37 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

We have a million posts now talking about how PPC/GR snipers/jump snipers dominate the current meta. This situation is analagous to MW4. Fortunately, the reason behind the dominance of PPC/GR snipers is obvious in MWO due to recent patches.

First, PPC heat was dropped to 8. PPC usage increased and PPCs apparently became viable weapons, but they didn't dominate the meta. A few patches later, SRM damage was nerfed due to the discovery that missile damage was bugged due to splash calculations. It was at this moment that the meta shifted to PPC/GR snipers ruling the field. The fact that the highlander (an assault jump sniping platform) and the assault tournament popped up around the same time sped up the adoption of the new meta.

The reason why the meta is where its at is due to the fact that with the nerfing of the SRM, there are no longer any no-BS short brawler weapons that have clear advantages over PPCs/GRs. SRMs still have an overall damage/DPS per tonnage/heat advantage over PPCs/GRs, but that advantage is so slim now, that it doesn't make up for the range differential. AC20s have always sucked because of their heat. The GR simply outclasses them in every way due to their low heat, allowing you to use other weapons in combination with the GR more efficiently, effectively boosting total damage output (well above the extra 5 damage the AC20 provided). MLs do not provide any more damage per heat than PPCs, and since heat is almost always more limiting than tonnage (at least on assaults), the MLs have no reason to exist. Its worse for Lights/meds who don't have the tonnage to boat PPCs, since they get no damage/heat advantage over PPC/GR snipers if they're using MLs.

This is analagous to the situation in MW4. SRMs/SSRMs were very weak and the only real infighting weapons (LBX10s and 20s) were large and heavy and were not so devastating that they were worth bringing on maps other than city maps. Therefore, ranged configs ruled the day.

=============

I am proposing radical changes to short ranged weapons to shift the meta to a more balanced state between short ranged and long ranged combat. Nerfing PPCs is not the answer: doing so just makes GRs/UACs the undisputed kings, and further homogenizes gameplay. Since nerfing of a short ranged weapon (SRMs) caused this, I say we respond by buffing short ranged weapons.



AC20 and AC10

Before you tell me your story about that one time you totally killed a guy with your AC10/20 config, stop for a moment and be serious. AC20s and 10s are rarely seen and hardly part of the common/dominating set of weapons. The reason why is that they don't provide enough damage for the heat they produce. GRs and UAC5s produce alot of damage per heat, and they do it at range. The AC20 and 10 need to produce even more since they have much shorter ranges.

I propose buffing AC20 and 10 damage by 20% (25 damage AC20 and 12 damage AC10), and halving their heat (3 heat AC20 and 1.5 heat AC10).

Worst case scenario for the AC20: The most that any mech can carry is two. Theoretically, a mech could carry 3 or 4 if it had a ballistic HP in each side torso, and one or two arms with no lower arm actuators. I don't think such a mech exists in CBT (the annihilator has lower arm actuators, if I remember correctly), so we're stuck with 2xAC20 boats. That would give you a 50 point alpha every 6 seconds at 250m ... or just think of a Jagerbomb with 10 more damage per alpha.

The Jagerbomb is already outclassed by quad PPC stalkers and 3xPPC/GR Highlander/Atlas configs, and they already can one shot lights. Giving them another 10 damage wouldn't change these things, but it would make them competitive against PPC/GR configs. It would also make carrying one AC20 attractive since you'd be doing more damage and wouldn't be overheating so badly.

Worst case scenario for the AC10: We already have a mech (Ilya) that could carry 3. If the annihilator, or a similar mech was added, that mech would be able to carry 4. 3 would be a 36 point alpha for 36 tons, and 4 would be a 48 point alpha for 48 tons. Comparable alphas already exist for PPC/GR combos (2xPPC/GR = 35 for 29 tons, and 3xPPC/GR = 45 for 36 tons), although the PPC?G combos weigh less, run hotter and recycle slower. This not only gives the AC10 an advantage (higher recycle, lower heat), it also puts more hard limits on the AC10 (higher base tonnage) to prevent abuse of that advantage. The AC10 should have an advantage due to its shorter range and higher base tonnage.


Medium/Small Lasers/Pulse Lasers

Roland has already written an excellent thread explaining why the smaller lasers were nerfed in the past, and why they don't need to be nerfed anymore. Short version: with better implementation of projectile weapons and netcode, lasers no longer have an overpowering accuracy advantage.

I propose that we reduce ML, MPL, SL and SPL heat to 3, 4, 1 and 2, respectively.

Worst case scenario: We already know how much damage ML boats can do. The only difference now is that they'll be able to fire more often. Currently, MLs produce just as much damage per heat as PPCs. In MWO heat is always a limiting factor that can't be overcome by heat sinks. Mechs with tonnage (assaults/heavies) run PPCs, and mechs that dont (meds/lights) run MLs ... but the ML guys have no advantage over the PPC guys, even though they can't fight at 540m. So nothing changes except that mechs forced to fight at short range have advantages over the long range mechs ... isn't this the way it should be?


SRMs

Everything went to crap when they were nerfed, so my suggestion is simple:

Restore SRM damage to 2.5 per missile, but remove splash damage.

This puts us back to where we were, only light/small mechs won't be taking massively amplified damage from them. Performance against larger mechs should be roughly the same as it was before.


==============

These changes would give us serious brawling weapons for balistic, energy and missile hardpoints. If PPC/GR combos started dominating once the last real brawling weapon was nerfed, then this should not only shift the meta back to where it was, but also provide more options for brawling mechs.

[3rdworld]

Sorry, to say but I am not a fan.

[Bagheera]

AC20 - too generous. Slightly lowered heat would be plenty. The dmg buff is probably too much, as much as I would love it. As it stands, the AC20 is a solid weapon, and I'm happy with its current state, but I am probably not in the majority on that.

AC10 - pretty good, maybe too generous on the heat, but maybe not generous enough on dmg.

SRMs - 100%, Absolutely, Yes Please. Remove splash, reset damage, evaluate results.

lazors - something along those lines, but haven't thought it through enough.

I also appreciate any suggestion that calls for buffs to things rather than nerfs.

Edited by Bagheera, 24 April 2013 - 11:44 AM.

[zorak ramone]

3rdworld, on 24 April 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Sorry, to say but I am not a fan.

Care to discuss? I think we can still discuss things here, and that would be more helpful that just stating your agreement/disagreement.

[zorak ramone]

Bagheera, on 24 April 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

AC20 - too generous. Slightly lowered heat would be plenty. The dmg buff is probably too much, as much as I would love it. As it stands, the AC20 is a solid weapon, and I'm happy with its current state, but I am probably not in the majority on that.

AC10 - pretty good, maybe too generous on the heat, but not generous enough on dmg.

SRMs - 100%, Absolutely, Yes Please. Remove splash, reset damage, evaluate results.

lazors - something along those lines, but haven't thought it through enough.

I also appreciate any suggestion that calls for buffs to things rather than nerfs.

Thanks for feedback!

The damage buff on AC20s looked scary to me too, especially after the flood of Jagerbombs. However, after thinking about it for a while, I began to think it wasn't so bad. I mean, we already have pinpoint accurate 40 point alphas every 3 seconds at 540m, and 45 point alphas (although spread in arms/torsos) every ~4s, and somehow the game is still playable. I don't think 50 point alphas would break the game, especially when its at 250, and in the context of other buffed short ranged weapons.

That said, you're right: the heat reduction of the AC20 would be enough to make it viable, and is an absolute must, IMO.

[MustrumRidcully]

The AC/20 seems rather fine to me right now. It's a reason why there used to be a time people ran the Dual AC/20 Catapults and Jagermechs. I think the problem on the brawling front was really the nerf of the SRMs, the AC/20 don't need much help.

The AC/10 does need help, however. I doubt you'll succeed in raising its damage, however, PGI seemed to be fanatically obsessed with that little number in the weapon name. That would only leave a DPS increase via a higher rate of fire and/or a heat buff.

And I am afraid a problem the game has is that the alpha damage values have gotten too high. Which is in a large part a problem of the heat capacity. AS you say - the worst case mechs we can think of can't really carry many AC/20 (or Gauss Rifles, for that matter), so their alpha ability is already pretty limited.
The problem is that other weapons are designed to occupy a mech with heat sinks in addition to the weapon, and being completely impractical without them. A 6 PPC Stalker would need to have at least 16 double heat sinks (or 31 standard sinks) to not instantly overheat on each shot in the table top, and could only fire every 2 turns then (e.g once in 20 seconds). But the 6 PPC Stalker with 15 DHS can have a heat capacity of 55+, which allows it to fire twice in 10 seconds. Sure, it takes forever to dissipate that heat, but it doesn't matter, because that damage is harsh - it can single-handedly take out the armour on any mech'***** location, and potentially cripple or destroy many other mechs.
Of course, the 6 PPC Stalker is probably not the good build - the 4 PPC one is likely better (especially if he can mix in some ER PPCs for even more range advatages). That's only 40 damage per alpha, but an even better heat cap is now possible, and you need to dissipate less to repeat your fire.

Oh, I just noticed one thing - I am not sure I actually want the SRM back to 2.5 damage per missile.

Can we not rather make it 2 damage per missile, but raise its rate of fire? This keeps the alpha strike ability of the SRM a bit lower than it used to be, which can help us against stuff like Splatapults, but in a brawl, they still out-DPS the snipers easily.

Say, lower all SRMs recycle rate by 0.5 seconds or something like that.

[Dirus Nigh]

I use AC20s, and 10s all the time. They work for me, and I get killed by them often.

For example I currently have a 2.13 KDR with my hunchback 4G. It has stock weaponry. My atlas D also has an AC20, with a pair of SRM6s, and four medium lasers. My KDR with this atlas is higher than the 4G.

The only thing in your post that I think would be a viable change is SRM damage, along with tweaking the splash effect of missiles.

The main reasons that people use high alpha energy boats are, The lowered heat stat of the weapons. The giant nurf LRMs have been given. ECM blocking any targeting beyond 250m. And people will find the easiest mech builds to use with the most damage, or consistant damage, out put they can.

Even these pro MWO players who run the eight man competitions. They use the cheesiest builds possible.

[frag85]

I don't think the issue is necessarily the damage system, its the heat system. The exception being that missiles were reduced too much in damage. In my limited mech experiences in MW2, 4 and LL, I feel like this game should have less heat capacity and cool down quicker in addition to consequences for overheating. As for missiles; meet in the middle and give that a try. The nerfed value is too low, but 2.5 was is too high when you take into account splash damages.

It would be nice if there were 'test' servers that have custom settings where we could try different configurations.

[Jack Lowe]

I was actually considering ballistics and how they compare to other weapons and fit into the game as it stands. Although I disagree with the OP in the changes to damage as I don't believe they are necessary or useful I do believe he is correct that ballistics is the answer to the current problem. The reason I disagree is I don't believe the problem is with the raw stats so much as in a misunderstanding over the use and the visual rendering of how they work. I have been toying with the problem using a different perspective however I'll throw it out there.

This game does not strictly adhere to TT, it also uses lore and the discriptiions of how the weapons work from tech manuals, authors, and sometimes just imagination. With that in mind, an AC/20 is really more of a TT reference, in most of the lore it would have been called a Pontiac or other applicable manufacturer. The 20 only refers to the TT damage value and is easier than remembering whether the shell is 150mm or 100mm. Also they are described as using clips usually either 5 or 10 shots each. Each clip of ammo was considered a round. It occured to me that many of the ballistics loadouts 3 UAC/5's 6 AC/2's and such are an attempt to create this very affect in order to fill a role fire support and suppression fire. What if we adapted that idea to the ballistics in game how would that alter game play and the use or utility of all ballistics?
How would it affect those light ECM SSRM 3-L's doing their circle of death dance?

If each of the shells in that clip causes cockpit shudder how does it affect PPC and Gauss snipers or poptarts?

How does needing to maintain your target lead throughout the shot affect effective range?

Is it worth the change from concentrated damage in one location to more diffused damage unless the target is standing still?

Does it make the skill in using the weapon to difficult for the average player?

How does it affect ammo usage, particularly for smaller calibers?

How difficult would it be to implement into programming code?

These are some of the questions I'm toying around with and without a way to actually test these things out and get real data and feedback any answers I come up with are speculation at best.
I'm throwing this out there to see what other people's thoughts are to determine if this idea would indeed be workable and provide enjoyment.

I do think that this change would require alterations in reload rate. I also think that it would provide the AC/2 and 5 a greater utility as a fire support/ suppresive fire weapon. The double tap feature for the UAC/5 would become spammed less and utilized in a more tactical fashion because there is suppose to be a .25sec delay between shots and now the player would be forced to maintain aim on a moving target for that period. I do see it getting used on static targets. I also see effective ranges for the larger bore weapons being naturally shortened as they won't be able to sustain a steady enough fire and have a much smaller stock of ammo. Smart players will save their shots for better situations and use the covering fire to get into position.

I also think that poptarting and sniping would be reduced the ability to maintain the aim for those long range shots would be very difficult. Mobile sniping would be less affected as those autocannons would have similar problems maintaining target.

Those are just a few of the immediate benefits, however I'm not certain if implementing this into the game would open a whole new set of balancing issues. Anyway idea is on the table thoughts ideas and suggestions welcome.

Edited by Jack Lowe, 24 April 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Foster Bondroff]

The funny thing is, that there is acutally a pretty good weapons balance. Over the past week, i have seen all kinds of weapons been used and used efficiently with one exception LRMs.

I think the only weapon that needs some buffing are those. Once the final fix is in, i think a slight speed increase should make LRMs pretty viable again.

[BillyM]

No more radical changes please. Changes need to be made continually by small amounts.

-LRM's a bit strong? Lets drop damage 10%, NOT 50%!
-AC's creating a bit too much heat? Lets drop heat 10% NOT 50%!

Lets work on making changes to balance by actually "Balancing" them out, not completely shift the overall metagame by turning figures on their head. Unlike the tablecloth trick, abrupt changes will certainly always be unsettling in these types of games. I wanted to see 10% of people "hanging up" their Cata-A1's when damage changes went through, not 90%....

Cheers,
--billyM

[zorak ramone]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 April 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

The AC/20 seems rather fine to me right now. It's a reason why there used to be a time people ran the Dual AC/20 Catapults and Jagermechs. I think the problem on the brawling front was really the nerf of the SRMs, the AC/20 don't need much help.

I know it seems that way, but it really does. The AC20 is still vastly inferior to the GR, and its all because of its heat, and to a lesser extent its size. Back in the day, AC20 K2s were gimmick builds while GR K2s were the real competitive killing machines.

The AC20 Jagermech was really popular once the Jagermech was introduced, but I see less and less of them every day. It think its because once people realized that the quad PPC Stalker, 3xPPC/GR highlanders/Atlases, or any other mech packing 2xPPC/GR were doing as much, more, or almost as much damage as them, but at 540m instead of 250, they realized that it wasn't worth it.

As for mechs with mechs with mixed AC20/SRM/ML builds, those builds have collapsed ever since the SRM got nerfed. The reason why is that the SRMs were carrying those builds all along. If SRMs were still worthwhile, I'd encourage anyone with an AC20/SRM build to simply swap their AC20 for a GR, and you'll find that your build immediately improves. The severity of the GR fragility nerf is mostly in people's heads: AC20s get crit out pretty fast when a section looses its armor, and when a section looses its armor, its a shot or two away from being eliminated as well.

Quote

The AC/10 does need help, however. I doubt you'll succeed in raising its damage, however, PGI seemed to be fanatically obsessed with that little number in the weapon name. That would only leave a DPS increase via a higher rate of fire and/or a heat buff.

If damage is out of the question, I would decrease its heat and buff its range to 540m. I would also, for compensation, increase AC5 range to match UAC5 range to keep the AC5 useful.

Quote

And I am afraid a problem the game has is that the alpha damage values have gotten too high. Which is in a large part a problem of the heat capacity. AS you say - the worst case mechs we can think of can't really carry many AC/20 (or Gauss Rifles, for that matter), so their alpha ability is already pretty limited.
The problem is that other weapons are designed to occupy a mech with heat sinks in addition to the weapon, and being completely impractical without them. A 6 PPC Stalker would need to have at least 16 double heat sinks (or 31 standard sinks) to not instantly overheat on each shot in the table top, and could only fire every 2 turns then (e.g once in 20 seconds). But the 6 PPC Stalker with 15 DHS can have a heat capacity of 55+, which allows it to fire twice in 10 seconds. Sure, it takes forever to dissipate that heat, but it doesn't matter, because that damage is harsh - it can single-handedly take out the armour on any mech'***** location, and potentially cripple or destroy many other mechs.
Of course, the 6 PPC Stalker is probably not the good build - the 4 PPC one is likely better (especially if he can mix in some ER PPCs for even more range advatages). That's only 40 damage per alpha, but an even better heat cap is now possible, and you need to dissipate less to repeat your fire.

The only real solution to the problem of high-alpha builds is cone of fire, but we all know thats never going to happen.

Also, I agree with your posts in other threads arguing for faster dissipation + lower capacity (although I would leave capacity and just add really serious penalties for heat over max-30).

As for high alpha damage, I think that the 6xPPC stalker and 4xPPC stalker kind of prove that the 25 damage AC20 wouldn't be as severe. 2xAC20 couldn't be mounted on many mechs (unlike multi-PPC + GR builds), and its alpha would be under the 6xPPC stalker and 10 over the 4xPPC stalker, but with twice the recycle time ... also, it can only do it at 250m. Besides, shouldn't 2xAC20 be scary as hell?

Quote

Oh, I just noticed one thing - I am not sure I actually want the SRM back to 2.5 damage per missile.



Can we not rather make it 2 damage per missile, but raise its rate of fire? This keeps the alpha strike ability of the SRM a bit lower than it used to be, which can help us against stuff like Splatapults, but in a brawl, they still out-DPS the snipers easily.

Say, lower all SRMs recycle rate by 0.5 seconds or something like that.

That might be ok, but I would try 2.5 without the splash first. The problem wasn't with SRM damage ... it was that the splash coding was multiplying that damage on smaller mechs.

Dirus Nigh, on 24 April 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

I use AC20s, and 10s all the time. They work for me, and I get killed by them often.

For example I currently have a 2.13 KDR with my hunchback 4G. It has stock weaponry. My atlas D also has an AC20, with a pair of SRM6s, and four medium lasers. My KDR with this atlas is higher than the 4G.

The only thing in your post that I think would be a viable change is SRM damage, along with tweaking the splash effect of missiles.

I challenge you to take any build with an AC20, replace it with a GR, and either leave everything and run cooler, or drop DHS and add more weapons or engine. Your build will do better.

I run an AS7-D with 2xPPC/GR/2xA-SRM6 with a 325 Std. KDR is 4 or 5 (95% pugging). It runs cool enough to fight up close, and of course it can snipe. It can do this because the GR does almost the same damage as the AC20, but for practically no heat. If I added an AC20, I'd be doing less damage up close because I would be overheating more, and I'd be doing less damage at range for obvious reasons.

Quote

The main reasons that people use high alpha energy boats are, The lowered heat stat of the weapons. The giant nurf LRMs have been given. ECM blocking any targeting beyond 250m. And people will find the easiest mech builds to use with the most damage, or consistant damage, out put they can.

PPCs starting being used when heat was dropped to 8, but gameplay wasn't homogenized to PPC/GR domination until missiles were nerfed.

Edited by zorak ramone, 24 April 2013 - 12:56 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

zorak ramone, on 24 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I know it seems that way, but it really does. The AC20 is still vastly inferior to the GR, and its all because of its heat, and to a lesser extent its size. Back in the day, AC20 K2s were gimmick builds while GR K2s were the real competitive killing machines.

The AC20 Jagermech was really popular once the Jagermech was introduced, but I see less and less of them every day. It think its because once people realized that the quad PPC Stalker, 3xPPC/GR highlanders/Atlases, or any other mech packing 2xPPC/GR were doing as much, more, or almost as much damage as them, but at 540m instead of 250, they realized that it wasn't worth it.

As for mechs with mechs with mixed AC20/SRM/ML builds, those builds have collapsed ever since the SRM got nerfed. The reason why is that the SRMs were carrying those builds all along. If SRMs were still worthwhile, I'd encourage anyone with an AC20/SRM build to simply swap their AC20 for a GR, and you'll find that your build immediately improves. The severity of the GR fragility nerf is mostly in people's heads: AC20s get crit out pretty fast when a section looses its armor, and when a section looses its armor, its a shot or two away from being eliminated as well.

If damage is out of the question, I would decrease its heat and buff its range to 540m. I would also, for compensation, increase AC5 range to match UAC5 range to keep the AC5 useful.

The only real solution to the problem of high-alpha builds is cone of fire, but we all know thats never going to happen.

You are missing the whole point. The AC20 and Gauss rifles are not broken. People are using PPC alpha builds not because the ballistic weapons are bad, but because they can use a mech that can hold 4-6 of them. ER PPC heat has been lowered from the battletech source material from 15 to 13, then later lowered to 11. PPC, large lasers, and ER large lasers have had their heat lowered in a similar fashion. These mechs can alpha strike at least twice before shutting down. There is not consequence to spiking the heat above the auto shut down mark.

On top of that the new coolant flush will allow a mech to alpha once more before a shut down. Granted it's only once per match, yet it's still an option.

Auto cannons are not the problem. Its the ease of use of large energy boats. Raise the heat out put of those weapons and you will see variety in mech builds again.

Consider these other factors regarding PPCs, and large lasers. They can do etiquette damage beyond their ranges that ballistic weapons (save the gauss). The ER PPC can fire from one spawn point to another on river city and do damage. Fire six of them together is like being hit with 2.5-3 of them with in it's effective range.

The PPC is half the weight of the AC20 with no need for ammo. The large lasers is less than half of the AC10, again with no ammo.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 24 April 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[Neolisk]

Bagheera, on 24 April 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

SRMs - 100%, Absolutely, Yes Please. Remove splash, reset damage, evaluate results.

Yes to this. Not sure about everything else.

[Keifomofutu]

I wouldn't buff ac20 at all. Its the lowest heat big alpha in the game. And lots of jagers using them indicate the weapon is doing just fine. But I would agree with buffing the rest of the short range weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

zorak ramone, on 24 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

I know it seems that way, but it really does. The AC20 is still vastly inferior to the GR, and its all because of its heat, and to a lesser extent its size. Back in the day, AC20 K2s were gimmick builds while GR K2s were the real competitive killing machines.

Back in the day, the AC/20 heat was 2 points higher per shot, and its projectile was much, much slower. ANd even further back then, we had only single heat sinks. It was no question then that the Gauss Rifle was the best weapon of them all, and even the explosive and crit thingy wouldn't change that.

Quote

The AC20 Jagermech was really popular once the Jagermech was introduced, but I see less and less of them every day. It think its because once people realized that the quad PPC Stalker, 3xPPC/GR highlanders/Atlases, or any other mech packing 2xPPC/GR were doing as much, more, or almost as much damage as them, but at 540m instead of 250, they realized that it wasn't worth it.

You see less of them because long range builds have gotten so common. I tried the AC/20 Jagermech finally yesterday, and it worked well, despite being on Alpine and Tourmaline for all matches. The big problem was - I knew the moment I'd encounter a Stalker or Highlander at long range, I risked taking internal damage from the first salvo. You really have to be extremely careful now with short range builds. And it doesn't really help that your team also has more long range members that won't be willing to engage the enemy at close range, meaning that you're often the first target to be seen, and the enemy has something to focus on.

Quote

The only real solution to the problem of high-alpha builds is cone of fire, but we all know thats never going to happen.

It might be the most effective one ,but it's not the only one. If you take away the ability to "safely" alpha for large damage values, you have solved the issue as well.

Quote

Also, I agree with your posts in other threads arguing for faster dissipation + lower capacity (although I would leave capacity and just add really serious penalties for heat over max-30).

I find heat penalties very tempting, but a heat penalty in this case would just mean - you don't shut down, so you can keep firing. Since we already agreed that cone of fire won't happen, the heat penalties will be mostly meaningless to a sniper. Speed reduction? Twist limitations? You don'T need to worry about that all that much.

Quote

As for high alpha damage, I think that the 6xPPC stalker and 4xPPC stalker kind of prove that the 25 damage AC20 wouldn't be as severe.

Does it? the Dual AC/20 mech delivers a 50 damage alpha. People complain now in an environment of 35 to 60 damage alphas.

Quote

2xAC20 couldn't be mounted on many mechs (unlike multi-PPC + GR builds), and its alpha would be under the 6xPPC stalker and 10 over the 4xPPC stalker, but with twice the recycle time ... also, it can only do it at 250m.

The range is really the mitigating factor here. There are Dual AC/20 mechs - if it's a good build that works better than most, then that's the build you're gonna see on the field. But 40-50 damage alphas at close range is something very different from 40-60 damage alphas at long range.

Quote

Besides, shouldn't 2xAC20 be scary as hell?

I think 2 AC/20s is very scary. But it shouldn't be too scary. This is a Battletech-based game, and it should have a relatively slow gameplay to other shooter-type games. Part of the appeal of battlemechs in Mechwarrior titles is that you exchange quite a few shots before something gets destroyed.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 April 2013 - 10:52 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

The AC/20 is already great.

The AC/5 and AC/10 are the second-class citizens of the family, as they have neither great alpha damage when grouped, nor the high RoF (and knock) of the AC/2s and UAC/5s. If anything, I'd advocate giving both a slight RoF boost and leavign the AC/20s where they're at. And the LBxAC/10 is probably the worst, but I'm not sure how best to fix it without completely obsoleting the AC/10.

Lasers are pretty ok all in all, though a slight heat decrease might be ok to experiment with - I think the firing duration is a pretty good limit on boating them.

As for missiles, they're pretty bad right now. I wholeheatedly agree with increasing damage and eliminating splash (for all missiles), but I'd like to the spreads reworked a bit too. And LRM speed increased. And if those go right, I'm not sure the damage needs the 0.5 buff... But it'd be nice for them to reliably do base TT damage again.

[Joseph Mallan]

I use AC10s and 20s. They are working fine even against double armor. They could probably use a RoF increase, but it isn't needed really.

[Ragor]

zorak ramone, on 24 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

We have a million posts now talking about how PPC/GR snipers/jump snipers dominate the current meta. This situation is analagous to MW4 [and MWLL.] (...)

MWO runs into the same (never resolved) issues of MW4 and the same (solved) issues of MWLL.

Why start the development from scratch when you could continue where other have already been years back?
Why not take the experiences of the past into the design process?

Edit:
Sidenote:
I feel free to disagree with most of the suggested changes of the OP.

Edited by Ragor, 25 April 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I have allready writen it somewhere...the light and the heavy Autocannons feel like secondary weapons... you have other primary weapons and use them at choice... ok we have lots of people that gets confused by more than 2 weapon groups...but that is another story.
The medium and Very Heavy Autocanon however...are good primary weapons.
Because the concern is here primary weapon...i would say...for a single Assault Class Autocannon...the damage should be increased... the problem comes when you have two of them....
That is the crux...with MWO...a weapon allone seems perfectly balanced, add a second and fire both in the same volley the results are complete out of the box.

Same could said about every weapon.

However for your questions:
lower the RoF for the AssaultClass.
but increase damage and heat that the DPS and HPS are not affected...(means instead of one shot every 4secs with 20dmg)
go for 30 dmg every 6 secs with 8-12 heat points...needs a closer look - reduce ammunition back towards 5 shots per ton.

Same with SRM...increase damage for decreasing the RoF

The heavy autocannon should become attractive to be a 7crit choice alternative towards the gauss....so increase the RoF...2 shots while the Gauss is only to fire once.

have no meaning about medium lasers....they are not even secondary weapons...they are just tertiary weapons...use them only for aiming or when there is no other choice

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 April 2013 - 04:23 AM.