78 replies to this topic

[Durant Carlyle]

Boat configs encourage alpha strikes. This takes no skill, except to line up the cross-hairs with the target and make sure you're in range.

Canon 'Mech variants actually take skill to use as they have varied weapon systems that require more planning to use effectively. Different aiming points depending on weapon type and range. Targets also tend to last longer when using canon variants as few of them are designed to alpha-kill.

Yet another reason why PGI should limit about half of the drops with a 'canon variant only' setting.

[VYCanis]

what about mechs like the awesome, or the thunderhawk, or the nova/IS knockoff blackhawk, or super nova, or komodo, or annihilator, or Bane 3, masakari, flashman, hellstar, crab, or piranha, etc

canon boats all

boating needs to be made balanced, not simply the prevention of making boats. Cause unless PGI goes out of their way to avoid a multitude of mechs, there are gonna be canon configs that munchy players will gravitate to if boating in and of itself remains superior.

Edited by VYCanis, 17 January 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Yes, but a boat isn't just one weapon type configured for alpha strike. They usually sacrifice speed to have maximum armor too. Oh, and then there's the outrageous number of heat sinks they put on...

Most of the canon 'Mechs you list don't do that. They are balanced by being of average speed for their weight class, with weaker armor or added jump jets or things a real boater wouldn't use. The Assault-class 'Mechs you listed can be somewhat forgiven for being designed as boats.

I'd much rather a pilot be puttering around in a canon boat than in a real customized boat.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 18 January 2012 - 12:45 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

Durant Carlyle, on 18 January 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

Yes, but a boat isn't just one weapon type configured for alpha strike. They usually sacrifice speed to have maximum armor too. Oh, and then there's the outrageous number of heat sinks they put on...

Now people are modifing the definition of boating to better fit their argument? Where I come from, a boat is a mech with all the same weapon. And thats about it.
I agree with Canis, it's just something that needs to be balanced, not rubbished. And you certainly cannot nerf drops to 50% canon varients as that is simply not going to work. i expect a lot of people will alter their mechs, even the canon varients; maybe nothing huge, bit less armor for an extra sink, that sort of thing; so it leads to requiring a definaition of what is a canon varient and what is a custom varient. Also, since we know they are giving us a mechlab (to some degree), that would also serve to make it largely pointless, at least half the time.

Also I cannot help but think you OP has nothing in the way of explination for your poll.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Weapon cycling time is part of the balancing process. Generally smaller weapons have been depicted as firing faster in MW games than larger. Downside for AC's cycling too fast is it's easier to use up your ammo. For energy weapons it's heat build up. If the maps turn out the way they've been hinting then we could see more fighting starting at short to medium range ie around 500m.

[Durant Carlyle]

Mchawkeye, on 18 January 2012 - 01:08 AM, said:

Now people are modifing the definition of boating to better fit their argument? Where I come from, a boat is a mech with all the same weapon. And thats about it.

I'm not modifying anything. A boat is an over-specialized custom 'Mech variant carrying lots of one weapon type (usually lasers) and whatever is necessary for it to alpha-strike (usually lots of heat sinks). They also tend to have maximum armor at the expense of speed.

As VYCanis pointed out, there are canon variants that could be construed as boats, but they aren't as specialized as those that players make.

I don't see the problem with limiting the first battle of Conquer_Planet_X series to canon variants only. It's no different than limiting the drop weight, battle value, or number of 'Mechs. That would give people who don't boat a chance to see who the best pilot is, rather than seeing who can cram the most lasers into their 'Mech chassis and who can twitch the fastest.

And canon variants would be defined as any 'Mech that can be bought from whatever Market they have in the game, with no modification. Since we'll all have multiple 'Mechs, this shouldn't be a problem.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Plus if the dev's decide a mech design is unbalanced as stock thn they can just not put it in. It doesn't seem as if we are going to have that many mechs to choose from at the start. In fact given the emphasis on Information Warfare, you could say that the Raven is an "Info" boat.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 18 January 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Plus if the dev's decide a mech design is unbalanced as stock thn they can just not put it in. It doesn't seem as if we are going to have that many mechs to choose from at the start. In fact given the emphasis on Information Warfare, you could say that the Raven is an "Info" boat.

"And if you Call in right now, you can get 2 Info-Boats for the price of 1. We pay the shipping!"

Oops, that was an Info-mercial wasn't it? (doh!)

[Fence]

More powerful weapon = longer recycle time (disregarding things like weapon-specific heat sinks, etc)... Otherwise there are serious balance issues that come up.

[DEVASTATOR]

I'm a believer in the thinking that math is the answer. In other words, if a large weapons does 20 points of damage and a small one does 5 points (as an example only) then the smaller one should recycle 4 times faster such that the DPS is roughly equivalent. In this case, weapon selection comes down not to what does the most damage but how you like to play the game - in close or at a distance (small vs large laser for example).

That's an over simplificaiotn because there's other things to add in that will balance the weapons. You have to factor in heat so that if a weapons generates more heat perhaps it recycles slower reducing the DPS (and requiring more math to balance it out over other weapons). Weapons that require ammo should have a slight damage or heat advantage over unlimited fire wespons like lasers - again requiring more math.

However it works out I feel that weapon load choice should be based on your style preference (long distance, in-close, mid range, whatever) and not based on which simply do the most damage fastest. The one problem with this is that there's one missing ingredient that has almost never (1 exception) been incorporated into the video game. How do you make an er large laser less effective in close? If they can factor ranges into the game then we're in good shape (the 1 exception was lrm's in MW3 which had a specific turning radius making them almost useless up close unless "dumb fired").

They need to find a way to make long range weapons (lasers and projectile weapons mostly as missiles are easier to fix as per the above) less effective in close and if they do a perfect balance among all weapons should be achievable including reload times, damage values, weight, heat and range.

[Dlardrageth]

I'd like to point this thread as far as the missiles are concerned. I think some interesting points were raised there.

Of course it might pose some additional balancing concerns, but frankly, what doesn't as far as weapons and modifications there are concerned?

[Yeach]

Laser (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 2 / 3 / 6.7
MC: 2 / 5 / 4
TT: 5

LargeLaser (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 7.5 / 5 / 15
MC: 4 / 5 / 8
TT: 8

PPC (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 12 / 6 / 20
MC: 7.5 / 7.5 / 10
TT: 10

AC10 (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 9 / 3 / 30
MC: 6 / 5 / 12
TT: 10

AC20 (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 18 / 5 / 36
MC: 15 / 7.5 / 20
TT: 20

Gauss Rifle (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 17 / 8 / 21
MC: 7.5 / 5 /15
TT: 15

SRM (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 3 / 2 / 15
MC: 2 / 4 / 5
TT: 4

LRM (Damage, Recycle, DPSx10 (TT equivalent)
MW4: 4 / 4 / 10
MC: 5 / 10 / 5
TT: 5

Mechcommander values are close to TT values, MW4 values are at least 25 %to 50% overpowered than TT.

[Yeach]

How about all weapons have a recycle time of 5 seconds and damage as half their TT value?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Devastator "I'm a believer in the thinking that math is the answer. In other words, if a large weapons does 20 points of damage and a small one does 5 points (as an example only) then the smaller one should recycle 4 times faster such that the DPS is roughly equivalent. In this case,"
In the above case, ignoring heat for a moment, if you can mount 5 of the small weapons for the one larger, they will then do 5x the DPS for the same weight. Maths is only useful when all factors are taken into account.

[Outlaw Wolf]

Definitely should go with the larger weapons having the longer reload time. Othewise, you'll end up fighting those pilots who decided to stack some Gauss Rifles or AC20's with nothing but a massive amount of ammo who can fire them just as fast as your medium lasers or what have you except with no heat generation.

[Xanquil]

As long as the damage, heat, and amo use per/10sec is the same as TT I have no problems with what ever cycle time the weapons have. If any of the 3 are wrong and weapon balance is wrong.

[Siilk]

MagnusEffect, on 03 November 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Bad poll.

Weapons should have their own characteristics based on what type they are, not how big they are. The reasoning in previous MW games is kind of silly especially in terms of the autocannons.

Energy:

Lasers: all sizes have same firing rate, what varies is range, damage, and heat generated. Better range = less heat & damage efficiency (meaning shorter range lasers give you better damage for the weight, but longer range lasers have the advantage of well.. longer range)

Pulse Lasers: similar to lasers, but near-autocannon rate of fire. Drawback is more weight and slightly worse heat management.

PPCs: BIG damage, long range, slow reload. THE POPTART KING. you know the drill

Missiles:

LRMs: Splash damage, long range, slower reload based on size; MWLL did a pretty good job

SRMs: again, MWLL did a pretty good job

Ballistics:

Machine guns: short "effective range", very fast rate of fire

Autocannons: meant for sustained fire, NOT POPTARTING. faster rate of fire than anything but machine guns. slightly slower as the gun gets bigger. AC/20s should still be waay faster firing than lasers. AC/20 should also EASILY have the best DPS in the game. make it something to be FEARED.

LBX Autocannons: giant shotguns with appropriate rate of fire

Gauss Rifle: the gun that is a laser essentially. like a PPC but far less heat and with ammo concerns

So I guess sort of like MWLL, but I think the big guns should deal MASSIVE damage. I want to see severed limbs on smaller mechs after a single volley! (be sure to counter that with making aiming harder of course )

QFT.

VYCanis, on 17 January 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

i rather fell in love with the MWO podcast idea that was put forward in the early episodes

assuming you get different manufacturers/models and such as canned wolf said, you would naturally have different models of the same weapon class exploring different roles and useful to different playstyles.

Yeah, had this idea myself. Could be a great way to add an additional weapon diversity and introduce a canon differences in same-type weapons from different manufacturers.

[Aegis Kleais]

Yeach, on 02 November 2011 - 04:58 AM, said:

In Battletech, weapon damage is based on damage done during a turn (10 seconds).

How should weapon damage be calculated?

Weapons have unique traits and should be balanced in that they don't have too many pros without cons.

• Dependency on Ammo
  
• Heat Generation
  
• How much ammo/ton
  
• Reload Time
  
• Range
  
• Ease of Use
  
• Accuracy
  
• Ammo/Ton
  
• Cost of Weapon
  
• Cost of Weapon's Ammo
  
• Requires leading shots
  
• Amount of critical space taken up
  
• etc.

[eZZip]

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

I'm a believer in the thinking that math is the answer. In other words, if a large weapons does 20 points of damage and a small one does 5 points (as an example only) then the smaller one should recycle 4 times faster such that the DPS is roughly equivalent. In this case, weapon selection comes down not to what does the most damage but how you like to play the game - in close or at a distance (small vs large laser for example).

Having the same DPS does not make the rate of fire irrelevant. For hitscan/near hitscan weapons, having more damage per shot (which usually comes with low RoF) is very important to the point that even lower DPS is acceptable to achieve this. Benefits of high damage per shot instead of high RoF include not having to stay exposed to do lots of damage, having all the damage go to one place, and having lots of damage be dealt even if you get circlestrafed immediately afterward (where with a high RoF but low damage per shot, you would not be able to hit anymore). The biggest disadvantage is that if you miss, you are possibly screwed, but how hard is it to hit a giant machine that is not very maneuverable?

[Siilk]

eZZip, on 11 April 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Having the same DPS does not make the rate of fire irrelevant. For hitscan/near hitscan weapons, having more damage per shot (which usually comes with low RoF) is very important to the point that even lower DPS is acceptable to achieve this. Benefits of high damage per shot instead of high RoF include not having to stay exposed to do lots of damage, having all the damage go to one place, and having lots of damage be dealt even if you get circlestrafed immediately afterward (where with a high RoF but low damage per shot, you would not be able to hit anymore). The biggest disadvantage is that if you miss, you are possibly screwed, but how hard is it to hit a giant machine that is not very maneuverable?

But that is a source of imbalance. Bigger guns already have better DpS. If it is accompanied by high burst damage, all the benefits, you described, are applicable to them, thus making smaller weapons even more inferior. Not only their DpS is naturally lower, they make you stay and expose yourself for much longer time to deal any significant damage. And, of course, good luck placing all the damage in one spot. For that exact reason, I think that RoF should not change that much with weapon size increase. Maybe RoF should even be higher for the bigger gun, being the main source of damage increase with per-shell damage staying more or less the same.