68 replies to this topic

[FrupertApricot]

The amount of ammo required to make a solid fire weapon viable is simply too high. Since armor was doubled, weapon ammo counts should flatly be doubled. Smaller weapons are supposed to be very efficient in battletech. a single ton of ammo should last an AC2 or machinegun a whole fight. Currently to make a ballistic or LRM/SRM mech viable you are carrying 3x the ammo you would in a canon mech design MINIMUM. this to me says something about the numbers is not right.

[Adrienne Vorton]

almost never run out of ammo... make your shots count and don´t spam them

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 22 March 2013 - 12:20 AM.

[GeneralArmchair]

This problem was obvious to even casual observers the instant they announced that they were increasing armor values over TT.

.....it is taking the devs a bit longer to reach the same conclusion.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

If they did this, all that would mean is people who are good at using their ammo effectively would just gain an extra ton or two to work with.

[KinLuu]

mwhighlander, on 22 March 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

If they did this, all that would mean is people who are good at using their ammo effectively would just gain an extra ton or two to work with.

And this is bad, because... ???

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

KinLuu, on 22 March 2013 - 12:38 AM, said:

And this is bad, because... ???

Never said it was bad? Just something to keep in mind

[DegeneratePervert]

Personally, I think all ammo values need to be increased by 35-50%. Would free up tonnage and allow for more interesting builds.

[Chavette]

DegeneratePervert, on 22 March 2013 - 12:41 AM, said:

Personally, I think all ammo values need to be increased by 35-50%. Would free up tonnage and allow for more interesting builds.

Props on that pilot name.

[Corvus Antaka]

No.

[DAoC]

I think overall its fine.

AC2 and 20 are fine. Maybe the UAC5 needs a little buff, but not too much,

[Alfred VonGunn]

Ammo is fine now.. The Armor was doubled because we can aim fire not random hits and we fire at 2-3 times the RoF in TT. Without double armor most battles would last 10-20 seconds

[FunkyFritter]

Comparing directly to TT values is a bit misleading. Unlike lasers an ac2 frontloads all its damage, which is a very potent advantage here that didn't matter in TT. Tweaks to things like ammo counts would be good at some point, but flat out doubling it for everything would make things worse.

[Moromillas]

I'm inclined to agree with you. For quite a few weapons it does seem to take up a bit more of slot and tonnage in order to be sustainable. Though I'm not sure by how much.

[jakucha]

I got 700 damage with 1 Gauss rifle and 2 large lasers, and I even got killed in the match. I had around 20 tons of ammo. Just make your shots count and you can do a lot.

Edited by jakucha, 22 March 2013 - 01:31 AM.

[MN03]

180/ton ammo for LRM's is not enough. I shot ~1080 LRM's last match and did 330 dmg. That's 6 tons of ammo. Plus most of it hit thanks to a brave Raven with tag.

[VonRunnegen]

Its frustrating to run out of ammo but tbh you can carry plenty ammo as things stand to make quite a few kills. Make your shorts count and you'll be fine!

The TT comparison is garbage as a decent player can and will hit almost every shot with an AC (unless at extreme range) so damage per ton is up loads.

[Ghost_19Hz]

It would help but only b/c the ballistic weapons are ridiculously heavy.

Also, the comment about front loading damage is only partially true since lasers are just one weapon type to compare to and if you want to do a heavy alpha-range build its going to involve PPC's; because ballistics even with proper hardpoints starts to make you sacrifice a lot, so much that the front load damage build is better handled with a PPC in the mix like the 2xERPPC 1xGauss... or boated, thats also good.

[Dreamslave]

Especially now that battles are lasting much longer than before due to the blanket missile nerf, ammo per ton should definitely be looked at.

[Sifright]

MN03, on 22 March 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

Please explain.

...............

lrms do 1.8 damage minimum per missile that hits (more with splash)

if you did 330 damage with 1080 missiles you missed with more than 70% of them.......

Hence his comment, because you really don't understand what you are talking about if you think a 70%+ miss rate means you hit with most of the missiles.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think it might be needed for LRMs, at least assuming they change its Center-Torso focus and do not majorly tweak the damage of the LRMs any further.
For other weapons ,I am less sure these days.
Double Armour deals with two things:
1) Vastly increased damage output. Weapons deal 2 to 10 times as much damage as they were originalyl designed to. This would mean that ammo values would need to be doubled in kind with the armour.
2) But it was also incresed to compensate for the increased accuracy compared to what the original values for armour and damage were designed for. In the table top game, weapons can generally not be aimed at specific locations, the location is based on a random die roll and a table. But with such precise aiming, it would be much easier to focus your damage, and make combat really fast - often even allowing one-shot kills. Overall, this means in M:WO, weapons can be used much more efficiently than in the table top game. And that also means that you need less shots and thus less ammo to defeat an enemy mech. And for this reason, the ammo increase does not need to be as high as the armour increase.