Jump to content

Like This Mode But I'm Quitting Because Of The Ac2 Spam


34 replies to this topic

#21 Ghost Paladin117

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 200 posts

Posted 05 September 2018 - 08:47 AM

Streak boats don't really affect my wolf at all. If you can run and gun good the Arctic wolf stands the second best chance of defeating the ac2 meta Annihilators behind another one of them. Comes down to can't beat'em join'em or take the mech you like and run the chance you will lose.

#22 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 12 September 2018 - 08:17 AM

How about giveing the AC2 its minimal range back?

#23 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 12 September 2018 - 10:58 AM

View PostNesutizale, on 12 September 2018 - 08:17 AM, said:

How about giveing the AC2 its minimal range back?


When did it ever have a minimum range?

#24 Makenzie71

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 897 posts
  • Location"I don't like your loadout...you must have no idea what you're doing." ~This forum

Posted 12 September 2018 - 11:16 AM

AC2's and AC5's have minimum range on the tabletop game you filthy casual! but it's never applied to any of the video games.

It served a pretty specific purpose in tabletop, though. Here, it's actually expecting people to accept that a 25mm projectile fired at 2000 meters per second won't have any effect at close range...which sounds just as absurd as having energy weapons with minimum ranges. Even missiles don't make any sense...they have weight, are traveling at 200 meters per second, but no effect at close ranges? That should at least be doing machine-gun-esque damage.

Ultimately, though, dropping a minimum range on AC2 boats won't help. We pick our maps carefully. You're not going to get close to us without us making a critical mistake. You're better off learning to become more effective with other weapons, or adopting the AC2 yourself. The people who cause me the most harm don't even carry the damn things. I've lost more matches to Dionnsai that any other single player without him touching ballistics, and the people who are running AC2's and beat me probably could have run anything and pulled it off.

#25 Leone

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 2,118 posts
  • LocationOutworlds Alliance

Posted 12 September 2018 - 11:26 AM

No it's not about them having no effect, it's about the targeting systems being optimized for longer range and not being able to track targets that close, giving a to hit penalty for being within minimum. It's like the PPC not 'doing no damage' but having a charge up mechanic that makes it easier to dodge in close quarters.

~Leone.

#26 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 12 September 2018 - 11:34 AM

Indeed Leone is right.PGI's decission to translate the range penalty into a falloff but the minimal range into no damage is off.
Problem is that they never will / want to implement weapon convergance that could simulate that some weapons are configurated for long ranges while others are for close combat or mid ranges.

In an ideal world weapons with minimal range would be harder to aim at the target but that could mean haveing multiple crosshairs or that pilots have to switch weapons and other complicated stuff.

So the solution would be to give minimal ranged weapons a falloff in the same way that the have a falloff at range to simulate that its harder to target things with these specific weapons.

As for the AC2 turrets...well while they can still hurt you from afar, as it should be, there efficientcy would drop drasticly at closer ranges, makeing the fights more interesting.

As for choosing the right map, that can become difficult as the other player can also ban maps. Beside that there are only two maps that realy allow good close combat.

Edited by Nesutizale, 12 September 2018 - 11:36 AM.


#27 Makenzie71

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 897 posts
  • Location"I don't like your loadout...you must have no idea what you're doing." ~This forum

Posted 12 September 2018 - 11:56 AM

Nope. Not buying it. Making it harder to aim somehow. Work that one out, sure. But you're not going to be able to convince anyone that if you hit them with a 5lb rock it won't hurt because they were too close. A hit is a hit.

#28 Eisenhorne

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 2,111 posts
  • LocationUpstate NY

Posted 12 September 2018 - 01:17 PM

View PostMakenzie71, on 12 September 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Nope. Not buying it. Making it harder to aim somehow. Work that one out, sure. But you're not going to be able to convince anyone that if you hit them with a 5lb rock it won't hurt because they were too close. A hit is a hit.


It's the same logic they use to say a bolt of lightning won't hurt below 90 meters (PPC's) or that IS LRM's just bounce off a target under 180 meters. Note that I'm not in favor of minimum ranges on AC2's, just that they don't need to make any sense.

#29 Nesutizale

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Altruist
  • The Altruist
  • 1,358 posts

Posted 12 September 2018 - 10:48 PM

The TT says if its harder to hit it means the pilot needs to be more skilled to aim but the weapon does its full damage when it hits.

Problem is that PGI isn't going to implement that so the compromise would be to have a falloff damage like they did to simulate that its harder to hit at minimal range as it is at high ranges.
It would still be better then haveing no damage at all....that is my point. I want weapons with minimal range to be reflected better. That means that they infact do damage at minimal range...every now and then when you take the TT literaly and an average damage when you go statisticly.

As for the AC2...its just odd that the AC2+5 are missing the falloff/no damage while every other weapon has it. Either you apply the same rules for all or you have to say that every weapon gets a "remake/workover" but to exclude just two is odd.

Edited by Nesutizale, 12 September 2018 - 10:49 PM.


#30 Yondu Udonta

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pirate
  • The Pirate
  • 522 posts

Posted 13 October 2018 - 01:46 AM

There's counters for all the 'top' mechs in all divisions tbh, you are just lazy to innovate.

#31 Dionnsai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 341 posts

Posted 13 October 2018 - 06:28 AM

View PostNesutizale, on 12 September 2018 - 10:48 PM, said:

The TT says if its harder to hit it means the pilot needs to be more skilled to aim but the weapon does its full damage when it hits.

Problem is that PGI isn't going to implement that so the compromise would be to have a falloff damage like they did to simulate that its harder to hit at minimal range as it is at high ranges.
It would still be better then haveing no damage at all....that is my point. I want weapons with minimal range to be reflected better. That means that they infact do damage at minimal range...every now and then when you take the TT literaly and an average damage when you go statisticly.

As for the AC2...its just odd that the AC2+5 are missing the falloff/no damage while every other weapon has it. Either you apply the same rules for all or you have to say that every weapon gets a "remake/workover" but to exclude just two is odd.


You're trying to simulate table top in Mechwarrior? You're on the wrong track here, this is not Battletech, if you want RNG and dice roll, that's the game you should be playing. Almost invariably, the pilots complaining and wanting RNG and weird damage scaling type mechanics are pilots who have problems with aim, bad sensitivity settings, pilots who can't hit the broad side of an atlas without flashlighting all over the mech. You look them up on jarl's list and they're 50% on a good day.

Say what you want about AC/2 spam, etc, but as someone who has fought thousands of matches in Solaris against and with AC/2, just boating a bunch of ballistics is not an instawin. Skilled pilots win vs unskilled pilots, and that's the bottom line. If you lose to AC/2, you are either not good enough, or you lost in the mechlab.

That said, if you look at season 3's mech layouts, AC/2 may not be as strong as it was, we'll see...most of the ac/2 boats got bumped up a division.

#32 Dionnsai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 341 posts

Posted 13 October 2018 - 06:34 AM

View PostYondu Udonta, on 13 October 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

There's counters for all the 'top' mechs in all divisions tbh, you are just lazy to innovate.


Absolute truth!

#33 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 6,726 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 14 October 2018 - 05:47 AM

View PostMakenzie71, on 12 September 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

AC2's and AC5's have minimum range on the tabletop game you filthy casual! but it's never applied to any of the video games.

It served a pretty specific purpose in tabletop, though. Here, it's actually expecting people to accept that a 25mm projectile fired at 2000 meters per second won't have any effect at close range...which sounds just as absurd as having energy weapons with minimum ranges. Even missiles don't make any sense...they have weight, are traveling at 200 meters per second, but no effect at close ranges? That should at least be doing machine-gun-esque damage.

Ultimately, though, dropping a minimum range on AC2 boats won't help. We pick our maps carefully. You're not going to get close to us without us making a critical mistake. You're better off learning to become more effective with other weapons, or adopting the AC2 yourself. The people who cause me the most harm don't even carry the damn things. I've lost more matches to Dionnsai that any other single player without him touching ballistics, and the people who are running AC2's and beat me probably could have run anything and pulled it off.


And I just steamrolled you in your AC2 King Crab with a brawler (twice).

Posted Image

Livin the dream?

End of the day if you cannot aim...

Edited by justcallme A S H, 14 October 2018 - 05:53 AM.


#34 Vxheous

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • WC 2018 Silver Champ
  • WC 2018 Silver Champ
  • 3,071 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 06:07 AM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 14 October 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:


End of the day if you cannot aim...


You hackusate!!! I'll take Potato Excuses for 500 Alex.

#35 Deepfryer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 103 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 06:23 PM

They already gave rocket launchers a Solaris-specific nerf, so that's 1 option for dealing with AC2 turrets, if AC2 build are vastly outperforming others (which they are).

Another option is to adjust the maps to the point where only 2 maps (but absolutely not 3 or 4) favor AC2's over other builds. A little more cover would probably do it. And get rid of the stupid hiding spots for AC2 turrets in the back of Mech Factory.

Lastly: AC2's are not a problem in Divs 1-5... that's an overstatement of the problem.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users