44 replies to this topic

[Spriing]

I have been thinking this morning about ammo per ton. I do like the balistic weapons but think the ammo per ton ratios need to be reviewed to allow more rounds per ton. I am currently piloting a Catapult K2 "Gauss Cat". I am running around with 40 rounds and do chain fire shots instead of double shots. Here is my problem, you get 10 rounds per ton, so each round ways 200 lbs. Now this weapon system is based similary off of a modern day rail gun. Per this website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun, the navy tested one of these with a 7 lb procectile and it was moving at 2.4 kilometes per second or 5400 mph. I am no weapons expert or math geniuse, and I am definatly NOT saying the weapon is underpowered. However, the damage for a 200 lb round moving at those speeds would be absolutly devistaing to everything. Again I am NOT saying the weapon is underpowered. I would like to see them increase the ammo per ton to be a little more viable on the balistic weapons.

What are your thoughts on the situation?
Please no haters or bashing this is meant to be a respectable topic of conversation.


:::EDIT::: Fixed my poor math ugggg

Edited by Spriing, 08 November 2012 - 06:39 AM.

[Noth]

It's fine. Not everything will make perfect sense when compared to reality.

Also a guass gun is not a rail gun.

[Khobai]

Gauss is overpowered. It does not need a buff.

I would however support the AC20 getting 8 ammo per ton.

[Spriing]

Khobai, on 08 November 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

Gauss is overpowered. It does not need a buff.

I would however support the AC20 getting 8 ammo per ton.

I was not only talking about the Gauss, I was aware of the small amount of ammo the AC's get but couldn't remember off the top of my head what it was. Kind of skimpy in my opinion though.


:::EDIT::: Looks Like the AC 20 gets 6 rounds per ton

also my math is way off on the weights sorry its early 1 ton is not 1,000, 000, like my slow brain was thiking this morning, it is only 2, 000 lbs, so the gauss would be 200 lbs per rouond and the AC 20 gets 333 lbs per round.

Edited by Spriing, 08 November 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Melthir]

Spriing, on 08 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I have been thinking this morning about ammo per ton. I do like the ballistic weapons but think the ammo per ton ratios need to be reviewed to allow more rounds per ton. I am currently piloting a Catapult K2 "Gauss Cat". I am running around with 40 rounds and do chain fire shots instead of double shots. Here is my problem, you get 10 rounds per ton, so each round ways 100,000 lbs. Now this weapon system is based similarly off of a modern day rail gun. Per this website, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun, the navy tested one of these with a 7 lb projectile and it was moving at 2.4 kilometers per second or 5400 mph. I am no weapons expert or math genius, and I am definatly NOT saying the weapon is under-powered However, the damage for a 100, 000 lb round moving at those speeds would be absolutely devastating to everything. Again I am NOT saying the weapon is under-powered I would like to see them increase the ammo per ton to be a little more viable on the ballistic weapons.

What are your thoughts on the situation?
Please no haters or bashing this is meant to be a respectable topic of conversation.

Wow someone asking for Gauss buff. and no matter what you say increasing the ammo per ton is a buff. Every other ballistic in the game is broken when compared to the Gauss rifle except the AC 20 and that is only in the hands of someone that is very very good at placing there shots.

Spriing, on 08 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

I am running around with 40 rounds and do chain fire shots instead of double shots. Here is my problem, you get 10 rounds per ton, so each round ways 100,000 lbs.

Also your an ***** a ton is 2000 lbs not a million and you ever think that maybe most of the round weight could be the shell casing or various other things that make the gun work.
I also fixed most of your spelling errors may have missed a few.

Edited by Melthir, 08 November 2012 - 06:43 AM.

[Cole Allard]

10 rounds per ton = 150 points of damage per ton (possible) with 15 damage per hit -> and that as an impact weapon that deals damage to the area it hits directly.

Combined with the "internals have 0 Armor change" you have a killer of a weapon that can hit from a distance others dont even think of.

So...I dont know...I think its fine as it is.

Edited by Cole Allard, 08 November 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[Spencley]

Only change i would like to see is the ability to top of your mechs spare tonnage with small bits of ammo. I hate the fact that no matter what load out i put on my raven the only way for me to get 35 tons is to remove some of the armor and add more ammo or a heat sink. Why should i miss out on tonnage because i have maxed the armor which ends up on an uneven tonnage or 34.2 or 34.7 depending on loadout. As i said the only way for me to fill my mechs tonnage is to strip armor and add something that has 0.5 tons or 1 ton

[Firefun]

BryanEkman said:

Weapon balance goes in waves... lasers, gauss, missiles, [enter next weapon here]. Players always chose the path of least resistance. We're working hard to make sure LRMs tuned a bit more, to keep the balance between all weapon more reasonable.

From recent kotaku live q&a:
http://kotaku.com/59...stionsright-now

I´m more than 100% positive that they´ll keep on balancing weapons ..for the better or worse.

If/When they get to gauss tho, imo they´ll nerf it down a little. I could see the explosion chance get raised a little or the cooldown get up a notch ..but thats just my opinion.

Edited by Firefun, 08 November 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[cryonic]

Armor was doubled.
AC Ammo was buffed per ton.
missile damage was increased. (1.7 for lrm 2.5 for srm)

Firing is more accurate in MWO than TT so less ammo is needed for each kill.
However AC are fairly long range engagement weapons with fairly high miss rates.
Ammo is also a Cbill sink - as these weapons are expensive to run (compared to energy weapons).

Compared to TT ammo weapons performance per ton is better than it used to be - a lot of minimum range limitations have been removed and they are more accurate than they were in TT.

Ammo per ton seems to be in a reasonable space right now - Gauss gets less than the rest as a counterpoint to its awesomeness.

[Spriing]

Melthir, on 08 November 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

Wow someone asking for Gauss buff. and no matter what you say increasing the ammo per ton is a buff. Every other balistic in the game is broken when compared to the Gauss rifle except the AC 20 and that is only in the hands of someone that is very very good at placing there shots.




Also your an ***** a ton is 2000 lbs not a million.

Thank you for the flame I was already in the process of fixing my math.


Also as I stated in my original post I was not saying the Gauss is underpowered. I was infact saying that all balistic weapons could use an ammo per ton increase. I simply mentioned what I pilot. I actually went out of my way, twice, in the originaly post to say that the gauss rifle is not underpowered. Shesh I have tried several different balistic builds and the Ultra AC 5 was jaming a lot, the as 2 and 5 gives good fire power on the target and keeps them rocking, the AC 20 is a hard hitter but has a bigger ammo shortage than any other weapon.

[Spencley]

Spriing, on 08 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Thank you for the flame I was already in the process of fixing my math.


Also as I stated in my original post I was not saying the Gauss is underpowered. I was infact saying that all balistic weapons could use an ammo per ton increase. I simply mentioned what I pilot. I actually went out of my way, twice, in the originaly post to say that the gauss rifle is not underpowered. Shesh I have tried several different balistic builds and the Ultra AC 5 was jaming a lot, the as 2 and 5 gives good fire power on the target and keeps them rocking, the AC 20 is a hard hitter but has a bigger ammo shortage than any other weapon.

ac/2 comes with 75 shots per ton each hitting for 2 damage. If you hit them all its 150 damage minimum.
ac/20 comes with 7 shots per ton each doing 20 damage. If you hit with all 7 its 140 damage minimum.

You are more likely to take your time and get those perfect shots with the ac/20. With the ac/2 you can afford those misses so they happen more often since your not as worried about it thus reducing the total damage done.

so really damage per ton seems to work out quite nicely across the board. its just a shame all but the AC/20 and the guass the other ballistic weapons are pretty meh looking forward to a flamer and machine gun buff

Edited by Spencley, 08 November 2012 - 06:53 AM.

[Madw0lf]

Melthir, on 08 November 2012 - 06:37 AM, said:

......and you ever think that maybe most of the round weight could be the shell casing or various other things that make the gun work.

This actually makes some sense. If you think of every unit of ammo you drag into your 'Mech as being the ammo, encasement, loading system etc, then 200lbs per Gauss round seems very appropriate, especially when you mount the ammo in your legs

On gauss itself, it doesnt seem to overpowering to me, on a single rifle, in pairs yea its nasty. Maybe add some heat gen during cooldown?

[Melthir]

Spriing, on 08 November 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Thank you for the flame I was already in the process of fixing my math.


Also as I stated in my original post I was not saying the Gauss is underpowered. I was infact saying that all balistic weapons could use an ammo per ton increase. I simply mentioned what I pilot. I actually went out of my way, twice, in the originaly post to say that the gauss rifle is not underpowered. Shesh I have tried several different balistic builds and the Ultra AC 5 was jaming a lot, the as 2 and 5 gives good fire power on the target and keeps them rocking, the AC 20 is a hard hitter but has a bigger ammo shortage than any other weapon.

You are saying its underpowerd. you are asking to increase the amount of damage you can carry per ton that is a buff to power no mater what it does to the damage per shot. You just are not realizing the scope of the upgrade your asking yes it seams trivial but it really is not consider this the Gauss rifle has a damage per second per combined tonnage of .23 this is almost perfectly matched across the board by every other ballistic except the the AC2 0.53 and the ultra AC5. 0.86 (.43 if not double fired)this is what i mean about you not realizing the scope of what you are asking mathematically it is a balanced weapon but in practice it is overpowered as is just by ease of use due to projectile speed. if you start tweaking numbers without considering the whole scope of what your asking you cause game imbalance. I was not flaming your post your just being overly defensive and embarrassed due to the fact you thought a ton was a million pounds.

Edited by Melthir, 08 November 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[Penance]

Read like "buff gausscats"

[Khobai]

Quote

Ammo per ton seems to be in a reasonable space right now - Gauss gets less than the rest as a counterpoint to its awesomeness.

The Gauss doesnt get less though. All ballistic weapons except the AC20 get 150 damage per ton.

AC2 gets 75x2 = 150 damage
AC5 gets 30x5 = 150 damage
AC10 gets 15x10 = 150 damage
Gauss gets 10x15 = 150 damage
AC20 gets 7x20 = 140 damage

[ArcadiaNisus]

Gauss:
10 rounds per ton.
Can deal a maximum of 150 damage per ton.

LRM:
180 missiles per ton.
Can deal a maximum of 360 damage per ton.

Makes perfect sense.
I don't know where you come from. But where I was raised 180 long range missiles have always weighed slightly more then 10 rounds ammunition.

Edited by ArcadiaNisus, 08 November 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[Penance]

ArcadiaNisus, on 08 November 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Gauss:
10 rounds per ton.
Can deal a maximum of 150 damage per ton.

LRM:
180 missiles per ton.
Can deal a maximum of 360 damage per ton.

Makes perfect sense.
I don't know where you come from. But where I was raised 180 long range missiles have always weighed slightly more then 10 rounds ammunition.


Now because math is awesome. When I shoot gauss at a target about 2km away, it takes a little over a second for impact. So 2.4km/s sounds about right. At 100,000lb per round. That's a 24 million pound force, or just over 108million newtons.

In other words gauss rounds should have enough force to completely obliterate the entire building the enemy mech is standing behind and them included.

Physics hurt my neurons.

[Spriing]

Melthir, on 08 November 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

You are saying its underpowerd. you are asking to increase the amount of damage you can carry per ton that is a buff to power no mater what it does to the damage per shot. You just are not realizing the scope of the upgrade your asking yes it seams trivial but it really is not consider this the Gauss rifle has a damage per second per combined tonnage of .23 this is almost perfectly matched across the board by every other ballistic except the the AC2 0.53 and the ultra AC5. 0.86 (.43 if not double fired)this is what i mean about you not realizing the scope of what you are asking mathematically it is a balanced weapon but in practice it is overpowered as is just by ease of use due to projectile speed. if you start tweaking numbers without considering the whole scope of what your asking you cause game imbalance. I was not flaming your post your just being overly defensive and embarrassed due to the fact you thought a ton was a million pounds.

While I was very imbaresed about my slip on the weight, I was already fixing that when you posted.
I guess i didn't realize how big of a damage increase the round capacity would be. I was just thinking that the ammo per ton should be brought up. I am not saying that my Gauss Cat needs more rounds. As I mentioned before my curent build has 40 rounds and very seldom do I get to actually fire all 40 rounds. Usually a light mech or 2 will come run circles around me and pick me off. Or I'll see the skyline light up with LRM's from 4 different sources, lol.

Although I have been thinking about about switching the build to 1 Gauss and 1 AC 20.

Penance, on 08 November 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

Read like "buff gausscats"

I am sorry you felt that way. I guess I should not have mentioned what I was piloting.

Edited by Spriing, 08 November 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Flapdrol]

So you want a free buff for your gausscat and try to get it with some rambling about realworld physics.

There is no realworld physics in battletech. If there were an Atlas would float.

Edited by Flapdrol, 08 November 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[Spriing]

Ok I'm done, I will never again mention what mech I am piloting. That was not the point. I had no idea that mentioning a want for such a minor change would be such a game breaker. Lesson learned. Thank you.