1063 replies to this topic

[MrPenguin]

Roland, on 08 January 2013 - 06:47 AM, said:

I think most of you folks are just talking past each other, as folks are prone to doing every time this subject is brought up. However, I'll address this point:

I was actually discussing this with Insanity last night... I tend to run the AC20 all the time on my hunchback. Compared to a 4P, I actually prefer my 4G.

Looking at those numbers, you say, "But why? The Medium lasers are obviously better!"

And based on those numbers, they are... but those numbers leave out a key point, which is that the AC20 will do all of its damage to a single spot, whereas the lasers will spread damage over the discharge period. This makes the AC20 much more effective for things like killing fast moving light mechs.

So, in some ways, my preference for the AC20 actually does show that weapon spread has the potential to influence weapon usage... the same goes for my preference for the PPC, or other ballistic weapons.

However, when it comes to lasers, I will almost always take medium lasers over large lasers, unless I'm hardpoint constrained... Because, since they both do DoT, a bunch of medium lasers is BETTER than a single large laser... there is a slight range advantage to the large laser, but for the most part the mediums are a better investment, because they just become a big large laser.

We saw this a lot earlier in the beta, and the devs responded by nerfing the medium laser... prior to that, the game was pretty dominated by 4P's running around with a boat of small or medium lasers.

We saw the same thing in MW3, where the game was centered around putting as many medium lasers onto your mech as possible, to make the uber voltron medium laser mech.

Then in MW4, they nerfed the medium laser to uselessness, in order to prevent that issue... which made folks switch to "put as many LARGE lasers on your mech as possible".

Ultimately, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't give a crap about Battletech, and I don't think the balance of weapons is really totally hosed up. But at the same time, I recognize that there is some issue that really focuses on developing large alpha-strike loadouts... anyone who played MW4 recognizes this, because we did the same thing in that game for years.

Folks should realize though that I don't think you guys are really as far apart as you think.

Just to add. People forget that we're talking about multiple lasers. As in, 2 medium lasers is better then 1 large lasers. That doesn't mean you should never use small or large lasers. For example, my stalker has 4 medium lasers and 2 large lasers. Why? Because I do more damage with that set-up then 6 medium lasers. And Large lasers do have range as an advantage. I can use my large lasers at long range, medium lasers at medium, and finish them off with my 4x SRM6 at close range.

People tend to forget that boating is usually a low level tactic. Thats not to say it isn't effective, but boats are very rarely the most optimized builds. They're, by definition, 1 trick ponies. So I wouldn't really use "boating" builds to judge weapon balance. But thats more of how I see it then anything.

Edited by MrPenguin, 08 January 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

You need to lead with the AC/20. The 4 Mediums you would need to keep the target under your reticule for 1 second. Which is more difficult? I'd say holding the target is easier, since at least you are directly pointed to it.

You need to lead with the mediums to account for lag, too...

So, you need to lead, and THEN hold the target on the mech, for the whole duration.

On a mech moving 125+kph, landing all of that damage on a single location is definitely easier with the AC20, at least for me.

But maybe it's cause my hands are shaky from years of hard drinking.

I think though, since the lasers are already designed to spread damage in a way that is different from other weapons in the game, if you are going to make the argument for grouped weapons vs. large single weapons, you need to make a comparison between weapons of the same type.

That is, you need to compared medium lasers to large lasers, or AC2's to AC20's.

[Ryolacap]

Well I have to say I think there should be dynamic aiming, its worked in several other FPS and has not made them less fun, in fact I find realistic dynamics more fun. as an example, Imagine if gauss cats and AC20 cats or srm6 cats had to pace thier shots to keep aim or take the chance at alphas, can you say "thinking man's shooter" As of now BF3 is more a thinkings man shooter than this is.

[MrPenguin]

Wintersdark, on 08 January 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

when the OP said AC/20's weren't dangerous, the context was relative to a similar weight/critical allocation of smaller weapons. It's FAR better to take, say, 5 medium Lasers and a couple heat Sinks than an ac20, at about half the weight, higher damage, and similar heat profile and higher damage.

Please refer to my other post. This is putting into account that medium lasers are 1 hit damage weapons like the AC/20. They're not, there DoT weapons.

[DuSucre]

A lot of posters here didn't get the OP point.

He doesn't want MWO to be TT like, at all.
He wants to midly alter CONVERGENCE of multiple weapons firing all at once.
With a cone of fire, the very basic feature that all shooting games have...

How to translate this in game IMO :
- You fire only ONE weapon OR chain-fire multiple weapons/groups = almost perfect accuracy (pilot skill).
- You alpha-fire multiple weapons/groups = half total damage is spread all over the target.

Profit ?

- No more double-armor (return of the feared hard-hitting weapons, aka single AC20, PPC and LPL / LL)
- No more nerfed DHS, aka 1.4HS.
- Alpha striking is not dead, you can still deal more damages in one location, even with the spread loss.
- Targetting computer or accuracy devices/modules can now be properly added (useless in current game).

[Roland]

Quote

- No more double-armor (return of the feared hard-hitting weapons, aka single AC20, PPC and LPL / LL)

Honestly, if this were the case, I would tend to like it... but I also tend to run a lot of those big weapons.

I suspect folks might start getting pretty freaked out though. I'm not sure you'd actually be able to remove the double armor.

For instance... with my little hunchback 4G, mounting an AC20...

With normal armor values, an AC20 absolutely RUINS stuff. But even when firing only a single weapon (in this case, an AC20), I have a huge advantage over someone playing the table top... because I can aim that gun at any specific location on your mech.

It seems that even with the most extreme weapons convergence system, my little hunchback running around against mechs with normal armor values would just be obliterating everything.

Maybe that's kind of the point though.... if you hit a mech in the head with an AC20, I guess it's supposed to kill that mech... but damn, I already kill a lot of mechs through the head.

[MrPenguin]

DuSucre, on 08 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

With a cone of fire, the very basic feature that all shooting games have...

Just because other games have it, doesn't mean every game should. This isn't even an opinion, its just common sense.

[Lexeii]

DuSucre, on 08 January 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

- Targetting computer or accuracy devices/modules can now be properly added (useless in current game).

The single argument I like about CoF, its an opportunity to introduce equipment that gets rid of it.

Actually, it makes more sense that chainfired weapons that cause screenshake when u get hit (AC's) deviate your aiming -> impulse... but i know, its not a discussion about realism... and even then it could be accounted for.

Roland is right with what weapons you have to compare to each other. you could compare boated (when does boating start?) UAC5's to AC20... or AC2's as for that.
you have to lead your target with ballistic weapons? oh well... that's an argument against group-convergence?
(btw. we have an accurate rangefinder, when we point the reticule at something, when we target an enemie we dont even have to aim at him to know how far he is... convergence? yes please)

[Flagrant]

The OP makes a lot of sense. Not sure if HRR Insanity's solution will work but I hope the devs take notice.

At least one thing is clear. Battletech themed games are still viable. Hopefully some other developer takes the reins if this game fails.

[Sug]

Lexeii, on 08 January 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

Introducing CoF depending on speed severely punishes light mecs that rely on speed to survive, that's all it does.

Actually it won't effect the survival of light mechs at all...

sunprice, on 08 January 2013 - 12:30 AM, said:

why should they change ? you should go play other games . This is the way of MechWarrior , from the oldest version .

NOTHING SHOULD EVER CHANGE. EVER.

Also: if they introduced some sort of CoF they could add/change a skill in the talent tree to reduce the size of the cone. Maybe by like 5% per tier, nothing huge that makes mastering a mech necessary but something to reflect the fact that you've "mastered" a chassis.

Right now those "convergence" skills do ****.

Edited by Sug, 08 January 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Roland]

Well, he's right in that it would actually be something of a nerf to light mechs that pack on large numbers of small weapons, like the Jenner with 6 medium lasers.

That mech wouldn't be able to run at 150 kph, while firing a full 30 point alpha strike with much precision.

[Jungle Rhino]

I think weapon convergence does a reasonable job as is. For example in an AWS-8Q with 3 PPCs (arm/LT/RT)it is very hard to land them all on the same hit box - you need to hold your pipper on target for a good second or so before the shot is ready - hard to do in the heat of battle and harder still when the target it moving.

Trouble is when people start optimising their builds to minimise convergence issues - i.e. putting those 3 PPCs into the torso slots instead of the arm, or the classic example - Gausscat.

I beleive this could be solved by further hardpoint restriction - a K2 should not be able to mount large ballistic weapons in it's torso - putting a limit on the size of weapon per hardpoint could discourage the min/maxers.

I don't have a solution for Med laser boating - other than keep moving and twisting. It is very hard to get those Med lasers to hit for full duration on one point if the target is actively evading or popping out to shoot from cover then back in.

Personally I think half the people playing this game are far too aggressive and don't take even the simplist measures to protect themselves. If you stride out into the open travelling at a fixed speed in a straight line then you ought to get cored out by precision weapons. Vary your speed, twist, make use of cover etc. It is relatively rare to see mechs shooting from a hull down position as you would do in table top - most of the time they just charge in at high speed...

I think the issue with med/small laser boating could be mitigated by fixing the netcode to stop fast mechs from being invulnerable and bring back collisions to try and prevent the big giant furballs that people get themselves mixed up in these days. Far too much of the fighting is chaotic close range affairs where it is fairly easy to skewer somebody with multiple med lasers. If these mechs were in more danger of tripping up then I think these furballs would be less likely to develop.

Current ECM implementation makes the whole situation worse and allows these close range brawls to develop.

The issue is complex and related to all aspects of the game. I honestly don't think adding in cone of fire will matter as most of the time I am killed it seems to be at point blank range where a cone of fire wouldn't matter anyway.

[valrond]

I also think the OP is right. His proposals are sound, there are some that are harder to implement that others, but I think the devs should test at least one of them and give them a try before it's too late (Beta ends).

Unfortunatelly, I think the devs have already made up their mind about this, and they're not going to make any drastic changes. they just put band-a i d s to fix the problems they have created themselves instead of curing the illness.

[Wintersdark]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 January 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

At balancing 4 meduims v AC20. The two side by side when all is said and done should do exactly the same amount of damage PER ALPHA. One pull of the trigger should have both 20 point weapon groups doing 20 points of damage. One shot from 4 mediums should be equal to the damage produced by one AC20 round.

Laser convergence is not affected by wind, ballistic drop or any of those other factors, it is an unwavering beam of light, I can easily see a group of lasers some 1000 years in the future being able to hold a grouping of a 2" diameter.

They do the same damage. But the medium lasers take 4 crits and 4 tons, the ac/20 takes 10 tons and 14 slots, plus tons/slots for ammo (and you'll need at least two tons/crits worth, likely more).

The lasers cycle every 3 seconds (meaning 6.7dps), the AC/20 every 4 seconds (leading to 5 dps).

While the mediums do generate more heat, the 6 tons and 10 slots saved (realistically with ammo at least 8 and 12 respectively) leave room for a LOT of heat sinks, easily more than making up for the loss.

Finally, given that armor is doubled, you're looking at about a full ton of ammo to core an Atlas with an AC20, assuming every round impacts CT. This, of course, pushes the weight and crit penality even further, as you need to carry enough ammo to justify the huge investment in the AC/20 in the first place.

[MustrumRidcully]

Wintersdark, on 08 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

They do the same damage. But the medium lasers take 4 crits and 4 tons, the ac/20 takes 10 tons and 14 slots, plus tons/slots for ammo (and you'll need at least two tons/crits worth, likely more).

The lasers cycle every 3 seconds (meaning 6.7dps), the AC/20 every 4 seconds (leading to 5 dps).

Just a nitpick: The Medium Laser fires every 4 seconds. You have 3 seconds for the laser to recharge ,but the medium laser fires for a full second. So you basically get the same DPS.

It can also help to also include the weight cost for the heat sinks in the calculation.

[MrPenguin]

Wintersdark, on 08 January 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

They do the same damage. But the medium lasers take 4 crits and 4 tons, the ac/20 takes 10 tons and 14 slots, plus tons/slots for ammo (and you'll need at least two tons/crits worth, likely more).

The lasers cycle every 3 seconds (meaning 6.7dps), the AC/20 every 4 seconds (leading to 5 dps).

While the mediums do generate more heat, the 6 tons and 10 slots saved (realistically with ammo at least 8 and 12 respectively) leave room for a LOT of heat sinks, easily more than making up for the loss.

Finally, given that armor is doubled, you're looking at about a full ton of ammo to core an Atlas with an AC20, assuming every round impacts CT. This, of course, pushes the weight and crit penality even further, as you need to carry enough ammo to justify the huge investment in the AC/20 in the first place.

Why is no one ever considering that you can't put lasers on a ballistic slot and vice versa?
Why chose between 4 medium lasers or an AC/20 when you can fit both? Medium lasers is that one weapon in the game where its not really the worst or best at anything, and is cheap to put on any mech with laser slots. Its better used with other weapons like the AC/20. They work with most, if not all weapons incredibly well. So why gimp yourself by limiting yourself to only that weapon? It makes sense in a mech like the Hunchback 4P but why would you only put 2 medium lasers in a Atlas D-DC and nothing else?

Sorry, not really talking to you personally winersdark. But it bugs me that nearly no one here has brought this up.

Edited by MrPenguin, 08 January 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Quote

Introducing CoF depending on speed severely punishes light mecs that rely on speed to survive, that's all it does.

You'd base it on speed as a percentage of maximum speed, not just speed overall. So as a rough example, no penalty up to 50%, then an increasing CoF as you move from 50 to 100%.

Light mechs would need to slow (though remain at solid speeds) to fire with good convergence, but even if they were still rocking at max speed they wouldn't be missing, they'd just have less accurate convergence so some "splash damage" to neighboring regions.

This way, it affects everyone equally.

Lights can afford to lose a little survivability anyways; it would serve as an interested aspect of Light Mech piloting skill - when and how much you slow for pinpoint accuracy vs. the loss in speed-based defense.

[Jungle Rhino]

I rate the AC20 much higher than 4 med lasers. The number of HS you need to keep those lasers going is not insignificant - An AC20 with 10HS runs at 67% heat efficiency. To get 4 med lasers running at the same level (68% actually) you need 27HS!!!

So the actual comparison should be something like:
AC20 - 12T 10slots
4T ammo (enough for standard game) - 4T 4slots
10HS (in engine so assume free)
TOTAL 16T 14slots

vs

4ML - 4T 4slots
10HS (in engine so assume free)
17HS (additional) - 17T 17slots
TOTAL 21T 21slots


Of course as somebody else mentioned your best bet is to take both (CTF-1X ftw!)

Edited by Jungle Rhino, 08 January 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[MrPenguin]

Jungle Rhino, on 08 January 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

I rate the AC20 much higher than 4 med lasers. The number of HS you need to keep those lasers going is not insignificant - An AC20 with 10HS runs at 67% heat efficiency. To get 4 med lasers running at the same level (68% actually) you need 27HS!!!

So the actual comparison should be something like:
AC20 - 12T 10slots
4T ammo (enough for standard game) - 4T 4slots
10HS (in engine so assume free)
TOTAL 16T 14slots

vs

4ML - 4T 4slots
10HS (in engine so assume free)
17HS (additional) - 17T 17slots
TOTAL 21T 21slots


Of course as somebody else mentioned your best bet is to take both (CTF-1X ftw!)

Speaking of which, I should invest in a 1X. But alas, I am an Assault pilot and mastering atlas and stalkers is not cheap

Edited by MrPenguin, 08 January 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Havyek]

So instead of clicking fire once, I just spam by fire button and get the same result.


Sorry but this won't change anything, just become irritating.

I got called a hacker and accused of using aimbots in MPBT:3025 more than a few times because I could spam the mouse button when my reticule was on a target's head. Clicking like a mad man will simply leave the problem the same but make people irritated and leave.

Hell instead of running 9 MLAS on 3 groups, I can put them on 6 groups and just spam the groups. The COF won't impact 2 weapons that much and I can just spam 1,2,3,4,5 all day long.

Nice try on thinking up other ideas for the convergence "problem" but IMO convergence isn't a problem. People standing still enough long enough to get the entire beam duration in the same place is.