657 replies to this topic

[SaltiestRaccoon]

Conner Ward, on 28 June 2018 - 06:41 PM, said:

No, if you reduce Clan laser cooldown even more and reduce the damage, then Clan lasers would be completely inferior to IS. The only way this suggestion could be even close to reasonable is if the heat and burn time for Clan lasers is reduced significantly. Aside from a very few instances, I am killed more often by IS SRM alphas, or VERY low heat IS lasers, or IS lights with VERY generous durability quriks and VERY broken hitboxes. Not to mention how broken most MGs are (Clan and IS).

The best solution is to either allow mixed tech, or remove Clans from the game entirely.

Mixed tech seems like an elegant solution to me too. It's supposed to be 3057. Inner Sphere salvage and Clan isorla should definitely be available if desired. Of course that would have to come with a significant buff to all Clan mechs since IS could mount Clan weapons and just be 'Clan but better.'

[Y E O N N E]

Conner Ward, on 28 June 2018 - 06:41 PM, said:

No, if you reduce Clan laser cooldown even more and reduce the damage, then Clan lasers would be completely inferior to IS. The only way this suggestion could be even close to reasonable is if the heat and burn time for Clan lasers is reduced significantly. Aside from a very few instances, I am killed more often by IS SRM alphas, or VERY low heat IS lasers, or IS lights with VERY generous durability quriks and VERY broken hitboxes. Not to mention how broken most MGs are (Clan and IS).

Duration yes, heat no. IS ER lasers have the same damage-to-heat as Clan ER lasers, or are only a few hundredths off (AKA, near enough as makes no difference). That's always been one of the problems: Clan lasers on the heavier 'Mechs do not run hot enough to actually offset the gigantic numbers of DHS they can bring for the damage, so IS laser vomit 'Mechs of similar weight always run with inferior sustained output on the alpha strike. "Very low heat IS lasers" is almost always a placebo effect; Clans do more damage over time than the IS do, it just doesn't seem like it because it comes out in larger chunks with larger spacing.

[A Headless Chicken]

SaltiestRaccoon, on 28 June 2018 - 05:05 PM, said:

Go back, and read again.

Sorry that I don't know the game well enough to comment on your wonderfoo idea. Obviously I need to read up on map control, learn my maps and chassis and loadouts from scratch because there's no way a 'Mech with range can hold an overwatch position against players smart enough to not use bad cover!

So rather than talk about that, how many more mechanics do we add to the game before we can finally pronounce it dead?

[Agent of Change]

Andi Nagasia, on 28 June 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

low skill players will almost always lose vs high skill players,
-
we shouldnt reward low skill players just for being low skilled players,
-
we should reward beneficial Player actions in a match,
we should Encourage low skill players to become more skill full,
we should help players find groups and matches with balanced skill levels

if twisting is a necessary skill to learn in MWO, a Skill that will drastically increase survivability,
we should not reward players that stair and face hug enemy mechs, hoping to win with sheer volume of fire,

we should reward good habits, good play, good skills,
and not bad habits bad play and bad skill,

sooooo you completely agree with me. I swear people here are just desperate to be right that they'll argue against full agreement.

[Tesunie]

Andi Nagasia, on 28 June 2018 - 04:26 PM, said:

if twisting is a necessary skill to learn in MWO, a Skill that will drastically increase survivability,
we should not reward players that stair and face hug enemy mechs, hoping to win with sheer volume of fire,

What about builds that require stare time? Such as AC2 spam, LRMs (locks), etc?

Just as a counter example/statement.

Noguchi-san, on 28 June 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

And still PGI wants to nerf the Clan Laser Vom but not the structure and armor Quirks at the same time? Is not fair at all!

Did you miss where they already stated that they most likely WILL adjust IS health buffs, depending upon the results of the PTS and future PTS sessions?

First post of this thread:
"Before we close this out, there is one bit of feedback that has been brought up in the thread that that we wanted to address. The feedback that if these changes where to go into effect, a reduction in overall damage output on the clan side, the IS side with generous defensive quirks would be too much HP to overcome in standard engagement situations. This is something that we acknowledge may be a point that needs looking into with the changes to Clan weapons. We will be keeping a very close eye on through the initial PTS testing and may introduce changes that address this point in future testing depending on the results we find from this upcoming initial PTS."

Conner Ward, on 28 June 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

The massive (I assume electrical) servos and myomer bundles, which are hundreds of years ahead of our current technology and powered by a Fusion reactor (nearly limitless electrical output) should be able to move a 1 to 10 ton weapon very quickly. Modern battle tanks move their main guns pretty damned fast.



The BATTLETECH Technical Readouts give height information for each Mech, so the size of the Mechs should not be up for interpretation.

Do also consider the preciseness of convergence. It can't just "snap" into a perfect alignment, it's normally inched into place. The bulk movement of the weapon could be fast, but then it would slow down when it gets closer to the final position. Also, that mass will still take a bit to move, which means it typically takes time...



As for mech sized, I do agree with you.

Noguchi-san, on 28 June 2018 - 06:10 PM, said:

@Tetsunie - you should rethink and take the clan side also in your consideration. Your way of thinking is so one sided!

I've only given general examples so far. However, with a more indepth version of the system, Clan weapons could be adjusted to start to "bloom" at fewer weapons. Targeting computers would help.

I haven't provided much in the way of examples yet for Clan tech. Doesn't mean it hasn't been considered. And I really think it would be asking a little much to demand me to do examples for "every weapon/mech in the game". That... would be a lot of work to post up for an idea I recently just came up with.

Though, I do wonder what you consider is truly "one sided" with my thinking/system. If you have specific concerns, please mention them. I'll try my best to address them.

PS: Why does everyone seem to write my name as Tetsunie? It seems to be a common occurrence.

Also, I'm not following a thread as active as this. If you really want my attention, can you please quote me? Otherwise, your comment might get lost in the web.

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 07:20 PM, said:

What about builds that require stare time? Such as AC2 spam, LRMs (locks), etc?

AC2 range: optimal 720m, Clan version 900m. With range tree, UACs easily get the same range. If you're not abusing this max range then you're playing it wrong. It's no surprise an Ultraviolet (lol crap Dire Wolf) or even a Mauler MX90 with AC2s can pull 2k damage QP games despite being unable to twist because you're using the weapon system well outside the effective range of return fire. If you end up infighting with AC2s by choice and die, you done messed up, git gud. If you are forced to get in close with AC2s, then your opponent probably knows how to videogame.

As for LRMs, who needs to twist? Just stand still behind a wall oblivious to everything because LRMing is obviously contributing. If you really want your locks, unlock your arms, lock your torso movement and dab.

You would be very surprised, but pinpoint alpha builds twist the most because after one shot they are on a heat throttle and weapon cooldown.

Players need to get better - twisting is one way to prolong your armor, but what would be better is knowing the optimal role of the weapon they are trying to use. Too bad most of the players couldn't care less.

Edit to answer Andi: Gents, twisting is a technique. Skill is learning when is appropriate to use the technique. You should reward this skill in reading an encounter.

You can't say just learning to twist makes everyone good, because you are giving up damage and positioning if you twist needlessly.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 28 June 2018 - 07:41 PM.

[Noguchi-san]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 07:20 PM, said:

What about builds that require stare time? Such as AC2 spam, LRMs (locks), etc?

Just as a counter example/statement.



Did you miss where they already stated that they most likely WILL adjust IS health buffs, depending upon the results of the PTS and future PTS sessions?

First post of this thread:
"Before we close this out, there is one bit of feedback that has been brought up in the thread that that we wanted to address. The feedback that if these changes where to go into effect, a reduction in overall damage output on the clan side, the IS side with generous defensive quirks would be too much HP to overcome in standard engagement situations. This is something that we acknowledge may be a point that needs looking into with the changes to Clan weapons. We will be keeping a very close eye on through the initial PTS testing and may introduce changes that address this point in future testing depending on the results we find from this upcoming initial PTS."



Do also consider the preciseness of convergence. It can't just "snap" into a perfect alignment, it's normally inched into place. The bulk movement of the weapon could be fast, but then it would slow down when it gets closer to the final position. Also, that mass will still take a bit to move, which means it typically takes time...



As for mech sized, I do agree with you.



I've only given general examples so far. However, with a more indepth version of the system, Clan weapons could be adjusted to start to "bloom" at fewer weapons. Targeting computers would help.

I haven't provided much in the way of examples yet for Clan tech. Doesn't mean it hasn't been considered. And I really think it would be asking a little much to demand me to do examples for "every weapon/mech in the game". That... would be a lot of work to post up for an idea I recently just came up with.

Though, I do wonder what you consider is truly "one sided" with my thinking/system. If you have specific concerns, please mention them. I'll try my best to address them.

PS: Why does everyone seem to write my name as Tetsunie? It seems to be a common occurrence.

Also, I'm not following a thread as active as this. If you really want my attention, can you please quote me? Otherwise, your comment might get lost in the web.

One sided because you are mostly addressing the "oh so OP" clan tech!

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 28 June 2018 - 07:30 PM, said:

AC2 range: optimal 720m, Clan version 900m. With range tree, UACs easily get the same range. If you're not abusing this max range then you're playing it wrong. It's no surprise an Ultraviolet (lol crap Dire Wolf) or even a Mauler MX90 with AC2s can pull 2k damage QP games despite being unable to twist because you're using the weapon system well outside the effective range of return fire. If you end up infighting with AC2s by choice and die, you done messed up, git gud. If you are forced to get in close with AC2s, then your opponent probably knows how to videogame.

As for LRMs, who needs to twist? Just stand still behind a wall oblivious to everything because LRMing is obviously contributing. If you really want your locks, unlock your arms, lock your torso movement and dab.

You would be very surprised, but pinpoint alpha builds twist the most because after one shot they are on a heat throttle and weapon cooldown.

Players need to get better - twisting is one way to prolong your armor, but what would be better is knowing the optimal role of the weapon they are trying to use. Too bad most of the players couldn't care less.

Edit to answer Andi: Gents, twisting is a technique. Skill is learning when is appropriate to use the technique. You should reward this skill in reading an encounter.

You can't say just learning to twist makes everyone good, because you are giving up damage and positioning if you twist needlessly.

You seemed to have missed what I was talking about.

Take that AC2 mech, even at long ranges, and pit it against a poking Gauss/PPC build. Those can each shoot and move, or they can shoot and twist. The AC2 build needs time on target to deal it's damage effectively, thus stare time.

And I find AC2s fairly effective in a brawl, and can pump out a lot of damage quickly (which is the intent). My AC2 builds can't compete with sniper builds, so often times I'm forced into a brawl with them to really do anything significant.

And once again, you prove how powerful (and unbalanced) high alpha builds are. Twisting helps with defense. High alpha builds can shoot and then twist (very common to do). They deal a lot of damage very quickly. So, they have powerful offense combined with powerful defense.

FYI: I also didn't say anything about twisting being a skill or not. I just pointed out that there are some builds/weapons that can't really afford to twist, and if we want them to be viable, then we need to address some things.

[Y E O N N E]

AC/2 builds are area denial builds. ERLL and ERPPC builds are counters to AC/2 builds. But the one does not entirely replace the other; an ERLL 'Mech posted up is not going to stop a push the way an AC/2 boat will.

That said, UAC/2 boats specifically can compete with ERLL builds, because they can rip out enough rounds such that the damage to one spotis comparable to ERLL. This is the basis upon which the UAC/2 Mauler and HBK-IIC were competitive with the likes of 2x cERPPC and 5x ERLL builds.

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 07:54 PM, said:

You seemed to have missed what I was talking about.

Take that AC2 mech, even at long ranges, and pit it against a poking Gauss/PPC build. Those can each shoot and move, or they can shoot and twist. The AC2 build needs time on target to deal it's damage effectively, thus stare time.

And I find AC2s fairly effective in a brawl, and can pump out a lot of damage quickly (which is the intent). My AC2 builds can't compete with sniper builds, so often times I'm forced into a brawl with them to really do anything significant.

And once again, you prove how powerful (and unbalanced) high alpha builds are. Twisting helps with defense. High alpha builds can shoot and then twist (very common to do). They deal a lot of damage very quickly. So, they have powerful offense combined with powerful defense.

FYI: I also didn't say anything about twisting being a skill or not. I just pointed out that there are some builds/weapons that can't really afford to twist, and if we want them to be viable, then we need to address some things.

And if you're caught in the open with sustained fire against burst fire (Gauss PPC, Vomit), do you stay there and be a sitting duck if it keeps peeking? Did it cross your mind to shift out of its FOV and go for different targets? Maybe continue firing at it if it only twists but is still in sight since your sustain is still much greater? You have 800+m of range available to you and you're telling me you will be losing trades to vomit? Shoot its side torso off to hamper its heat management? Shoot the Gauss side torso to make it explode?

The vomit has more burst and pinpoint than you but your DPS is leagues above what is has. You need to get into a situation to play to that. What you have just said shows that you only understand Rock, Paper, Scissors in isolation from each other and not as components of a game with strengths and weaknesses.

I don't deny you can brawl with AC2s when push comes to shove, but you would also tend to get deleted fast against burst/focus fire.

There are builds, mechs and weapons loadouts that need to twist, there are those that do not need to twist and wiggle instead, and there are those who can play into situations where they can just stare you down with impunity. Again, you need to understand the game in more depth. It is impossible for me to take a flawed new mechanic to add further complication and repercussions to the game and accept it, especially when your lack of knowledge of the game at its very core is showing.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 28 June 2018 - 08:15 PM.

[Tesunie]

Noguchi-san, on 28 June 2018 - 07:45 PM, said:

One sided because you are mostly addressing the "oh so OP" clan tech!

...

Um... How so?

I actually didn't specify in any of my fire control examples rather the weapons discussed where Clan or IS (though I can see it being implyed as IS as I didn't say ER or C Gauss, etc). The fire control system would affect all mechs, and could be based more upon "base expected alpha damage" even, similar to what GH tries to do or also the proposed "energy draw" system was intended to do. However, instead of affecting heat (which, FYI, Clans tend to be better at dealing with due to smaller heat sink size for DHS), it affects accuracy. This would affect both sides equally, and may be able to remove most of the quirks on many mechs.


Or... are you talking about how I mentioned that it was stated already in this thread that if Clan damage went down, so would IS health quirks? Which, I don't understand how that exactly is one sided...

Or... were you pointing out the convergence and the unrealistic nature of it being instant rather than some form of delayed?

Or... maybe agreeing with someone about mech size was purely an IS favored post with no consideration to Clans?

I mean... what specifically is "one sided" about what you quoted? There was a lot there, and none of it said "Inner Sphere" specifically within it... You may want to be a little less vague and a little more clear about what you mean. Because right now, I'm very confused.... which means I can't say anything about your point of contention.

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 28 June 2018 - 08:04 PM, said:

And if you're caught in the open with sustained fire against burst fire (Gauss PPC, Vomit), do you stay there and be a sitting duck if it keeps peeking? Did it cross your mind to shift out of its FOV and go for different targets? Maybe continue firing at it if it only twists but is still in sight since your sustain is still much greater? You have 800+m of range available to you and you're telling me you will be losing trades to vomit? Shoot its side torso off to hamper its heat management? Shoot the Gauss side torso to make it explode?

The vomit has more burst and pinpoint than you but your DPS is leagues above what is has. You need to get into a situation to play to that. What you have just said shows that you only understand Rock, Paper, Scissors in isolation from each other and not as components of a game with strengths and weaknesses.

I don't deny you can brawl with AC2s when push comes to shove, but you would also tend to get deleted fast against burst/focus fire.

There are builds, mechs and weapons loadouts that need to twist, there are those that do not need to twist and wiggle instead, and there are those who can play into situations where they can just stare you down with impunity. Again, you need to understand the game in more depth.

Okay. Here is a situation for you.

Quad AC2 vs Dual Gauss at long range poke warfare.

They each poke out and shoot. The Gauss lands basically 30 points of damage into a single location on the Quad AC2 build. The AC2 build shoots back, spreading two volleys of AC2s into two separate location before each relocate behind cover.
AC2 build has taken 30 points into a single location, meanwhile the dual Gauss took 16 points of damage, probably in two separate locations due to the dual Gauss being able to twist after shooting.

In that situation, the only advantage the quad AC2 build will have, is if it finds the Gauss user and brawls him to death via DPS compared to alpha. (And that's only considering a small alpha.)

In a different situation, that AC2 build, as you already mentioned, needs to stare down a high alpha build. The alpha build takes off a side torso of the AC2 built (to try and be fair), while the AC2 build peppers damage all over the twisting alpha build. Now, with possibly half it's weapons gone from an alpha or two (presuming movement and possibly cover, even at mid range), the AC2 build is at a disadvantage.


I am in no way saying that twisting should be removed from the game. I'm not. But at the same time there should be able to be a place for DPS builds where they can do something effectively, but due to their nature they can't effectively twist. So, how do we address this? (For the record, I don't know.)

I only was mentioning it as a play style that doesn't involve twisting, because it effectively can't.

To reference back to what I was remarking on:
"if twisting is a necessary skill to learn in MWO, a Skill that will drastically increase survivability,
we should not reward players that stair and face hug enemy mechs, hoping to win with sheer volume of fire,"

Which, I just wanted to point out that there are weapons (and play styles) that should be rewarded and have a place in the game. Thus, my example of an AC2 boat.

[Y E O N N E]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

Okay. Here is a situation for you.

Quad AC2 vs Dual Gauss at long range poke warfare.

They each poke out and shoot. The Gauss lands basically 30 points of damage into a single location on the Quad AC2 build. The AC2 build shoots back, spreading two volleys of AC2s into two separate location before each relocate behind cover.
AC2 build has taken 30 points into a single location, meanwhile the dual Gauss took 16 points of damage, probably in two separate locations due to the dual Gauss being able to twist after shooting.

In that situation, the only advantage the quad AC2 build will have, is if it finds the Gauss user and brawls him to death via DPS compared to alpha. (And that's only considering a small alpha.).

Why are you not using 5x AC/2 for this comparison? Clan or IS, that's more a more equivalent exchange in resources than 4x AC/2 and 2x Gauss. And, in the time it takes that dual Gauss 'Mech to expose, acquire you as his target, spool his Gauss, calculate deflection angle if necessary, fire, and return to cover...you will have put three or four volleys into his chest as he necessarily looks your way. Congratulations, you've won this trade!

[The Lighthouse]

So, when are we going to have PTS? Like I am baffled we still do not have any concrete date...

[A Headless Chicken]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 08:20 PM, said:

Okay. Here is a situation for you.

Quad AC2 vs Dual Gauss at long range poke warfare.

They each poke out and shoot. The Gauss lands basically 30 points of damage into a single location on the Quad AC2 build. The AC2 build shoots back, spreading two volleys of AC2s into two separate location before each relocate behind cover.
AC2 build has taken 30 points into a single location, meanwhile the dual Gauss took 16 points of damage, probably in two separate locations due to the dual Gauss being able to twist after shooting.

In that situation, the only advantage the quad AC2 build will have, is if it finds the Gauss user and brawls him to death via DPS compared to alpha. (And that's only considering a small alpha.)

In a different situation, that AC2 build, as you already mentioned, needs to stare down a high alpha build. The alpha build takes off a side torso of the AC2 built (to try and be fair), while the AC2 build peppers damage all over the twisting alpha build. Now, with possibly half it's weapons gone from an alpha or two (presuming movement and possibly cover, even at mid range), the AC2 build is at a disadvantage.


I am in no way saying that twisting should be removed from the game. I'm not. But at the same time there should be able to be a place for DPS builds where they can do something effectively, but due to their nature they can't effectively twist. So, how do we address this? (For the record, I don't know.)

I only was mentioning it as a play style that doesn't involve twisting, because it effectively can't.

To reference back to what I was remarking on:
"if twisting is a necessary skill to learn in MWO, a Skill that will drastically increase survivability,
we should not reward players that stair and face hug enemy mechs, hoping to win with sheer volume of fire,"

Which, I just wanted to point out that there are weapons (and play styles) that should be rewarded and have a place in the game. Thus, my example of an AC2 boat.

Here we go again.

2 Gauss against AC2s in extreme range will not deal 30 damage because Gauss has 660m optimal range. The time an Assault 'Mech capable of mounting 2 Gauss takes to crest and peek is enough for almost 3 bursts/6 double taps (if lucky) of AC/UAC fire. Because it is pinpoint, you can even direct the shots to CT/ST. Get your scenarios and matchups right.

Then now, staring down a Vomit build. I would like to have you know that the 'Mechs that are the targets of this balance pass have the biggest, easiest to isolate CT hitboxes around. The Dire Wolf can hardly twist, while the Deathstrike has CT hitboxes that can be hit even as it twists 90 degrees away from its attacker. Even if you shoot a twisting target with good hitboxes, you can actually aim! Your damage is targeted! You are actually dealing some damage! You can focus on their ST/Arm/Leg or even cool off and wait for them to twist back to dakka their face! All while moving and backing into cover because pinpoint. You assuming that the AC2 'Mech will lose an ST is misguided because when the lasers burn, I can twist to wash the lasers, then enjoy free fire over the next 5 or 6 seconds as the enemy twists. Learn the game.

I would like to repeat that this is the issue with the community. People mouth off buzzwords with no regard for the subtleties and techniques behind it. These same people then attempt to implement their own poorly thought out mechanics in the hopes of bettering the game when they're only killing it faster. I really do not wish to be this harsh on people, but as a player who can perform consistently in almost any build, it feels I have to be.

[Tesunie]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 June 2018 - 08:50 PM, said:

Why are you not using 5x AC/2 for this comparison? Clan or IS, that's more a more equivalent exchange in resources than 4x AC/2 and 2x Gauss. And, in the time it takes that dual Gauss 'Mech to expose, acquire you as his target, spool his Gauss, calculate deflection angle if necessary, fire, and return to cover...you will have put three or four volleys into his chest as he necessarily looks your way. Congratulations, you've won this trade!

Most mechs I know of can't effectively mount five AC2s. I was thinking more along the lines of a build similar to my Quad AC2 Sunspider or a Dual Gauss Catapult kinda weight class (or a Jagermech for each). Things that are rather mobile still.

As for your example, the AC2 has the same issue of spotting/choosing the target, lining up and (with exclusion to Gauss charge) fire. I will add a note, if the Gauss user (and the AC2 user) knows where the other already is, then the Gauss user could be charging their cannons as they poke around the corner, shoot and twist, spreading the AC2 damage.

AC2s are also "spread" weapons, as in they shoot a lot of little rounds that can be spread across a target.
Gauss are pin point weapons, which you can't effectively "twist" the damage to begin with, and it typically applies it's damage to the same location.

So, even if the AC2s do land more shots onto the opposing target here, it's more likely to be spread across more sections of armor. This typically leads to less effective damage (same issue with LRM spread, SRMs, MRMs, LBx, longer beam duration lasers...). By the end of that engagement, the AC2 build might have a smidge more damage, but the dual Gauss will most likely land their damage in more effective locations.

This is an age old argument. It's the DPS vs Pin Point Alpha Damage argument. Their are cases for each, I'm just mentioning that we shouldn't exclude these styles of weapons/play when we talk about "skill" (twisting). How do they fit into the "shoot and twist" or "run and gun/shoot, scoot and twist"? Should we call them "bad skill" builds? If so, why even have "bad skill" weapons in the game?

No, I'm not literally advocating their removal. I'm just asking, with all this talk of twisting as a defensive motion... how do these builds that can't exactly effectively twist work out/compare? Should we give them a place and reward for good use? Or should we only balance everything to the "almighty twist defense" (I'm being a little sarcastic here, read it with a "VOICE OF GOD" sound please)?

[Y E O N N E]

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

Most mechs I know of can't effectively mount five AC2s. I was thinking more along the lines of a build similar to my Quad AC2 Sunspider or a Dual Gauss Catapult kinda weight class (or a Jagermech for each). Things that are rather mobile still.

As for your example, the AC2 has the same issue of spotting/choosing the target, lining up and (with exclusion to Gauss charge) fire. I will add a note, if the Gauss user (and the AC2 user) knows where the other already is, then the Gauss user could be charging their cannons as they poke around the corner, shoot and twist, spreading the AC2 damage.

AC2s are also "spread" weapons, as in they shoot a lot of little rounds that can be spread across a target.
Gauss are pin point weapons, which you can't effectively "twist" the damage to begin with, and it typically applies it's damage to the same location.

So, even if the AC2s do land more shots onto the opposing target here, it's more likely to be spread across more sections of armor. This typically leads to less effective damage (same issue with LRM spread, SRMs, MRMs, LBx, longer beam duration lasers...). By the end of that engagement, the AC2 build might have a smidge more damage, but the dual Gauss will most likely land their damage in more effective locations.

This is an age old argument. It's the DPS vs Pin Point Alpha Damage argument. Their are cases for each, I'm just mentioning that we shouldn't exclude these styles of weapons/play when we talk about "skill" (twisting). How do they fit into the "shoot and twist" or "run and gun/shoot, scoot and twist"? Should we call them "bad skill" builds? If so, why even have "bad skill" weapons in the game?

No, I'm not literally advocating their removal. I'm just asking, with all this talk of twisting as a defensive motion... how do these builds that can't exactly effectively twist work out/compare? Should we give them a place and reward for good use? Or should we only balance everything to the "almighty twist defense" (I'm being a little sarcastic here, read it with a "VOICE OF GOD" sound please)?

This is simply wrong.

If you are playing AC/2 properly, you are already exposed, at around 900 meters, because that's what it has to do to maximize its utility in its role. The Gauss has to expose against you, which gives you the advantage in firing solution time. You do not have to spool up, you begin doing damage immediately, before the enemy's guns even clear the ridge. The damage will not spread, because your would-be assailant can't acquire you if he's not looking for you and he has to keep his Gauss trained while he charges them unless he peaked barely, you fail to move, and then he can pre-charge and let fly on the next go.

The AC/2 boat has every advantage here.

[A Headless Chicken]

We're not advocating the removal of anything but correcting a whole list of misconceptions that you, who wishes to implement a new system to do with bloom and convergence, have about a handful of weapon systems, and one measly technique within the videogame.

EDIT 1: Why would you run a 2 Gauss Catapult starved for speed and ammo when a Warhammer does it better, and a 4 AC2 Sunspider when the Night Gyr does 6 with better sustain and JJs...

EDIT 2: If I have my crosshair on you, the AC2 fire is pinpoint. If I am leading a shot, the AC2 accuracy is subject to convergence, but it does NOT wildly spray as you imply.

Edited by A Headless Chicken, 28 June 2018 - 09:17 PM.

[Tesunie]

A Headless Chicken, on 28 June 2018 - 08:58 PM, said:

Here we go again.

2 Gauss against AC2s in extreme range will not deal 30 damage because Gauss has 660m optimal range. The time an Assault 'Mech capable of mounting 2 Gauss takes to crest and peek is enough for almost 3 bursts/6 double taps (if lucky) of AC/UAC fire. Because it is pinpoint, you can even direct the shots to CT/ST. Get your scenarios and matchups right.

Then now, staring down a Vomit build. I would like to have you know that the 'Mechs that are the targets of this balance pass have the biggest, easiest to isolate CT hitboxes around. The Dire Wolf can hardly twist, while the Deathstrike has CT hitboxes that can be hit even as it twists 90 degrees away from its attacker. Even if you shoot a twisting target with good hitboxes, you can actually aim! Your damage is targeted! You are actually dealing some damage! You can focus on their ST/Arm/Leg or even cool off and wait for them to twist back to dakka their face! All while moving and backing into cover because pinpoint. You assuming that the AC2 'Mech will lose an ST is misguided because when the lasers burn, I can twist to wash the lasers, then enjoy free fire over the next 5 or 6 seconds as the enemy twists. Learn the game.

I would like to repeat that this is the issue with the community. People mouth off buzzwords with no regard for the subtleties and techniques behind it. These same people then attempt to implement their own poorly thought out mechanics in the hopes of bettering the game when they're only killing it faster. I really do not wish to be this harsh on people, but as a player who can perform consistently in almost any build, it feels I have to be.

Though I'm thinking we are a little off topic about this point... I would like to comment that assaults aren't the only things able to do dual Gauss or quad AC2s. I know the Sunspider (81 KPH 70 ton clan mech) can get quad AC2s on it as well as dual Gauss (with 5+ tons of ammo if you don't take any other weapons).

This balance pass is about overall Clan lasers and Gauss, not any specific chassis. It's not a direct target of the Direwolf or MC MKII.

As for twisting, as I said it's a trade off for a DPS mech. Do you twist, or do you keep the damage going? If you twist, you can't deal damage, and DPS is your thing not a high alpha.


Well, so far I have as of yet to see any concepts nor ideas come from you besides "buff everything else, never nerf", which has already been demonstrated as "not going to be effective" on so many levels. Some of us are at least trying to be constructive by providing alternative solutions.


PS: I've done the AC2 thing vs a dual H Gauss mech... Twisting did not save me. It just lost me my side torso that much faster, if HSR was even nice enough to register that I twisted... (Then again, heavy mech vs assault mech... not exactly a good place to be in. Then again, several of my teammates vs an assault mech wasn't too bad to sacrifice myself to sometimes...)

[Y E O N N E]

And, again, you can amplify this effect in your favor if you swap to Ultra AC/2.

The JM6-DD is very strong with 5x AC/2. The MAL-MX90 with 6x AC/2.

Tesunie, on 28 June 2018 - 09:12 PM, said:

As for twisting, as I said it's a trade off for a DPS mech. Do you twist, or do you keep the damage going? If you twist, you can't deal damage, and DPS is your thing not a high alpha.

Take a 'Mech that can both continue to DPS while also spreading damage...like the Marauder.

Not every 'Mech is going to behave the same in every scenario even with the same loadout.

Quote

PS: I've done the AC2 thing vs a dual H Gauss mech... Twisting did not save me. It just lost me my side torso that much faster, if HSR was even nice enough to register that I twisted... (Then again, heavy mech vs assault mech... not exactly a good place to be in. Then again, several of my teammates vs an assault mech wasn't too bad to sacrifice myself to sometimes...)

You were too close.