[Lightfoot]

Cooldown on the Light Gauss needs to be 3.5 seconds not 5. Otherwise no use for it. Standard Gauss has 5 second cooldown, does 15 damage. Heavy Gauss has 6.5 second cooldown does up to 25 damage.

3.5 seconds for a weapon that weighs almost as much as a standard Gauss and only saves 2 crits, but only does 8 damage. That's a loss of almost half the damage. 5 second, even 4.5 second cooldown turns the Light Gauss into worthless crap.

[TheArisen]

Lightfoot, on 29 June 2017 - 09:55 AM, said:

Cooldown on the Light Gauss needs to be 3.5 seconds not 5. Otherwise no use for it. Standard Gauss has 5 second cooldown, does 15 damage. Heavy Gauss has 6.5 second cooldown does up to 25 damage.

3.5 seconds for a weapon that weighs almost as much as a standard Gauss and only saves 2 crits, but only does 8 damage. That's a loss of almost half the damage. 5 second, even 4.5 second cooldown turns the Light Gauss into worthless crap.

Yeah LGauss needs to have extreme range & cooldown to justify it.

[Khobai]

Quote

Cooldown on the Light Gauss needs to be 3.5 seconds not 5.

light gauss needs to be reduced to 10 tons (12 tons is way too heavy and when you can double your damage for 3 extra tons theres no reason not to take normal gauss instead)

it should have a 3.25 cooldown and a 0.5 chargeup period (3.75 total cooldown)

it should also have an 810m optimum range (instead of 750m) and a 2300m/s velocity (instead of 2000)

and it should only generate 0.5 heat not 1 heat.

then it would be a decent niche weapon.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 12:20 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Reducing crit slot requirements doesn't actually break any stock builds, what breaks stock builds is when you mess with weight.

As some MWO builds are being canonized in TT (like the Roughneck), you'd break the TT stock version by messing with crits or tonnage. So no, it isn't happening.

[Khobai]

Quote

As some MWO builds are being canonized in TT (like the Roughneck), you'd break the TT stock version by messing with crits or tonnage. So no, it isn't happening.

again its a non issue because hardly anyone plays stock mechs.

and in stock vs stock the mech is identical anyway

it only matters if youre using a stock mech vs a non-stock mech, but who does that, thats potato behavior.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 29 June 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

As some MWO builds are being canonized in TT (like the Roughneck), you'd break the TT stock version by messing with crits or tonnage. So no, it isn't happening.

Again reduction in crits is fine, addion of crits is not, reduction in weight is not fine nor is addition of weight.

[Khobai]

reduction of crits and tonnage are both fine.

it doesnt change the stock build in stock vs stock matches.

a stock mech is going to perform identically regardless of whether its 100/100 tons or 98/100 tons due to light gauss weighing 2 tons less.

it makes no difference except in cases where youre mixing stock mechs and non-stock mechs but that should never happen. stock mechs should only ever be used in stock mech only games.


and the reality of the light gauss is such that it will never be used when you can spend 3 extra tons for a standard gauss which DOUBLES your damage. the only way to make the light gauss into a viable weapon is to reduce its tonnage to something reasonable like 10 tons. Its the most logical way to fix the weapon and give it its own niche.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 12:33 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Again reduction in crits is fine, addion of crits is not, reduction in weight is not fine nor is addition of weight.

You don't reduce the crits on the TT version, so if you do it on the MWO version, when ported to TT stats the weapon would not fit in the TT version.

MWO 'Mechs have to be buildable in TT, or else MWO variants can never be canonical. Mess with critspace to fudge things in MWO, and you render it illegal in TT.

[Metus regem]

Brain Cancer, on 29 June 2017 - 12:38 PM, said:

You don't reduce the crits on the TT version, so if you do it on the MWO version, when ported to TT stats the weapon would not fit in the TT version.

MWO 'Mechs have to be buildable in TT, or else MWO variants can never be canonical. Mess with critspace to fudge things in MWO, and you render it illegal in TT.

Let me put it to you this way,

How would reducing the LB-20X to make it mountable in the arm actually hurt anything in TT? There are mechs that mount LB-20X's in the arm already, but with the isLB-20X being 11 crits, it makes all of those canonical builds unbuildable in MWO. That means we will never see units like:

BSW-1L Bushwacker, LB-20X in the RA, crit spilit into RT
Templar C, LB-20X in RA crit split into RT
NSR-9SS Nightstar, LB-20X in RA crit spilt into RT

That's just 3 off of the top of my head that could be included by reducing the crit space of the LB-20X so that it works in MWO, the other side effect is that an already bad weapon isn't made any worse by the force inclusion of a standard engine.

This issue doesn't just pertain to the LB-20X, even the HGR has the same issue, the Crusader 8S cannot be in MWO because it uses an isXL with a HGR in the LT that is crit split into the CT. We can't have Arrow IV because of crit splitting, we can't have mech mounted Long Tom artillery because of crit splitting....

[FupDup]

I wonder if it would be an acceptable compromise for PGI to make their own non-canon "Improved" or "Advanced" versions of certain weapons that have altered slots and/or tonnage. The default canon version would be removed of course. PGI already added the non-canon Clan ACs...

Like, for example, an "Improved LB 20-X" that takes up 9 or 10 slots but only has the range of a normal AC/20 or something as a fluff justification.

[Khobai]

if a weapon is bad because of its tonnage crits then its tonnage crits should be changed

stock builds be damned.

[TheArisen]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

if a weapon is bad because of its tonnage crits then its tonnage crits should be changed

stock builds be damned.

Well go ahead and keep pushing for it but I don't see it happening.

How about if the LGauss was bumped to 10 DMG? The AC10 needs buffed anyway. Give LGauss extreme range but it can fire slower compared to the AC10.

[Khobai]

Quote

How about if the LGauss was bumped to 10 DMG?

id still pay 3 extra tons for 5 extra damage.

the issue is that 3 ton difference between light gauss and standard gauss isnt enough to make people think twice about using standard gauss instead.

its the same reason the AC10 sucks because for 2 tons more you get an AC20.

the only way to fix weapons like light gauss, and also the AC10, is to lower their tonnage.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 03:16 PM.

[TheArisen]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

id still pay 3 extra tons for 5 extra damage.

the issue is that 3 ton difference between light gauss and standard gauss isnt enough to make people think twice about using standard gauss instead.

its the same reason the AC10 sucks because for 2 tons more you get an AC20.

the only way to fix weapons like light gauss, and also the AC10, is to lower their tonnage.

Ideally yes but I don't think thats a realistic idea.

How about the same stats you proposed but 10 dmg instead of 10 tons?
"it should have a 3.25 cooldown and a 0.5 chargeup period (3.75 total cooldown)

it should also have an 810m optimum range (instead of 750m) and a 2300m/s velocity (instead of 2000)

and it should only generate 0.5 heat not 1 heat."

Edited by TheArisen, 29 June 2017 - 03:53 PM.