35 replies to this topic

[J0anna]

Khobai, on 30 June 2017 - 06:01 PM, said:

again an atlas-s brawler build only does about 10 sustained dps with ALL its weapons

so why should a weapon that weighs a fraction of an atlas do that much dps?

there seems to be a serious logical disconnect here. a weapon that weighs 10 tons should not be doing more dps than a 100 ton mech with all its weapons.

4-5 dps is pretty reasonable for a 10 ton weapon. 18 dps not so much.

Like I said, PGI doesn't care what either of us thinks - they've made that abundantly clear over the years. And here's a news flash, unless PGI has hard coded the atlas's DPS, I'm pretty sure it could in fact fit a RAC 5, thus not limiting it's DPS to 10....

Why 18, because I want to be able to quickly kill mechs. I want to be able to one-shot light mechs, and two shot mediums. I'd like weapons to be deadly without having to invest 30+ SP in firepower, and lastly that was the intent when BT released level 2 IS weapons, to (in some cases) be more deadly than clan weapons to help bridge the difference between IS and clans. The RAC 5 is supposed to shoot up to 6 slugs in the same time an AC 5 shoots one. Yes, there's more heat and a higher chance to jam, but BT clearly understood the clans had nothing that could match this.

Just because the AC 20 was limited to 5 dps, doesn't mean every other weapon in the game has to be stuck below this value. I have always said level 2 weapons are supposed to be noticible better than level 1 weapons - otherwise they are just more of the same with a different color....

[Koniving]

Finally able to test the RACs.

It's damage per shot that they described on the update page. 8 shells per second.
Meaning the RAC/5 is 10.8 DPS.

6x the AC/5 damage per second is 9.03 DPS.

A cut to that rate is entirely acceptable to me, provided we are:
1) a little softer on the heat (The rate we should be looking at is 9 heat per second as 6x MWO's AC/5 heat. Best case scenario down to 6 heat per second.)
2) maybe a bit more time before the jam hits (or, even better, if the "up time" to get the barrels to spend had a wind down time... It might be 1 second to start spinning from stationary, but if it wound down for 0.3 seconds then it should only take 0.3 seconds to get back up to speed.) I'm fine with the jam time.

Edited by Koniving, 30 June 2017 - 06:37 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Prosperity Park, on 28 June 2017 - 02:36 PM, said:

I think the part that has to get into the dev's radar is that Chris might start investigating this as a "RAC" problem, where he will find a dead-end.

The problem with staggered weapons restarting the 0.5 second window and incorrectly applying GH is a Global Bug, not a RAC bug.

You are right, that is exactly what the problem is. However, since they likely already know that due to the AC2 issue, it looks like they cant solve the root cause. So, the solution is blindingly simple: remove ghost heat from RACs entirely. The issue doesnt affect other weapons in that you can just not fire them in the specific way that causes the problem, and there is no actual advantage to firing them that way anyway. Yeah its not ideal, but it works.

There is no drawback to removing ghost heat from RACs anyway - they are very hard to boat, and since they have literally no weapon synergy in the game, limiting them to 2 like this effectively removes them from consideration for assaults.

Its really not a big deal if Maulers and Annihilators can run 4 of them - compared to 4xUAC5 with current stats and no ghost heat it would give you a bigger 5 second burst (like 180 dmg over 4(5) seconds compared to 100 - 160 depending on luck).. but its heavier, bulkier, shorter ranged and slower, can only really run 4(5) second bursts, requires staring, has a spin up time and cannot snapshot. The Annihilator can even run 5xUAC5, but not 5xRAC5... and the Mauler can run a LFE with UACs but has to use STD for RACs.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 01 July 2017 - 03:47 AM.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Koniving, on 30 June 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

Finally able to test the RACs.

It's damage per shot that they described on the update page. 8 shells per second.
Meaning the RAC/5 is 10.8 DPS.

In the game it's displayed as damage per second. I think it's tthat 10.8/s. It also displays heat as flat figure but I think that's also per second.

[Felicitatem Parco]

They could simy add a gauss-charge-type limit on RACs, thereby hard limiting the number that can be fired at once to two.

That would be a good bandaid.

[Brain Cancer]

Or they could simply up the base heat/shot on RACs and eliminate ghost heat entirely. Bump it up to something like 3/5 for the RAC/2 and RAC/5, respectively. Or you could try some kind of increasing heat buildup as the gun fires similar to the flamer, but that'll likely run into the same issues as ghost heat has now.

Edited by Brain Cancer, 01 July 2017 - 08:09 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

J0anna, on 30 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

Like I said, PGI doesn't care what either of us thinks - they've made that abundantly clear over the years. And here's a news flash, unless PGI has hard coded the atlas's DPS, I'm pretty sure it could in fact fit a RAC 5, thus not limiting it's DPS to 10....

Why 18, because I want to be able to quickly kill mechs. I want to be able to one-shot light mechs, and two shot mediums. I'd like weapons to be deadly without having to invest 30+ SP in firepower, and lastly that was the intent when BT released level 2 IS weapons, to (in some cases) be more deadly than clan weapons to help bridge the difference between IS and clans. The RAC 5 is supposed to shoot up to 6 slugs in the same time an AC 5 shoots one. Yes, there's more heat and a higher chance to jam, but BT clearly understood the clans had nothing that could match this.

Just because the AC 20 was limited to 5 dps, doesn't mean every other weapon in the game has to be stuck below this value. I have always said level 2 weapons are supposed to be noticible better than level 1 weapons - otherwise they are just more of the same with a different color....

Wow, so lets just turn this into MWO twitch shooter, with the ability to blow mechs away in seconds. The RAC5 in TT was limited to a max of 30 damage a turn, and that was randomly distributed as 6 five point damage groups, effectively making it equivalent to 2 LRM15's, and that only if all 6 shots hit the target, as that was random as well (just like LRM's). It's a spread damage weapon just like LBX or SRM's, and one that could randomly jam (with the chance going pretty high if fired at that max rate) making it useless until cleared (also a random determination). It was never intended to 'one shot' kill anything!

And if you made it that powerful, then what happens when it gets boated and heavies and assaults are getting killed in one or two shots? Guess they would have to add respawn to the game finally, as it would have become Call of Battletech.

[Mcgral18]

Easiest 30 second solution:

Unlink RAC2s and RAC5s
Then you can at least fire a pair (or quartet) of them together.

[Y E O N N E]

Tincan Nightmare, on 01 July 2017 - 08:48 PM, said:

And if you made it that powerful, then what happens when it gets boated and heavies and assaults are getting killed in one or two shots? Guess they would have to add respawn to the game finally, as it would have become Call of Battletech.

You prefer Counter-Mechs?

[Alan Davion]

J0anna, on 30 June 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

Like I said, PGI doesn't care what either of us thinks - they've made that abundantly clear over the years. And here's a news flash, unless PGI has hard coded the atlas's DPS, I'm pretty sure it could in fact fit a RAC 5, thus not limiting it's DPS to 10....

Why 18, because I want to be able to quickly kill mechs. I want to be able to one-shot light mechs, and two shot mediums. I'd like weapons to be deadly without having to invest 30+ SP in firepower, and lastly that was the intent when BT released level 2 IS weapons, to (in some cases) be more deadly than clan weapons to help bridge the difference between IS and clans. The RAC 5 is supposed to shoot up to 6 slugs in the same time an AC 5 shoots one. Yes, there's more heat and a higher chance to jam, but BT clearly understood the clans had nothing that could match this.

Just because the AC 20 was limited to 5 dps, doesn't mean every other weapon in the game has to be stuck below this value. I have always said level 2 weapons are supposed to be noticible better than level 1 weapons - otherwise they are just more of the same with a different color....

So you want Call of Duty with Battlemech skins, is that it?

Cause in order for what you say to happen, PGI would have to recode the QP system to move away from the single elimination system.

And as we all know, if they try something that time consuming and thought intensive, they will invariably find some way to completely and utterly F*** IT UP.

You want to play CoD? Go f***ing play CoD.

You want to play Mechwarrior? Then drop the "this needs to be a split second mech death twitch shooter" mentality. The sooner you do, the sooner you'll be happier with the game.

Or not. In which case this is clearly not the game for you.

[Y E O N N E]

Again, really enjoying all the derogatory CoD references when what we have is basically Counter-Strike...which is essentially the same thing as CoD sans respawns. CoD even has single-elimination game modes.

[Dogstar]

Viktor Drake, on 29 June 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

I think where they shine is on a mech with a single Ballistic hardpoint,

I found the opposite when I tested an RAC2 on my ASN-DD. It was a terrible choice as the primary damage dealing weapon and the increased weight over an AC2 meant that support weapons had to be discarded.

As far as I can see, unless it is radically improved, the RAC is only ever going to be a third class weapon for certain niche applications

[QuantumButler]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Again, really enjoying all the derogatory CoD references when what we have is basically Counter-Strike...which is essentially the same thing as CoD sans respawns. CoD even has single-elimination game modes.

I never understood the derogatory comments towards CoD, which by and large are well made games more people could stand to take ideas from.

[Y E O N N E]

QuantumButler, on 02 July 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I never understood the derogatory comments towards CoD, which by and large are well made games more people could stand to take ideas from.

It's easy to hate what you don't understand, apparently.

Even Hawken was well-made and with higher TTK than this game, but apparently it's garbage because it doesn't have component-level damage.

[Alan Davion]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Again, really enjoying all the derogatory CoD references when what we have is basically Counter-Strike...which is essentially the same thing as CoD sans respawns. CoD even has single-elimination game modes.

QuantumButler, on 02 July 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

I never understood the derogatory comments towards CoD, which by and large are well made games more people could stand to take ideas from.

My remarks were not directed at CoD itself. I did at one point quite enjoy the series, but grew tired of the maps and the gameplay. The Battlefield series, with larger maps and more diverse gameplay, however, I found to be more enjoyable.

My remarks were primarily directed at the "I want to be able to kill something just by LOOKING at it" twitch shooter mentality.

I realize CoD has single elimination game modes, but they have MORE game modes than just the single elimination mode, which is the point I was trying to make. MWO is falling behind other games because of its over reliance on single elimination game play. Even CW/FW is guilty of this because while you might have "extra lives" as we'll put it, they are still aimed at making game play too short.

I remember once back in Battlefield 3 I was in a game that lasted for close to an hour, or more on a single map because both sides were so evenly matched. And GOD I haven't had that much fun in a long time. If MWO allowed for games like that, then maybe we'd have more people playing instead of the hardcore BT/MW fanbase, which even then is steadily trickling out because the game is stagnating worse than DICE's 2015 Star Wars Battlefront.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Yeonne Greene, on 02 July 2017 - 06:38 AM, said:

It's easy to hate what you don't understand, apparently.

Even Hawken was well-made and with higher TTK than this game, but apparently it's garbage because it doesn't have component-level damage.

Who was hating on COD? I was simply making the point that the quote I was responding to was from someone who wants to dramatically change the playstyle of the game. In CS or COD, do people not die if you shoot them in the shoulders and arms, but only from chest shots or both legs? Do you have to strip armor and even possibly limbs from them as they torso twist damage from bullets away? Lets not pretend that there is no difference between the games here.

And are you in support of JOanna's argument that he/she should be able to go out and just one shot lights and mediums, reducing TTK to nothing? Are you actually advocating that this would be an improvement to the game? I actually enjoy COD games as well, that does not mean I can't see a difference between them and MWO, and want those differences to stay in place.