Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
How is it a can of worms?
Again a matter of context. You posed a question and then went into a more detailed explaination where you tried to answer your own question. So this time I split your question and your reasoning and simply gave a short answer to that question before ...
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
That seems like quite the hand-wavey response.
... then responding to your detailed explaination. Try re-reading that second part of my comment again (which you obviously managed to cite and comment as well) and maybe - just maybe - you'll find the parts where I pointed out the can of worms that a raw damage increase is bound to open.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
There are ways to figure this out, I just don't remember the crit damage multiplier math to figure out the average DPS against internals.
Then I suggest that you try to figure it out because that's a very important part of a proposal where you want to (further) reduce crit chances and crit damage multipliers.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Effectively you would want to flatten the spike. Against armor MGs do 1 DPS, but let's just say for example against internals they do 2.5 DPS. You would weight those DPS values and combine them because armor is typically double internals. So 1 * 0.667 + 2.5 * 0.333 = 1.5 DPS. So if we got rid of criticals completely, to get the average DPS they had before it would require a raw damage increase of 50%.
You can't really get rid of crits for machine guns without removing criticals in general (which would make crit reduction as skill nodes obsolete) and doing so would certainly be perceived as yet another "breaking Battletech lore" even if you could justify the complete crit removal just for machine guns.
But just to go with your example:
A raw damage increase of 50% would reduce the time a typical PIR-1 needs to invest in order to deal 80 points of damage (which happens to be the stock rear armor plus internal structure of an Atlas like the one you get in Testing Grounds) from ~4.85s down to ~3.36s (in either case completely without any crits) - or roughly 31% reduction in TTK. Now consider a mech with more "meta" oriented back armor numbers and tell me again that "people aren't opposed" to such an idea or why this could be considered "opening a can of worms".
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
This would maintain the same average TTK against mechs without internal/armor quirks/skills.
~hmm~ ... Not too sure about that.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Now one could say that make them too consistent and more powerful but I mean these things are tunable, but this is what should probably be looked at.
You just tried to make the point that the average TTK remains the same with your suggested change and now you're already preparing for nerfing them again because they are now somehow "too conistent" and "more powerful". Sorry, but that's contradictory.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
The recent change was definitely a nerf
Yes, reducing the crit damage multipliers certainly was a nerf. But we're not actually talking that particular nerf nor are we discussing the question of whether or not that nerf was actually warranted in the first place.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
but IMO, I'd be fine with a wait-and-see approach to whether they should have their damage buffed in compensation. I mean it isn't like comp really exists anymore to really gauge how well these are with top tier players (traditionally less face stare weapons have been favored but who knows)
None of the availible numbers on competitive players (and there still are some) would indicate that machine gun "boats" see a higher degree of usage in that environment so that's certainly not the direction from where that last nerf came from. Interestingly enough the "main game" QP doesn't show strong indications of extensive machine gun "boat" usage either.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
2 tons? Arrays are only a quarter ton for Clans
Seems like I'm getting old. Indeed, Clan versions have a weight 0.25t but somehow I was remembering them costing the same as their IS counterparts.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
unless I'm missing something and 12 MGs can be supported by only 3 arrays which leads to 0.75 tons,
The asymetrical nature of your 3 array solution that would have 8 machine guns in one torso and 4 in the other where a "legit" PIR-1 has them symetrically split in groups of 6 per side.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
even if accounting for the split torsos, that is still only 1 ton (4 MGAs with 3 guns per array).
... Still a loss of 1t on that typical PIR-1 build that you'd have to compensate with an ammo quirk of round about +30%
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Again though, MGAs would have to offer something to account for the extra 0.25 tons required.
The original intent of LordNothings proposal was only to reduce hard point inflation. So no, MGAs - in his original proposal - would not need to offer anything once the ammo losses are accounted for. The actual purpose of MGAs in TT is already fulfilled in MW:O by default.
So you're now suggesting yet another powercreep that doesn't properly align with your ideas on crit damage and chances being replaced by raw damage increases where you prepared yourself to "tune" that if people considered normalized damage "too consistent" / "too powerful".
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Whether it be ammo, damage, or range. 20 tonners are also the lightest mech so honestly, they probably should have the craziest ammo quirks given they have the least weight to work with.
So here's the "funny" part: Go try to find some of the older "Lights are OP" / "Machine gun boats are OP" threads where the PIR-1 ended up as the bogeyman and then try to reconcile your own statements where you say that machine guns don't seem problematic to you and how 20 tonners should have crazy ammo quirks while also advocating for changes where you're both prepared to nerf machine guns and at the same time turn them into something that not only certain mechs - predominantyl lights and mediums - with "inflated" hardpoints can claim for themselves as a niche.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Not sure how, MGAs shouldnt just be a tonnage penalty for those that don't have hardpoints. That makes little sense. That tonnage investment for the array should have a pay off outside of overcoming hardpoint limitations. Honestly MW4 probably did the right thing by not having individual MGs at all and only having arrays even if it meant some canon mechs weren't valid.
Within the context of MW:O - with hardpoints - MGAs wouldn't be a general "tonnage penalty" but instead a form of "hardpoint inflation" on anything above 40t.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
I would argue there is concensus, just the differ between the sections of the playerbase.
And I would disagree because we're seeing split opinions within all sections of the playerbase. There are more than enough lower tiers and non competitive players that consider machine gun "boats" overpowered while their peers disagree and we're seeing the exact same thing in higher tiers and among competitive inclined players ... and I would even go so far to say that in some cases there are some serious cognitive dissonances at play.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Better players know that lights on average are the hardest class to play against, but they also are the class that benefit the most from uncoordinated environments and this part is important because just like every powerful light before it (Firestarters, Cheetahs, etc) I would argue these mechs thrive in the lower tiers more so than the rest because well, lower tiers are really uncoordinated (the lack of situational awareness is probably the key piece) and light mechs have the speed and decent enough firepower to capitalize on isolated mechs (especially if they have bad aim).
So that's why we're seeing so many Lights in lower tiers? Ah, damn ... we actually don't and those we do see aren't necessarily those machine gun "boats" in increased numbers either.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
This isn't a one size fits all problem. There are multiple factors that should probably be addressed and MGs are included in that category IMO.
Now try to make an educated guess why I'm questioning proposals that make claims about "this or that" being "simple"?!
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
The only niche mech that doesn't have something to overcome the limited hardpoints is the Piranha honestly.
Yet the PIR-1 with its 12 "inflated" ballistic hardpoints is still the main "bogeyman" in each of these discussions.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
The Viper, Cheetah, and Mist Lynx all have omnipods to overcome their hardpoint deficiencies.
But any machine gun "boat" build on these chassis is pretty much locked in the same way because usually you need the equivalent of 8 - better 12 - standard machine guns in order to properly "work" in that niche. Some chassis can make it work with the (quirked) equivalent of 6 standard machine guns but playing those is truly "work" when compared against playing mechs in other weight classes.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
And there are plenty of light variants that really wish they had that hardpoint inflation.
Oh indeed ... until you realize that "more of the same" wouldn't necessarily make for a better game.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
MGAs are limited to 4 guns per array, so most will only be able to mount 16 MGs,
In case of heavy machine guns a 4 gun array represents the equivalent of 6 standard machine guns. In other words: 2 ballistic hardpoints with 4 HMGs per array do represent the machine gun firepower a typical PIR-1 with its 12 standard machine guns with no noticable differences in range and even 4.5tons of weight on the IS side are not really a problem once you're in the upper weight regions of mediums or even in heavy territory. 4 ballistic hardpoints with 4HMGs per array (with maximum of 2 ballstic hardpoints per zone) represent double of the machine gun firepower of a PIR-1 at pretty much the same range.
But even on the (then no longer) "low end" with 2x 4mga (= 8 machine guns) you'd now reach that "magic number" of machine guns it takes to make them "serious" with ease.
There are numerous heavies on both Clan and IS side that fit these bills along will still having enough space and hardpoints for what on these will still be "main weapons". For the fun of it just look at the Warhammer Black Widow and wonder what you'd put in there when going for either a 2 to 4 x4hmga or 2 to 4 4xlmga ...
Or ponder the idea of a fully armoured, max engine sized, 2x4hmga HBK-IIC-C with 3 tons of ammo and whatever you can cram in there in terms of jump jets and 4 energy weapons.
The overall result however should be pretty obvious by now: With MGAs machine gun "boats" of any size would no longer be a niche
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
there aren't many mechs with more than 4 and probably even fewer that have the speed to use them (only 2 mediums and 2 heavy non-omnis have more than 4 hardpoints).
Your misconception there is that you think that mechs in higher weight classes would need "speed" to utilze machine gun inflation via arrays. The Lights do not need their speed primarily for the machine guns (and their range limitations) but simply because of their lack of armor that is very counter-productive in dps engagements where you need to constantly face your opponent.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Hard to know how much of a problem that will be given that these of course also have tonnage and space requirements (MGAs with 4 guns are 5 slots and either 1.25 tons for Clan or 2.5 for IS, that's not even touching the ammo requirements)
I'd say I have more than enough reason to believe that readily availible inflated machine gun numbers are bound to destroy the niche itself and have a very high potential of requiring nerfs that in turn would again impact the current machine gun "boats" in the lower weight classes far stronger than those mechs you'd be granting access to that kind of machine gun firepower.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
Not "maybe". It's pretty much a certainty. Just go through the "Lights are OP" threads of the past 1.5 years and you'll find more than enough people that most definitely would object to the idea of compensating crit chance / crit damage multiplier reductions with raw damage.
Quicksilver Kalasa, on 25 May 2022 - 11:35 AM, said:
And just thinking that raw damage would just make them even worse than before.
You have yet to actually prove that this wouldn't be the case
Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 25 May 2022 - 02:16 PM.