65 replies to this topic

[FaustianQ]

Never used, and for good reason, I've always personally been curious why the light, medium, and heavy rifles have been relegated to the bottom of the barrel or not even included. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd love for the rifles to be rebalanced so they are a legitimate, alternate option to autocannons. I understand that in the fluff the rifles are old tech, but they don't have to be outright inferior tech, even if it's not entirely canon. For the sake of the rifles, I am more interested in this from a gameplay depth perspective.

If you simply look at the statistics, face value, they are more efficient then similar autocannons besides ammo per ton, range, and heat - they take up less space, they weigh less, they do more damage. Now, my idea is, where autocannons (especially the AC/2 and 5) fire in high damage bursts, the rifles can fire in slow alpha strikes., allowing both advantages and disadvantages, and different usages.

Let rifles front load the damage in a single shot and take much longer to cycle then a similar damage autocannon, and suddenly they have a place. If an AC/2 fires 15 shots, with 2 seconds between shots, have a light rifle (Or LR/3?) fire a single shot every 5 seconds. In 30 seconds, the AC/2 has done 30 damage, while the LR/3 has done 18 damage. The LR/3 is inferior in damage output (as is canonical) at all ranges, and suffers from low ammo, but makes up for it in being a low cost, low heat alternative.

You could argue lasers as better low cost weapons, but they are DoT weapons and wouldn't front load the damage like Rifles would. Missiles are further still different, in that they are a saturation weapon - they front load the damage, but it's very spread out.

Again, although I personally would like rifles to be an option, a real one, others may differ in their opinion (hence the poll). I'd love to hear some thoughts on this.

[Adridos]

They are used by Periphery, so we don't have to use that outdated junk.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I wouldn't mind if they were in. Who would use them though? They suck per ton.

[Adridos]

TheRulesLawyer, on 07 May 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind if they were in. Who would use them though? They suck per ton.

Pirates, Periphery weirdoes and veeeeery poor mercenaries.

[FaustianQ]

Adridos, on 07 May 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

They are used by Periphery, so we don't have to use that outdated junk.

Yes and no. They don't have to be horrible trash, just filler or alternatives that provide different functionality as compared to other weapon systems. Hey if RL/20s can be useful, why can't rifles.

TheRulesLawyer, on 07 May 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind if they were in. Who would use them though? They suck per ton.

How so? The Medium Rifle does 6 damage 10s, weighs 5t, while the comparable AC/5 does 5 damage 10s, weighs 8t. The Medium rifle can get 5t of ammo (45 rounds) compared to the 2t of ammo and 40 rounds the AC/5 gets. Crits are 7 for the MR/6, 6 for the AC/5, but the MR/6 can run less ammo for reduced tonnage and crit space that the AC/5 can't achieve.

After 10t though, the AC/5 really starts to take the lead. Similar stories with the SR/3 and AC/2, and the LR/9 and AC/10.

Edited by FaustianQ, 07 May 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Aelos03]

wth why not i like it

[Solis Obscuri]

Sooo... you're proposing the game should include a canonically primitive and sub-optimal weapon, but then buff it so it's effectively more useful than an autocannon? Going to have to say "no" to that.

[William Petersen]

Comparing them and the AC family, I actually almost like the rifles better. <.<

Ammo/ton is probably the biggest drawback, though. 6 shots/ton for the heavy rifle, otherwise it seems better than the AC/10.

1 less damage, 1 more heat.
4 less tons, 4 less crits.
1 hex longer short range. (2 hex longer med range, 3 hex longer long range)
4 fewer rounds per ton
Weapons system is less than half the cost of the AC/10, and ammo is exactly half the cost.


I think I'd be taking Heavy Rifles over AC/10s any day. I can make up the ammo differential with one of the free tons and crits from the system itself.

[Ravager AI]

In all honesty I would have nothing against the rifles, it is just that they are too simillar to the AC's that I think it is unnecesary to include them.

Also as I stated in the other thread about AC's they can fire in both singlefire and bursts. Making the rifles basically moot.

[FaustianQ]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 May 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Sooo... you're proposing the game should include a canonically primitive and sub-optimal weapon, but then buff it so it's effectively more useful than an autocannon? Going to have to say "no" to that.

No, I am proposing making it functionally different, and at least from the damage perspective, vastly inferior. For a less TT and more MWO perspective, look at the OP. An AC/5 would make up the damage difference by firing much faster (maybe every 5s) while the MR/6 still fires every 10s. From a weight/cost/space perspective, the Rifles could be better, but from a Damage/Ammo/Range/Heat perspective ACs would be better. Finally, due to MWOs hardpoint system, rifles only make sense on smaller mechs, once you hit 50t or more ACs would simply make more sense.

Second, playstyle itself would differ - rifle users would be more hit and run due to the longer cycle times, while AC users would be brawlers/brutes in comparison.

[Solis Obscuri]

FaustianQ, on 07 May 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

No, I am proposing making it functionally different, and at least from the damage perspective, vastly inferior. For a less TT and more MWO perspective, look at the OP. An AC/5 would make up the damage difference by firing much faster (maybe every 5s) while the MR/6 still fires every 10s. From a weight/cost/space perspective, the Rifles could be better, but from a Damage/Ammo/Range/Heat perspective ACs would be better. Finally, due to MWOs hardpoint system, rifles only make sense on smaller mechs, once you hit 50t or more ACs would simply make more sense.

Second, playstyle itself would differ - rifle users would be more hit and run due to the longer cycle times, while AC users would be brawlers/brutes in comparison.

I'm not seeing too many scenarios where having to stand around in the open as an artillery target while doing slow but steady DoT (and likely spreading a lot of it around) is really advantageous vs. delivering concentrated, front-loaded damage and then being able to maneuver aggressively or take cover, especially in an armored warfare game.

[FaustianQ]

Solis Obscuri, on 07 May 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

I'm not seeing too many scenarios where having to stand around in the open as an artillery target while doing slow but steady DoT (and likely spreading a lot of it around) is really advantageous vs. delivering concentrated, front-loaded damage and then being able to maneuver aggressively or take cover, especially in an armored warfare game.

I'm not sure what you mean by this - ACs as burst would be concentrated damage in short intervals that are longer then single strikes, while rifles would be more akin to how one thinks of PPCs, except worse alpha/better heat. An AC would then maneuver to dump it's damage on someone, dash away to cycle in a new drum/cassette, and repeat while the Rifle would plink away at the target while dashing behind/between cover. The difference is the AC exposes themselves longer but less often, while the Rifle is exposed for shorter periods many more times, while the AC does in general 40-50% more damage (AC/2 and SR/3 comparison in OP).

I am also not averse to further adjustments to make rifle and autocannon balance more fair (with the rifle having a higher skill requirement) to make it work either. I personally want more weapon and playstyle options and rifles give that possibility, at least on the cheap. Even if they are outright inferior, I wouldn't mind them, so long as I can slap them on - if MGs can get in, why can't rifles?

I will also admit I am biased and want to be able to load up on ballistics in a 35 tonner . Dual MR/6 Firestarter FTW!

[movingtarget]

would be handy on a urban mech or any other light thats ment to do hit and runs, a slow rate of fire dosnt matter as much if your only poping out to fire once before going to cover again

[trycksh0t]

I'm assuming you haven't read tactical operations, specifically page 337, which states: "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage."

So, in MWO terms, Light Rifles would generally hit for zero, Mediums for 3, and Heavies would only hit for 6.

[Thomas Hogarth]

trycksh0t, on 07 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I'm assuming you haven't read tactical operations, specifically page 337, which states: "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage."

So, in MWO terms, Light Rifles would generally hit for zero, Mediums for 3, and Heavies would only hit for 6.

Thank you.

Everyone else: That was a lot of posts until somebody noticed why rifles suck. It's not like this info is well hidden or anything - the data is right on sarna.

[FaustianQ]

trycksh0t, on 07 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I'm assuming you haven't read tactical operations, specifically page 337, which states: "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage."

So, in MWO terms, Light Rifles would generally hit for zero, Mediums for 3, and Heavies would only hit for 6.

No, I know about that, hence the opening paragraph, although I don't specifically acknowledge it.

FaustianQ, on 07 May 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Never used, and for good reason, I've always personally been curious why the light, medium, and heavy rifles have been relegated to the bottom of the barrel or not even included. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd love for the rifles to be rebalanced so they are a legitimate, alternate option to autocannons. I understand that in the fluff the rifles are old tech, but they don't have to be outright inferior tech, even if it's not entirely canon. For the sake of the rifles, I am more interested in this from a gameplay depth perspective.

Thus asking for a rebalance. I know they suck, but they have some interesting characteristics if the -3 damage "on anything important" is dropped.

[Thomas Hogarth]

What you're asking for is to make rifles a superior burst damage weapon, with ACs having superior damage over time. The problem with that is that burst damage is demonstrably better in a relatively slower-paced game with abundant cover. Therefore, rifles would be superior to AC in the lions share of situations.

Then there's the little problem in terms of a simple question: What canon design uses rifles? And another question: Why bother? With just 3025 tech, there's a load of variation that is fine for use - by 3049 that tech has broadened considerably.

I'm sorry - weapon systems that are close cousins to modern-day autoloading tank cannons shouldn't be superior to autocannon for 'Mech vs 'Mech actions.

[FaustianQ]

Thomas Hogarth, on 07 May 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

What you're asking for is to make rifles a superior burst damage weapon, with ACs having superior damage over time. The problem with that is that burst damage is demonstrably better in a relatively slower-paced game with abundant cover. Therefore, rifles would be superior to AC in the lions share of situations.

Then there's the little problem in terms of a simple question: What canon design uses rifles? And another question: Why bother? With just 3025 tech, there's a load of variation that is fine for use - by 3049 that tech has broadened considerably.

I'm sorry - weapon systems that are close cousins to modern-day autoloading tank cannons shouldn't be superior to autocannon for 'Mech vs 'Mech actions.

How would it be superior? Maybe I am not explaining my case well enough - it is the ACs that are the burst damage weapon, while the Rifles rely on the slight alpha advantage (except the LR/9, which has inferior alpha). I posted it in another thread, but say an AC5 has a drum/cassette of 9 rounds, and fires once every 3 seconds, giving it 45 damage in 27 seconds, a new drum takes 15 seconds to load. The MR/6 in turn fires once every 10 seconds for 6 damage, giving barely 18 damage in the time the AC5 is able to completely empty it's first drum, meanwhile having a 1 point lead in alpha.

In the vast majority of cases the AC/5 user will tear apart the MR/6 user, where the MR/6 becomes useful is either in skilled keep away play or fast hit and run harassment, something which light/medium mechs excel at and which the usage of rifles make the most sense due to weight restrictions.

I didn't think I had to do this, but if anyone has played world of tanks, the comparison here is between an AMX-50B, which deals 400 damage per shot but fires 4 rounds in under 9 seconds, compared to the IS-7 which fires a 490 damage shot every 12s. The IS-7 depends on focused team fire to win while the AMX-50B can simply hammer the guy into oblivion from any range as it has superior dispersion (another similarity between autocannons and rifles).

Further, this is a potential gameplay consideration. Currently lasers have been reduced to DoT, PPCs still seem to be alpha weaponry, autocannons seem to be burst damage weapons (current vid of the Hunchback shows the AC/20 firing once every 6s), and missiles are saturation. Rifles can fill the gap as a low DoT, mild alpha weapon.

[William Petersen]

trycksh0t, on 07 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

I'm assuming you haven't read tactical operations, specifically page 337, which states: "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage."

So, in MWO terms, Light Rifles would generally hit for zero, Mediums for 3, and Heavies would only hit for 6.

I was unaware of this, yes. Thank you that does clear up a bit. =X

[Mike Silva]

Rifles? What page can I find rules on these in the Compendium?