Jump to content

Support Weapon Balance


108 replies to this topic

#61 FinnMcKool

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,600 posts
  • Locationunknown

Posted 02 July 2021 - 02:18 PM

I don't have narcs on my mechs but when others use them I really appreciate it,
they seem fine to me

#62 Captain Caveman DE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 519 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 02:22 PM

View PostVerilligo, on 02 July 2021 - 02:12 PM, said:

.. because of the expectation that Narc and missiles have a symbiotic relationship because they do in tabletop. I should have listed that as more of a tangent than anything else.


just for the lols and don't take it too seriously, but:
it's more like a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one; other than a teeny-tiny payout-bonus the guy bringing NARC gets nothing, while the coffeepot-sipping, leftclick-and-hold guy with lurms gets all the good parts out of that "relation".
it's a rather abusive relation, come to think of it, right? Posted Image

Edited by Captain Caveman DE, 02 July 2021 - 02:24 PM.


#63 FinnMcKool

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,600 posts
  • Locationunknown

Posted 02 July 2021 - 02:32 PM

View PostCaptain Caveman DE, on 02 July 2021 - 02:22 PM, said:


just for the lols and don't take it too seriously, but:
it's more like a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one; other than a teeny-tiny payout-bonus the guy bringing NARC gets nothing, while the coffeepot-sipping, leftclick-and-hold guy with lurms gets all the good parts out of that "relation".
it's a rather abusive relation, come to think of it, right? Posted Image

as the guy sipping coffee, i have to say your right, personally (PLS NO ONE TAKE OFFENCE at my stupidity)
I think the rewards should go up for all the "little things"
they do make a differents in game, winning, and just fun

#64 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 02 July 2021 - 02:55 PM

View PostCaptain Caveman DE, on 02 July 2021 - 02:22 PM, said:


just for the lols and don't take it too seriously, but:
it's more like a parasitic relationship than a symbiotic one; other than a teeny-tiny payout-bonus the guy bringing NARC gets nothing, while the coffeepot-sipping, leftclick-and-hold guy with lurms gets all the good parts out of that "relation".
it's a rather abusive relation, come to think of it, right? Posted Image



Mmm that depends. NARC bonuses are pretty nuts if you have 2-3 LRM users on your team. You can rack up a silly amount of kickers in a short period if time.

It's a feast or famine situation though. Which is no different to many things in MWO be that weapons, play style and effects like maps etc.

#65 Captain Caveman DE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Carnivore
  • The Carnivore
  • 519 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 03:29 PM

View Postjustcallme A S H, on 02 July 2021 - 02:55 PM, said:

Mmm that depends. NARC bonuses are pretty nuts if you have 2-3 LRM users on your team. You can rack up a silly amount of kickers in a short period if time.

It's a feast or famine situation though. Which is no different to many things in MWO be that weapons, play style and effects like maps etc.



if I remember correctly (can't find a list with mwo-boni, and my memory is 2+ years old on that), you get 10.000 per narc-kill. that's a narced mechs that gets the kill by lurms, everything else doesn't count. say you get 3-5, and that's "Only" 50.000 tops.

the lurmer with his 1300+dmg, 3-5 kills etc get .. more. WAY more. in cbills and xp, also matchscore. unless I'm missing something (which could very well be..), the narcer always has the short end of that deal.


anyway; was written more or less in jest and just to have some fun. I really don't care for the narcing or the lurming, either. both have their uses, but both aren't superfun to me, so.. to each his own ;)

#66 FinnMcKool

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,600 posts
  • Locationunknown

Posted 02 July 2021 - 03:39 PM

in Mech warrior 4 the narc was annoying and if it hit your face it was in the way of your sight, remember that noise it made, definitely affected some peoples game play, just the noise would distract you,

I used them when playing capture the flag, I would shoot as many in the defenders face as possible

wonder how that would work in MWO ?

#67 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 02 July 2021 - 06:32 PM

View PostCaptain Caveman DE, on 02 July 2021 - 03:29 PM, said:



if I remember correctly (can't find a list with mwo-boni, and my memory is 2+ years old on that), you get 10.000 per narc-kill. that's a narced mechs that gets the kill by lurms, everything else doesn't count. say you get 3-5, and that's "Only" 50.000 tops.

the lurmer with his 1300+dmg, 3-5 kills etc get .. more. WAY more. in cbills and xp, also matchscore. unless I'm missing something (which could very well be..), the narcer always has the short end of that deal.


anyway; was written more or less in jest and just to have some fun. I really don't care for the narcing or the lurming, either. both have their uses, but both aren't superfun to me, so.. to each his own Posted Image


All depends how much dmg the LRMers get out.

If you also carry TAG (which I do, prob should have stated) a TAG/NARC Kill, TAG dmg etc etc. It really does add up very fast.

In FP it is even worse. I've dropped NARC with a LRM group and out XP/CBill 7-8 others with the missiles no drama Posted Image

#68 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 17,254 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 08:21 PM

the best narc/tag mechanics were in mwll. but without its full electronic warfare implementation i think it would be op.

perhaps adding some hitpoints to the narc missile so it can survive against 2 or more ams systems would be prudent. it should work unless you are trying to narc a lance of corsair 7as or kitfoxen.

Edited by LordNothing, 02 July 2021 - 08:22 PM.


#69 justcallme A S H

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • CS 2020 Referee
  • 8,987 posts
  • LocationMelbourne, AU

Posted 02 July 2021 - 10:11 PM

Seen negative quirks mentioned a few times.

Now I cannot speak for Cauldron here - but negative quirks give a negative view.

Remember the TBR? Lets not go there. I think we can do it via balance and quirks (positive), not negative.

#70 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 10:15 PM

how can you buff machine guns without making the piranha stronger unless you give it negative quirks?

the problem is outliers like the piranha screw things up for everything else. like the micro laser nerf that wouldve been totally unnecessary if the piranha didnt exist.

that particular issue couldve been resolved by giving the piranha a negative quirk for micro lasers instead of nerfing micro lasers for everything.

#71 Xhaleon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 542 posts

Posted 02 July 2021 - 11:19 PM

View PostMyriadDigits, on 02 July 2021 - 01:01 PM, said:

Actually incorrect. TT MGs deal 2 damage to battlemech armor in a single turn, which is 10 seconds long, which would've been 0.2 damage per second aka 1 fifth the DPS of an MWO machine gun.

To some extent this is covered by the Rapid Fire rules for MGs, with that rule we can go up to 3x damage randomly but also half damage (1 pt) randomly. And we aren't also incurring any heat from doing so. It's all for the sake of balance and MWO has to stretch the effectiveness of MGs past the sky's limit just to make them worthwhile.

#72 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 01:29 AM

Xhaleon said:

To some extent this is covered by the Rapid Fire rules for MGs, with that rule we can go up to 3x damage randomly but also half damage (1 pt) randomly.


Rapid Fire rules have nothing to do with it (they simply do not even exist in MWO). As mentioned earlier: All weapons in MWO have a higher DPS value when making such a direct comparison against DPS values in TT.

Xhaleon said:

And we aren't also incurring any heat from doing so.


Which is totally to be expected because there are no "Rapid Fire" rules involved in the first place and machine guns under default firing mode simply do not incur heat in either TT or MWO.

Xhaleon said:

It's all for the sake of balance and MWO has to stretch the effectiveness of MGs past the sky's limit just to make them worthwhile.


It's rather that for the sake of balance the effectiveness of MGs weren't stretched past any sky's limit but instead landed them 2.78 times lower than another weapon that - outside of range - originally had the exact same effectiveness against mechs: AC/2.
In addition to that the machine guns were also further balanced down with getting spread values to reduce their effectiveness even further when compared to said other weapon ... and the only thing they got in return was that increased crit effect on internal structure.

#73 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 02:19 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 03 July 2021 - 01:29 AM, said:

It's rather that for the sake of balance the effectiveness of MGs weren't stretched past any sky's limit but instead landed them 2.78 times lower than another weapon that - outside of range - originally had the exact same effectiveness against mechs: AC/2.


Youre implying the AC/2 was an okay weapon though.

The fact the AC/2 only did the same damage as a machine gun but weighed 6 tons made it one of the worst weapons in battletech.

#74 Storming Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • 193 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 02:54 AM

Seems it might be good as a first iteration to add negative quirks to the piranha and see how that goes. I wonder if we will see any new weapons at all? Too be fair that will just be more pain to balance.

#75 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 03:06 AM

Khobai said:

Youre implying the AC/2 was an okay weapon though.


Ah, so we're back in fallacy and intellectual dishonesty territory.

As a matter of fact I did not make any explicit or implicit statement about the "okayness" of the AC/2 in TT or MWO. That's an entirely different argument which - given that a mod already noted that this is a thread about the support weapons inlcuding machine guns - you can certainly try to discuss elsewhere in this forum.

Khobai said:

The fact the AC/2 only did the same damage as a machine gun but weighed 6 tons made it one of the worst weapons in battletech.


Truth be told: I'm putting not much faith in any of your evaluations concerning mech or weapon strengths ... be it about TT or MWO.

So I have a suggestion for you: Stop wasting your and my time by making claims about what I allegedly said and / or how stuff works in TT.

#76 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 03:23 AM

Storming Angel said:

Seems it might be good as a first iteration to add negative quirks to the piranha and see how that goes.


How such a "first iteration" would go is rather easy to predict:
  • Some players would feel validated in their belief that the PIR-1 is "overpowered" and cheer ... just to then target the next Light in line that may or may not be involved in them dying to a backstabbing attack.
  • You'd actually see even less Lights in general and the already not that common PIR-1 even less
Any first iteration would have to include not only a negative quirk on the PIR-1 but a weapon buff as well that is close to 100% balanced out against typical PIR-1 setups with 10 to 12 machine guns, so that the PIR-1 does pretty much exactly the same damage before and after the weapon buff.

Storming Angel said:

I wonder if we will see any new weapons at all? Too be fair that will just be more pain to balance.


Given the context of this thread: Which "support" weapon are you thinking of there?

#77 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 03:25 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 03 July 2021 - 03:06 AM, said:

As a matter of fact I did not make any explicit or implicit statement about the "okayness" of the AC/2 in TT or MWO. That's an entirely different argument which - given that a mod already noted that this is a thread about the support weapons inlcuding machine guns - you can certainly try to discuss elsewhere in this forum


Thats exactly what you said though. You said machine guns "landed 2.78 times lower than another weapon that - outside of range - originally had the exact same effectiveness against mechs: AC/2."

When in reality it was the AC/2 that was buffed to be higher than machine guns. Because AC/2s were so terrible in tabletop that PGI had to massively buff AC/2s compared to their tabletop stats.

Again 2 damage for 6 tons is absolutely horrible in battletech. the AC/2 is one of the absolute worst weapons there is.

The AC/2 went from doing 0.2 dps in tabletop to doing 2.78 dps in MWO. 14 times more dps!

compared to machine guns which did 0.2 dps in tabletop and 1 dps in MWO. only 5 times more dps

my point being machine guns are not only stronger in MWO than they were in tabletop, but also that the AC2 was the most buffed weapon of all in the transition between TT and MWO stats. Not that the AC2 is relevant to the discussion on MGs, but you brought it up.

But given how much stronger MGs are in MWO, the only reason MGs arnt outright broken is because theres only one mech that can boat MGs in large enough quantities to actually be scary and thats counterbalanced by the fact its only a 20 ton mech and dies easily.

Its fair to buff IS MGs because there arnt any IS mechs that can boat large numbers of machine guns. But adding more mechs to the game that can boat lots of MGs or adding machine gun arrays is probably a bad idea. Because you could easily end up with a heavier version of the Piranha that actually is overpowered.

Edited by Khobai, 03 July 2021 - 03:43 AM.


#78 Xhaleon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Money Maker
  • The Money Maker
  • 542 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 03:36 AM

AC2s should have been AC4s, AC5s should have been AC7s. Medium lasers should have been 4 damage instead of 5.

The old Mauler with 4x AC4s sounds much more formidable.

View PostKhobai, on 03 July 2021 - 03:25 AM, said:

The AC/2 went from doing 0.2 dps in tabletop to doing 2.78 dps in MWO. 14 times more dps!
compared to machine guns which did 0.2 dps in tabletop and 1 dps in MWO. only 5 times more dps

Do keep in mind that we have doubled armor values so the multiplication should be halved.

Edited by Xhaleon, 03 July 2021 - 03:41 AM.


#79 Storming Angel

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Death Wish
  • 193 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 03:52 AM

View PostDer Geisterbaer, on 03 July 2021 - 03:23 AM, said:


How such a "first iteration" would go is rather easy to predict:
  • Some players would feel validated in their belief that the PIR-1 is "overpowered" and cheer ... just to then target the next Light in line that may or may not be involved in them dying to a backstabbing attack.
  • You'd actually see even less Lights in general and the already not that common PIR-1 even less
Any first iteration would have to include not only a negative quirk on the PIR-1 but a weapon buff as well that is close to 100% balanced out against typical PIR-1 setups with 10 to 12 machine guns, so that the PIR-1 does pretty much exactly the same damage before and after the weapon buff.




Given the context of this thread: Which "support" weapon are you thinking of there?

Ill probs have to get the piranha myself and see how it goes, i've been playing lights and can see how difficult they are, although i just tend too see some peeps say its OP, it does have a large damage output from the 8+ micro lasers it can carry (i think, i dont have one so i wouldn't know).

I tend to prefer mediums anyways to lights, as they can field more and tend to be that much more flexible than a light which seems to be in a weird spot atm.

Battlemech Taser? lol. Heavy flamers? Coil would be interesting as peeps would need to move around to charge the shot, but then im guessing the only support weapons that we could get would be ER flamers, Heavy flamers and similar since they basically use the same mechanics as the other two would require programmers to code new mechanics in which is a shame.

Mech Mortars would be interesting, but again would mostly likely require programmers to do. Fluid gun could be interesting too do, maybe corrosive effect or creating a low signal effect as well disrupting targeting.

Dunno if Binary laser Cannons or Bombast Lasers would ever be a thing either. Might as well go with flamers really and the fluid gun could be cool to mess around with.

#80 Der Geisterbaer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 803 posts

Posted 03 July 2021 - 04:09 AM

So you can't take the hints ~laugh~

Khobai said:

Thats exactly what you said though.


No, nothing I wrote made any comment on how "good" or "bad" the AC/2 is within TT or MWO.
No amount of you claiming otherwise will change that fact.

Khobai said:

You said machine guns "landed 2.78 times lower than another weapon that - outside of range - originally had the exact same effectiveness against mechs: AC/2."


Which only says: Despite having the same effectiveness against mech armor in TT in MWO machine guns are significantly less effective against mech armor in MWO.
There's no judgment on whether the effectiveness of either weapon in either game is "good" or "bad".

Khobai said:

When in reality it was the AC/2 that was buffed to be higher than machine guns. Because AC/2s were so terrible in tabletop that PGI had to massively buff AC/2s compared to their tabletop stats.


Now you're claiming knowlegde about PGI's balancing reasoning. I could ask you to provide proof for those claims but I already know that you simply cannot provide such proof.

Khobai said:

Again 2 damage for 6 tons is absolutely horrible in battletech. the AC/2 is one of the absolute worst weapons there is.


So you like to claim.

Khobai said:

The AC/2 went from doing 0.2 dps in tabletop to doing 2.78 dps in MWO. 14 times more dps!


I seem to recall that I already stated that.

Khobai said:

compared to machine guns which did 0.2 dps in tabletop and 1 dps in MWO. only 5 times more dps


And I do seem to recall having stated that as well. Now here's the "catch": So two weapons that were on equal foot in TT have now such a large disparity in effectiveness against mech armor that by comparison the machine guns in MWO are significantly less effective than would expect based on Battletech "lore".

Khobai said:

my point being machine guns are not only stronger in MWO than they were in tabletop, but also that the AC2 was the most buffed weapon of all in the transition between TT and MWO stats.


Strictly speaking all weapons in MWO are "stronger" than their TT counterparts. But as usual we're straight in intellectual dishonesty territory again because this is not about weapons being or not being "stronger" but their "effectiveness by comparison".

Khobai said:

Not that the AC2 is relevant to the discussion on MGs, but you brought it up.


In terms of the comparisons people regularly try to draw between TT and MWO said AC/2 and its damage is relevant

So I'll gladly ignore the rest of your ramblings here now and re-iterate my previous suggestion: Stop wasting your and my time with your intellectually dishonest and flip-floping claims for which you have no proof whatsoever





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users