388 replies to this topic

[Ryche]

Is there a reason why MWO has devolved again to ridge humping and low skill kills with high damage pilots thinking they are great... Yes they are boating AC weapons like the AC 2 5 20 or ultra AC 5.

These weapons all fire faster than any other weapons require no time left facing the opponent for a quick snap shot and require little in the way of piloting skills as they mostly stand still from nearly 3 times the range listed on the weapon.

Ballistics need to be toned down in general. The fire times are way to low and the range drop off for damage is ludicrous. If they want the ranges to be what they are they need to list the ranges using the same rating as for energy weapons and have drop off in damage start past optimal range.

Missiles and Energy are not nearly as dangerous as Ballistics in MWO and this needs to be fixed. A mech that is energy based should be just as scary as a Jagger. Also in toning this down mechs would not as say heavies be even more scary than assaults in many cases.

Basically right now if you aren't bringing large caliber ballistics you are hurting you teams chance at winning. This is bad and they should be working on a fix for this.

Edited by Ryche, 06 November 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[Sandpit]

tell that to my Bmasters and stalkers.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Energy weapons work just fine for me

[The Justicar]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

tell that to my Bmasters and stalkers.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Energy weapons work just fine for me

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Ballistics are WAY more powerful than energy based weapons. The proof is in the math. The following post's calculations don't even factor in instant damage vs. beam duration, which would even further skew results in favor of AC's.

See:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/

Edited by The Justicar, 06 November 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[darkchylde]

There are also a few threads that show ballistics are superior to energy. It's the new meta - ghost heat barely effects them and they don't require true DHS to be effective.

[KinLuu]

Then:

Nerf Gauss and PPC, Buff ACs!

PGI does as the community demanded.

Now:

Nerf ACs! Buff Energy!

[The Justicar]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Then:

Nerf Gauss and PPC, Buff ACs!

PGI does as the community demanded.

Now:

Nerf ACs! Buff Energy!

What a ridiculous and unconstructive comment.

Everything they've done is terrible, broken, and stupid. PGI is simply incapable of balancing this game, and it is a very simple game to balance. Blizzard keeps WOW in relative balance and it is, quite literally, orders of magnitude more complex. The fact that this game has been out two years and AC v Energy balance is so terrible is embarassing, and lets not even talk about the broken heat system.

Nobody is asking for a buff to energy weapons. We're asking for balance across weapons in this game. AC DPS is too high, energy can't compete because of range and heat issues. That's what this thread is about.

[Vodrin Thales]

Pinpoint weapons are what is superior not just AC's. Standard PPC's with AC5/UAC5 or AC20 is largely what you see in 12 mans. Energy are only inferior due to lasers not being pinpoint weapons, and ERPPC's being too hot to boat. PPC's are still very strong.

[KinLuu]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

What a ridiculous and unconstructive comment.

Everything they've done is terrible, broken, and stupid. PGI is simply incapable of balancing this game, and it is a very simple game to balance. Blizzard keeps WOW in relative balance and it is, quite literally, orders of magnitude more complex. The fact that this game has been out two years and AC v Energy balance is so terrible is embarassing, and lets not even talk about the broken heat system.

Nobody is asking for a buff to energy weapons. We're asking for balance across weapons in this game. AC DPS is too high, energy can't compete because of range and heat issues. That's what this thread is about.

And why are ACs so strong? Because they have been buffed at least 3 times, while Energy has been nerfed at the same time.

The reason? The forum QQ, very similar to this thread.

[Sandpit]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Ballistics are WAY more powerful than energy based weapons. The proof is in the math. The following post's calculations don't even factor in instant damage vs. beam duration, which would even further skew results in favor of AC's.

See:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/

it is YOUR opinion that I would do better in a different build. Not a fact.

"It works for me, this is how I see it. This is the best way for me to win and do damage and build mechs so it MUST be a fact for every single other person that plays this game"

[Hexenhammer]

Shame AC's are the low heat alternative to energy weapons and matches end before people run out of ammo. Maybe PGI needs to return AC ammo back to its original levels to force people to use energy weapons.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 06 November 2013 - 01:16 PM.

[Sandpit]

Nobody ever bothers to talk about the trade-offs such as additional weight, crit spaces, and ammo (which also takes up weight and slots) because it's not convenient to their ideas and opinions

[DaZur]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Ballistics are WAY more powerful than energy based weapons. The proof is in the math. The following post's calculations don't even factor in instant damage vs. beam duration, which would even further skew results in favor of AC's.

See:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/

Great... another post that hangs it's hat on "math" while ignoring the mitigating factors of using ballistic weapons such as lead-time, ballistic drop at range, weapon and ammo weight... Not even mentioning the unavoidable exposure time DPI ballistics require.

Oh and before anyone throw "heat" into the counter argument... Very few mechs run ballistics exclusively, this with mixed weapons, heat is a valid mitigator. Oh... and the mechs that DO boat ballistics have the mitigating factor of running XLs...

[Sandpit]

DaZur, on 06 November 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Great... another post that hangs it's hat on "math" while ignoring the mitigating factors of using ballistic weapons such as lead-time, ballistic drop at range, weapon and ammo weight... Not even mentioning the unavoidable exposure time DPI ballistics require.

Oh and before anyone throw "heat" into the counter argument... Very few mechs run ballistics exclusively, this with mixed weapons, heat is a valid mitigator. Oh... and the mechs that DO boat ballistics have the mitigating factor of running XLs...

That's because showing things like an AC 10 weighing 9 tons and requiring another ton of ammo for 10 tons of weight compared to 5 tons of an LL actually shows why there's a trade-off and how that weapon isn't the end-all be-all. It doesn't take into account things like what happens when ammo runs dry, ammo gets blown, or the fact that I can carry 2 LLs for the same weight to ensure that if one gets destroyed I'm still combat effective. They don't talk about things like that because it shows just how one-sided and biased their points are.

[AlmightyAeng]

In addition, my 2 UAC5, 6 ML ghost-heat breaking, non-AC boating Jagermech with a 3.04 K/D ratio says hello. It's maintained fun and awesomesauce through all the nerfs and buffs...maybe it's not the balance issue that's a problem.

OP, before you scream about 'boating' consider the definition. Having a pair of a single weapon isn't boating.

If you're going to complain about 'boating AC5 and UAC5' and then also complain that everyone is bringing 'larger caliber ballistics' you might want to consider combining that into 'I just hate ballistics' since they're two entirely different things.

[Vodrin Thales]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

And why are ACs so strong? Because they have been buffed at least 3 times, while Energy has been nerfed at the same time.

The reason? The forum QQ, very similar to this thread.

Only the AC5 has been buffed in the last year (and the UAC5 has been both buffed and nerfed). The AC2, AC10, and AC20 have been exactly the same for the past year (unless you count the ghost heat nerfs of the AC2 and AC20). Oh and until the AC5's buffs and PPC nerfs the AC5 was considered a "bad" weapon that no one should use.

[Oni Ralas]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

tell that to my Bmasters and stalkers.

This is your opinion, not a fact. Energy weapons work just fine for me

Ah yes - use two assault s your rethort for being "fine".

LOL.

[Vodrin Thales]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

That's because showing things like an AC 10 weighing 9 tons and requiring another ton of ammo for 10 tons of weight compared to 5 tons of an LL actually shows why there's a trade-off and how that weapon isn't the end-all be-all. It doesn't take into account things like what happens when ammo runs dry, ammo gets blown, or the fact that I can carry 2 LLs for the same weight to ensure that if one gets destroyed I'm still combat effective. They don't talk about things like that because it shows just how one-sided and biased their points are.

AC10 is a 12 ton weapon that requires 2 tons of ammo to be effective. Compare this to a single PPC that weighs 7 tons and takes up 6 less crit spaces when ammo is factored in, and the PPC has a higher projectile speed and unlimited ammo (as opposed to 30 shots). The PPC will require additional heat sinks to maintain a reasonable fire rate, but the weapons are really fairly comparable and many would argue the PPC is superior even after the nerfs.

[Davers]

Ghost Badger, on 06 November 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

In addition, my 2 UAC5, 6 ML ghost-heat breaking, non-AC boating Jagermech

How many ACs does it take to be a boat in your opinion? Most mechs can only carry 2, and only Jager can carry 4 (I think).

[MerryIguana]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

an AC 10 weighing 9 tons

Did i miss something?

Edited by MerryIguana, 06 November 2013 - 02:17 PM.

[The Justicar]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

it is YOUR opinion that I would do better in a different build. Not a fact.

"It works for me, this is how I see it. This is the best way for me to win and do damage and build mechs so it MUST be a fact for every single other person that plays this game"

What you play better with is irrelevant. Mathematically, ballistics are out of balance. I'm not here to debate your play style or preference, that's pointless.