12 replies to this topic

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

!!!WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD!!!

I got drunk, and started to contemplate the weapons in game. For starters, I like the way they've treated the weapons for the most part. Energy weapons doing DOT, ballistics front loading their damage, and missiles being scatter weapons with splash. However, I did think about the missiles and ballistics. Energy after the PPC/LPL loving feel perfect, but I feel that the other weapons are kinda wonky. So let's start shall we?

Ballistics
TT Ammo values per ton
AC/2, UAC/2, LB 2-X: 45
AC/5, UAC/5, LB 5-X: 20
AC/10, UAC/10, LB 10-X: 10
AC/20, UAC/20, LB 20-X: 5
Gauss: 8
MG: 200


If you noticed, a single ton of AC ammo does 100 points of damage (AC/2 does only 90) and Gauss does 120. And the MG does a whopping 800 damage per ton (dafuq?!).

Missiles
TT ammo per ton:
SRM: 50
SSRM: 50
LRM: 120

SRMs and SSRMs do 100 points of damage per ton and LRMs do 120 points of damage per ton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ballistics do need some loving. But mostly in the form of just doubling the ammo per ton.

MWO ammo values are:
AC/2: 75
AC/5: 30
UAC/5: 25
AC/10: 15
LB 10-X: 15
AC/20: 7
Gauss: 10

So the ballistics do:
150 points per ton for AC/2
150 points per ton for AC/5
125 points per ton for UAC/5
150 points per ton for AC/10
150 points per ton for LB 10-X
140 points per ton for AC/20
150 points per ton for Gauss
80 points per ton for MG

Sure, that's more than than TT, but we also have doubled armor. And at least they kept them relatively consistent. So the ballistics need some loving in the ammo department. As you can see, the ballistics are kinda shorted on damage per ton by:
AC/2: 15 rounds, 30 points of damage, or 16.67% loss of efficiency
AC/5: 10 rounds, 50 points of damage, or 25.00% loss of efficiency
UAC/5: 15 rounds, 75 points of damage, or 37.50% loss of efficiency
AC/10: 5 rounds, 50 points of damage, or 25.00% loss of efficiency
LB 10-X: 5 rounds, 50 points of damage, or 25.00% loss of efficiency
AC/20: 3 rounds, 60 points of damage, or 30.00% loss of efficiency
Gauss: 8 rounds, 120 points of damage, or 37.50% loss of efficiency
MG: well... it's a different approach for sure. But I'll talk more on the MG in a bit.

So for the same efficiency in damage per ton we'd need:
AC/2: 90 rounds
AC/5: 40 rounds
UAC/5: 40 rounds
AC/10: 20 rounds
LB 10-X: 20 rounds
AC/20: 10 rounds
Gauss: 16 rounds

Projectile speeds:
AC/2: 2000m/s
AC/5: 1300m/s
UAC/5: 1300m/s
AC/10: 1100m/s
LB 10-X: 1100m/s
AC/20: 900m/s
Gauss: 1200ms/

Well, I agree with the projectile speeds on all of them except the Gauss. The Gauss being a kinetic weapon should have a much higher projectile speed. I think it matching the AC/2's velocity would be fair.

----------------------------------

The MG in a 10 second turn would do 2 damage (for a DPS of 0.20) and fire 1 "round" from it's 200 per ton. Putting the MG at 800 damage per ton. WAY more than the other ballistics, 8x more to be exact. Our beloved MWO MG does 0.04 damage per round and fires them individually from a ton containing 2000 rounds for a total damage of 80 per ton. Its ROF is 10 rounds/sec, for a DPS of 0.40, which is double the TT. But the next worse ballistic is the AC5 at 2.94 DPS, and excluding the Flamethrower, the next worse energy is the Small Laser at 1 DPS.

So what do we need to do? Well some of what we could do is drop the ammo per ton to 1000 and up the damage to 0.20 per round. ***That would leave the MG at a DPS of 2 and doing 200 damage per ton, where I believe all the other ballistics should be doing***. We could also leave the ammo at 2000 and raise the damage per round to 0.10 for a DPS of 1, still doing 200 damage per ton. Or we could raise the damage from 0.04 to 0.05 and double the ROF to 20 rounds per second, have 4000 rounds, and still achieve 1 DPS and still get 200 damage per ton. I just want to be able to have 1 DPS and get 200 damage per ton from the MG.

*** my prefered choice ***

-----------------------------------

Stop! LB TIME! Yeah, pretty lackluster right? Yeah, thought so. Contrary to popular belief from the anti-buff LB crowd, the 10 in LB 10-X was not the damage, does it happen to correlate? Yes. But that "10" is the number of fragments/pellets (in lore, it acted like a flak round OR it acted like grapeshot). In TT, it pretty much could be construed either way. So I happen to actually like the shotgun part personally. But back to the pellets, an LB 2-X had two pellets, the 5-X, and you get it from here. So the larger LBX's were usually the preferred ones since the smaller ones spread their damage out too much. Since the developers saw fit to buff the games OTHER scatter weapons, I see no reason to NOT buff the LB 10-X.

In TT, it was a ballistic that had the same behavior as the LRM of equivalent size. In MWO, we have the LRM-10 that does 1.8 damage per missile (NOTE: I talk on the LRM further down, and drop it's damage to 1.3, so that's what we'll use here). Which in TT, the LRM-10 and LB 10-X acted the same, with the LB 10-X not having minimum range issues but have a shorter maximum range (they had the same targeting window just about). In MWO, we can directly aim our LB 10-X with much greater chances of hitting, however, we can't reliably hit anything past 400m but it's simply mean within 90 meters. If we buffed the damage to 1.3 per pellet, we'd have a total damage per round of 13. Meaning if we used the same formula of 200 damage per ton for ballistics, instead of doubling the amount of ammo from 10 to 20, we could raise the ammo to 17, giving it almost the same damage/ton of ammo as the LRM.

LRM: 234 damage/ton, 1.30 damage/missile
LB 10-X Cluster: 221 damage/ton, 1.30 damage/pellet

Yes, that damage of 221 is breaking the 200 damage/ton standard of the AC class, making it 'better' than the rest (especially the AC/10). But since it's a shotgun, not all those pellets will land. Oh, and it's supposed to get solid munitions later too. Well, I thought about that too. The LB-10X is 11 tons and 6 critical slots compared to the AC/10's 12 tons and 7 critical slots. It also out ranges the AC/10 by 90 meters. So when we get the solid munitions for the LB 10-X the AC/10 is going to get dusty, right? Well, not really. here's why. Remember how the LB 10-X Cluster got a damage boost to 13 damage/shell for a total of 221 damage/ton and 17 rounds/ton? Well, the AC/10 gets 20 rounds/ton at 10 damage/round for 200 damage/ton. We make it so the LB 10-X Solid munitions are 10 damage/round at 17 rounds/ton for only 170 damage/ton.

AC/10 with 2 tons of ammo: 400 damage
LB 10-X with 2 tons cluster: 441 damage
LB 10-X with 2 tons solid: 340 damage
LB 10-X with 1 ton each: 391 damage

Balanced. More damage per ton for MUCH less range, or less damage per ton for 90 more meters.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On to missiles!

SSRMs and SRMs do 100 points of damage per ton in TT, and they do 2 points of damage a missile, and have 50 per ton. LRMs do 120 points of damage per ton in TT, and do 1 point of damage per ton, and have 120 per ton.

In MWO, SSRMs and SRMs do 250 points of damage per ton and 2.5 damage per missile. LRMs do 324 damage per ton and 1.8 damage per missile. Which is better than TT by a pretty good margin.

SSRM: +0.50 damage/missile, +50 rounds, +150% efficiency/ton, +25.00% efficiency/missile
SRM: +0.50 damage/missile, +50 rounds, +150% efficiency/ton, +25.00% efficiency/missile
LRM: +0.80 damage/missile, +60 rounds, +170% efficiency/ton, +80.00% efficiency/missile

So missiles do:
250 damage per ton for SSRM and SRM
324 damage per ton for LRM

I think the SRM's are mostly fine, and should be a model they use to balance the rest on save for the damage. I think SRM and SSRM damage needs to back to 2 damage per missile.

SSRM's I like the way they are, almost, I do think they should be lock-on guided. But they should lose their lock if dodged and have their firing angles adjusted.

LRM's I hate. Hate them. I hate their damage output being 80% higher than TT and I hate their slow terribad flight pattern. I get the whole indirect fire thing, but with their slow flight time, horribad lofting pattern, and AMS/hills/building/Atlas's/ECM blocking them. They just aren't worth it, unless you get caught in the open.

Projectile speeds:
SSRM: 200m/s
SRM: 300m/s
LRM: 100m/s

So LRM's have 100m/s velocity AND they oscillate pretty terribly. So I would assume their actual velocity is even lower. Pretty crappy, yeah? I'd love to see them tweak the speed up to 200m/s and ditch the oscillation completely (or at least reduce the amount they oscillate). Which means that the target would have less time to get to cover and make dumb firing actually get results. Which brings me to "LRMs: Part II," with a 100% increase in velocity and a reduction in oscillation, they could use a damage drop by like 50.00% to 1.30 damage a missile. So afterwards:

Missiles do:
250 damage per ton for SSRMs and SRMs
234 damage per ton for LRMs

The lower damage per ton is offset by simply landing more hits in general due to increase velocity and better, flatter, straighter flight paths.

Oh, and before you QQ about the LRM's. MWO gave them a MASSIVE buff. In TT, they had a range of 660m, and the devs nicely extended that by 340m all the way out to 1000m.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's have a look at a side by side comparison before and after:

TableTop
AC/2: 45 rounds, 90 damage/ton
AC/5: 20 rounds, 100 damage/ton
UAC/5: 20 rounds, 100 damage/ton
AC/10: 10 rounds, 100 damage/ton
LB 10-X: 10 rounds, 100 damage/ton
AC/20: 5 rounds, 100 damage/ton
Gauss: 8 rounds, 120 damage/ton
MG: 200 rounds, 800 damage/ton

SRM: 50 rounds, 100 damage/ton
SSRM: 50 rounds, 100 damage/ton
LRM: 120, 120 damage/ton

MWO Now
AC/2: 75 rounds, 150 damage/ton
AC/5: 30 rounds, 150 damage/ton
UAC/5: 25 rounds, 125 damage/ton
AC/10: 15 rounds, 150 damage/ton
LB 10-X: 15 rounds, 150 damage/ton
AC/20: 7 rounds, 140 damage/ton
Gauss: 10 rounds, 150 damage/ton
MG: 2000 rounds, 80 damage/ton

SRM: 100 rounds, 250 damage/ton
SSRM: 100 rounds, 250 damage/ton
LRM: 180 rounds, 324 damage/ton, velocity of 100m/s, 1.8 damage/missile

MWO After
AC/2: 90 rounds, 200 damage/ton
AC/5: 40 rounds, 200 damage/ton
UAC/5: 40 rounds, 200 damage/ton
AC/10: 20 rounds, 200 damage/ton
LB 10-X Cluster: 17 rounds, 221 damage/ton
LB 10-X Solid: 17 rounds, 170 damage/ton
AC/20: 10 rounds, 200 damage/ton
Gauss: 16 rounds, 240 damage/ton
MG: 1000 rounds, 0.20 damage/round, 200 damage/ton

SRM: 100 rounds, 250 damage/ton
SSRM: 100 rounds, 250 damage/ton
LRM: 180 rounds, 234 damage/ton, veloctiy of 200m/s, 1.30 damage/missile


Discuss!

TL;DR: Ye best go elsewhere, child.


EDIT: Typo on post submit proofread

[Alaskan Nobody]

Interesting Read for sure...
Not sure about buffing the dmg of machine guns, yes they do terrible dps, but that is not what they are supposed to do
The Devs seem to be applying role warfare to the weapons as well as the players, they have said repeatedly that the MG is for destroying internals, and it does so wonderfully as is - I would suggest instead to weaken the other weapons ability to do so, but that would make other ballance issues I do not want to even consider....

Wish I had more knowledge of how the different mechanics worked (understanding and understanding all the implications of are two very different things.)

[kevin roshak]

Your balancing of balistics would free up massive amounts of space in ballistic boating mechs to no longer devote to pure ammo. Well maybe not massive, but you get the point. Also in a video game, weapons dont need to be balanced purely on damage, I'm sure PGI took into account Range, RoF and all kinds of other BS to make it balanced. Fair != Balanced

In this build (CTF-4X) you gain almost 3 tons of ammo, for free, based on your numbers, increasing you overall damage output, while also increasing whatever support weapons.
240 AC5 VS 320 AC5
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f132c7032e5795

Edited by kevin roshak, 07 March 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Reminds me of what a friend once said about racing - you want a perfectly ballanced match? Go watch stock-car races, but be prepared to be bored stiff.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

kevin roshak, on 07 March 2013 - 05:07 PM, said:

Your balancing of balistics would free up massive amounts of space in ballistic boating mechs to no longer devote to pure ammo. Well maybe not massive, but you get the point. Also in a video game, weapons dont need to be balanced purely on damage, I'm sure PGI took into account Range, RoF and all kinds of other BS to make it balanced. Fair != Balanced

In this build (CTF-4X) you gain almost 3 tons of ammo, for free, based on your numbers, increasing you overall damage output, while also increasing whatever support weapons.
240 AC5 VS 320 AC5
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f132c7032e5795

Interesting point for sure. The amounts we have in game are for the types of matches we are currently given, the current ammo is pretty well balanced. But with community warfare and larger matches coming soon, I expect there to be the need for moar dakka, pew pew, and whoosh. Which in that case, missile and energy mechs are already golden, but I feel that ballistic heavy mechs are going to be a bit shorted.

Stock mechs are DEFINITELY shorted on ammo for ballistics though.

[Volume]

I too felt this way after a brainstorming session between me and a bottle of scotch.

Ammo per ton and damage potential per ton have been hugely adversely affected by the double armor. Granted, I remember closed beta where ammo counts weren't increased at all, and AC/20s seriously got like 5 ammo/ton instead of the 7 they enjoy now. It's better but still not enough.

Ultra AC/5 is too good despite ammo/ton, AC/2 is in a sweet spot, AC/10 needs a buff (RoF, Ammo/ton) and AC/20 is probably fine. Gauss is too good still and needs a different downside. MGs need a rework (I, like you and many others, believe in the "1 DPS" idea, but this crit thing is actually very interesting).

[Khobai]

Your post completely ignores the fact you can aim your shots at specific locations in MWO. You don't need as much ammo when you can aim at specific locations.

That is why ammo per ton is not the problem with ballistics. The problem with ballistics is the absurd tonnage and crit slots they consume and the lackluster performance they give compared to an equivalent weight in PPCs.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Not to be rude or inflamatory, but you remind me of my attitude back playing Mechwarrior2 Khobai- I was I think 12 at the time >.>
Back then I ONLY mounted PPC on ANY mech I played

Now? PPC have their place, but there are things that AC do better - what I wouldn't necesarily know myself - but I do know I play/score/fight better with a mix of weaponry rather than boating - and fully recognise that that may just be me being weird as usual

[Royalewithcheese]

Shar Wolf, on 09 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Now? PPC have their place, but there are things that AC do better - what I wouldn't necesarily know myself - but I do know I play/score/fight better with a mix of weaponry rather than boating - and fully recognise that that may just be me being weird as usual

I think this is more correct - AFAIK while there are comp builds that use PPCs, they mostly use them for sniping. I can't think of a heatsink setup where a PPC would be a viable brawling weapon, for instance. Heat-per-second and heat-per-damage are really bad on those things.

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 09 March 2013 - 01:58 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Heat-per-second and heat-per-damage are really bad on those things.

HPS and HPD are fairly meaningless statistics. The only time theyre relevant is if two mechs are standing face-to-face and unloading on eachother without even trying to take cover. That might be how you play but that's not how I play.

The fact is, most players use PPCs now. Not Autocannons. Roughly 50% of the mechs in any given game will have at least one PPC. The reason they use PPCs is because the game has shifted towards more of a sniping metagame. Additionally, PPCs are less likely to get critted out than Autocannons, and take up significantly less tonnage and crit slots. PPCs also don't have to worry about ammo explosions.

I would very much like for Autocannons to be useful weapons. But the problem is not the ammo per ton. If you think giving 20% more ammo to Autocannons is going to fix them, its not. Thats only reducing the amount of ammo you need to take by maybe 1 ton. That doesn't at all address why PPCs are better weapons than Autocannons.

Edited by Khobai, 09 March 2013 - 04:50 PM.

[Deathlike]

The weapons themselves need a ROF/cooldown buff (well, the AC5 and probably the AC10), and if/when the state rewind is fixed, this should help the AC2's firing rate.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Ballistics are still rather lackluster. Why take a ballistic when you can take a PPC? The AC/2 is still a joke with its heat generation. The AC/5 has horribad cool down for its damage. The AC/10 is just a super heavy PPC thats a bit harder to use because of the slower projectile speed. I personally hate the UAC/5. I like Gauss when I'm sniping and I love the AC/20 for brawling.

I want the UAC/5 and AC/ 5 to have the same base RoF of 1.1, give both a bit more ammo per ton, and let the UAC/5 have an option like a selector switch of having 0.55 RoF with a chance of jamming instead of the annoying double shot mechanic.

I really want to love the AC/10 but it being only 2 tons lighter than an AC/20 with only a slightly better RoF, 2.50 instead of 4.00, just feels kind of lackluster when the PPC is lighter, travels faster, and has fewer crits with no need for ammo.

The AC/2 just runs so damnably hot, even for a ballistic. It's HPS is close to the ERLL's and PPC's HPS. The AC/2 does 10 damage for 5 heat at 6 tons for the gun and one ton for ammo, whereas the PPC does 10 points of damage for 8 heat for 7 tons for the gun. If I use AC/2s I carry 2 tons for the gun and I try for two DHS per gun, so it comes out at 10 tons for 9 slots. And for PPCs I try to have 3 DHS per PPC, so 10 tons for 12 slots. The AC/2 is less heat efficient than an energy weapon.

[TopSpeed]

I've been playing around with different weapons combinations, and I really don't get the feeling ballistic vs. energy is all that unbalanced. With energy you have to worry more about heat, in general, while with ballistic you have to be more worried about ammo. Crits matter, of course, but usually when I get to that stage I'm right at the losing the arm or torso stage anyway. One thing I didn't realize until I had used them both for a while is the ROF on ballistics is noticably faster and makes it easier to hit many targets. Even those little ones running around by my feet. the UA/C 5 is plain insane. The A/C 20 is close-combat nightmare. And even on the hottest maps I don't ever worry about it too much when I am using primarily ballistic weapons. All in all, I think there are pros/cons to each, so I don't think it's all too imbalanced.