255 replies to this topic

[Zergling]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 July 2017 - 09:21 PM, said:

well i suppose if they just made ATMs and modeled them after their Standard Ammo,
2Damage, 120-450m, give them 240Velocity and let them Compete with IS MRMs,
reduce their Spread to that of LRM+A, to account for them only doing 2Damage,

It'd work, but it'd be nothing like their TT version.

[Andi Nagasia]

Zergling, on 07 July 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

It'd work, but it'd be nothing like their TT version.

how so, i just used only TT Stats,

ATM Standard Ammo is 120-450m Range @ 2Damage per Missile,
Lore wise it does have Artemis IV built in so that Justifies the Spread,
and TT and Lore really doesnt State the Velocity so im going with 240,

just assume the HE and ER Ammo is on back Order?

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 07 July 2017 - 09:47 PM.

[Zergling]

Andi Nagasia, on 07 July 2017 - 09:46 PM, said:

how so, i just used only TT Stats,

ATM Standard Ammo is 120-450m Range @ 2Damage per Missile,
Lore wise it does have Artemis IV built in so that Justifies the Spread,
and TT and Lore really doesnt State the Velocity so im going with 240,

just assume the HE and ER Ammo is on back Order?

It would have a niche, and it certainly could be better than what was in the PTS... it would just disappointing it wouldn't be the flexible weapon it should be.

Edited by Zergling, 07 July 2017 - 10:24 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 12:46 PM, said:

clans can use standard engines too. ideally the standard engine should compete with the CXL as well. which means the standard engine could use a pretty huge buff

PGI obviously doesn't care, probably because pretty much every Clan mech already has a CXL engine, or can equip one.

Quote

ISXL should also be able to survive side torso destruction which would allow the removal of IS structure quirks that were added because ISXL couldnt survive side torso destruction.

I still think an engine crit system needs to be implemented that way ISXL would still be slightly inferior to CXL/LFE. But only in the sense that ISXL has 3 crits per side torso and CXL/LFE have 2 crits per side torso. 4 total crits would destroy all three engines though.

So the ISXL would require a side torso destruction (3 crits) + 1 additional crit while the CXL/LFE would require a side torso destruction (2 crits) + 2 additional crits. Each engine crit would give a cumulative -20% heat, -10% speed penalty.

Since taking non-STD engines would be a great deal riskier, that would also be a huge relative buff for the STD engine because it would be immune to crits and could only be destroyed by taking out the CT.

"But waa waa RNG"

IMO the RNG is minimal and doesnt really matter.

Its a straight buff for the ISXL because it can survive a side torso destruction.

Its a comparative buff for the STD engine because itd be immune to crits

The RNG would only affect the CXL/LFE which are both arguably too good compared to the other two engine types anyway. Making them riskier to use seems fair to me.

I suspect PGI will stay on structure quirks and other already existing mechanics, instead of adding new mechanics. If they do anything at all.

I suppose the only hope on this matter is that PGI apparently mentioned "engine balance" at some point, but I am not sure how much one can really give on such talk.

[Weeny Machine]

Khobai, on 07 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

HMGs are gonna get nerfed its only a matter of time.

Just because the amount of dps they allow for 0 heat is a bit too high.

Which would be sad because it is a DPS weapon - it needs facetime. In a game with a lolalpha meta this would be balanced

[Lightfoot]

Zergling, on 07 July 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

Yeah... except you don't have a credible opinion on what is good and what is not.





Short Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to Streak SRMs
Long Range ATMs = Equal or inferior to LRMs

So the only version that would actually be worth implementing would be the medium range ATMs. This would be a totally different to the TT version of the ATM, which is a flexible weapon system that can be used at any range.

Short range ATMs do 3 damage per missile, SSRMs do 2 damage per missile.

Plus SSRMs are not really missiles at all, they are fuzzy dice rolls where each missile has a 14% to 16% chance to hit any mech section. True missiles have the highest probability of hitting the center mass of the target depending on deflection angle and target facing. As far as I am concerned PGI can just pull the SSRMs because they are a total flop if MWO is a Mech simulation. Fuzzy dice rolls do not belong in a sim, they belong in an arcade game.

As far as MWO's ATMs go, either they elevate high enough to clear most low to medium objects, or they have no minimum range. Otherwise they are hit with a double nerf and are mostly useless.

[DrxAbstract]

Pjwned, on 07 July 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

And since I wanted to respond to this separately, if at all:

If those stats suggest anything it actually says more about my piloting skills, which would make sense since I don't take the game super seriously and I often mess around with gimmicky builds (that usually end up being bad) or I just have the occasional unimpressive/bad game, which reflects on those stats. Additionally, if you look at my stats on the light mech leaderboards then I have a much better position there than on the global leaderboards, my position on the medium mech leaderboards is also a bit better, and the only real reason I have such a terrible position with heavy mechs is because I barely play them, which just kind of proves my point, but I guess a neutral W/L ratio and a positive K/D ratio with a nearly 300 average match score is garbage when it fits your narrative.

So basically you're saying arbitrarily insulting someone based on knowing little-to-nothing about them isn't the best way to go about things... Glad we cleared that up.

Do you honestly think you're the only one that does any of those things? Look bud, I get that you don't do so hot in some builds and you like to frankenmech - Who doesn't? But coming on here and telling me I build "bad mechs" simply because you don't like how YOUR AS7-S looked with an LFE is Grade A+ Douchebaggery. You need to realize people can post information without actually agreeing with, liking or disliking it--There is such a thing is indifference and neutrality. Not agreeing with my opinions and perspective regarding Mech Design is also not grounds for declaring me an incompetent builder. It's simple: You don't like how your AS7-S looks with an LFE then don't use it, but don't start running your mouth at me because of it.

Quote

I still consistently get near the top or top of the scoreboard the rest of the time though, and that wouldn't happen if my better builds were bad.

And I top scoreboards and Leaderboards with mine whenever I decide to legitimately participate (And be sober), as well as have a handful of builds on MetaMechs - Point in case: Don't run your mouth.

Quote

Everything that I said in response to your crappy, inefficient options made sense, so if I know better than you at my level then I think that says more about how little you know.

Sadly, you do not 'know better than me'. You simply have a different definition of efficiency and different ideas about how to build Mechs. That you don't agree with mine doesn't actually mean they're inefficient or 'bad' because you have no proof of--There is no empirical evidence stating my builds suck, especially when the 'factors' you're using to judge them carry different weight with different people. Had you actually cared about the same things I do, you'd have discovered using burn-time weapons with a relatively poor damage-per-heat ratio (Medium Lasers) in combination with snapshot weapons (AC20+SRM), inhibits your ability to twist for damage spread and snapshotting, but also adding additional heat to a build that already produces a high level of it that conflicts with your ability to utilize its primary weapon bundle (AC20+SRMs), which diminishes your overall effectiveness and firepower for the sake of appearing to possess more firepower when in reality you're putting out less overall damage. And then you scoff at me saying I prefer not to utilize the energy slots at all and use more heat sinks... On top of that, you think having 4 tons/5 tons of ammo for the AC20/SRMs is also 'inefficient' because... Well apparently it only takes 1-2 shots to kill anything with an AS7-S (Lol) and we didn't just have a Skill Tree introduced that allows people to increase the Armor and Internal Structure of their Mechs, meaning you could be facing several hundred more points of resistance to your weapons...

So no, you do not know better than me. You just believe your way of doing things is superior, but since you can't back that up it's just easier to call me a baddie and act like you're right anyway /shrug. I can post numbers and spreadsheets until the sun goes down, but the only way you're going to know the effectiveness of a build is by riding in it, end of story.

[Lances107]

I am just going to say it. The tech is bad all around on both sides of the fence accept for a few key items on the IS side. The stealth armor needs to be redone. I just do not see anyway around, the current set up not being abused. Especially with seismic so far down the skill tree. Rotary cannon alone, I do not see it as a threat, however patched in with a couple ultras could prove devastating. On the other hand the IS does not get the space/tonage we get on the clans side. So It may just end up as a dud. The rockets, I have not seen them in action, so its hard to judge where they are at in the scheme of things. This being said I am hearing they hit like a ton a bricks. If this is true than, either turn there damage in wide spread, or unnerf the clan srms. Really the only three areas I saw as a major problem. The rest of it will be fun to screw around with but I dont really see it making its way onto faction warfare or the elitist comp side of things.

[Pjwned]

DrxAbstract, on 08 July 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Sadly, you do not 'know better than me'. You simply have a different definition of efficiency and different ideas about how to build Mechs. That you don't agree with mine doesn't actually mean they're inefficient or 'bad' because you have no proof of--There is no empirical evidence stating my builds suck, especially when the 'factors' you're using to judge them carry different weight with different people.

The options that you presented for that build are terrible and when pressed on it you defended it as an improvement but now you're not defending it any longer.

Quote

Had you actually cared about the same things I do, you'd have discovered using burn-time weapons with a relatively poor damage-per-heat ratio (Medium Lasers) in combination with snapshot weapons (AC20+SRM), inhibits your ability to twist for damage spread and snapshotting, but also adding additional heat to a build that already produces a high level of it that conflicts with your ability to utilize its primary weapon bundle (AC20+SRMs), which diminishes your overall effectiveness and firepower for the sake of appearing to possess more firepower when in reality you're putting out less overall damage.

I'm aware of the issue with burn time on medium lasers paired with other snapshot weapons, but what I'm also aware of is how much of a giant, immobile target the Atlas is, which often enough means that staring at the enemy a bit longer with medium lasers is likely not going to make much of a difference as far as spreading damage.

Small pulse lasers would work too, like I mentioned earlier, or downgrading the engine also works as you (correctly, as it turns out) pointed out.

Quote

And then you scoff at me saying I prefer not to utilize the energy slots at all and use more heat sinks...

Because that's not a hot build without energy weapons, nor is it a hot build with a couple of medium lasers or small pulse lasers, which give you reliable hitscan damage that doesn't use up ammo that are also mounted in a good position on the CT.

Quote

On top of that, you think having 4 tons/5 tons of ammo for the AC20/SRMs is also 'inefficient' because...

I didn't say that carrying plenty of ammo is inefficient--other than an earlier comment which I then corrected--I said that after a certain level of firepower your ammo efficiency reserves starts to matter less, because it does.

Quote

Well apparently it only takes 1-2 shots to kill anything with an AS7-S (Lol)

Considering it takes 1-2 shots to kill most mechs, especially with those extra lasers, even when they do take survival nodes...

I didn't say that it takes only 1-2 shots to kill even the biggest, toughest mech (from the front, presumably) but I am saying now that yeah actually most mechs will die in 1-2 shots from an AS7-S, especially when you aim for the legs in a lot of cases.

Quote

and we didn't just have a Skill Tree introduced that allows people to increase the Armor and Internal Structure of their Mechs, meaning you could be facing several hundred more points of resistance to your weapons...

We also had a skill tree where it's pretty easy to boost your ammo by a decent amount without using extra tonnage or slots, as I pointed out earlier and which you summarily dismissed.

Quote

So no, you do not know better than me. You just believe your way of doing things is superior, but since you can't back that up it's just easier to call me a baddie and act like you're right anyway /shrug. I can post numbers and spreadsheets until the sun goes down, but the only way you're going to know the effectiveness of a build is by riding in it, end of story.

It's been hard to tell at times when a lot of your responses have been simply dismissing my points and saying your way is superior instead.

Edited by Pjwned, 08 July 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[Zergling]

Lightfoot, on 08 July 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Short range ATMs do 3 damage per missile, SSRMs do 2 damage per missile.

Plus SSRMs are not really missiles at all, they are fuzzy dice rolls where each missile has a 14% to 16% chance to hit any mech section. True missiles have the highest probability of hitting the center mass of the target depending on deflection angle and target facing. As far as I am concerned PGI can just pull the SSRMs because they are a total flop if MWO is a Mech simulation. Fuzzy dice rolls do not belong in a sim, they belong in an arcade game.

As far as MWO's ATMs go, either they elevate high enough to clear most low to medium objects, or they have no minimum range. Otherwise they are hit with a double nerf and are mostly useless.

It sounds like you want something that is considerably more powerful than Clan Streak SRMs.

See, I went and investigated what sort of spread ATMs had at close range; under 120 meters they would reliably focus all missiles into CT.
Combined with their high damage, that would be absolutely broken.

Without minimum range, the spread and damage of ATMs at close range means they would be ridiculously overpowered.


And I don't see people complaining about the regular Inner Sphere PPC being 'mostly useless', given it has a minimum range and can't clear low to medium objects.

Edited by Zergling, 08 July 2017 - 04:12 PM.

[Pjwned]

Zergling, on 08 July 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

It sounds like you want something that is considerably more powerful than Clan Streak SRMs.

See, I went and investigated what sort of spread ATMs had at close range; under 120 meters they would reliably focus all missiles into CT.
Combined with their high damage, that would be absolutely broken.

Without minimum range, the spread and damage of ATMs at close range means they would be ridiculously overpowered.

ATM superiority without minimum range would have more to do with SSRMs being bad though and not really so much about ATMs being so much better.

Quote

And I don't see people complaining about the regular Inner Sphere PPC being 'mostly useless', given it has a minimum range and can't clear low to medium objects.

PPC minimum range also needs to be revised actually, so that it doesn't do 0 damage at 89m.

[Athom83]

Lightfoot, on 08 July 2017 - 01:04 PM, said:

Short range ATMs do 3 damage per missile, SSRMs do 2 damage per missile.

Yet ATMs have a heavier cost per missile (0.5 tons per missile with an ATM3 up to 1.7 tons per missile with the ATM12) while SSRMs have a constant 0.5 tons per missile to launch.

[Zergling]

Pjwned, on 08 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

ATM superiority without minimum range would have more to do with SSRMs being bad though and not really so much about ATMs being so much better.

Reason Streak SRMs are bad is because of the 'noob tube' effect; they are much more powerful in the hands of bad players (especially when used against other bad players) than other weapons because of how easy they are to use.
Basically, they are a weapon where skill has much less influence on performance than other weapons; if they were made to be good when used by a good player, that would make bad players hilariously over-perform.

They are just a difficult weapon to balance, and ATMs with the spread they demonstrated in PTS would be even worse if they didn't have minimum range, because they would be considerably more powerful than Streak SRMs.

Like, they'd be overpowered in the hands of both good and bad players; you'd be seeing twin ATM12s doing 72 damage alpha at close range, almost all of which would be hitting CT.
That doesn't sound that bad compared to 6x SRM6 that can do the same for less weight, but SRMs have to be aimed while ATMs don't.

Side point: SRMs requires 6 missile hardpoints, significantly limiting the types of mechs that can carry them. Twin ATM12 only requires 2 hardpoints, which means just about any Clan mech with enough weight to spare can have that sort of close range alpha.

Pjwned, on 08 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

PPC minimum range also needs to be revised actually, so that it doesn't do 0 damage at 89m.

TBH, I'd like to see PPC (ditto for Light and Heavy) reduced to 30 meter minimum or removed altogether. It's just an unnecessary nerf to mediocre weapons.

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 06:35 PM, said:

If youre going to make ATMs worse than Streaks at short range then you might as well just not put ATMs in the game at all.

As I was talking about above, they really can't be more powerful than Streaks, because of the 'noob tube' effect.
Due to being a 'lock on / homing missiles' weapon, ATMs at close range are a weapon system that is as easy to use as Streaks. If they were more powerful than Streaks, they'll break the skill vs performance balance.

And due to being usable at longer ranges than Streaks, ATMs must be weaker at close range than Streaks, because the advantage of longer range can't come without a disadvantage.

This was why I didn't want ATMs to be a 'lock on / homing missiles' weapon from the start; they'd just be too difficult to balance, forcing heavy-handed measures like the minimum range they got slapped with.

Edited by Zergling, 08 July 2017 - 06:42 PM.

[Khobai]

Making ATMs bad so they dont make other bad weapons obsolete just adds more bad weapons to the game.

Quite frankly it would be better to write SRMs/Streaks off as a loss and make ATMs good. Then there would at least be one good weapon coming out of this whole mess.

Instead of more bad weapons.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 06:45 PM, said:

Making ATMs bad so they dont make other bad weapons obsolete just adds more bad weapons to the game.

Quite frankly it would be better to write SRMs/Streaks off as a loss and make ATMs good. Then there would at least be one good weapon coming out of this whole mess.

Instead of more bad weapons.

As I said, you can't make an easy to use weapon more powerful than Streaks, that will break the 'skill vs performance' balance.
Remember: Streak SRM spread got nerfed for a good reason; they were simply too powerful for how easy they were to use.

The way to fix ATMs would be to make them less easy to use, then they can be balanced versus regular SRMs. Bonus points if the same thing is done to Streak SRMs.


How could this be done? I have a few basic ideas.

First is to just remove ATM lock and homing altogether, just make them a dumb-fire, direct line-of-sight weapon.
That's require fairly high missile velocity to work, probably 1000 m/s or more. And they might not feel much like missiles.

The second is to make them somewhat like Streaks in MechWarrior 4; the missiles don't have a lock, instead they fly towards whatever was under the crosshair when the weapon was fired.
That would allow the damage to be focused to specific components, while bad aim will be punished because if the aim is off, the missiles will miss.

Edited by Zergling, 08 July 2017 - 06:53 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

As I said, you can't make an easy to use weapon more powerful than Streaks, that will break the 'skill vs performance' balance.

since when are streaks powerful?

the only time streaks are ever good is killing lights and lighter mediums.

theyre fairly useless against mechs that have armor. so yeah im fine with ATMs doing more damage than streaks. Im not seeing the problem.

light mechs will just have to avoid engaging mechs with ATMs in brawling range like they have to avoid mechs with streaks.

ATMs shouldnt have to suffer because SRMs/Streaks are bad.

Edited by Khobai, 08 July 2017 - 06:57 PM.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 06:53 PM, said:

since when are streaks powerful?

the only time streaks are ever good is killing lights and lighter mediums.

so yeah im fine with ATMs being better than streaks.

Before their spread got nerfed, Streaks used to be quite powerful, reliably hitting CT.

They weren't as good as other weapons in the hands of skilled players, but they were hilariously easy to use and quite powerful for players that weren't highly skilled, resulting in Streakcrows being extremely common.

Back then, the Stormcrow was regarded as one of the top 3 mechs in the game; in pub queue, this was almost entirely because of its Streak build.

Edited by Zergling, 08 July 2017 - 07:01 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Before their spread got nerfed, Streaks used to be quite powerful, reliably hitting CT

But their spread did get nerfed. And theyre not very good now outside 4v4 scout mode. Thats the point.

Holding ATMs back because of streaks is just gonna end up making ATMs bad. And then ATMs, LRMs, Streaks, and SRMs will all be bad weapons.

[Zergling]

Khobai, on 08 July 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

But their spread did get nerfed. And theyre not very good now outside 4v4 scout mode. Thats the point.

Holding ATMs back because of streaks is just gonna end up making ATMs bad. And then ATMs, LRMs, Streaks, and SRMs will all be bad weapons.

They got nerfed because they needed to be nerfed. ATMs can't be more powerful than Streaks without creating the same situation as pre-nerf Streaks.
Because ATMs have longer range than Streaks, they can't even be equally as powerful as Streaks at close range; they actually need to be even weaker within that range band. They also need to be weaker than LRMs at long range for the same reason.

And regular SRMs aren't bad weapons, not by a long shot.

Edited by Zergling, 08 July 2017 - 07:04 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

They got nerfed because they needed to be nerfed. ATMs can't be more powerful than Streaks without creating the same situation as pre-nerf Streaks.

But if ATMs cant be better than SRMs/Streaks at short range

And cant be better than LRMs at medium range

Then what role are ATMs supposed to have exactly? that makes no sense.

You are literally saying ATMs are setup for failure no matter what.