66 replies to this topic

[thievingmagpi]

VGL with CAC2- bad
VGL with CUAC2- nice

DWF with CAC2- very nice
DWF with CAC2/CUAC2- still decent
DWF with CUAC2- not great but some people prefer it

Javelin with SRM2- nice

Commando with SRM4- nice

Griffin with SRM6- nice

SRM4 griffin had its time in the limelight for a while too iirc


Srm6/Ac20 brawl combo- nice

Srm2 LB10x combo- nice

Edited by thievingmagpi, 18 June 2019 - 03:30 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Again if the sole reason the SRM2 is used is to circumvent ghost heat, then why not just remove the SRM2 from the game and increase the ghost heat limit on the SRM4 and SRM6?

Its dumb for a weapon exist for the sole reason of circumventing ghost heat. Because the entire point of a system like Ghost heat is that you shouldnt be able to circumvent it.

No. Stop.

The reason you use the SRM2 on something like the Javelin is because you can make the choice to trade away two tubes against the alternative 4xSRM4 build in exchange for more ammo, significantly faster rate of fire, and significantly higher precision. A 6x SRM2 Javelin is much better at skirmishing than a 4x SRM4 one because it can fire from max range and still reasonably expect almost all of its missiles to land on the preferred component.

It also happens to still mostly be down to pilot whether or not it loses against 4xSRM4 in a duel, so you are trading very little dueling capability away in exchange for significantly better skirmishing.

If there was a Clan Light that could boat SRM2 that also wasn't the size of an oil tanker, it would be baller. But there isn't one. That said, they were still pretty great on the Jenner IIC before it exploded in size. The SRM36 shotgun Jenner was never a generally good build, it was a very comp-specific 'Mech.

[LordNothing]

Khobai, on 18 June 2019 - 11:19 AM, said:

Ok so tighten the spread on the SRM4 to where it was post-nerf and increase the ghost heat limit.

You could easily get rid of the SRM2 and supplant its role with the SRM4.

There is absolutely overlapping design space there. Theres no need to have all of these weapons especially when PGI is struggling to balance so many weapons.

im not sure i like the idea of removing weapons from the game. i actually want more weapons. if a weapon is so bad that its a liability it should be buffed. it would be nice if all the weapons had a unique niche but this is not really required. so long as its varied enough to be useful at least situationally it should exist. i can always find situations where i need an srm2 to exist. i probably couldn't make my missile commandos work without the srm2. using srm4s means i have less ammo or cant also carry backup lasers. even if you are just combining it with an srm4 to give you a couple more tubes where you don't have room for an srm6 or dont want the spread that comes with the 6.

the asrm2 on the other hand im not sure i ever use that one. the standard 2 has tight enough spread to get those missiles where you want them without sacrificing an extra ton and you cant use it on the sub-30-ton lights because of the extra tonnage involved. you almost always want standard 4s over artemis 2s in boating situations. but rather than removing it i think tweaking it to be a viable alternative, perhaps a dps boost or a crit chance increase to represent its supposed increased accuracy.

[justcallme A S H]

Y E O N N E, on 18 June 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

No. Stop.

The reason you use the SRM2 on something like the Javelin is because you can make the choice to trade away two tubes against the alternative 4xSRM4 build in exchange for more ammo, significantly faster rate of fire, and significantly higher precision. A 6x SRM2 Javelin is much better at skirmishing than a 4x SRM4 one because it can fire from max range and still reasonably expect almost all of its missiles to land on the preferred component.

It also happens to still mostly be down to pilot whether or not it loses against 4xSRM4 in a duel, so you are trading very little dueling capability away in exchange for significantly better skirmishing.

If there was a Clan Light that could boat SRM2 that also wasn't the size of an oil tanker, it would be baller. But there isn't one. That said, they were still pretty great on the Jenner IIC before it exploded in size. The SRM36 shotgun Jenner was never a generally good build, it was a very comp-specific 'Mech.

Stop talking fact and sense based on in-game experiences.

They have no place in discussion that centers in zero understanding.

[The6thMessenger]

Y E O N N E, on 18 June 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

If there was a Clan Light that could boat SRM2 that also wasn't the size of an oil tanker, it would be baller. But there isn't one. That said, they were still pretty great on the Jenner IIC before it exploded in size. The SRM36 shotgun Jenner was never a generally good build, it was a very comp-specific 'Mech.

Missed chance for a Piranha Hero.

Spoiler

MAX ENGINE: 170
JUMP JETS +4
BASE STRUCTURE (LA): 4.00
BASE STRUCTURE (RA): 4.00

LORE:

An adaptation to a hunter-killer role, the Xiphias forgoes the 12 Machine-Guns in favor of an array of 6 2-tube Short-Range-Missiles for hit and run-tactics, especially effective with larger targets such as battlemechs. Each arm has three ER Micro-Lasers for backup weapons and to deal with common infantry and lightly-armored vehicles. Fitted with Double-Heat-Sinks, along with two-tons of Ammo, it is capable of prolonged combat.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 18 June 2019 - 10:47 PM.

[Battlemaster56]

The6thMessenger, on 18 June 2019 - 08:14 PM, said:

Missed chance for a Piranha Hero.

Spoiler

MAX ENGINE: 170
JUMP JETS +4
BASE STRUCTURE (LA): 4.00
BASE STRUCTURE (RA): 4.00

LORE:

An adaptation to a hunter-killer role, the Xiphias forgoes the 12 Machine-Guns in favor of an array of 6 Short-2-tube Range-Missiles for hit and run-tactics, especially effective with larger targets such as battlemechs. Each arm has three ER Micro-Lasers for backup weapons and to deal with common infantry and lightly-armored vehicles. Fitted with Double-Heat-Sinks, along with two-tons of Ammo, it is capable of prolonged combat.

I never knew I wanted a missile PIR so bad but seeing this I need it now.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 16 June 2019 - 09:04 PM, said:

You cant save a weapon like the LB2X it should just be removed from the game. Theres just no situation where it will ever be better than an AC2/UAC2.

It might be possible to save the LB5X though. Thats borderline.

Honestly id be okay with removing both from the game. Some weapons just dont have a feasible design space in the game. And thats fine but it raises the question of why theyre in the game still...

Weapons like the LBX2, ATM3, SRM2, SSRM2, etc... just dont need to exist at all. Theyre bad weapons and people who use them are only hurting their team by running inferior builds. So why even let people use them?

Except they are. In Solaris for example LB2Xs vs AC2s on the Annis on several maps the LB2x build works because you're 40% less heat and so you can shoot the lasers more frequently, doing more DPS. Plus with 5 LB2X the crit damage matters vs AC2s.

There's dire builds with the LB2Xs.

There's plenty of uses for LB2Xs. the LB5X is the only one without any place. I'd be game with giving it a damage buff, or crit multiplier buff, or better DPS via faster cooldown or something. Currently it doesn't have a use relative to AC5/UAC5/RAC5.

[Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie]

TL;DR:

@pgi
lb5x needs SOMETHING. how about a fix that
a ) is NOT a bunch of microsteps to make it usable in 48+ months
b ) happens within the next month?

it is a shotgun - so it's no rocket-science ;-)

Edited by Teenage Mutant Ninja Urbie, 20 June 2019 - 07:45 AM.

[LordNothing]

its like the first time i went duck hunting. i winged the duck i was aiming for and it fell out of the sky, but we unloaded 2 boxes of shells at it to try and get the finishing blow as it swam away. we had to go fetch a 22 rifle, a kayak and a golden retriever to finish it off. it was delicious.

Edited by LordNothing, 20 June 2019 - 11:21 AM.

[VirtualRiot]

If you want to do this, you really have to decrease the range.

If the difference between sizes is that larger cannons just fire more of the same pellets, then the range shouldn't change between cannons.

Increase damage on LBX like 20%, but make every one have something like 300m optimal 500m effective range.

[Nightbird]

LBX5 only needs less spread, nothing else.

[The6thMessenger]

VirtualRiot, on 20 June 2019 - 02:22 PM, said:

If you want to do this, you really have to decrease the range.

If the difference between sizes is that larger cannons just fire more of the same pellets, then the range shouldn't change between cannons.

Increase damage on LBX like 20%, but make every one have something like 300m optimal 500m effective range.

You mean like when i reduced the LB20X optimal range from 360 to 270, and max range from 1080 to 540?

[FupDup]

The AC/10 and LB 10-X have a slightly faster shooting rate compared to the UAC/10 single-tap mode. We could perhaps proliferate that to the 2, 5, and 20 sized ACs.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 20 June 2019 - 02:56 PM, said:

The AC/10 and LB 10-X have a slightly faster shooting rate compared to the UAC/10 single-tap mode. We could perhaps proliferate that to the 2, 5, and 20 sized ACs.

Sure, why not. That's one way to do it.

Nightbird, on 20 June 2019 - 02:27 PM, said:

LBX5 only needs less spread, nothing else.

Sure, true. But realistically though, wouldn't we need it to be good enough that it would encroach with the standard AC5's niche? I get that the Standard AC5s -- and the CAC5 just need love in general, but if we just buffed the two that leads in the same direction, we would just end up in ballpark of uses with another. I would prefer if they were actually divergent, at least it opens up with different approaches and variety.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 June 2019 - 03:03 PM.

[Nightbird]

Yes, but understand that more damage per trigger pull is not on the table given how all other ACs work.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 20 June 2019 - 03:22 PM, said:

Yes, but understand that more damage per trigger pull is not on the table given how all other ACs work.

Why though? You're just going to drop that without justification?

Here's mine: It would be better for balance because a different direction means the LBXs doesn't have to race with the standards or the ultras, and it would give another set of different approaches that would freshen up the game a bit.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 June 2019 - 03:33 PM.

[Nightbird]

The6thMessenger, on 20 June 2019 - 03:29 PM, said:

without justification?

Name one AC with a different damage than TT

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 20 June 2019 - 03:50 PM, said:

Name one AC with a different damage than TT

Why would I? You're the one with the assertion.

So what, you're going to the TT defense? This is MWO, it's an FPS, with PVP Arena Shooter, you can't just expect TT values and interpretation to just fit properly here.

I hear RogueTech is being updated for the UrbanWarfare.

But hey, tell you what. RACs. Did I just shut you up now?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 June 2019 - 03:54 PM.

[Nightbird]

The6thMessenger, on 20 June 2019 - 03:53 PM, said:

Why would I? You're the one with the assertion.

So what, you're going to the TT defense? This is MWO, it's an FPS, with PVP Arena Shooter, you can't just expect TT values and interpretation to just fit properly here.

I hear RogueTech is being updated for the UrbanWarfare.

All A/Cs use the same damage as TT, PGI has managed to balance using damage drop off, velocity, pellet count, cooldown, jam chance, and spread.

[The6thMessenger]

Nightbird, on 20 June 2019 - 03:55 PM, said:

All A/Cs use the same damage as TT, PGI has managed to balance using damage drop off, velocity, pellet count, cooldown, jam chance, and spread.

Wait, forgot RACs. Yeah, different damage. 7.275 Shots/second with 0.9-1.5 damage/shot, it's completely different from the TT which would have been just Ultra-ACs with more shots/turn.

That being said, yes, sure you can achieve balance, but again the problem is that the performance we demand of LB5X, encroaches to the Standard ACs, hell even the other LBXs somewhat encroaches to the performance we demand of the standards, and that's the problem that was trying to be addressed.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 June 2019 - 03:59 PM.