237 replies to this topic

[Elfman]

Seems to me its more that most of the OP complaints are down to one particullar chassis.

We got the streak cat, Splat cat (multi SRM 6's), the gauss kitty and the AC20 cat.

Seems no one really complains about 5 SRM 6's on a stalker as in close the stalker turns slowly and keeping out of firing range is easy.

now the Cat's which due to hard to hit shoulders always run an XL engine can torso twist quickly with almost a full circle coverage and can run at 86 KPH (with speed tweak) with Jump jets and be heat neutral.

The catapult is meant to be a back line support mech as per the Sarna description "The Catapult is an offense oriented, second-line fire-support"

If they reduced the max size engine and toned down both the torso twist amount and speed then the balance would be restored - you would still have the problem of turning a corner face to face with one but anywhere with a bit more open space where you can twist and turn the Cats dead when you get behind it or out of its firing arc

[M4rtyr]

Elfman, on 14 January 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

Seems to me its more that most of the OP complaints are down to one particullar chassis.

We got the streak cat, Splat cat (multi SRM 6's), the gauss kitty and the AC20 cat.

Seems no one really complains about 5 SRM 6's on a stalker as in close the stalker turns slowly and keeping out of firing range is easy.

now the Cat's which due to hard to hit shoulders always run an XL engine can torso twist quickly with almost a full circle coverage and can run at 86 KPH (with speed tweak) with Jump jets and be heat neutral.

The catapult is meant to be a back line support mech as per the Sarna description "The Catapult is an offense oriented, second-line fire-support"

If they reduced the max size engine and toned down both the torso twist amount and speed then the balance would be restored - you would still have the problem of turning a corner face to face with one but anywhere with a bit more open space where you can twist and turn the Cats dead when you get behind it or out of its firing arc

You're not reading close enough then. I've used the SRMCat as an example just because its a simple name and mounts the most SRMs.

But throughout I've been saying that the missile damages should be set back to their basic level, there is no reason for them to be higher then the base of other weapons. Have also mentioned that I use a Hunchie 4SP and think its silly how much damage I can pup into 1 location with just 2.

But its as simple as there is no reason for them to do the higher damage, so why are they doing it.

[Broceratops]

if tabletop is such a good balanced game how come it's dead

[MajorLeeHung]

M4rtyr, on 13 January 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Well tell the Devs that because all the other weapons use TT rules except rate of fire. That is why they have become out of balance.

Oh really good sir? So your Gauss Rifle has a minimum range on it?

[M4rtyr]

Broceratops, on 14 January 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

if tabletop is such a good balanced game how come it's dead

*looks around* Wait I thought this was the Mech... hey it is the Mechwarrior forums. Gee imagine that.

It's not dead, TT in all sorts is lessened, but obviously Battletech/Mechwarrior still has a following. There is the PC version of TT to, Mechwarrior Tactics I think is it.

Not to mention they are using the TT stats for the majority of things regardless. TT balance never changed, I will say it started getting a little unbalanced with a few designs in 3050, but that was just the mech loadouts not the weapons themselves. Then in 3055 and beyond thing got really messy. Admitedly I wouldn't play anything but 3025 or 3050, but thats ok since MWO uses 3050.

But agian.. one good reason, why should the missile damage be higher then TT values when the others aren't.

Edit:

MajorLeeHung, on 14 January 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Oh really good sir? So your Gauss Rifle has a minimum range on it?

Really? GR having a minimum was always a bit odd anyway, but one very minor little thing compared to ALL the other stats.

Edited by M4rtyr, 14 January 2013 - 05:48 AM.

[Broceratops]

well for one thing, you can aim lasers in this game, unlike in tabletop where its random. so thats already a huge buff to lasers. so unless you want missiles to be pinpoint, leaving them at those values would in essence nerf them. and if you want them to be pinpoint but 2 dmg each, then okay, but what you basically have then is a ballistic.

whereas what you're proposing is even worse - you just want their damage to be in line with TT. what you end up with then is the LBX10 in missile form, i.e. a piece of crap that nobody with a brain would use unless they're messing around.

this is also why lrms are 1.8 damage. because not all things translate directly from throwing a dice to aiming a mouse and they need to tweak stuff.

wait til clan tech. there will be a huge uproar from TT hardliners when they 'nerf' ssrm6, uac/20, and all that shebang. can you imagine a mech with 2 uac/20s? double shot 80 damage hur hur.

Edited by Broceratops, 14 January 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[M4rtyr]

Broceratops, on 14 January 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

well for one thing, you can aim lasers in this game, unlike in tabletop where its random. so thats already a huge buff to lasers. so unless you want missiles to be pinpoint, leaving them at those values would in essence nerf them. and if you want them to be pinpoint but 1 dmg each, then okay, but what you basically have then is a ballistic.

Yeah you can aim yourself to target specific locations. But how often do you even get to hit where you want. movement, taking damage, twisting, etc all get in the way of what you are trying to hit. Not to mention all the pilots out there that have a hard enough time even connecting at all.

And oh, by the way, you missed the part earlier where we talked about the SRM's being pinpoint as well when you get in close which is anything but hard. That in itself is a much more massive buff to the SRM's compared to other weapons to not have the spread. But I'm not calling for a change to that am I, just asking that SRMs have the same base damage as the other weapons... because there is no viable reason for them to hagve the damage buff. Or are you actually going to try and give me one.

[Vassago Rain]

ConnorSinclair, on 14 January 2013 - 04:51 AM, said:

You're kidding right? I hear his drunken/high grabdeal stupor as he pilots 3L's through the husks of grabdeal Stalkers every night, HE LIKES SAILORMOON GRAB DEAL MORE THAN ANY GIRL SHOULD LEGALLY,

GRAB DEAL

He sends us photos.....

MUH WRITTEN INTEGRITY ON A GRAB VIDEO GAME DEAL FORUMS!

I am about this masculine. It's true.

[MustrumRidcully]

Broceratops, on 14 January 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:

if tabletop is such a good balanced game how come it's dead

It doesn't seem dead to me. But it's a table top game. That has and will always be a niche market. In its niche, it doesn't look too bad, I think. It still gets publications and all.

Heck, I actually started playing Battletech and Mechwarrior: Age of War recently. (And amusingly enough, it wasn't on my initiative. Someone else suggested it as one of our one-off campaign for rainy days when not every player can be there... )

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 January 2013 - 05:59 AM.

[M4rtyr]

Broceratops, on 14 January 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

this is also why lrms are 1.8 damage. because not all things translate directly from throwing a dice to aiming a mouse and they need to tweak stuff.

Oh? and what is it EXACTLY that doesn't translate that deemed LRM's to need a damage buff? You don't even need to aim them, just point in the general direction and lockon.

Should the damages really be changed because most of the maps have too much cover to use them perfectly? Hell no, because then the maps like Caustic with minimal cover they are too good.

So AGAIN... what are good reasons SRMs and LRM needed their damage buffed but no other weapons did.

And BTW, I'm not a TT purist, just don't see any reason the missiles need the buff. If they include Clan tech the SRRM6 Mad Cat is going to be on everyone hit list.

Edited by M4rtyr, 14 January 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

M4rtyr, on 14 January 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Oh? and what is it EXACTLY that doesn't translate that deemed LRM's to need a damage buff? You don't even need to aim them, just point in the general direction and lockon.

Should the damages really be changed because most of the maps have too much cover to use them perfectly? Hell no, because then the maps like Caustic with minimal cover they are too good.

So AGAIN... what are good reasons SRMs and LRM needed their damage buffed but no other weapons did.

And BTW, I'm not a TT purist, just don't see any reason the missiles need the buff. If they include Clan tech the SRRM6 Mad Cat is going to be on everyone hit list.

What#s the deal with cover anyway for LRMs - in the table top, there was generally no cover that affected missiles differently than other weapons. Indirect fire wasn't a given normally.

[SixstringSamurai]

SSRM6s don't come out till the 3058 in the IS. And an SRM6 only does the damage of a Gauss rifle except unlike a Gauss Rifle the target has to be standing at 270m from you for them to be most effective otherwise that damage is little more then that of a medium laser since it spreads the damage. Even with Artemis your not doing all of the 15 damage to one spot unless they are in that "butter" zone.

[SixstringSamurai]

Also if your going to use the TT argument you have to account for the fact that armor is double the value of TT in MWO. So 2.5 damage isn't entirely outside of the ballpark. Plus in TT don't you have critical multipliers that make the weapon more effective then is default value of 2?

I mean I'm no genius but isn't that what this is all about:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

Edited by SixStringSamurai, 14 January 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Broceratops]

M4rtyr, on 14 January 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Oh? and what is it EXACTLY that doesn't translate that deemed LRM's to need a damage buff? You don't even need to aim them, just point in the general direction and lockon.

Should the damages really be changed because most of the maps have too much cover to use them perfectly? Hell no, because then the maps like Caustic with minimal cover they are too good.

So AGAIN... what are good reasons SRMs and LRM needed their damage buffed but no other weapons did.

And BTW, I'm not a TT purist, just don't see any reason the missiles need the buff. If they include Clan tech the SRRM6 Mad Cat is going to be on everyone hit list.

I already told you the reason. Because all other weapons you can aim at a section unlike in TT where you hit random areas. So lasers and ballistics are far more efficient in FPS form than they were in TT so they needed to buff AOE weapons that didn't gain this aim advantage. Your response to this was "well I can't aim very well so it's basically still random where/if I hit", and for this I have no response that is not snarky.


As for running up to someone and SRM6 ing them in the face because its harder to miss, that applies to every weapon. It's harder to miss with lasers too from that range.

Edited by Broceratops, 14 January 2013 - 06:23 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

SixStringSamurai, on 14 January 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

SSRM6s don't come out till the 3058 in the IS. And an SRM6 only does the damage of a Gauss rifle except unlike a Gauss Rifle the target has to be standing at 270m from you for them to be most effective otherwise that damage is little more then that of a medium laser since it spreads the damage. Even with Artemis your not doing all of the 15 damage to one spot unless they are in that "butter" zone.

A single SRM6 also weighs only 3 tons, so for the weight of one Gauss Rifle, you could theoretically get 5 SRMs. If we account for (double) heat sinks, you're still at about 2 to 3 SRM6 for one Gauss Rifle. So that's two to three times the damage. Unless you think that double the range means twice as powerful, I think this still looks very favorable to the SRM6.

SixStringSamurai, on 14 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Also if your going to use the TT argument you have to account for the fact that armor is double the value of TT in MWO. So 2.5 damage isn't entirely outside of the ballpark. Plus in TT don't you have critical multipliers that make the weapon more effective then is default value of 2?

If you want to bring in double armour - what's the point of doubling armour if you also double damage? And why should we not also double the damage of a PPC or the damage of a Medium Laser than?

The correct solution to double armour here would be doubling the ammo / ton. I believe the SRMs and LRMs are actually the closest to having gotten this perk.

[MaddMaxx]

It is obvious that many have come on late and don't understand the amount of tweaking that was actually done to many of the weapon systems, including the one in question, in the CB.

If what is now considered by many to be the best, perhaps of the worst, values found after many round of Testing and changes, then that is unfortunate.

As to the point of WHY change them. Simple. They totally "SUCKED BONES" at, or even near, the TT values based on the myriad of game play elements that had to be considered to make the Whole. When looked at in a vacuum, sure many elements seem "off", but that is not how the Dev have to view it.

[M4rtyr]

Broceratops, on 14 January 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

I already told you the reason. Because all other weapons you can aim at a section unlike in TT where you hit random areas. So lasers and ballistics are far more efficient in FPS form than they were in TT so they needed to buff AOE weapons that didn't gain this aim advantage. Your response to this was "well I can't aim very well so it's basically still random where/if I hit", and for this I have no response that is not snarky.


As for running up to someone and SRM6 ing them in the face because its harder to miss, that applies to every weapon. It's harder to miss with lasers too from that range.

Lol, thats not a good reason, because unless you a facing somone that only moves in straight lines and can't rotate their torso it truely is impossible for you to hit where you want to hit with ever shot simply for the fact that the choice you want isn't always facing you to hit it. Personally when I'm riding with other pilots I get the impression I'm at least slightly above average with my targeting skills and even so unless my target is not moving or just moving in a straight line toward or away from me I'm still spreading my hits over 2-3 areas.

Now the point about the close range SRM you got totally wrong. By being in close and using SRM's you completely negate their prime balancing aspect, the spread. TT you hit from point blank and you still randomize how many missiles and their hit location. MWO you don't they all hit and most likely all hit 1 location, 2 at most. That in itself is a FAR larger buff to the weapon then its damage per missile but I'm not complaining about that. Keep that how it is for all I care. Just want the damages put back to their base values.

[SixstringSamurai]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 January 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

A single SRM6 also weighs only 3 tons, so for the weight of one Gauss Rifle, you could theoretically get 5 SRMs. If we account for (double) heat sinks, you're still at about 2 to 3 SRM6 for one Gauss Rifle. So that's two to three times the damage. Unless you think that double the range means twice as powerful, I think this still looks very favorable to the SRM6.


If you want to bring in double armour - what's the point of doubling armour if you also double damage? And why should we not also double the damage of a PPC or the damage of a Medium Laser than?

The correct solution to double armour here would be doubling the ammo / ton. I believe the SRMs and LRMs are actually the closest to having gotten this perk.

Did you even read what I wrote or did you just pull out what you wanted and went with it?

[M4rtyr]

MaddMaxx, on 14 January 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

It is obvious that many have come on late and don't understand the amount of tweaking that was actually done to many of the weapon systems, including the one in question, in the CB.

If what is now considered by many to be the best, perhaps of the worst, values found after many round of Testing and changes, then that is unfortunate.

As to the point of WHY change them. Simple. They totally "SUCKED BONES" at, or even near, the TT values based on the myriad of game play elements that had to be considered to make the Whole. When looked at in a vacuum, sure many elements seem "off", but that is not how the Dev have to view it.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't pass... They got buffed because they sucked bones? Really...

No, I could see most players saying LRMs are underpowered because they can't kill things with 40+ missiles. Thats the point behind LRM's though, they are a support weapon, not meant to do the majority of damage but to soften targets up. Why are they meant to do crap damage like that? Simple, because its the only weapon that allows you to hit targets -THAT AREN'T EVEN IN LOS-. If you can't see how much of a benefit that is and so balancing it by making them comparitively lower damage (8-12 damage isn't exactly terrible for LRM10-15s) then you don't know how to balance a game anyway.

As for the SRMs.... LMAO, SRMs can never have possibly sucked. Even with the TT spread they've always been a powerful short range weapon. And as I've stated, MWO allows for more missiles to hit even without artemis. But hey, lets look at the specifics. with base TT damage an SRMCat will still do 72 damage to 1 location, maybe 2 when used in the most dangerous fashion. Guess what.. 72 damage in one LOW HEAT alpha with the standard cycle time is anything but a "SUCKED BONES" weapon. So don't give me that BS, because its exactly what it is BS. Maybe there were other bugs at the time that were preventing SRM full damage, but as things sit now there is no reason not to have them use base TT damage.

Edited by M4rtyr, 14 January 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

SixStringSamurai, on 14 January 2013 - 06:35 AM, said:

Did you even read what I wrote or did you just pull out what you wanted and went with it?

I am not convinced that you don't overestimate the precision you get from weapons with ballistic trajectory and energy weapons with a beam duration. And it doesn't explain why LB10-X ACs didn't also get a damage imrpovement.

It doesn't explain why trying to run an AC/20 with the same sustainable rate of fire as 4 Medium lasers would require that much more weight than those 4 MLs and the appropriate number of sinks? The difference makes sense in the table top due to random hit locations, but in MW:O, it doesn't.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 14 January 2013 - 06:48 AM.