17 replies to this topic

[Charles Seneca]

There simply is not enough ammo per ton and here's why. The stats used below are based on my own, approximated.

Accuracy with lasers - 90%
Accuracy with projectiles - 53%-60% (including PPC, Gauss etc. Faster projectile = increased %)

So it is pretty obvious that projectiles come with a large penalty to hit, a penalty which does not exist in TT but which is unavoidable in a real-time game.

This penalty needs to be mitigated, at least to some extent. There are a number of solutions.

1. Increase projectile speed - probably not going to happen.
2. Increase ammo per ton by 30-40% to make up for all those shots that miss, due to the nature of the game, that shouldn't based on the original ruleset.

Edited by Charles Seneca, 16 April 2013 - 06:23 AM.

[Mechteric]

The accuracy with lasers is a bit misleading, because you only have to hit for a minimum 1/10th of the duration for it to count as a hit. Thing is your damage is not going to be very good at all unless you hit with all or nearly all the duration of the laser inside the max range, and even then getting the entire duration to hit the same spot can also be difficult against certain targets. Compare that to ballistics and PPC where when you do hit you get massive damage to one location (more or less)

[Milt]

not worth talking about accuracy until after patch host state rewind for ballistics should make a huge improvement on ballistic accuracy. and 12v12 should be no different than 8v8. eventhough you have 4 more ppl to shoot at, you also have 4 more ppl shooting with you and at you.

[saagri]

Hm, analyzing my game performance my accuracy with ballistics is roughly 41% Damage per hit is almost 100% or higher of the potential damage I would do at optimal range.
Lasers I have an accuracy of 85% with a damage per hit is around 47/48% of what it could do at optimal range and if the target was standing still.

[Charles Seneca]

Yes it's true that lasers need to be held on target - but then lasers never run out of ammo.
This is why PPCs currently dominate the battlefield. They have the "punch" of an autocannon combined with the infinite use of a laser. The "to hit penalty" suffered by PPC users is therefore mitigated.

Milts point on 12v12 I accept.

However, my point that ballistics have a "to hit penalty" due to the nature of the game still stands and judging from saagri's post it clearly affects some players more or less than others.

I think a 30-40% ammo per ton increase for auto-cannons would go a long way to making them more viable and "user friendly".

Edited by Charles Seneca, 16 April 2013 - 06:11 AM.

[Neolisk]

Milt, on 16 April 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

eventhough you have 4 more ppl to shoot at, you also have 4 more ppl shooting with you and at you.

This.

[Durant Carlyle]

Charles Seneca, on 16 April 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

I think a 30-40% ammo per ton increase for auto-cannons would go a long way to making them more viable and "user friendly".

I'm sorry, but no. All ballistic and almost all missile weapons already have increased ammo/ton over the tabletop values. The only one that doesn't is SRMs/SSRMs. They don't need a further increase over what they already have.

[PaladinXIII]

CapperDeluxe, on 16 April 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:

The accuracy with lasers is a bit misleading, because you only have to hit for a minimum 1/10th of the duration for it to count as a hit. Thing is your damage is not going to be very good at all unless you hit with all or nearly all the duration of the laser inside the max range, and even then getting the entire duration to hit the same spot can also be difficult against certain targets. Compare that to ballistics and PPC where when you do hit you get massive damage to one location (more or less)

This discrepancy is also that lasers continue to "hit" even if the target or player moves. Case in point is you fire a medium laser at the CT of mech, because of the short duration needed to count as a hit it shows your accuracy as being higher but due to movement from both sides you might deal 2 damage to the CT, 1 damage to the LT, and 2 damage to the LA; with ballistics you fire an AC/10 round at the enemy mech you either hit the mech or you miss -some point on the mech will receive 10 damage or it will not hit all.

Another thing to consider is that many mechs are moving faster than normally spec'd and Ballistic State Rewind has not gone into effect. We should wait and see how ballistics work after the rewind is implemented.

[Charles Seneca]

Durant Carlyle, on 16 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

I'm sorry, but no. All ballistic and almost all missile weapons already have increased ammo/ton over the tabletop values. The only one that doesn't is SRMs/SSRMs. They don't need a further increase over what they already have.

What percentage is the increase? If you make a statement it helps if you support it with facts. If it is a 30-40% increase then you have a strong case for saying "no". If it is significantly less then you don't.

Edited by Charles Seneca, 16 April 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[Charles Seneca]

PaladinXIII, on 16 April 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

This discrepancy is also that lasers continue to "hit" even if the target or player moves. Case in point is you fire a medium laser at the CT of mech, because of the short duration needed to count as a hit it shows your accuracy as being higher but due to movement from both sides you might deal 2 damage to the CT, 1 damage to the LT, and 2 damage to the LA; with ballistics you fire an AC/10 round at the enemy mech you either hit the mech or you miss -some point on the mech will receive 10 damage or it will not hit all.

Another thing to consider is that many mechs are moving faster than normally spec'd and Ballistic State Rewind has not gone into effect. We should wait and see how ballistics work after the rewind is implemented.

My concern is not the damage being dealt, but the fact that the large and undeniable "to hit penalty" on ballistics needs to be mitigated in some way - the easiest of which is to increase ammo/ton.

[Bobzilla]

Also ballistics have a longer range, pinpoint damage, higher DPS and at heat neutral, (even with ammo) weigh less and take less slots.

Just practice aim, hope lag/convergence issues get fixed. If your accuracy was as high with ballistics, with your own point, there would be no need to change them.

Hitting 60% of the time with a weapon that has 100% more dps = more damage.

[Charles Seneca]

Bobzilla, on 16 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Also ballistics have a longer range, pinpoint damage, higher DPS and at heat neutral, (even with ammo) weigh less and take less slots.

Just practice aim, hope lag/convergence issues get fixed. If your accuracy was as high with ballistics, with your own point, there would be no need to change them.

Hitting 60% of the time with a weapon that has 100% more dps = more damage.

I think we are playing different games. Autocannons and Gauss are heavier and bulkier than just about every other weapon out there. They are not heat neutral, just less hot.

For the second time. Damage is not the issue. Ammo availability is.

[PaladinXIII]

Charles Seneca, on 16 April 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

My concern is not the damage being dealt, but the fact that the large and undeniable "to hit penalty" on ballistics needs to be mitigated in some way - the easiest of which is to increase ammo/ton.

This is tricky as I personally feel that the ammo/tonnage is about right. Most ballistics I take have about 3 tons of ammo per barrel (depending on the AC and mech) and in most matches that I survive and use the ACs liberally I don't run dry.

[Volthorne]

Charles Seneca, on 16 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

What percentage is the increase? If you make a statement it helps if you support it with facts. If it is a 30-40% increase then you have a strong case for saying "no". If it is significantly less then you don't.

LRMs have a 50% increase (180 up from 120). Ballistics have somewhere around a 20% increase.

[Charles Seneca]

Volthorne, on 16 April 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

LRMs have a 50% increase (180 up from 120). Ballistics have somewhere around a 20% increase.

Thx Volthorne. Given those figures even a 10-20% increase on ammo/ton would go a long way to making things better.

Edited by Charles Seneca, 16 April 2013 - 08:36 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Charles Seneca, on 16 April 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

I think we are playing different games. Autocannons and Gauss are heavier and bulkier than just about every other weapon out there. They are not heat neutral, just less hot.

For the second time. Damage is not the issue. Ammo availability is.

Im saying compare them both at heat neutral. The difference isn't that much but the range and damage of ballistics is much much greater.

LL at heat neutral is 22tons 19 slots.
AC/10 24tons 19 slots.

AC/10 does almost double dps and 450 more range. ERLL same range, 28 tons 25 slots, still about half the dps.

Weapons have to be compared at heat neutral, as if your not shooting you aren't doing damage. I wouldn't say 2 tons plus ammo for double the dps is "much heavier and bulkier". I look at it the other way around, 2 LL's are the same dps as one AC/10 but with the ac/10 i only need 12 heatsinks, not the 34 to have the same result with the 2 LL's.

[Volthorne]

Charles Seneca, on 16 April 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Thx Volthorne. Given those figures even a 10-20% increase on ammo/ton would go a long way to making things better.

I agree that some of the ballistics could use a little more ammo per ton (specifically the AC/20s and 10s), but giving everything an increase is asking for trouble.

[Zyllos]

Most of my ballistic (and ballistic-like weapons) generally have higher accuracy than lasers.

The only balance to ballistics, I think, that is needed is a decrease in heat for the AC/2 to match that of the AC/5.

Edited by Zyllos, 16 April 2013 - 12:33 PM.