351 replies to this topic

[Ravn]

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep... Actually, even if the weapons are balanced, energy weapons will need to have an intrinsic calibration and upkeep cost associated with them to keep the game from becoming entirely energy based. Why buy ammo when you can use a laser/PPC over and over for free.

[Hayashi]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Why buy ammo when you can use a laser/PPC over and over for free.

Hasn't that always been a problem with MechWarrior games? Energy weapons have infinite shots, don't have detonatable ammo, are lighter, have no ammo costs, and are instant hit... making them better choices in almost all instances than ballistics... hopefully MWO will be better at balancing than the previous games were.

[Zwergonfire]

Yeah, but..
Don't ammo weapons sling more damage with way less heat?

[Helmer]

Agreed that weapons need to be balanced , however, I don't recall the Devs ever saying it would be a major expense.
In fact I'm fairly sure they've avoided all information regarding the games economy.

The next Developer Blog should address some of our questions about it , but I doubt any specifics .



Cheers .

[Trevnor]

Well, for one thing, Energy weapons don't cause a lot of shake on the part of the enemy. Were if hit with a gauss rifle round, there is a possibility of losing a leg. And at close range, a AC/20 taking a limb! Energy weapons can't do that as well.

Edited by Lt Trevnor, 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[William Petersen]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep.

It's not really "pay to win" if it's funded by in-game currency...


Ammo costs: C-bills/ton (per Sarna)

SRM (any) 27,000
LRM (any) 30,000
AC/2 1,000
AC/5 4,500
AC/10 6,000
AC/20 10,000
M.Gun 1,000

These are basic munitions, no infernos or anything fancy like that. Missile ammo is pretty expensive, consider that an MLas costs 40,000.

[Pale Rider 010]

I, for one, intend to use ballistic and missile weapons a lot more than energy.

Yes, you have to pay for ammo, but unless ammo costs are MUCH higher than I personally expect them to be, I'm not worried about the cost. We already have to pay to maintain the mech, a little ammo cost on top of that won't break the bank, but it must be considered.

Ammo based weapons also risk ammo explosions, if you don't include CASE then a bad hit could ruin your day really fast.

Ballistic and missile weapons also tend to weigh considerably more than energy weapons, this tends to be their chief limitation.

However, ballistic and missile weapons generate a LOT less heat, so while I have a limited number of shots, I can KEEP SHOOTING until the guns run dry, and I will be bringing extra ammo. Try to just keep shooting those "free-to-fire" PPCs as fast as they can recharge and see how far that gets you.

Second, if I'm not mistaken, ballistic and missile weapons tend to do more damage than energy weapons. Yes, you have an unlimited number of shots, but those lasers aren't putting out as much damage as my Autocannon. Even your PPC only matches an AC/10, and you better believe I plan to pack an AC/20.

In summery, there are a LOT of balance factors, but ultimately I expect the cost of ammo to be the least of them.

Addendum: it has been mentioned "Pay to win" as being an issue with ammo driven weapons. When the dev's say you can't "Pay to win" what they mean is you can't use real money to buy an advantage. They do NOT mean that you can't use C-bills. This game is going to fall flat really fast if the expenditure of C-bills can't get me anything better than what I start with. I expect to spend C-bills on weapons of all types, some of which will be better than others. I expect to use C-bills on different mechs, and I will personally find some better than others. That does not mean I can "Pay to win." It means the game has a functional economy with a currency that has value.

[tynaiden]

William Petersen, on 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

It's not really "pay to win" if it's funded by in-game currency...
... *snip snip* ...

Who knows how else the economy may work. Already seems we will have repairs to worry about, maybe maintenance as well? If so that could be an avenue to help balance the pros/cons of Ballistic over Energy weapons.

[William Petersen]

Pale Rider 010, on 30 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

<Ammo-loving post>

Beware, this is exactly the thinking that lost Tukayyid for the Clans. A mix of weapons will (should) always be superior to boating any one type.


I agree with you in part. I do love my SRMs, and I love a good AC, but I also love some fall-back lasers or a PPC. B-)

[Monky]

Pay to Win refers to paying real life money for an advantage in combat (see world of tank's gold rounds and to a limited extent premium
tanks)

If it is all in game money, and it is affordable to use ammunition based weapons based on average payout, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Rhavin]

I am pretty sure that the devs have said that lasers will do DoT for the duration of the laser's "Burn". If I had more time I would find it in the dev blog somewhere. As I said I am pretty sure I saw this posted. Would make sense though as a laser uses heat to do damage, there would be no impact till it burned into something that was capable of explodeing. Ballistic weapons use impact to cause damage. Much of this game will depend on pilot skill me thinks and me hopes!

[Hayashi]

Pale Rider 010, on 30 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Second, if I'm not mistaken, ballistic and missile weapons tend to do more damage than energy weapons. Yes, you have an unlimited number of shots, but those lasers aren't putting out as much damage as my Autocannon. Even your PPC only matches an AC/10, and you better believe I plan to pack an AC/20.

Ton for ton, PPCs do the most damage. Even if a PPC matches an AC/10, the former is 7 tons, the latter is 12 tons. If we make up the difference with 6 heat sinks (because the AC/10 needs ammo) the PPC will be able to fire nonstop, and its range is far greater.

The AC/20 is more worth it, since it's 14 tons and exactly 2x the weight of a PPC. They'll be evenly matched when you bulk up ammo on the former and heat sinks on the second... except the PPC has greater range. But bringing a AC/10 to a PPC fight is a Very Bad Idea.

I prefer my weapons to be balanced, but honestly the previous MW titles have done a crap job at doing ammunition based weapons justice. TT is better at it, by far... and if MWO follows MW2/3/4's legacy you'll see me using mainly energy based weapons, along with everyone else.

In MW4: Mercs, a 4 ER PPC Sunder is basically The Best 'Mech, with the ability chainfire the ER PPCs to deal with vehicles and alpha on 'Mechs... which can OHKO an Osiris from 900+m away. Really hoping not to see that happen here.

[Joe Davion 86]

nothing wrong with either type of weapon. as cool as a PPC is i will be rocking something with an A\C. can't wait to hear the sound of an A\C blasting thru my enemies armor.

[William Petersen]

Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Ton for ton, PPCs do the most damage. Even if a PPC matches an AC/10, the former is 7 tons, the latter is 12 tons. If we make up the difference with 6 heat sinks (because the AC/10 needs ammo) the PPC will be able to fire nonstop, and its range is far greater.

"Far greater" might be a bit of exaggeration

AC/10:
1-5/6-10/11-15

PPC:
1-6/7-12/13-18

PPC also has a minimum range of 3.

So, 3 hexes is 90 meters, which is nothing to sneeze at, but I wouldn't call that a "far greater" rage difference. 0=-)


And you're right, MW titles thus far have tended to do a pretty crappy job of balancing the weapons. The problem, I think, lies mostly with the heat dispersion being too fast and the lack of significant negative effects for high heat. We'll see how the MW:O folks handle it.

They've already taken a step toward encouraging diversity in weapons with the hard point system, hopefully the weapon attributes themselves are fuhrer encouragement.

[Magnificent Bastard]

There are pros and cons associated with all of the different weapons types and even the sub-types within each one (LRMs, MRMs, SRMs, etc). I don't think balancing these things will be difficult for the devs at all. I think this is a non-issue.

Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

In MW4: Mercs, a 4 ER PPC Sunder is basically The Best 'Mech, with the ability chainfire the ER PPCs to deal with vehicles and alpha on 'Mechs... which can OHKO an Osiris from 900+m away. Really hoping not to see that happen here.

Are you playing with heat turned off or something? I don't normally run Assaults but a 4 ER PPC Sunder is going to run hot. Give me a mech with 4 Gauss Rifles and I'll show you a dead Sunder.

Edited by Magnificent Bastard, 30 April 2012 - 06:42 PM.

[Hayashi]

Magnificent *******, on 30 April 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Are you playing with heat turned off or something? I don't normally run Assaults but a 4 ER PPC Sunder is going to run hot. Give me a mech with 4 Gauss Rifles and I'll show you a dead Sunder.

Nope, on MW4 4 ERPPCs come with enough space weight to load heat sinks in the high twenties I believe. You can kill even an Atlas within 3 Alphas from that thing, and that Sunder can Alpha 2 times before reaching shutdown range on non-desert maps - and then cool down to 0k in half a minute to do the same thing again. The maximum possible number of Gausses is 3, given MW4's critical space restrictions... and 3 Gauss is weaker than 4 ER PPCs on MW4.

I greatly dislike how overpowered those things were in MW4.

The previous iterations of MechWarrior weren't as bad, in comparison, but they still overpowered energy weapons too much. I'm hoping the heat factor is far more emphasised on MWO to prevent that from recurring.

**EDIT** Confirmed, 27 heat sinks with max armour and engine speed 68.9 kph. Tested to clock 6 Atlas kills against one Sunder at range = 100 metres against the computer, way below what the ERPPC is capable of.

[Ravn]

I knew I shouldn't have used P2W to frame my thought. I have full confidence in our devs to keep the game from being that.

I heard ammo would be a major expense during one of the No Guts No Galaxy podcasts when they were reviewing one of the Q&As or Dev Blogs. Even if it uses in game currency, the Devs have said that weapons can not be destroyed. I can save money in ammo by rolling with PPCs to buy that next mech that much faster. I just foresee other frugal people also following this philosophy and we lose all the fun of seeing ballistic weapons. If energy weapon upkeep was balanced with ballistic weapon rearming cost, it would make for a more balanced game.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Rhinehart]

PPCs are some of the highest heat weapons in the game if not the highest. MW4 players got a very skewed view of PPCs and heat dissipation as heat disipation was far too easy and double heat sinks were the norm and could be loaded in large amounts. You have to go all the way back to MW 2 Mercs to find a game that does justice to exactly how hard it is to cool a PPC equiped mech with single heat sinks, which are almost certain to be what Mercs of no particular prominence(I.E. us players) will be equipped with, at least to start with.And like the previous poster said IS PPCs have a minimum range of 90 meters. Fire inside that range even once and you just melted that PPC into a slab of useless junk. Also ACs may weigh more, but the lighter calibers far out range most energy weapons. You may do the same damage as a medium laser but it will be from much further away. Don't assume a PPC will be the best weapon on the field. It all depends on the circumstance.

Edited by Rhinehart, 30 April 2012 - 06:58 PM.

[Orzorn]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep... Actually, even if the weapons are balanced, energy weapons will need to have an intrinsic calibration and upkeep cost associated with them to keep the game from becoming entirely energy based. Why buy ammo when you can use a laser/PPC over and over for free.

Its not a pay to win because you just buy them with c-bills, which, like EVERY OTHER Mechwarrior game, are earned through play.

Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Ton for ton, PPCs do the most damage. Even if a PPC matches an AC/10, the former is 7 tons, the latter is 12 tons. If we make up the difference with 6 heat sinks (because the AC/10 needs ammo) the PPC will be able to fire nonstop, and its range is far greater.

The AC/20 is more worth it, since it's 14 tons and exactly 2x the weight of a PPC. They'll be evenly matched when you bulk up ammo on the former and heat sinks on the second... except the PPC has greater range. But bringing a AC/10 to a PPC fight is a Very Bad Idea.

I prefer my weapons to be balanced, but honestly the previous MW titles have done a crap job at doing ammunition based weapons justice. TT is better at it, by far... and if MWO follows MW2/3/4's legacy you'll see me using mainly energy based weapons, along with everyone else.

In MW4: Mercs, a 4 ER PPC Sunder is basically The Best 'Mech, with the ability chainfire the ER PPCs to deal with vehicles and alpha on 'Mechs... which can OHKO an Osiris from 900+m away. Really hoping not to see that happen here.

They should include minimum range to balance PPCs. You can't PPC boat because, if they get within 90 meters, you're completely defenseless.

[Ravn]

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

Its not a pay to win because you just buy them with c-bills, which, like EVERY OTHER Mechwarrior game, are earned through play.

Read whole thread

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I knew I shouldn't have used P2W to frame my thought. I have full confidence in our devs to keep the game from being that.

I heard ammo would be a major expense during one of the No Guts No Galaxy podcasts when they were reviewing one of the Q&As or Dev Blogs. Even if it uses in game currency, the Devs have said that weapons can not be destroyed. I can save money in ammo by rolling with PPCs to buy that next mech that much faster. I just foresee other frugal people also following this philosophy and we lose all the fun of seeing ballistic weapons. If energy weapon upkeep was balanced with ballistic weapon rearming cost, it would make for a more balanced game.