36 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Preface:

In my MWO career, I’ve always had a few thoughts about the weapon system. Right now it’s kinda homogenous in application, and by that I mean it’s just weapon series with small gimmicks deriving from one another.

Case and point, UAC to ACs – sure UACs can double tap, but it’s basically the same application because the Jam System is just a gimmick. The RAC is a refreshing change, but it’s just not that good in execution. The LBX shotguns, without ammo switching are just inferior versions of AC due to spread damage. CACs are placeholders not a lot of people would actually consider using.

The Lasers might be defined between power, such as Small, Medium, Large, but either way it’s just poke. Laser brawls were phased outs due to nerfs, hell even the Medium Lasers were nerfed just because they were popular.

To be fair, IS lasers are kinda defined, the Clan Lasers specifically are relegated to just poking, And I want to remedy that.

Missiles are kinda alright conceptually, but execution of LRMs and ATMs is poor. LRMs are balanced at the low level, but while it’s understandable it remains **** and a laughing stock. ATMs are just too damn powerful at one range, useless at others; it’s just a gimmicky LRMs that doesn’t have the automatic Indirect Fire. SRMs are just not good compared to alternative to push to brawling. IS SSRM has no business being at the same range as standard IS SRMs, and the MRM spread is just overkill.

I’m not a balance guru or anything, but if I could define how weapon fits within the game, it would be this way.

ENERGY:

CLAN

The idea with Clan goes like this:

ER Lasers are the standard, they are for long range poke, they mix well for many weapons. Pulse Lasers are for ergonomics, they deal the SAME damage as ER Lasers for less duration, less heat, faster cooldown, they are more sustainable for brawls or DPS role -- basically you pay twice the ton for the IS-feel Lasers with better range. Heavy Lasers are for heavy damage, they deal heavier damage, has longer duration and cooldown, shorter range.

Quote

Micro Lasers: (Now Laser MGs)

Micro-Laser DPS: 1.2
Micro-Laser Damage: 0.12
Micro-Laser ROF: 10
Micro-Laser HPS: 0.45
Micro-Laser Range: 250m – 540m

Micro-Pulse-Laser DPS: 1.6
Micro-Pulse-Laser Damage: 0.16
Micro-Pulse-Laser ROF: 10
Micro-Pulse-Laser HPS: 0.64
Micro-Pulse-Laser Range: 150m – 330m

> Micro-Lasers are Unlimited-Ammo MGs.
> Micro-Lasers are NOT CRIT weapons.

The thought is simple, the Micro Lasers, that means both ER Micro, and Micro Pulse now function as unlimited ammo MGs, but they generate heat. Why? Because they suck as what they currently are. By giving diversity to “MG” types, at least there’s a variety to choose from. The Micro Lasers excel in raw damage and pin-point damage, though the MGs has no heat and has longer ranges. This also serves Micro Lasers to be paired much better with MGs especially for lights.

The nicest things i could think for the low-capacity mechs is diversity of equipment, because sure as hell they can't really use much of the heavy weapons. Having 5 "MG"s to choose from is a boon, sure as hell this weapon ain't being picked before when it was just a laser.

Quote

Flamers:

Flamer DPS: 1.0 ~ 3.0
Flamer Damage: 0.1 ~ 0.3
Flamer ROF: 10
Flamer Range: 120m
Flamer Heat/DPS: 4.5 ~ 9.0
Flamer Heat: 1.0 ~ 3.0
Flamer Max Damage Duration: 5
Flamer Heat Penalty Duration: 5

> Flamer DPS increase over time.

Flamers are a joke. While sure it's effective for shutting, not that much effective in damage, so much so that it doesn't really synergize with most weapons. So here's a different approach, what if Flamers increase their DPS over time? Okay so there's a flamer gauge right? You build it up, and shooting it over redline means now the flamer is now hotter to fire? But the bonus should be that, it's also as damaging as it is hot.

Quote

C-ERSL

Damage: 5
Duration: 0.95s (From 1.10)
Heat: 3.5
Cooldown: 3.5s
Range: 250m – 500m
GH Limit: 6

C-ERML

Damage: 6 (from 7)
Duration: 1.10s
Heat: 5.4 (From 6.3)
Cooldown: 3.45s (from 4.5)
GH Limit: 6

C-ERLL

Damage: 10 (from 11)
Duration: 1.25s
Heat: 9.8 (From 10.8)
Cooldown: 3.85s (from 5.0)
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

Quote

C-SPL

Damage: 5
Duration: 0.7s
Heat: 2.50
Cooldown: 2.25s
Range: 165m – 330m
GH Limit: 6

C-MPL

Damage: 6 (from 7)
Duration: 0.8s
Heat: 4 (From 4.75)
Cooldown: 2.80s (from 4.5)
GH Limit: 5 (From 6)

C-LPL

Damage: 10 (from 11)
Duration: 1.00s
Heat: 8.35 (From 10.8)
Cooldown: 3.00s (from 5.0)
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

Quote

C-HSL

Damage: 6 (from 6.5)
Duration: 1.00s (from 1.20)
Heat: 2.8 (From 3.5)
Cooldown: 2.8s (from 3.5)
GH Limit: 6

C-HML

Damage: 9 (from 10)
Duration: 1.10s (From 1.45)
Heat: 5.4 (From 6.3)
Cooldown: 3.45s (from 4.5)

C-HLL

Damage: 16 (from 18)
Duration: 1.35s (From 1.55)
Heat: 14.2 (From 16)
Cooldown: 5.15s (from 5.75)

IS

The IS now has a bit more defined weapons. It's ER and Pulse Lasers have equal damage, and this is by design, ER versions serve as for long-range damage, pseudo Heavy lasers for IS, while Pulse lasers are more sustainable.

But what of Standard Lasers if they have less damage? They also have less heat, shorter duration, while longer duration. The IS laser serves as the bread-and-butter of most weapons, that it's supposed to mix well with other weapons readily.

The Small Lasers has substantial buffs, mostly range buffs to make them competitive versus the Medium Lasers, and to make them worthwhile for the lights that would be most likely are fielding them if they weren’t trash. The sub-5 damage is already not a good prospect for the Small Lasers, but with good range at least they are usable.

Quote

SL

Damage: 3.5 (from 3.25)
Duration: 0.7s (from 0.75)
Heat: 0.9 (From 1.1)
Cooldown: 2.25s
Range: 180m – 360m

ML

Damage: 5
Duration: 0.80s (From 0.90)
Heat: 2.9 (From 3.4)
Cooldown: 2.80s (from 3.5)

LL

Damage: 9
Duration: 1.0s (From 1.10)
Heat: 6.25 (From 7)
Cooldown: 3.00s (from 3.10s)

Quote

SPL

Damage: 4 (from 3.5)
Duration: 0.40s (from 0.5s)
Heat: 1.5 (From 1.35)
Range: 165m – 330m
Cooldown: 1.90s

MPL

Damage: 6
Duration: 0.5s (From 0.6s)
Heat: 3.5 (from 3.8)
Cooldown: 2.6s (from 2.8s)

LPL

Damage: 10
Duration: 0.60s (from 0.67)
Heat: 7.0 (From 7.25)
Cooldown: 3.00s

Quote

ERSL

Damage: 4 (from 3.5)
Duration: 0.95s
Heat: 2.7 (From 2.2)
Range: 220m – 440m
Cooldown: 2.8s (from 3.5)

ERML

Damage: 6 (from 5)
Duration: 1.10s
Heat: 5.4 (From 4.5)
Cooldown: 3.00s (from 4)

ERLL

Damage: 10
Duration: 1.25s
Heat: 9.0 (From 8)
Cooldown: 3.8s (from 3.4)

PPCs

Quote

C-ERPPC

Damage: 9 + 1.5 + 1.5
Speed: 1900 (from 1500)
Heat: 11.5 (From 14.5)
Range [m]: 810 - 1620
Cooldown [s]: 4.5 (from 5.0)
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

The Clan variant always had been powerful from the get go, with 10 damage + 5 splash damage weighing only 6 tons, damn son! 14.5 heat is very, very hot, while I suppose that it's a trend, finally limiting the damage would mean it will finally quell the effectiveness of the weapon, while also giving way to ergonomic changes. I've limited damage from 15 to 12, and lets just keep it that way.

IS

The IS has been reworked, as opposed of merely being defined by tonnage allotment, and thereby a PPC class is tied to a weapon class, the PPCs themselves are made in a way to fit at a role, instead of a weight class.

LPPC is for rapid fire, it has one of the slowest projectile speed so PPC still triumphs for long range even if you can lump 4 of them matching 2 PPCs.

PPC is for middle, it has better damage, less heat, faster projectile for long range. You can lump 3 of them at max, matching 2 HPPCs, but it will have slower projectile speed offsetting the faster ROF limiting it at closer range.

HPPC is for heavy damage useful in longer range poking, it has lower ROF than PPC, and would serve better on less aggressive roles. It has the second most heat-efficient shot.

SNPPC has low heat, shorter range, and shorter cooldown, competitive for close-range combat.

ERPPC is for very long range, with 3 of it matching HPPC but it has worst heat efficiency of all, but you'd be doing reliable 30 damage from 810m. Sure it has faster ROF than HPPC, but that means you just build up heat even faster.

Quote

ER-PPC

Damage: 10
Speed: 2300
Heat: 11.5 (From 13.5)
Range [m]: 810 - 1620
Cooldown [s]: 4.5
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)
There's simply just little instance of where ERPPC is kinda useful. Sure it's good for long range where it's supposed to be, but long range is rarely the range. PPC is quite adequate for most distances, that the extra heat isn't necessary. And PPC is not even that much of a choice when talking about PPFLD cause HPPC.

With extra projectile speed offset by longer cooldown, it's further cemented to long range role. Being able to deliver 30 damage from afar is really important.

Quote

PPC

Damage: 10
DPS: 2.5
Speed: 1350
Heat: 8.5 (from 9.5)
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 4
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

PPC currently has little to offer. It doesn't hit as hard as HPPCs, sure it's cold but it's still pretty hot. It has minimum range that further mitigates it's close range use. It's at an awkward place that it doesn't suck or excel at something, that it doesn't give much reason to be picked over other in specialized fields. The increase in GH limit allows it to compete with HPPC, as trading for 1 ton is - 1s of cooldown time. HPPCs is for better convergence and heat overtime, but PPCs could compete with better firing rate and DPS.

Quote

SN-PPC

Damage: 10
Speed: 1050 (from 1200)
Heat: 8 (From 10)
Range [m]: 270 - 720 (from 270 - 630)
Cooldown [s]: 3.5
GH Limit: 3 (From 2)

SN-PPC is just too damn hot for it's short range, and it deters use with close-range builds where it's supposed to shine over the PPC. The extra range is there for the fact that it's supposed to be a bit longer range still. But the reduction in projectile speed is supposed to be the counterbalancing factor to make sure that it is still limited to short range despite increase in range, in addition of it being the relatively coolest PPC in terms of heat/damage. The reduced cooldown also makes this competitive against medium lasers.

Quote

LPPC

Damage: 5
DPS: 2 (from 1.25)
Speed: 1200
Heat: 4.5 (from 5)
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 2.5 (from 4)
GH Limit: 4 (From 3)

LPPC is literally blah, it's not that good on its own nor within it's GH Limit. And the target demographic mechs of the LPPC such as lights, won't have much use for it because of low damage/ton and most likely will just be scoffed at over other more sensible choice like ER ML.

By reducing CD, this becomes a bit more viable weapon, and the difference from other PPC behavior geared towards ACs would provide a uniqueness that would open up for different strategies, and would make LPPCs synergize with ACs.

Yes, PPCs are not supposed to be ACs, but all things considering, the difference in what role they could take up would allow them to have a niche in the field, as opposed of just which PPC hits harder in which invariably the rest of the PPC would be left out.

Quote

HPPC

Damage: 15
DPS: 3
Speed: 1500
Heat: 12.5 (from 14.5)
Range [m]: 90 - 540 - 1080 [Progressive Damage Min-Range]
Cooldown [s]: 5

HPPC is relatively fine. In fact, the point of PPFLD is to dump most damage at a single point, in which HPPC does exceptionally well. The problem is the diversity (lack there-of) of roles within the entire series, it's just a matter of which dumps the most damage with what, and just a bit playing of heat and range, and because HPPC results the MOST damage dumped, then it will be invariably be picked with respect to meta.

Ballistics

Quote

Machine Guns:

Crit Damage Mult: 7
Clan MG Damage: 0.10
IS MG Damage: 0.13
Clan Crit Chance: 6% chance to do 0.7 damage, 3% chance to do 1.4 damage, 1% chance to do 2.1 damage
IS Crit Chance: 6% chance to do 0.91 damage, 3% chance to do 1.82 damage, 1% chance to do 2.73 damage

Clan LMG DPS: 0.7
Clan LMG Avg.Crit DPS: 1.365
IS LMG DPS: 0.91
IS LMG Avg.Crit DPS: 1.7745
LMG Spread: 0.35
LMG ROF: 7
LMG Range: 330m – 660m

Clan MG DPS: 1.0
Clan MG Avg.Crit DPS: 1.95
IS MG DPS: 1.3
IS MG Avg.Crit DPS: 2.535
MG Spread: 0.55
MG ROF: 10
MG Range: 270m – 540m

Clan HMG DPS: 1.4
Clan HMG Avg.Crit DPS: 2.73
IS HMG DPS: 1.82
IS HMG Avg.Crit DPS: 3.549
HMG Spread: 0.75
HMG ROF: 14
HMG Range: 150m – 540m

> LMG, MG, and HMG shares ammo, differing only in ROF.
> 2000 Ammo/Ton, IS deals 0.13 damage/shot, Clan deals 0.1 damage/shot.

I’ve thought to simplify the MG systems; this will allow different MGs to better play with another, this improves the synergy of using different MGs together, and also affects the crit systems.

I’ve boosted the MG range to provide similar range profiles as with Small and Medium Lasers, and ER variants. This is to make them competitive against lasers, that to light mechs that only has a bit of weight to spare, relegating them to only lasers. Still there is the cone of fire to deal with,

The IS variant has 30% more damage/shot as the clan version. Suck it up, IS MGs are heavier, with their lights having less hardpoints.

If you notice, though HMG has shorter effective range, it has similar maximum range as the MGs, allowing the HMGs to provide slightly better DPS at the MG’s current range, after all the HMGs kind of weigh more, while it still retains the powerful close-range DPS it has. 2 MGs have better DPS and range for the same tonnage as HMGs, all it has going for it is that it uses one ballistic hardpoints, because lights that are already tonnage starved rarely would go after MGs.

You might wonder, what about the Piranha? Wouldn’t this more awesome MG makes it even more broke? ***** the mech is broke, not the weapon, it needs negaquirks in the first place.

I know Lorewise, MGs are supposed to be close-range anti-infantry, but this aint TT, it’s MWO. The MGs need to be relevant some other way.

Quote

- IS Standard ACs: No Change
- Clan Standard ACs: Burst fire to Single shot shells, with damage spread to adjacent components. Deals 1/2/4/8 spread damage (divided among adjacent components), and 1/3/6/12 PPFLD.
- AC20/UAC20 Velocity to 850
- CAC doesn't have any GH
- CAC velocity to 2200/1650/1300/1025 for CAC 2/5/10/20 respectively

IS standard AC works fine. However, the Clan Standard ACs -- which they weren't supposed to have at all -- generally sucks. Low heat is kind of nice, but all things considering, with UACs generally cool to begin with, and or add in fire discipline, UAC builds ain't that bad.

Clan is "balanced" by generally hotter weapons, and worse spread -- that means SRMs have a bit larger spread, LRMs and ATMs are stream fired -- and as opposed of IS ACs prior to IS-UACs -- Clan ACs are burst fired.That is why you see Clan AC5s bursting two shells, Clan AC10s bursting 3 shells, and Clan AC20s bursting 4 shells.

The approach of making C-ACs single-shot as IS counterpart makes them a different choice than other ACs -- pick LBX if you can get close enough, but C-ACs if you couldn't get close enough. That means CACs would have worse spread upclose versus LBXs, but have better spread versus LBXs faraway.

Quote

- UACs in general: Jamming occurs AFTER double-shot, not Before -- along with proper jam chance and duration adjustment.
- IS Ultra ACs: Becomes burst fire, with 1/2/3/4 shells respectively, with 0.06s shot interval.
- Clan Ultra ACs: AC2 becomes burst fire; rest gets +1 shell -- burst fires 2/3/4/5 shells, with 0.05s interval.
- Jam Chance to 0%
- UAC2 CD: 1.65s
- UAC5 CD: 3.55s
- UAC10 CD: 5.75s
- UAC20 CD: 7.5s

The thought in increasing the burst size is to literally make the damage spreadable, because UACs do tend to have monstrous damage output if you didn't jam so I’ve simply balanced the weapon around the Jam.

The new system treats the UACs as if they are UAC4/10/20/40, balanced around the double tap. There's 0 chance of jamming now, so you can double tap whenever you want, but if you're not double-tapping means you're not maximizing the UACs. It's predictable this way.

Quote

- Rotary AC: 100% Jam Chance on Redline (from 3.7%)
- Rotary AC Jam duration/dissipation from 10s to 4.5s
- RAC2 Damage from 0.90, to 0.50
- RAC2 ROF: 14.55 (DPS from 5.82 to 7.275)
- RAC2 Ammo/Ton from 300 to 240
- RAC2 Velocity from 1500 to 2000
- RAC5 Velocity from 1025 to 1650

This is done so to make the RACs predictable and less intrusive. As opposed of pushing above the redline, the approach forces people to play AROUND the redline. People don't have to maximize their encounters by pushing forward the redline, they can just stop shooting and try again.

Also the RAC2 is just anemic as ****, so a 25% DPS increase. That is because the RAC2 has GH Limit of 3, versus the RAC2 GH Limit of 2 -- and the DPS is done so to match those GH limits. However the approach of literally doubling ROF while reducing per-shot damage is precisely to improve on RAC2's supposedly suppressive potential.

Quote

- LBXs Spread to 0.45/0.45/0.90/0.90
- LBX Optimal Range to 600/600/330/330m
- LBX Max Range to 1200/1200/660/660m
- LBX Velocity to 1650/1650/1150/1150
- LB2X pellet count from 2 to 3. (+50%)
- LB5X pellet count from 5 to 7. (+40%)
- LB10X pellet count from 10 to 13 (+30%)
- LB20X pellet count from 20 to 24 (+20%)
- LB2X CD from 0.72 to 0.9s. (+25%)
- LB5X CD from 1.66 to 1.992s. (+20%)
- LB10X CD from 2.25 to 2.5875s (+15%)
- LB20X CD from 4 to 4.4s (+10%)
- IS-LB20X Crit slot to 10

LBXs are supposed to be shotguns, not weaker ACs. That spread damage is a disservice to the weapon type, and the fact that they deal basically the same damage in total. The increase in pellet count -- thereby damage is also increased. The AC2s have the most damage bonus of all, and the bonus damage is lessened with larger launchers -- this is to make the lower launchers more competitive, especially against UACs that can double fire. The increase in spread makes them completely useless at long range, compared to their counterparts.

The approach of increasing pellet amount than straight up damage per pellet, is for it to increase the area saturation, that I intend for it to be less demanding of aim. Of course to balance out the extra damage, is an increased cooldown.

The IS-LB20X crit change is because literally, the LB20X is debilitated heavily because people couldn't just use Light Engine, making it even less of a choice against the standard ACs, and the higher GH, velocity, isn't worth as much as more flexible builds.

The point of spread increase is to make aiming less of a factor, that blast an area and you will hit the target at least. Against fast lights, just scatter projectiles in the general direction.

The approach of spread-progression is taken with similar approach of how LRM spread is done. The LB2X and LB5X is normalized with each other, and the LB10X and LB20X is paired with each other, so that the step up with LB5X and LB20X wouldn't be seen as inefficient as how LRM20s were previously treated.

Quote

- Clan Gauss: 15 damage, 6.25 + 1.00s
- IS Light-Gauss: 9 damage, 2.5 + 0.75s
- IS Light-Gauss Ammo/ton: 25
- IS Light-Gauss Velocity to 2350 m/s
- Gauss Ammo/Ton: 18
- IS Heavy-Gauss Range from 180m - 900m to 180m - 1080m
- IS Heavy-Gauss Ammo/Ton: 6

The idea of the heavy-handed Clan Gauss nerf is that -- Clan Gauss is lighter versus IS-gauss. But if i touch the damage, say to 12 PPFLD, then it will be incredibly less valuable as a long-range weapon. I chose the Cooldown route instead.

As for Light Gauss, it's also anemic as ****. But i am not comortable with the idea of something from 750m doing 10 damage. So i approached it with a bit of everything, it's still less than AC10 PPFLD, and does less DPS than AC2. The change in Charge time is to make it consistent with other Gauss-Rifles. And the increase in velocity makes it better at long range hits versus Gauss Rifle or AC2s.

For the Heavy Gauss, I've calibrated the damage to do 20 at 405m, which is 50% of the AC20.

Missiles:

Quote

ATMS:
- Max Damage to 2.4
- Mid Damage to 2.0
- Min Damage to 1.6
- Velocity to 210
- Missile health to 2
- Minimum Range to 0m
- Does not need missile locks to retain guidance, only target locks. Only needs missile-locks to launch.

ATMs as they are right now, are kinda iffy. Too powerful at one band, left out at another, and the minimum range is basically killing it for being that supposedly Jack-of-All-Trades weapon that you pay with tons and low ammo/ton. This way, it’s not overkill at close range while still having no minimum range, and the minimum damage means it’s not that inefficient to be used at long ranges. Also extra velocity and health means it’s less susceptible to AMS.

Quote

LRMS:
- Spread, Normalized.
- Cooldown to +50%
- Damage to 1.5
- Heat to +50%
- Velocity to 240
- Ammo/ton to 120
- Does not need missile locks to retain guidance, only target locks. Only needs missile-locks to launch.

LRMs are weak, they are kind of a joke, and usually it’s only effective is when targets are being bad pilots than being good LRM users. Understandably, it is balanced at the lower tiers, because if it’s too punishing means it’s hard for new players to get interested.

That being said, as a new player before, the annoying part is the suppressive fire. My approach would retain the DPS, but it will have +50% cooldown and damage to give more weight to volleys so that it will be less of a PTSD machine with its suppression. And it will be more rewarding to land a volley than just spamming so many that at least a few would hit. This way, people will think better how they throw their volley, this puts more skill on a “skill-less” weapon, opening up buffs, be more congruent with higher levels of play, while retaining a bit of effectiveness at lower levels.

Quote

SRMS:
- Clan Damage to 2.15
- IS Damage to 2.35
- SRM6 and SRM4 spread normalized to 3.5 for Clan, 3.0 for IS.
- SRM2 CD to 1.5s
- SRM4 CD to 2.75s
- Artemis variants have 2x missile HP, -50% spread, +33% projectile velocity, but is stream fire, with 0.13s interval.

SRMs suck, right now. Brawling is phased out because of that, it’s always just sniper or poke. By giving them powerful damage, means they could be more relevant again, close-ranged brawling would be fast-paced and would be rewarding to close the distance.

The Normalization of spread for all launchers is there to make spread a lot less of a factor in either going up or going down, also makes SRM6 a bit more friendly with or without Artemis. However the deciding factor now is mostly the CD.

The point of Artemis with SRM being stream-fire like short-ranged MRMs is precisely to devalue them as brawl weapons, and give it to standard SRMs, because of the stream fire putting face-time, this is to relegate the Artemis SRMs to short-ranged missile-poking as it is played before, and to get away with extreme change in spread. Leave the dancing to standard SRMs.

Quote

SSRMS:
- Velocity to 190
- Clan Damage to 2.15
- IS Damage to 2.35
- IS Range to 360m
- IS SSRM2 CD to 3.0s
- IS SSRM4 CD to 4.5s
- IS SSRM6 CD to 6.0s

SSRMs are kind of okay, but the IS version being only at 270m as opposed of Clan is at 360m means the Clan is still at a distinct advantage, while IS version may triumph with better DPS, realistically at that range standard SRMs would work better. My concept serves nothing more than to make IS and Clan have similar SSRMs, and consistently buffed. Also the increased velocity is there so that it’s less susceptible to AMS.

Quote

MRMS:
- Spread is normalized to 3.0 for Clans, 2.5 for IS.
- MRM40 CD to 4.30s

MRMs already have a problem landing shots due to low velocity and stream fire, the immense spread seems to be really unnecessary. I know it’s supposed to compensate by shooting a lot of missiles, but this seems overkill at this point.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 17 July 2018 - 05:31 PM.

[Abaddun]

Just noting that your proposition turns ATMS into super streaks, which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. Right now they have a defined roll as a close to mid range weapon, powerful but with a drawback. I will admit at long range they are pants, but that is more then made up by their power at close range.

[The6thMessenger]

Abaddun, on 09 July 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Just noting that your proposition turns ATMS into super streaks, which, quite frankly, is ridiculous. Right now they have a defined roll as a close to mid range weapon, powerful but with a drawback. I will admit at long range they are pants, but that is more then made up by their power at close range.

Except SSRMs are fire-and-forget, have longer sweet-spots, and shoots all at once. Streaming 12 missile ain't a joke, and if you want to fire four, you need to alternate between two volleys streaming 24 missiles. Simmilarly SSRMs have better tracking strength.

[LordNothing]

if i wanted to define roles i think id have the lasers entry level weapon. there would be more diversity in mechanics. like pulse lasers rather than just blink they would just be a series 2-5 of instant ppfld-like pulses and would focus on concentrated damage. heavies would be like the pulse from mw3 and would be the dps laser. er lasers would be optimized for their range brackets (ramp in, peak and ramp out), they would be really good in about a +/- 100 meters of their optimal range. standard lasers would just be focused on heat efficiency. also since clan has 4 laser sizes while is has 3, id stagger the performance such that the is small is between the can micro and clan small in performance, alternating clan/is/clan/is/clan/is/clan. for er lasers this means clan would cover more specific range brackets, and is versions would have wider effective ranges. clan and is lasers would be distinct and to do that id actually make it so is could run more lasers while clan has better lasers, rather than clan getting both better and more lasers. id also bring in xpulse which would work like they do in mwll (single pulses with a short cd between them and would fire continuously) and have the same dps roll as heavy lasers. id also use algorithmic ghost heat for these. ppcs stay more or less the same with the lppc picking up some fire rate and the snub getting a heat buff. is ppcs become gods of their role while the cerppc becomes a general purpose all rounder.

machine guns stay about where they are perhaps with some optimizations for the heavy mgs for working with larger mechs, better at handling armor for example (rather than the alternative of buffing the ammo supply). clan would get more machine guns while is would get better ones. this is controversial but id make all autocannons burst fire. clans would get long bursts with higher velocities while is would get short burst but slower projectiles. uacs would be able to fire double length bursts with jam becoming more likely the deeper into the burst you get, however you would have round for round control over your burst length. jam chance would be lower and duration of the jam would depend on your clip depth when it happens (more rounds longer jam). racs would loose their spinup delays and would jam when bar is full, heat of weapon would also be ramped slightly with the jam bar, however with pulsing you can keep the heat down. in chain fire racs would sync up so that they alternate shots to keep the same fire rate as one but the jam bars fill up more slowly (effectively lets you choose between high damage and high sustain modes). all ballistics get mw3 style recoil and no longer have to deal with ghost heat. gauss would stay more or less wheere it is but would have ghost charge as opposed to 2 gun limit (multiple guns would take longer to charge, might even be able to fire single or chain fired std and light gausses with little or no charging respectively). lbs get a higher rate of fire and get a 1.25x damage buff that ramps down to 1 at about 100m giving them a bettter defined brawling role.

starting with lrms i think id have to loose the free c3 everywhere that keeps them from being the teamwork weapon of choice. you would get mwll style c3i and a passive sensor toggle. active sensors, narc or tag would be required for locks. locks however would take a lot less time and would have a lock quality aspect to them. with active sensors alone, locks start out weak after a short lock time (about 1/4 what it is now) and build up strength as they are held. narc and tag act as weak locks when they are used with active sensors off/disrupted and would stack with the active sensor lock and eachother. using all 3 would make locks very strong. tag would also come with the ability to steer missiles to a small degree and allow for subtargeting. artemis would allow for hot targeting (locks for missiles already fired) and eliminate the initial lock time. streaks would stop bone homing and would gain spash proper and would also benefit from lock quality though not as much. id also give is streaks some much needed buffs with their damage, heat and velocity and maybe make them streamers for flavor. is get better performance from fewer missiles, clan gets longer range and saturation capability. mrms and srms stay where they are at. rocket launchers would not fire all the missiles in one volly, and instead would rapid fire them one at a time until the rack is empty (re-defining single use as single use per rocket). the rockets would be more powerful than they are and would loose the annoying minimum range and wouldn't spread. in other words they would be useful. atms stay about the same, i think the only change would be that the hud would indicate what range bracket you are in, they would also gain some benefit from lock quality.

tldr: a bunch of stuff that pgi probibly wont do.

Edited by LordNothing, 09 July 2018 - 05:20 AM.

[Asym]

Distinction between weapons systems is defined by "whom is pulling the trigger" and the expectations of the training and tactics of that person.....

Weapons don't just "exist"......they all have a reason for being based on the governments that created them. They fit into the tactics of those Armies and Soldiers.... They would be similarities but.............those similarities would be unique to the reasons and methods of those Armies...

We are lost in the "balance" race and in that race, we all lose because we have historic cultural expectations......once PGI throws them out, you get a "plain Jane, Vanilla, tasteless FPS" that isn't the MW universe anymore and that means, it will either be "accepted" or "rejected" by the culture.......see huge population increases ???

[Abaddun]

The6thMessenger, on 09 July 2018 - 04:27 AM, said:

Except SSRMs are fire-and-forget, have longer sweet-spots, and shoots all at once. Streaming 12 missile ain't a joke, and if you want to fire four, you need to alternate between two volleys streaming 24 missiles. Simmilarly SSRMs have better tracking strength.

You will be pretty much making ATMs fire and forget by removing missile lock. The missile lock system is a core differential factor between homing and dumb fire missiles. Dumb fired allow for snapshots and placed aiming, at the expense of poor tracking, which is a fair trade off when you consider streaks are designed to counter lights, but they are not the be all end all counter, skilful piloting can allow a light pilot to break locks, whilst this can be nullified by a streakers own ability to hold locks, thus we gain player interaction. ATMS are more prone to clustering on one location and are meaty enough to threaten all classes of mech at short range. The minimum range we currently have is a suitable weakness for opponants to exploit so as to nullify the power of the ATM.

[The6thMessenger]

Abaddun, on 09 July 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

You will be pretty much making ATMs fire and forget by removing missile lock. The missile lock system is a core differential factor between homing and dumb fire missiles.

But it's not fire-and-forget, you still need target lock for it. That means it's still not as applicable.

Abaddun, on 09 July 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

Dumb fired allow for snapshots and placed aiming, at the expense of poor tracking, which is a fair trade off when you consider streaks are designed to counter lights, but they are not the be all end all counter, skilful piloting can allow a light pilot to break locks, whilst this can be nullified by a streakers own ability to hold locks, thus we gain player interaction.

My bad. I mean't to say guidance does not need retained missile locks. You just need target locks to maintain guidance, you still need missile locks to shoot.

Abaddun, on 09 July 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

ATMS are more prone to clustering on one location and are meaty enough to threaten all classes of mech at short range.

Except ATMs are still stream-fire which isn't conducive to the role of SSRMs.

Abaddun, on 09 July 2018 - 05:20 AM, said:

The minimum range we currently have is a suitable weakness for opponants to exploit so as to nullify the power of the ATM.

Duh, that's the point of minimum range. That is also the point why i reduced the damage, because I think it's just too powerful in the first place, and it devalues the choice of using it at mid-range.

Also the point of ATMs as a whole, at least in TT, is that it's a jack-of-all-trades weapon due to ammo switching. You pay for your flexibility by tonnage and low ammo/ton. The minimum range is treading on that flexibility, so **** that and lets just reduce the damage. It's too much anyways.

[The6thMessenger]

Asym, on 09 July 2018 - 05:16 AM, said:

Distinction between weapons systems is defined by "whom is pulling the trigger" and the expectations of the training and tactics of that person.....

*uses RPG-7 as Sniper Rifle*

Asym, on 09 July 2018 - 05:16 AM, said:

Weapons don't just "exist"......they all have a reason for being based on the governments that created them. They fit into the tactics of those Armies and Soldiers.... They would be similarities but.............those similarities would be unique to the reasons and methods of those Armies...

I'm pretty sure that weapons are created with a role in mind. Such as if you say Assault Rifle, shooting Intermediate Cartridge -- it's like when the 3rd Reich concluded that with average of 300m range of combat, a full-powered rifle-cartridge is too powerful while a pistol-cartridge is lacking, so they made the 7.92x33mm Kurz for the initial MP44 to sway {Godwin's Law}, and then christened to STG44.

Similarly, Breaching rounds are made for 12-gauge, this is to safely destroy locks. And that's why the underbarrel shotgun attachments are called "masterkey", because it opens any lock.

The 5.7x28mm FN round is created, for the purpose of penetrating armor. HEAT round, or basically just APFSDS shells are made to penetrate tank armor. Air-bursting shells are made to counter defilade, that's why the CDTE XM25 -- or Counter-Defilade-Target-Engagement grenade-launcher is made.

Defining weapon roles, and bringing diversity, that is to foster different play-styles, roles and tactics -- it is precisely the same process as with creating the STG44, only differing in the aim because this is a game and there must be a semblance of balance in it. Hate the game.

Asym, on 09 July 2018 - 05:16 AM, said:

We are lost in the "balance" race and in that race, we all lose because we have historic cultural expectations......once PGI throws them out, you get a "plain Jane, Vanilla, tasteless FPS" that isn't the MW universe anymore and that means, it will either be "accepted" or "rejected" by the culture.......see huge population increases ???

Historic cultural expectation? I really don't get this part. Are you trying to tell us that balancing the game is just a disservice?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2018 - 02:29 PM.

[FupDup]

I don't like normalized missile spread because it removes one of the few saving graces that small launchers like the SRM2 and LRM5 have. Faster cooldown by itself just isn't enough with the current values (gonna need way more CD difference to make that work).


Also those LBX spread values are horrendous, currently the LB 2-X is at 0.35 and you'd crank it all the way up to 1.0 (current LB 20-X value). The third pellet does nothing to mitigate this.


IS ER lasers doing more alpha strike damage than IS standard lasers? That's gonna be hard to balance for sure.


My last gripe for the moment is the Clan ERPPC. Sure, you gave lower heat to compensate the lower damage, but I really really like the damage that I can push out with just two of them on various mechs like the Nova. You're basically nudging the CERPPC towards a more DPS/suppression role rather than a long-range gutpuncher like it is now. While enabling triple CERPPC as well, you're making two of them a bit less damaging in the process.

If you take my CERPPCs from me I will friggin' cut you bro!

Though seriously, I consider it to be one of the most closely balanced weapons right now. Maybe a tiny nudge to one of its stats, at most. Doesn't need a mini-rework.


EDIT: Okay, I have one last main gripe. Making both the ER Micro and Micro Pulse into laser MGs means that one will usurp the other given their mutual short range limitation. I'd suggest keeping the laser MG role to the Micro Wub, and letting the ER Micro have a super short duration that makes it borderline PPFLD kind of like previous MW game lasers. Then there's much less chance of overlap.

Edited by FupDup, 09 July 2018 - 04:47 PM.

[Asym]

yes ! MW has a history. Many of us have played this game since inception decades ago. We have formed "cultural expectations".... We identify culturally with the Inner Sphere or Clans or Mercenaries.....

Balance is premised on those expectations. I know, this is a silly game but the Value Proposition is based in the MW universe. I wouldn't be here otherwise; because, there are a lot of games out there. I wanted the story line to continue......

I expect IS mechs to be tankier, less efficient, shorter ranges but really hard to simply destroy. Clan mechs I expect to be really lethal, long range and based on finesse; fragile and prone to being un-balanced on the battlefield....

Does that help?

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

I don't like normalized missile spread because it removes one of the few saving graces that small launchers like the SRM2 and LRM5 have. Faster cooldown by itself just isn't enough with the current values (gonna need way more CD difference to make that work).

Which kinda explains the 1.5s CD for the SRM2, and the 2.75s of the SRM4. I could just make SRM4 and SRM6 have the same spread.

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

Also those LBX spread values are horrendous, currently the LB 2-X is at 0.35 and you'd crank it all the way up to 1.0 (current LB 20-X value). The third pellet does nothing to mitigate this.

Well, I could make it 0.45/0.45/0.9/0.9

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

IS ER lasers doing more alpha strike damage than IS standard lasers? That's gonna be hard to balance for sure.

Probably, But i think i handled it by making IS ER Lasers have worse heat efficiency and longer duration.

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

My last gripe for the moment is the Clan ERPPC. Sure, you gave lower heat to compensate the lower damage, but I really really like the damage that I can push out with just two of them on various mechs like the Nova. You're basically nudging the CERPPC towards a more DPS/suppression role rather than a long-range gutpuncher like it is now. While enabling triple CERPPC as well, you're making two of them a bit less damaging in the process.

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

Though seriously, I consider it to be one of the most closely balanced weapons right now. Maybe a tiny nudge to one of its stats, at most. Doesn't need a mini-rework.

Kinda the whole point. It's a 6-ton weapon, it doesn't deserve 15 damage, even if it's not wholly PPFLD. Building it this way and less dependent on heat-sinks means it's also synergizes better with other weapons.

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

If you take my CERPPCs from me I will friggin' cut you bro!

Come at me bro.

FupDup, on 09 July 2018 - 04:42 PM, said:

Making both the ER Micro and Micro Pulse into laser MGs means that one will usurp the other given their mutual short range limitation. I'd suggest keeping the laser MG role to the Micro Wub, and letting the ER Micro have a super short duration that makes it borderline PPFLD kind of like previous MW game lasers. Then there's much less chance of overlap.

I honestly don't see the point of it in the laser role. Sure it won't tread on the uPL, but it won't be useful in it's point laser role at all. At least even if it's treading with uPL, it's still useful because it synergizes with other weapons and is an option for a low-weight laser "MG" version.

Asym, on 09 July 2018 - 04:45 PM, said:

yes ! MW has a history. Many of us have played this game since inception decades ago. We have formed "cultural expectations".... We identify culturally with the Inner Sphere or Clans or Mercenaries.....

Balance is premised on those expectations. I know, this is a silly game but the Value Proposition is based in the MW universe. I wouldn't be here otherwise; because, there are a lot of games out there. I wanted the story line to continue......

I expect IS mechs to be tankier, less efficient, shorter ranges but really hard to simply destroy. Clan mechs I expect to be really lethal, long range and based on finesse; fragile and prone to being un-balanced on the battlefield....

Does that help?

Help understanding? Yes.

Help in balancing MWO? not really, no.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 09 July 2018 - 05:20 PM.

[Asym]

You can't balance MWO. That is the problem....... Some of us actually are involved in making changes work not only financially but, and most importantly, culturally.... If a "culture" does not accept 'change' it is violently rejected. (Read Alvin Toffler's and Marlow's works if you want the actual theories behind this concept...)

Balance is a confusing word. Balance doesn't necessarily mean fair... Balance could mean that, as an off the cuff example, that an Clan ERLL is 20% more powerful than an IS version but, the IS armor is 20% more resistant to ERLL's effects..... Balance could mean that IS LRM's are really 30% more effective than Clans' LRM but, Clan have far superior AMS and ECM.... Balance is assumed to be a 1:1 process and in this game, that can't and shouldn't be !!!

That's my position on balance....

[The6thMessenger]

Asym, on 10 July 2018 - 05:17 AM, said:

You can't balance MWO. That is the problem....... Some of us actually are involved in making changes work not only financially but, and most importantly, culturally.... If a "culture" does not accept 'change' it is violently rejected. (Read Alvin Toffler's and Marlow's works if you want the actual theories behind this concept...)

So we can't balance it because people would cry about it? I'm pretty sure PGI is balancing it (poorly), and people are crying about it. I think the "can't" word doesn't have a place here. While sure, old players do have expectations, if it doesn't fit the model then people just need to suck it up -- i mean how fun would the game be if Clans are just objectively better as they were supposedly been?

Asym, on 10 July 2018 - 05:17 AM, said:

Balance is a confusing word. Balance doesn't necessarily mean fair... Balance could mean that, as an off the cuff example, that an Clan ERLL is 20% more powerful than an IS version but, the IS armor is 20% more resistant to ERLL's effects..... Balance could mean that IS LRM's are really 30% more effective than Clans' LRM but, Clan have far superior AMS and ECM.... Balance is assumed to be a 1:1 process and in this game, that can't and shouldn't be !!!

Well, that's nice, but considering the nature of the game, being MWO is an online multiplayer FPS, it's supposed to be fair. Also why wouldn't use this definition?

Quote

In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform.

- Newheiser, Mark (9 March 2009). "Playing Fair: A Look at Competition in Gaming". Strange Horizons. Archived from the original on 12 March 2009.

It's rather adequate. With the nature of the game, not being single-player, it has to be fair as to not undermine the worth of playing against other players, to not undermine the freedom of choosing a side.

Sure, with tech differences, Balance may not be achievable. However, it's not like we can't get it as close as we can.

[Asym]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2018 - 05:39 AM, said:

So we can't balance it because people would cry about it? I'm pretty sure PGI is balancing it (poorly), and people are crying about it. I think the "can't" word doesn't have a place here. While sure, old players do have expectations, if it doesn't fit the model then people just need to suck it up -- i mean how fun would the game be if Clans are just objectively better as they were supposedly been?



Well, that's nice, but considering the nature of the game, being MWO is an online multiplayer FPS, it's supposed to be fair. Also why wouldn't use this definition?





It's rather adequate. With the nature of the game, not being single-player, it has to be fair as to not undermine the worth of playing against other players, to not undermine the freedom of choosing a side.

Sure, with tech differences, Balance may not be achievable. However, it's not like we can't get it as close as we can.

There's a big BUT in the answer.... We are a small niche market that has decades of histories.... Those histories are why many of us are here....

Yes, this is a FPS...ok, fine. BUT, it exists in the frame work of what has gone on before... If you want fair, play a FPS that has no history and you can achieve it.... MW and MWO don't have that luxury nor can they afford pissing of the "small niche population".... The "many" are those of us that came here for the MW universe. the few, are the FPS pilots that want something fair and simple.... Where are the needs served? By balancing efforts: neither. We've lost a bunch to Skill Tree/CW/FP; another bunch to HBS BT; some quit after S7 dropped because it did not meet the "expectations from MW4"; another group will exit in November when FO76 drops....... And, we're discussing "balance" of all things..... Silly, isn't it.

Edited by Asym, 10 July 2018 - 11:00 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

[REDACTED]

Asym, on 10 July 2018 - 10:59 AM, said:

There's a big BUT in the answer.... We are a small niche market that has decades of histories.... Those histories are why many of us are here....

Yes, this is a FPS...ok, fine. BUT, it exists in the frame work of what has gone on before... If you want fair, play a FPS that has no history and you can achieve it.... MW and MWO don't have that luxury nor can they afford pissing of the "small niche population".... The "many" are those of us that came here for the MW universe. the few, are the FPS pilots that want something fair and simple.... Where are the needs served? By balancing efforts: neither. We've lost a bunch to Skill Tree/CW/FP; another bunch to HBS BT; some quit after S7 dropped because it did not meet the "expectations from MW4"; another group will exit in November when FO76 drops....... And, we're discussing "balance" of all things..... Silly, isn't it.

Oh okay, so PGI needs to suck the **** of it's small niche population. I still don't see how does it automatically mean that Clan should be OP. I talk to other people like Bishop that is part of that niche population, ingrained to that culture, and there are people who enjoy both IS and Clan.

You say that it's pissing off the niche market? Well i'm pretty sure they are pissed off already and they're trying to do something, look at the Community-Driven Balance, they are actively trying to balance the game, they gave nerfs to Clan -- PGI is finally quelling the damage potential of Clan lasers (albeit poor execution). You talk as if the community would be pissed when their expectations of clan being OP isn't met for the sake of balance, yet here they are advocating for it for the sake of balance. Don't get me wrong, it's not 1:1, but it doesn't mean we should just abandon balancing.

Lets just get this straight as well, Clans are still OP regardless. They have lighter weapons, they have CXL engines, even if their weapons have exactly the same damage, duration, projectile speed, cooldown and ranges, nope Clans still OP.

Edited by Ibrandul Mike, 12 July 2018 - 04:13 PM.
Quote Cleanup

[Y E O N N E]

Jesus H. Christ and a half, those are powerful Machine Guns.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 July 2018 - 03:21 PM, said:

Jesus H. Christ and a half, those are powerful Machine Guns.

I know right? Also uLasers are now practically Laser MGs. The Clan DPS is actually retained, while IS had 30% damage boost. It should be competitive with lasers at the lighter mech class, while also giving incentive for heavier weight class to use them over heavier acs.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2018 - 03:47 PM, said:

I know right? Also uLasers are now practically Laser MGs. The Clan DPS is actually retained, while IS had 30% damage boost. It should be competitive with lasers at the lighter mech class, while also giving incentive for heavier weight class to use them over heavier acs.

With range like that, I feel I have no incentive for AC/20s; I can build an MRM+MG boat or Pulse + MG boat and just shred targets with superior sustained DPS.

[The6thMessenger]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 July 2018 - 03:49 PM, said:

With range like that, I feel I have no incentive for AC/20s; I can build an MRM+MG boat or Pulse + MG boat and just shred targets with superior sustained DPS.

Do you really have incentives to go with AC20 before versus 4 Medium Lasers before?

Anyways go right ahead, don't AC20. And good, there's synergy with MRM and Pulse Lasers now. I gotta admit, 6x LMG + 2x MRM40 Mauler would be dope as hell.

AC20 and variants have their place in brawling and poking, you also maximize a single hardpoint. So far there's only a handful of mechs capable of boating so much machine-guns to make your theoretical scenario worth while, not to mention that there's still COF that's hindering the weapons despite the range.

AC20 would still find place on others, it's a matter of role and play-style anyways, you just need a bit more imagination.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 10 July 2018 - 04:38 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

Then go right ahead, don't use them.

AC20 and variants have their place in brawling and poking, you also maximize a single hardpoint. So far there's only a handful of mechs capable of boating so much machine-guns to make your theoretical scenario worth while, that AC20 would still find place on others.

You don't understand.

You can poke with MPLs and MLs and such...until the enemy pushes on you. Given that your range is already only 300 meters, give or take, that will happen incredibly quickly 99.99% of the time unless they are totally passive (which sometimes happens in QP, but I don't like balancing for stupid). At that point, you are in a brawl and in a brawl your sustained DPS and being able to maintain initiative are super important. The ~300 meter lasers suck in this environment.

However, if you give me strong MGs to pair with those lasers, now I don't have this weakness. Now I still get to blast out 40+ damage with lasers and still have 5.2 DPS with a mere four (IS) MGs...and a lot of 'Mechs have four of them. Even three IS HMGs, at 5.43 DPS, are really strong now, and even more 'Mechs have thhree ballistics (Roughnecks notable come to mind).

So I get to poke well and I get to brawl well. I get to blast a single component with a burst of focused damage and I get to keep the enemy twisting furiously away from my light-weight, moderate-range, heatless, pitter patter. Where's my drawback? AC/20 and SRMs can't do this and AC/20 + MGs is just weaker due to laser weight efficiency.

Do it with MRMs, and now we're just being gross.

This is what you see with SRM-bombing Lights vs. MG+Laser Lights, only unbalanced because we have the tonnage to keep our big alphas along with the MGs where Lights do not.

So I ask, again, where the AC/20 fits in your schema? What advantage does it really bring?

The6thMessenger, on 10 July 2018 - 04:17 PM, said:

AC20 would still find place on others, it's a matter of role and play-style anyways, you just need a bit more imagination.

I probably have far more imagination than most on here, including you, and that's part of the problem: I can see further ahead.