615 replies to this topic

[xAndy199]

denAirwalkerrr, on 20 February 2021 - 01:29 AM, said:

1t ammo maximum for IS LBX20/HGauss sounds like a wonderful idea

The dude sounds like a bad-but-overenthusiastic trade fair salesman.
I'm torn between reading his submission with any seriousness for the sake of fairness and being disappointed in myself for taking that post with any seriousness at all.
Just this thing about top-end ballistic weapons is bonkers after you get over the "sounds cool" phase.
The rest was either asked for in other posts, or they're outright not good ideas.

To talk about LBX20/HGauss, the exorbitant slot requirement (can't mount in IS Mechs with anything other than Standard Engines) is taking it in the right direction, but it's not the right fix because because it forces that STDEng choice. The Standard Engine makes LBX20/HGauss Mechs stupid tanky. While yes, the mechs have to sacrifice other high-damage weapons for it, but then again
- top-end ballistic weapons only make sense on 90-100 ton Assault Mechs (my eternal complaint)
- a stock AS7-D Atlas already has great firepower (it's a direct swap; assaults are essentially the only mechs that are excellent stock in the current state of the game)
There's little to gain with Light Engines in Assaults, and if you forgo them, the LBX20 is always the better choice over an AC/20. I only put UAC/20 on LE builds.
I'd like to see something done about the balance between the "/10" size and the "/20" size of autocannons, since as I've written in previous posts, the higher weight coupled with ammo/ton starvation makes top-end ballistics only sensible on the heaviest Assault Mechs where you easily volume out before reaching peak tonnage.

Speaking of tonnage, what's the deal with the 1.5-ton weight bump between size 300 and size 305 engines? Since there's no heatsink slot gain or anything, why not 0.5 tons?

Edited by xAndy199, 20 February 2021 - 03:48 AM.

[NumberFive]

Mad Mech, on 20 February 2021 - 12:02 AM, said:

It's hard to discuss a weapons pass without first asking two fundamental questions:
1) What gameplay objective are we trying to achieve?
2) How does a change to any part of the game achieve that objective?

A lot of the historical problems with change to MWO gameplay stem from this approach being ignored or applied weakly.

You've got a few great ideas, a few interesting ideas and some which mean well but won't work in practice - ammo locations for example, just won't work without fundamentally redesigning mechs.

You're going to get panned for your post, but let me just say that you should offer harsh critics a two-fingered salute - this game needs positive attitude and it needs engagement, and you've brought that.

denAirwalkerrr, on 20 February 2021 - 01:29 AM, said:

1t ammo maximum for IS LBX20/HGauss sounds like a wonderful idea

Do you want a dead game? Because that's how you get a dead game.
Rather than petty sarcasm, it would be more helpful for you to explain the problem to what appears to be a fairly new player who is trying.

[McGosy]

ATM: minimum range 180m
Effect of ghostheat to missile weapons: +50%

AC-2 family: cooldown 0.72->0.8
AC-10 family: cooldown 2.25->2.5

LargePulseLaser clan: cooldown: 3,2->3.3 +duration: 1.09->1
inner sphere: damage: 10->10,5 + duration: 0,67->0.75

MediumPulseLaser clan: damage: 6,5->7 +heat: 4,75->5 +cooldown: 3->3,1 +duration:0.9->0.85

ERMediumLaser clan: damage: 6,5->6 +heat: 6,3->5,8 +duration: 1.25->1.1

SmallPulseLasers clan: damage: 4->5 +heat:2.05->2.5 +cooldown: 1.9->2,25

MicroPulseLaser clan: damage: 2.7->3 +heat 1.2->1.5 +cooldown: 1.6->1.75 +duration: 0.5->0.45

AMMO per ton
srm: 120->100
mrm: 340->280
lrm: 240->180
atm: 105->90

ac-2: 87->90
ac-5: 35->40
ac-10: 23->20
ac-20: 8->10

light gauss: 16->25
gauss: 8->10
heavy gauss:4->5

HeavyMachineGun: 1250->1400

MECHS
20 ton mechs: +5% size
25 ton mechs: +2,5% size
35 ton mechs: -2.5% size

too many mechs with clan-xl and light-engines are exploding by loosing a side torso:/

!reduce all survival, auxiliary, jump jet and weapon -mech enhacements by 50%;
keep mobility, operations and sensor -quirks!

GAUSS
we charge gauss, so please make gauss-weapons high explosive only if charging/charged
light gauss: health: 10->12 (charged 5)
gauss: health: 10->15 (charged 7)
heavy gauss: 15->25 (charged 10)
clan gauss: 5->12 (charged 5)

[The6thMessenger]

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 03:44 AM, said:

To talk about LBX20/HGauss, the exorbitant slot requirement (can't mount in IS Mechs with anything other than Standard Engines) is taking it in the right direction, but it's not the right fix because because it forces that STDEng choice. The Standard Engine makes LBX20/HGauss Mechs stupid tanky.

HGR with STD ain't that tanky, precisely because HGR is designed deliberately to be exceptionally fragile. Meanwhile LB20X is basically an AC20 that deals more spread damage, so it's in fact kind of worse saved for the fact that it's somewhat more usable at a distance and you can use two at a time -- which means the LB20X at its most useful is quite an investment. To builds that's non-brawling with only 1 heavy ballistic, you ought to go with the basic AC20.

Meanwhile HGR does heavy damage at a close distance, and deals damage outward 900m, so it still does considerable damage even more than an AC20 at it's own effective range, and the kicker is that you can fire two with little heat, versus an AC20 hitting GH. So yeah, the HGR is a good investment, though only fragile.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 03:44 AM, said:

While yes, the mechs have to sacrifice other high-damage weapons for it, but then again
- top-end ballistic weapons only make sense on 90-100 ton Assault Mechs (my eternal complaint)
- a stock AS7-D Atlas already has great firepower (it's a direct swap; assaults are essentially the only mechs that are excellent stock in the current state of the game)

That's not true, the top end ballistics are used in different capacities on different classes. The Boomhammer, the Boom Jager, these use two AC20s. The Hunchback uses an AC20, and can even go up to UAC20 with the assistance of LFE.

The Atlas is somewhat limited in it's hardpoints, as powerful as it is I wouldn't energy boat or dakka with it. It's all about the roles which a mech is suited for..

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 03:44 AM, said:

There's little to gain with Light Engines in Assaults, and if you forgo them, the LBX20 is always the better choice over an AC/20. I only put UAC/20 on LE builds.

That's not true, there's a lot of tonnage and slots that could be freed up. The mechs that generally you don't XL like the King Crab, could instead run LFE. The LB20X if anything, isn't that worth that extra tonnage, and it's only worth with a mix of PPCs or SRMs due to lower heat.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 February 2021 - 05:00 AM.

[xAndy199]

The6thMessenger, on 20 February 2021 - 04:54 AM, said:

HGR with STD ain't that tanky, precisely because HGR is designed deliberately to be exceptionally fragile. Meanwhile LB20X is basically an AC20 that deals more spread damage, so it's in fact kind of worse saved for the fact that it's somewhat more usable at a distance and you can use two at a time -- which means the LB20X at its most useful is quite an investment. To builds that's non-brawling with only 1 heavy ballistic, you ought to go with the basic AC20.

Meanwhile HGR does heavy damage at a close distance, and deals damage outward 900m, so it still does considerable damage even more than an AC20 at it's own effective range, and the kicker is that you can fire two with little heat, versus an AC20 hitting GH. So yeah, the HGR is a good investment, though only fragile.



That's not true, the top end ballistics are used in different capacities on different classes. The Boomhammer, the Boom Jager, these use two AC20s. The Hunchback uses an AC20, and can even go up to UAC20 with the assistance of LFE.

The Atlas is somewhat limited in it's hardpoints, as powerful as it is I wouldn't energy boat or dakka with it. It's all about the roles which a mech is suited for..



That's not true, there's a lot of tonnage and slots that could be freed up.

I have to disagree with you
With a chassis that isn't in the heavier half of the Assault Mech bracket and doesn't have quirks for size /20 autocannons, you always gimp yourself if you pick an AC/UAC/LBX 20.

I don't mean to say it's impossible to design a loadout with an AC/20 or even an LB20X on a 50-60 ton chassis and still keep some form of backup weapon. What I'm lamenting is that you're hurting your performance doing that. Essentially, if you ever want to get past Tier 3 (shorthand for pulling your weight in any way), you have to go with a very narrow selection of meta builds, which I like to call "Baradul builds" - not as hate for the youtuber, to be clear, but as an observation that if it's a viable build, it's on the Daily Dose and anything else is not a good build.

What I mean to say is that the idea in the AC/10-AC/20 comparison is that AC/20 should get you more upfront damage and more DPS for less range and more weight, respectively. However, with the maximum potential damage of the AC/20 per ton being 8*20 and with the AC/10 it being 23*10, if you plan on being in the match until the end and using your biggest ballistic gun until the end, assuming good play and the magazine boost pilot skill, you need 2 tons of ammo for the AC/10 and 3 tons for the AC/20, which itself is already two tons heavier.
The result is that for a weight-limited chassis (anything below 90 tons), you can take a UAC/10 over an AC/20 and save 1 ton of ammo and 1 ton on the weapon itself, meaning you have 2 tons for more backup weapons or heatsinks, and you get room for a lighter engine, freeing up even more tonnage for more weapons and heatsinks.
Size /20 autocannons of all kinds only make sense on non-assaults if there are mad quirks involved.

Regarding the comparison of the AC/20 to the LB20X, the LB spread doesn't really matter in the early game and the crit mechanic makes it significantly more effective in the late game.

And the engine choice - with the forced STD, 1 LB/HGauss, an Assault Mech can still carry a few pulse lasers, and being able to lose a side torso is a big thing for survivability.
A STD Eng Medium Mech cannot go 90% armor and have enough backup weapons to out-damage a smaller autocannon with more backup weapons, that's my whole point

Edited by xAndy199, 20 February 2021 - 05:20 AM.

[Brauer]

NumberFive, on 20 February 2021 - 04:45 AM, said:

Rather than petty sarcasm, it would be more helpful for you to explain the problem to what appears to be a fairly new player who is trying.

The problem is self-evident. LBX20s and Heavy Gauss would be useless if they could only be accompanied by one ton of ammo. It's a super hard nerf to LBX20s and Heavy Gauss, as well as any other ballistic weapon to be honest.

[ghost1e]

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 03:44 AM, said:

- top-end ballistic weapons only make sense on 90-100 ton Assault Mechs (my eternal complaint)
- a stock AS7-D Atlas already has great firepower (it's a direct swap; assaults are essentially the only mechs that are excellent stock in the current state of the game)

1. there's a really good 2LB20 catapult....
2. stock atlas is a REALLY bad loadout.

if you require explanations as to how the first one is built or why the as7 is bad, just ask

Edited by TheUltimateGhost, 20 February 2021 - 05:43 AM.

[KursedVixen]

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

I have to disagree with you
With a chassis that isn't in the heavier half of the Assault Mech bracket and doesn't have quirks for size /20 autocannons, you always gimp yourself if you pick an AC/UAC/LBX 20.

I don't mean to say it's impossible to design a loadout with an AC/20 or even an LB20X on a 50-60 ton chassis and still keep some form of backup weapon. What I'm lamenting is that you're hurting your performance doing that. Essentially, if you ever want to get past Tier 3 (shorthand for pulling your weight in any way), you have to go with a very narrow selection of meta builds, which I like to call "Baradul builds" - not as hate for the youtuber, to be clear, but as an observation that if it's a viable build, it's on the Daily Dose and anything else is not a good build.

What I mean to say is that the idea in the AC/10-AC/20 comparison is that AC/20 should get you more upfront damage and more DPS for less range and more weight, respectively. However, with the maximum potential damage of the AC/20 per ton being 8*20 and with the AC/10 it being 23*10, if you plan on being in the match until the end and using your biggest ballistic gun until the end, assuming good play and the magazine boost pilot skill, you need 2 tons of ammo for the AC/10 and 3 tons for the AC/20, which itself is already two tons heavier.
The result is that for a weight-limited chassis (anything below 90 tons), you can take a UAC/10 over an AC/20 and save 1 ton of ammo and 1 ton on the weapon itself, meaning you have 2 tons for more backup weapons or heatsinks, and you get room for a lighter engine, freeing up even more tonnage for more weapons and heatsinks.
Size /20 autocannons of all kinds only make sense on non-assaults if there are mad quirks involved.

Regarding the comparison of the AC/20 to the LB20X, the LB spread doesn't really matter in the early game and the crit mechanic makes it significantly more effective in the late game.

And the engine choice - with the forced STD, 1 LB/HGauss, an Assault Mech can still carry a few pulse lasers, and being able to lose a side torso is a big thing for survivability.
A STD Eng Medium Mech cannot go 90% armor and have enough backup weapons to out-damage a smaller autocannon with more backup weapons, that's my whole point

there use to be a AC20 Raven people ran incredibly slow but... it worked for some people

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 19 February 2021 - 04:38 PM, said:

If it comes with reduction of damage to around 2.4/2.0/1.6 damage, would be balanced and I would prefer it that way.

ATMs should have been the flexible weapon system that BT meant it to be, but there's no ammo switching. The HE ammo instead comes with increased ammunition capacity and minimum range, while the rest of the ammunition have the downsides that is unfit for their use instead.

Actually HE ammo had no minium range Only standard and ER ammo had minimium range the HE was essentially a higher damage MRM The ER had extended range and a minmium range and the Std ammo was a shorter ranged than the ER but longer than the HE
STD 4-15 Dam 2/missile
ER 4-27 Dam 1/missile
HE 0-9 Dam 3/missile
(ranges are in hexes and one hex=30m so calculate from that)

Mechwarrior 4 fixed this in the mektek pack by using two seperate types of launchers HE and ER


Anyway my biggest suggestion for the game is to make clan weapons equal in health to their IS counterparts and not weaker like they already are, at least when they are the same size like small lasers and targeting comptuers and probes..

Edited by KursedVixen, 20 February 2021 - 06:21 AM.

[xAndy199]

TheUltimateGhost, on 20 February 2021 - 05:42 AM, said:

1. there's a really good 2LB20 catapult....
2. stock atlas is a REALLY bad loadout.

if you require explanations as to how the first one is built or why the as7 is bad, just ask

I don't want to come across like a droning idiot (at least no too much )
What I want to get across is that
- yes, you can make a 2LB20 Catapult or a UAC20 Bushwacker or whatever
- a 2 UAC10 Catapult with quad lasers is better
If you're minmaxxing bang/buck for performance, size /20 is only viable if you run out of hardpoints / free slots before you run out of tonnage, that's my whole complaint. Similar (but worse) goes for the Snub PPC.

Stock Atlas only needs very little swapping to be viable for serious play. You can, of course, go full armless meta with two MRM racks and an autocannon, true, but for a non-stick loadout, you can't outperform the stock Atlas by much with a clever build.

KursedVixen, on 20 February 2021 - 05:48 AM, said:

there use to be a AC20 Raven people ran incredibly slow but... it worked for some people

That's sort of the point, in the current state of the game, top-end autocannons on non-assault mechs are meme combos, and I'd like to see size /20 as a viable brawler alternative for the (relatively) longer-range /10 series.

[The6thMessenger]

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

With a chassis that isn't in the heavier half of the Assault Mech bracket and doesn't have quirks for size /20 autocannons, you always gimp yourself if you pick an AC/UAC/LBX 20.

I don't mean to say it's impossible to design a loadout with an AC/20 or even an LB20X on a 50-60 ton chassis and still keep some form of backup weapon. What I'm lamenting is that you're hurting your performance doing that.

That's just wrong. It depends on what you intend to build with your mechs. You obviously won't have good results with an AC20 and a 30-tonner, it's just a meme. But otherwise the mediums and above can do it well. In fact, with their increased speed, they are much more able to reposition, and curtail the downside of the low-range of the AC20.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

Essentially, if you ever want to get past Tier 3 (shorthand for pulling your weight in any way), you have to go with a very narrow selection of meta builds, which I like to call "Baradul builds" - not as hate for the youtuber, to be clear, but as an observation that if it's a viable build, it's on the Daily Dose and anything else is not a good build.

IMHO, it looks more like Baradul does the builds for the views and funs, If you really want the meta builds, Grim Mechs is your go-to.

I'm also Tier 1, so IDK what you think you achieve by pointing tiers out. Not to put salt on wound, buuut: I've been here for quite a while, I know my way around the mechlab.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

What I mean to say is that the idea in the AC/10-AC/20 comparison is that AC/20 should get you more upfront damage and more DPS for less range and more weight, respectively.

It already does. The AC10 at 10 damage every 2.25s CD does 4.4444 DPS, meanwhile AC20 doing 20 damage every 4s is 5 DPS.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

However, with the maximum potential damage of the AC/20 per ton being 8*20 and with the AC/10 it being 23*10, if you plan on being in the match until the end and using your biggest ballistic gun until the end, assuming good play and the magazine boost pilot skill, you need 2 tons of ammo for the AC/10 and 3 tons for the AC/20, which itself is already two tons heavier.

AC20s get between 8 and 10 shots/ton depending on your skill. On 3 to 4 tons, that is 600 to 800 damage with max skill, that's enough for the match honestly. And you still have backup lasers to contribute. Once you exhausted that much damage, chances are, the match is ending, or ends.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

The result is that for a weight-limited chassis (anything below 90 tons), you can take a UAC/10 over an AC/20 and save 1 ton of ammo and 1 ton on the weapon itself, meaning you have 2 tons for more backup weapons or heatsinks, and you get room for a lighter engine, freeing up even more tonnage for more weapons and heatsinks.

There's a fundamental problem with your thinking, the two weapons you are comparing are used differently. The UAC10 is a dakka mid to long-range platform that you stare down in most cases, the AC20 is hit-and-run in quick platforms, brawl in slow platforms.

Mere tonnage differences doesn't rob one equipment of another's use, it all depends on how you use it. It's not just a matter of what damage you can output the entire match, it's also a matter of opportunity, of skillful use. The UAC10 might do 20 damage, but that is spread across 4 shells that might be spread around, likewise can be jammed that reduces your DPS.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

Size /20 autocannons of all kinds only make sense on non-assaults if there are mad quirks involved.

Not necessarily, it depends on what performance you want to get out from a mech, and what your playstyle is.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

Regarding the comparison of the AC/20 to the LB20X, the LB spread doesn't really matter in the early game and the crit mechanic makes it significantly more effective in the late game.

If you can focus a component, you don't need that much damage to take out a mech from the fight, which translates into nothing but good in the match. Spread damage while scares people and rack up score, can be time-consuming and to the detriment of your team.

Why chew through an arm and a sidetorso when you can just go straight for the CT for less damage and time?

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

And the engine choice - with the forced STD, 1 LB/HGauss, an Assault Mech can still carry a few pulse lasers, and being able to lose a side torso is a big thing for survivability.

You can lose a side-torso and survive with LFE, it's the XL engines that aren't survivable.

xAndy199, on 20 February 2021 - 05:17 AM, said:

A STD Eng Medium Mech cannot go 90% armor and have enough backup weapons to out-damage a smaller autocannon with more backup weapons, that's my whole point

YES. THEY. CAN.

Of course, there's also the ability to put XL and LFE engine instead of just Standard Engine. Why gimp yourself with those? There are arm-mounted AC20s that allow XL Engines, such as Boom-Jager, the Champion Black-Jack.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 20 February 2021 - 06:42 AM.

[KursedVixen]

The6thMessenger, on 20 February 2021 - 06:30 AM, said:

[color=#959595]Why chew through an arm and a sidetorso when you can just go straight for the CT for less damage and time?[/color]

less guns for them to shoot back at you. also more c-bills

Edited by KursedVixen, 20 February 2021 - 07:25 AM.

[xAndy199]

The6thMessenger, on 20 February 2021 - 06:30 AM, said:

That's just wrong. It depends on what you intend to build with your mechs. You obviously won't have good results with an AC20 and a 30-tonner, it's just a meme. But otherwise the mediums and above can do it well. In fact, with their increased speed, they are much more able to reposition, and curtail the downside of the low-range of the AC20.



IMHO, it looks more like Baradul does the builds for the views and funs, If you really want the meta builds, Grim Mechs is your go-to.

I'm also Tier 1, so IDK what you think you achieve by pointing tiers out. Not to put salt on wound, buuut: I've been here for quite a while, I know my way around the mechlab.



It already does. The AC10 at 10 damage every 2.25s CD does 4.4444 DPS, meanwhile AC20 doing 20 damage every 4s is 5 DPS.



AC20s get between 8 and 10 shots/ton depending on your skill. On 3 to 4 tons, that is 600 to 800 damage with max skill, that's enough for the match honestly. And you still have backup lasers to contribute. Once you exhausted that much damage, chances are, the match is ending, or ends.



There's a fundamental problem with your thinking, the two weapons you are comparing are used differently. The UAC10 is a dakka mid to long-range platform that you stare down in most cases, the AC20 is hit-and-run in quick platforms, brawl in slow platforms.

Mere tonnage differences doesn't rob one equipment of another's use, it all depends on how you use it. It's not just a matter of what damage you can output the entire match, it's also a matter of opportunity, of skillful use. The UAC10 might do 20 damage, but that is spread across 4 shells that might be spread around, likewise can be jammed that reduces your DPS.



Not necessarily, it depends on what performance you want to get out from a mech, and what your playstyle is.



If you can focus a component, you don't need that much damage to take out a mech from the fight, which translates into nothing but good in the match.



You can lose a side-torso and survive with LFE, it's the XL engines that aren't survivable.



YES. THEY. CAN.

ALSO:

CDA-3M
THE GRAY DEATH
HBK-4G
SHD-2D
HBK-4H
BSW-P2

I don't mind you bringing the stats up, I'm not trying to monopolize the truth here, I'm trying to argue that that Grid Iron build can do better with a Light Engine, a UAC/10 or Gauss, and extra MRMs, not that you cannot *make* that build in the *absolute* sense. If you want to invoke Tiers to give your opinions more weight, I can tell you as someone who keeps dipping between Tier 3 and 4 (I go down with Lights and Heavies and then come back up with Mediums and Assaults), matchmaking at Tier 4 seems to put me into games where more people use voice comms than in Tier 3. The callouts and team coordination seem to be much better in Tier 4, so much so that it made me doubt whether Tier 1 is supposed to be for the best players or Tier 5. Since I'm already making an appeal to team play, the reason why I think the pinpoint damage of the AC/20 doesn't give it an advantage over the LB20X is because you're not (regularly) going to outright kill an Assault by yourself in the first leg of the match anyway, and your teammates won't unfailingly focus down the same component you were focusing. They might not even get an angle for that. So a few minutes into the fight, the enemy mech will have all of its torso armor heavily damaged and then the pinpoint damage isn't as valuable as what the LB20X can do: "where did all my side torso weapons go?"

I don't have many games played because I don't play the game that much, but I've been here since the game became available for public download some 8 years ago. I remember the state of the game when the Raven 3L was brand new and maps had a visibly communicated impact on the heat bar.
The game has improved heaps in those 8 years. It's great and you can't change my mind on that - neither do I think you would want to.
The LRMs work well, with a spotter Light they become godlike. A tad extreme, but it rewards teamplay.
IS Lasers are in the right spot.
Even the UAC/20, AC/20 and LB20X work great on assault mechs.
IS PPCs are outclassed by other weapon types, but they don't break the rest of the game, so I only miss them because they're iconic.
The way I see it, there aren't game-breaking problems for the balance pass to solve, it's more about making underappreciated or overly-niched weapons more usable in general play, which is why I root so hard for /20 to be rebalanced versus /10 and PPCs rebalanced versus Lasers

I think we could agree to disagree on my point and let the devs review what everyone else had posted and decide based on that.
My opinion and point is that with each of those builds you linked (maybe except the Yen Lo Wang, because of the extreme hardpoint limitation), going from /20 to /10 (or from HGauss to Gauss) and investing more in other weapons will get you a better alpha and more damage over 5 seconds - a practical limitation before you get too much attention and start facetanking, which is what you can tune your heat output for.

Edited by xAndy199, 20 February 2021 - 07:11 AM.

[--GameOver]

Flying Blind, on 19 February 2021 - 11:00 AM, said:

Missiles, especially SRMs suffer from not being able to do damage beyond their optimal range. all other weapons can do this and are commonly used this way. All that would need to be done would be to increase spread beyond optimal range so that damage will be reduced by missiles just not hitting.

I would prefer all weapons not doing damage beyond their optimal range but that is a drastic change and probably unappealing to most players.

Range Equality for missiles!

Missile Range Matters!

I totally agree. I would add about the range of the weapon. Purely logically, the range of ballistic and missile weapons, even at 2000 meters, seems strange. Even now, tanks can shoot at 5,000 meters. Another thing is that, logically, the projectile will not be able to penetrate the armor at a long distance. I would suggest keeping the current range for armor damage for ballistic and laser weapons, but allowing damage to the structure at a much longer range. For the SRM, it is also logical to allow damage beyond the target range, but significantly worsen the spread and change the trajectory to a ballistic one.

[The pessimistic optimist]

McGosy, on 20 February 2021 - 04:49 AM, said:

AC-2 family: cooldown 0.72->0.8
AC-10 family: cooldown 2.25->2.5

LargePulseLaser clan: cooldown: 3,2->3.3 +duration: 1.09->1
inner sphere: damage: 10->10,5 + duration: 0,67->0.75

MediumPulseLaser clan: damage: 6,5->7 +heat: 4,75->5 +cooldown: 3->3,1 +duration:0.9->0.85

ERMediumLaser clan: damage: 6,5->6 +heat: 6,3->5,8 +duration: 1.25->1.1

SmallPulseLasers clan: damage: 4->5 +heat:2.05->2.5 +cooldown: 1.9->2,25

MicroPulseLaser clan: damage: 2.7->3 +heat 1.2->1.5 +cooldown: 1.6->1.75 +duration: 0.5->0.45

Just no man

Edited by SirSmokes, 20 February 2021 - 08:15 AM.

[4ces]

LRM Locking

Indirect LOS

• Currently it is like a lottery or in a casino. Lots of blinking rectangles, and it feels like pure luck to get a lock-on.
  
• Once you get a lock and you fire, you instantly lose the lock and your missiles get lost or hit your team members. It feels like it is designed to annoy the pilot.
  
• There should be a more rational way for locking, like you have to follow the movement of the enemy mech/rectangle with the crosshair until the lock gets more and more grip and finally locks on. Sometimes it works that way, and it is o.k. that it takes it is time, to get the lock.
  
• You can vary lock-on time, based on distance, or if Artemis is involved, or sensitivity/accuracy of the crosshair movement. But there should be a more rational, predictable way to work, then right now.
  
• A more rational locking behaviour is independent from all other balancing, buffing or nerfing of the weapon.
  
• LRM should be completely removed or treated fairly. It should'nt annoy the pilot. Laser or ballistic weapons dont do either. Balance the annoyment factor of the weapon.

Direct LOS

• Locking is supposed to work better with direct LOS, but it does'nt feel like that.
  
• A laser or ballistic weapon can be fired instantly on sight, but for LRM you still need a lock for effective usage.
  
• Right now, it takes too much time to get a lock on direct LOS to motivate a pilot to move out of cover. This is a main reason why to stay in cover. LRM is not competitive in direct LOS.

LRM boating – firing over obstacles from long distance

• There is a lot of critics on that behavior, but where is the contradiction? Isnt the weapon designed for that?
  
• Is it different then ppc snipers or stealth mechs?
  
• How easy is it for a fast light mech with high dps to contest a LRM boat which is hidden but lonely and with a minimum fire range? Where is the problem?
  
• Personally I vote for removing LRMs and light mechs completley and have a real, pure GIANT mech game.
  
• At least I would love to see an exclusive Assault/Heavy mech game mod/league and another one for lights/mediums. That would create a complete new dynamics of the game. It might be possible to upgrade SOLARIS to allow 4 vs 4 Assault mechs.

[The pessimistic optimist]

--GameOver23Rus--, on 20 February 2021 - 07:53 AM, said:

I totally agree. I would add about the range of the weapon. Purely logically, the range of ballistic and missile weapons, even at 2000 meters, seems strange. Even now, tanks can shoot at 5,000 meters. Another thing is that, logically, the projectile will not be able to penetrate the armor at a long distance. I would suggest keeping the current range for armor damage for ballistic and laser weapons, but allowing damage to the structure at a much longer range. For the SRM, it is also logical to allow damage beyond the target range, but significantly worsen the spread and change the trajectory to a ballistic one.

Maybe have SRM past minimum range run out missiles rocket fuel and lose altitude. Not sure how hard that would be to program. So they will drop hit a target or drop to the ground. You could even aim high at past minimum range to use that to hit targets.

Edited by SirSmokes, 20 February 2021 - 08:25 AM.

[Legedi]

Besides all the good (and some bad) recommendations here, I think a close look needs to be taken in each weapon group. Look at AC weapons for example. Lots of people have pointed out how all AC-5 variants are under whelming. There should be a closer look at the nuances weapons to make sure everything has a place in some degree.

Later balance passes need to look look at the current meta more. it seems like there are so many MPL (both IS and Clan) mechs running around. Why is that? Should something be addressed. I feel like ghost heat isn't the most elegant way to have the weapons balanced, but I haven't figured out a better system. But I think that needs to be looked at again.

[--GameOver]

SirSmokes, on 20 February 2021 - 08:20 AM, said:

Maybe have SRM past minimum range run out missiles rocket fuel and lose altitude. Not sure how hard that would be to program. So they will drop hit a target or drop to the ground. You could even aim high at past minimum range to use that to hit targets.

Of course, the rockets have a fuel reserve. As soon as the fuel runs out, it just drops. I think this is not so difficult to implement. That is, the missile at the beginning should move in a straight line, and then the trajectory should change to the same as that of a ballistic weapon.

[The pessimistic optimist]

--GameOver23Rus--, on 20 February 2021 - 08:55 AM, said:

Of course, the rockets have a fuel reserve. As soon as the fuel runs out, it just drops. I think this is not so difficult to implement. That is, the missile at the beginning should move in a straight line, and then the trajectory should change to the same as that of a ballistic weapon.

They would still have momentum when the fuel runs out so the drop would be slow at first and get worse as they lose speed

Edited by SirSmokes, 20 February 2021 - 09:11 AM.