53 replies to this topic

[Pheonixwolf]

i swear if i keep reading threads like this..... i'm going to suffer an aneurism....

[Barbaric Soul]

Abrahms, on 03 May 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

*wall of text*

But in each series youd end up getting a 25 ton mech with small lasers that doesnt stand a chance against a 50 ton mech, or a 75 ton mech. Of course, the small mech should be severely disadvantaged, but the fact that small lasers to such LITTLE damage was the problem. They really did too little damage for their weight.

*another wall of text

This should never happen. A undamaged 25 ton mech going against a undamaged 50 ton mech(both with equally skilled pilots) should get it's arse blasted to bits, PERIOD.

I do not agree with anything you have said in this thread about laser balance(yes, I read all your posts here).

[Kargush]

There are plenty boats in the setting. What are people afraid of?

This is just like crying about legging, poptarting, C3 and indirect fire. It's whining, and it's annoying.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

There is no challenge in just legging.

Really we can't fault others for their load out weapon wise because that is their right. Though if one becomes so reliant on a specific weapon, that will eventually be their down fall.

Legging just to get a kill or because it is easy, just proves that the person doing so isn't worth fighting.

[Havoc2]

Anyone who complains about anyone elses weapons configuration either:

a) Has a crappy configuration of their own
Hasn't been able to play the suspect configuration as well as someone else
c) Is a poor pilot

In no other MW game has there been a weapon's load out that someone said "Oh, they're ALL using LLAS! We should just quit now, no way we can beat them".

Were LLas popular in MW4? Nope, because erLLas were better. Did heavy and assault 'Mechs load up on them? Yep, higher damage and range than MLas but slower reload.

Did heavies and assaults also load up on AC (LBX or UAC included) 10s and 20s? Yep, high damage.

As far as I can recall, I used pretty much every and any weapon in MW4 except for LRM5s, SRMs, MRMs and AC 2s/5s. Pretty much all weapons had their place depending on the role your 'Mech was filling and its weight.

I don't see MWO being radically different.

[Cochise]

Boating is a good thing and is built into many mech designs.

Otherwise just get rid of any mech that has more than 2 slots filled with the same weapon type.

[Goldhawk]

Famous, on 03 May 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Here's the thing, the small laser should be basically useless at this point in the game. Like the Machine Gun, the Small Laser is an anti-infantry weapon and personally I'd like to see it stay that way. I don't think you've given anything close to a good reason that a Small Laser should be more effective at close range than a Large Laser.

If we see the inclusion of Combined Arms in this game then you will find the Small Laser to have a great purpose, but why should they buff an anti-infantry weapon to be anything but an anti-infantry weapon. It's like comparing a Machine Gun and an AC2, they're both low damage weapons, but you'd be hard pressed to find a reason to use the MG over the AC2 in Mech to Mech combat

Agreed, dear God! If the small laser was effective at close range, then the Charger, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Charger, would actually be a respected Battlemech. Oh.... nooooooooo. So by your logic Abrahms, you want to make the Charger better then the Hunckback and since we have no melee, yea.......

[Erwiin]

}{avoc, on 04 May 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Anyone who complains about anyone elses weapons configuration either:

a) Has a crappy configuration of their own
Hasn't been able to play the suspect configuration as well as someone else
c) Is a poor pilot

...Pretty much all weapons had their place depending on the role your 'Mech was filling and its weight...

If I remember correctly, SSRM Ravens were a pain in the ***!

[Abrahms]

Hmm, some people have contributed some very useful posts, and others not so much.

I liked "LackofCertainty's" post with the chart. He actually left some hope that things would be fairly balanced. That concept works very well (very similar) and perhaps only needs some minor tweaking to keep all weapons relevant.

Others went on tangents, and sometimes completely misquoted me. (Even LackofCertainty misquoted me, saying I dont like small lasers because of their lack of range ). Their lack of range is exactly what I DO LIKE! It is the fact that their damage is so irrelevant in most mechwarrior games that I had an issue with.

Look, in summary...
1)boats are fine, but they should not be the best in all circumstances. A large laser boat, or PPC boat, is totally fine for its niche! It is a long range sniping mech. But, as soon as a medium laser boat gets into range... the medium laser boat (ton for ton) should win. Why? maybe faster recycle time? (more dps)... less heat? something... otherwise the only viable strat becomes large laser boating.

For the long range ACs, also factor in that they fire so fast (requires a person to hit the center torso a LOT, compared to AC20 where you just line it up once and do a ton of damage) - The fact that most gunners will not always hit their target due to the super fast recycle should also be considered into the weapons DPS.

2)weapon balance: the damage of all weapons, and their range considerations, should leave all weapons relevant... AC2s and AC5s should (ton for ton) somewhat compare to AC20 up close, but not quite (the AC20 is easier to frontload damage where the AC2 player with...yes... a boat of AC2s to match the one AC20 will have to worry about always keeping the reticle in one place, the entire time (versus the AC20 just line it up for the shot ONLY - hard to explain, but the more the weapon has to be fired, the more the pilot has to keep the reticle trained on the center torso, compared to the AC20 I only swing the reticle across to get the long cooldown shot off... making close range fighting a lot easier)

BASICALLY: ton for ton, the smaller variants should not be weaker (meaning 4 small lasers can compere with 1 large laser) and then use MANY other factors to really balance (weight, slots require, heat, range, etc), but generally the player with equal tonnage of large lasers should not have an advantage at all ranges. This way, that Atlas with 3 small lasers in the load-out isnt a piece of crap with wasted tonnage...

[Vollstrecker]

Abrahms, on 05 May 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

BASICALLY: ton for ton, the smaller variants should not be weaker (meaning 4 small lasers can compere with 1 large laser) and then use MANY other factors to really balance (weight, slots require, heat, range, etc), but generally the player with equal tonnage of large lasers should not have an advantage at all ranges. This way, that Atlas with 3 small lasers in the load-out isnt a piece of crap with wasted tonnage...

You basically described how Large Lasers and Small Lasers are balanced, except drew some really weird conclusion. Large Lasers get a bonus to range and critical slots for the same tonnage, but the Small Lasers are far more damaging for the same tonnage with a very slight heat increase over the Large Laser.

Large Laser: 450m Range / 8 Damage / 8 Heat / 2 Critical Slots / 5 Tons
Small Laser: 90m Range / 3 Damage / 1 Heat / 1 Critical Slot / 0.5 Tons
Small Laser(10): 90m Range / 30 Damage / 10 Heat/ 10 Critical Slots / 5 Tons

You can also bet that the Small Laser has a faster recycle time than the Large Laser in a real-time scenario. If you can get your 'mech that close to an enemy, I believe you should be rewarded with a higher potential damage.

Also, the Atlas is a brawler. Short-range weaponry is a specialty of brawlers, the main argument regarding the Atlas mounting Small Lasers is that its speed is insufficient to run down anything but a bicycle.

[Sprouticus]

One other aspect you are not considering is that the Dev's only have a few aspects they can modify. You want them to change things they can't.

Damage
Recycle time
Burn time (for lasers & pulse lasers)
Travel time (for missles & AC's)

They cant change weight (it would mess up stock configs)
They cant change crits (same)
They COULD in theory change max range, but Im guessing they will want that to be consistent.

[Ethan Kell]

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 04 May 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Legging just to get a kill or because it is easy, just proves that the person doing so isn't worth fighting.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. If you don't want to get your legs shot out from under you switch to something smaller, faster, and more difficult to hit. Because if I'm attacking an Atlas with a Griffin I'm going to exploit my speed and make sure that every time I expose myself to take a shot, its going to be aimed at a leg. I'm not going to play rock-em, sock-em robots when that's not a winning strategy.

[Sassori]

Ugh... no, dps should not be balanced across the board. AC 2's and AC 5's should not be the same DPS as an AC 20. A small laser shouldn't be the same DPS as a large laser.

Tonnage, range, crit slots, ammo per ton, those already factor in. If an AC 2 or an AC 5 is doing the same DPS as an AC 20 at /that/ range, that's broken considering how much ammo per ton and how much lighter and smaller they are.

[Rejarial Galatan]

8100d 5p4tt3r, on 04 May 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

There is no challenge in just legging.

Really we can't fault others for their load out weapon wise because that is their right. Though if one becomes so reliant on a specific weapon, that will eventually be their down fall.

Legging just to get a kill or because it is easy, just proves that the person doing so isn't worth fighting.

Ok wow. I do not even know where to begin here. Look man, take it from a guy who uses Assault mechs, that faster lil gnat of a scout, is GOING to lose legs if I can get the shot off. Big heavy mechs simply cannot out run or out TURN a faster, lighter mech. The legs are usually the objective first, just to keep them from making us trip over ourselves. and, ripping the leg out of a mech speeding past at nearly 150kph IS a skill bub.