23 replies to this topic

[Gierling]

They doubled armor, and they didn't double ammo, so ballistics have a bit of a nerf in that they require more tonnage to be on par with where they were before. Now they did give a mild ammo buff but it still leaves Ballistic builds very tonnage strapped. It also leaves many stock configs/trial mechs in the unenviable situation of running around with one ton of ammo for one (or in some cases two) ammo hungry guns. So how bout a very simple bonus to ammo, each ammo using weapon comes with a half ton of it's own ammo "Preloaded" IE you get a free half ton of ammo just for equipping the weapon. Its a mild bonus, that doesn't stack as well tonnage wise as additional tons of ammo but still makes a ballistics heavy build less difficult to set up. It would also take some stock/trial configs out of the "Outright bad" category, and make ballistics exist in the realm of possibility for light mechs..

Edited by Gierling, 28 March 2013 - 08:18 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

They doubled armor, and they didn't double ammo

They gave you the ability to aim for specific locations with ballistic weapons. That is worth way more than doubling of ammo.

[Gierling]

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

They gave you the ability to aim for specific locations with ballistic weapons. That is worth way more than doubling of ammo.

False Dichotomy, they also gave that ability to ammoless weapons.

[mike29tw]

Consider how many more heat sink you need just to play stock builds, I'd say energy weapons was nerfed a lot harder than ballistics.

[Khobai]

Quote

False Dichotomy, they also gave that ability to ammoless weapons.

Its not false dichotomy at all.

Your argument is that doubling of armor is the reason ammo should be doubled. However MWO went from random hit locations to aiming. So the doubling of armor as a justification for doubling ammo is not a valid argument.

If you want to argue that ammoless weapons are better than ammo weapons and thats why ammo should be doubled, that is a completely different argument.

[tayhimself]

[Grayseven]

Because of favorable heat to damage ratios for ballistic weapons, increasing ammo per ton or giving free ammo per weapon would shift the balance of these items.

Ballistics also have a typically higher recycle time when compared to weapons of a similar damage output. Without the limitations of ammo tonnage, ballistics would have a greater edge in a combat despite their inherently heavier weight.

The doubling of armor was to take into account the ability of firers to target locations instead of having random hit locations like in the table top game. The intent is to ensure some survivability in a match where everyone is targeting the same location because it is weakened.

I have not had any issue with ammo in ballistics heavy builds but that is because I understand that in any build there will be give or take. While it might be nice to have a few medium lasers I have to understand that each one accounts for one ton of ammo that I might need for my main weapons. I have to decide if the pro is better than the con.

Ballistics are in a pretty good place right now and will be better once state rewind for ballistic weapons comes into play. The best advice I have for any ballistics user is to make sure each shot counts. Blindly rapid firing a bunch of AC/2's is worthless. Make sure you hit.

[MasterErrant]

they did not in actuality give that ability to ammoless weapons that's kind of a false positive. beams weapons are in effect clustering weapons unless boeth mechs are still.

[Khobai]

The problem with ballistics is not ammo per ton anyway. Giving ballistics 20% more ammo per ton isnt suddenly going to make them better than PPCs. At best that shaves maybe 1 ton off their ammo weight which is insignificant.

The problems with ballistic weapons are as follows-
1) slow projectile speeds compared to PPCs
2) easy to crit relative to other weapons due to the number of crit slots they take up
3) risk of ammo explosions not offset by any appreciable advantages
4) take up a massive amount of tonnage/crits for their lackluster performance compared to ppcs.

[MrPenguin]

As a DakkaDakka loving pilot, I can safely say that theirs nothing wrong with the amount of ammo I can get.
If I ever do run out of ammo during a match. (Doesn't really happen often) Then I've either done more then enough damage to justify it, or I've missed most of my shots.

If the later, foot on head.

[Adridos]

They did add more ammo.

AC/2, for instance, got 75 ammo, while the TT standard is 45.
AC/5 had 20, it now has 30.
AC/10 has originally had 10 ammo, now it has 15.
AC/20 had 5, now it has 7.

That is ~50% increase if I'm not mistaken.

The only weapons that got less are the gauss (from 8 to 10) and UAC/5 (from 20 to 25).

Edited by Adridos, 28 March 2013 - 08:41 AM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

The problem with ballistics is not ammo per ton anyway. Giving ballistics 20% more ammo per ton isnt suddenly going to make them better than PPCs. At best that shaves maybe 1 ton off their ammo weight which is insignificant.

The problems with ballistic weapons are as follows-
1) slow projectile speeds compared to PPCs
2) easy to crit relative to other weapons due to the number of crit slots they take up
3) risk of ammo explosions not offset by any appreciable advantages
4) take up a massive amount of tonnage/crits for their lackluster performance compared to ppcs.

Sure, but they have significantly better damage:heat ratios. There's a reason that competitive brawler builds run ballistics over PPCs.

[MrPenguin]

Royalewithcheese, on 28 March 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

Sure, but they have significantly better damage:heat ratios. There's a reason that competitive brawler builds run ballistics over PPCs.

qft

Edited by MrPenguin, 28 March 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Sure, but they have significantly better damage:heat ratios. There's a reason that competitive brawler builds run ballistics over PPCs.

Yes but the game has been steadily shifting towards a sniping meta since PPCs were buffed. Brawling typically only occurs now once one side feels they have a significant enough advantage that they can enter a brawl. There is a reason you see PPCs on half the mechs in any given game.

My point being, that in a sniping meta, you typically alphastrike then retreat behind cover to cooldown. So damage:heat ratio tends to be irrelevant in that style of play. That particular advantage of ballistic weapons is mostly lost in the current meta. Ballistic weapons in general are inferior to PPCs right now.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Null Signature]

Gierling, on 28 March 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

False Dichotomy, they also gave that ability to ammoless weapons.

Completely different argument. The fallacy is yours.

[Royalewithcheese]

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

Yes but the game has been steadily shifting towards a sniping meta since PPCs were buffed. Brawling typically only occurs now once one side feels they have a significant enough advantage that they can enter a brawl. There is a reason you see PPCs on half the mechs in any given game.

My point being, that in a sniping meta, you typically alphastrike then retreat behind cover to cooldown. So damage:heat ratio tends to be irrelevant in that style of play. That particular advantage of ballistic weapons is mostly lost in the current meta. Ballistic weapons in general are inferior to PPCs right now.

Well, considering that what is arguably the best (competitive) sniper in the game uses ballistics and PPCs...

I mean, you can make 4PPC poptarts. But the heat problems really hold them back, which is why most poptarts run at least one Gauss. PPCs are cool and all but they don't out-compete all other weapons even at long ranges. (I.e., the only range at which they shine.)

Edited by Royalewithcheese, 28 March 2013 - 09:31 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Well, considering that what is arguably the best (competitive) sniper in the game uses ballistics and PPCs...

Yes there are always exceptions. Gauss and UAC/5 happen to be the two exceptions, both are very good ballistic weapons. In general ballistic weapons are inferior to other weapons though. And the fact still remains that Gauss isn't even considered on most sniping builds until two ERPPCs (or one ERPPC and one PPC) are added first.

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[Roadbeer]

This is serious business, I demand a poll.

[Royalewithcheese]

Khobai, on 28 March 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Yes there are always exceptions. Gauss and UAC/5 happen to be the two exceptions. In general ballistic weapons are inferior though.

Isn't that kinda like saying "well, energy weapons are still terrible at long range. The PPC, the ERPPC, and the Large Laser just happen to be exceptions" tho?

[Khobai]

Quote

Isn't that kinda like saying "well, energy weapons are still terrible at long range. The PPC, the ERPPC, and the Large Laser just happen to be exceptions" tho?

If were talking about energy weapons in general I would say range is not one of their strengths. Even though the PPC is an exception to that rule. The PPC actually has more in common with ballistic weapons than most energy weapons.

Just like when were talking about ballistic weapons in general, most of them suck, even though one or two of them don't. The Gauss can complement PPC builds, but like I said before, Gauss is only considered AFTER the PPCs are added. I think that's fairly telling about the state of PPCs vs ballistics.

Yes I tend to generalize, but I assume most people are smart enough to realize that I'm not including the gauss rifle among the subset of ballistic weapons that suck. It's mostly the standard autocannons that are suffering from being mediocre weapons.

AC/2 = very high heat
AC/5 = low dps
AC/10 = low component health, slow projectile speed
AC/20 = very slow projectile speed, inability to split crit slots between arm and side torso

Edited by Khobai, 28 March 2013 - 09:59 AM.