Form the beginning the MWO's mechanics was broken and now devs try to balance it with restrictions but they are ugly.
What I'm talking about? 2*AC/20, PPC boating and LRM boats made from assault mechs. No roles on battlefield, just Heavy/Assault dominance. Lights can be killed with single shot and there is no place for them now. Also for some mediums.
As I see:
ACs should fire bursts (no problems with AC/20 boating).
No weapon convergence for torso weapons (no problems with PPC/any-other boating).
If missiles fired from missile hardpoint that has lesser tubes than "shot" - they overheat alot: LRM20 from 5 tube hardpoint, SRM6 from 2 tube hardpoint (no missile boats form assault mechs).
I prefer AC's be a single shot delivery. We already have 'stream' weapons in the form of lasers. If I'm going to bring the tonnage required use a ballistic weapon I want to make it count.
As for convergence I have no problem with torso weapon convergence or even convergence in general. What I have problem with is that it happens instantly.
ACs with bursts? Sure...same damage as now, but multiple shots using multiple ammo per burst sounds great. Like carrying 4 AC20s instead of just one. Of course you would run out of ammo faster, but what the heck...
Or, more seriously, they could add Repeating Cannons, like an RC2 that shoots 5 burst shots of AC2 ammo for use on the smaller mechs. Larger mechs would still use the bigger guns more likely, while smaller mechs that don't carry the tonnage for the big guns, could use the repeaters so they could have a bit more punch for their size.
There are rifles for that. In present timeline there is "Gauss" available. Pinpoint damage? Lasers and damn PPCs. ACs have different role: BIG powerful MGs.
Redwood Elf, on 12 July 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:
Or, more seriously, they could add Repeating Cannons,
AC. Why something like "Repeating Cannons"? For what purpose? ACs have different role than lasers: almost no heat, but "burst" and ammo cost. That is the BALANCE. No?
You need an XL engine to use two AC20s or guass rifles, they use ammunition that will run out. These are not OP, unbalanced or water ever.
However the rate at which damage drops off after effective range does need to be changed.
actually many mechs CANNOT mount an AC20 with an XL engine. AC20 is too large if it goes in a torso slot and you only end up with 2 free crits in the section. this is true for any atlas, catapult k2, raven 4x(lol), cicada 3c and 3m (more lol), hunchback 4g and 4h, trebuchet 7k, Flame (hero), every cataphract EXCEPT the 4x which just can't, and the misery (hero).
i think the black jacks, the jagers, and the yen lo wang are the only mechs that are actually allowed to have an AC20 AND an XL engine on the same mech.
Something is going to have to give, because adopting full damage shells straight out of TT doesn't work right.
For variety's sake, here are some idea's
- Regular AC's: Keep "single shell damage" concept, if balance is necessary, than it should be done. Also can include "alternate" AC's that are manufacturer type guns, that burst fire for a little more damage if all shells hit, or do less damage, but fire faster, etc.
- UAC's - For balance reasons, these need to have the damage of the shells reduced in the burst, full damage "better cool down, double full damage shell" does not work at all, and this will become apparent with the rest of the UAC caliber guns. The jam also is arbitrary and takes control away from the player. There are better ways to implement "jam" by an overheat barrel method, for example, so the player knows when it will jam.
Example: They should burst fire all the time on every click, but reducing the shell damage to 2.8 per shell (landing both shells in the same spot, in quick succession then is thus a skill based factor, but also will do more damage than an AC/5, but not ridiculous like it is now with 2x5 Damage shells for 10 Damage)
- RAC's - Should be fully automatic or rather very fast firing single shells, but with significantly reduced damage per shell.
That way each AC 'family' gun-type is a little different, but also balanced accordingly. As it is now, UAC's in their current format will be a huge issue if not addressed. And likewise, if UAC's stay in their current format, a RAC would be ridiculously overpowered, which is the problem with trying to pull straight damage numbers from TT, instead of programming the weapon to behave as the equivalent of that weapon in Battle Tech with the expected 'feel' and damage output ratio for its weight.
Edited by General Taskeen, 13 July 2013 - 08:53 AM.
Form the beginning the MWO's mechanics was broken and now devs try to balance it with restrictions but they are ugly.
What I'm talking about? 2*AC/20, PPC boating and LRM boats made from assault mechs. No roles on battlefield, just Heavy/Assault dominance. Lights can be killed with single shot and there is no place for them now. Also for some mediums.
As I see:
ACs should fire bursts (no problems with AC/20 boating).
No weapon convergence for torso weapons (no problems with PPC/any-other boating).
If missiles fired from missile hardpoint that has lesser tubes than "shot" - they overheat alot: LRM20 from 5 tube hardpoint, SRM6 from 2 tube hardpoint (no missile boats form assault mechs).
Slight mod to the poll. "Short burst variants and single shot variants for anything less than AC/20." Trust me, through testing there's advantages to multi-shot variants that would have many people choosing them over single shot ones.
Singleshot AC/20s only exist on certain large battle tanks in BattleTech and this is because the sheer firepower of a Howitzer 203mm round (what the singleshot AC/20 essentially is) has proven to be too much for even a 100 ton Atlas to wield and keep its balance without having to stand perfectly still and braced, and even then had a 75% chance of falling on his ***.
-------------------------------
Weapon convergence on torso weapons is essentially adjusting the path left and right to hit at a specific range. This by itself is fine, but it could use a minimum range. It's been known to do impossible angles. Say side torso weapons can't converge below 120 meters, though center torso weapons (which are never fantastic or overly powerful anyway) could.
-------------------------------
Personally though I like the tube system as it is for the newer mechs, like the Victor 9S. They are punished plenty with the third hardpoint being forced to use 2 tubes no matter what the weapon is, and the streams of missiles from that specific launcher are easily shot down. So I disagree there with the heat rising on them just because there's smaller tubes. I know it's realistic but those tubes are virtually useless, and it'd only encourage more streaks on the field.
Although, I do believe that multiple missile hardpoints should NOT share tubes.
For example the Catapult A1 can pump out 90 missiles at the same time if you have 6 LRM-15s. This should not be. The A1 should have x number of tubes dedicated to each hardpoint. Say, 6, 6, and 3 for each arm? This would bring it in line with many of the other rigs. Of course a system could be done where if you only put in 1 LRM-15 in one arm it would use all 15 tubes. But when you put in a missile launcher in the second hardpoint, it then divides up the tubes 7 to one and 8 to the other (total 15). Then when you do the next launcher in the third hardpoint of the same arm it goes 6, 6, 3 (total 15).
Slight mod to the poll. "Short burst variants and single shot variants for anything less than AC/20." Trust me, through testing there's advantages to multi-shot variants that would have many people choosing them over single shot ones.
I know but I hate this AC-single-shot-sniping even with AC/10s.
Koniving, on 13 July 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:
the sheer firepower of a Howitzer 203mm round (what the singleshot AC/20 essentially is) has proven to be too much for even a 100 ton Atlas to wield and keep its balance without having to stand perfectly still and braced, and even then had a 75% chance of falling on his ***.
Imagined this picture.
Koniving, on 13 July 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:
Weapon convergence on torso weapons is essentially adjusting the path left and right to hit at a specific range. This by itself is fine, but it could use a minimum range. It's been known to do impossible angles. Say side torso weapons can't converge below 120 meters, though center torso weapons (which are never fantastic or overly powerful anyway) could.
Agree. If only devs could listen to us.
Koniving, on 13 July 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:
I know it's realistic but those tubes are virtually useless, and it'd only encourage more streaks on the field.
They should be nerfed soon. Devs promised this.
But Atlas/Stalkers LRM-boats just kill me. Some freaky builds. So my idea just to prevent this builds, for gameplay reasons.
Koniving, on 13 July 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:
Although, I do believe that multiple missile hardpoints should NOT share tubes.
For example the Catapult A1 can pump out 90 missiles at the same time if you have 6 LRM-15s. This should not be. The A1 should have x number of tubes dedicated to each hardpoint. Say, 6, 6, and 3 for each arm? This would bring it in line with many of the other rigs. Of course a system could be done where if you only put in 1 LRM-15 in one arm it would use all 15 tubes. But when you put in a missile launcher in the second hardpoint, it then divides up the tubes 7 to one and 8 to the other (total 15). Then when you do the next launcher in the third hardpoint of the same arm it goes 6, 6, 3 (total 15).
I've got a video I'm uploading which would give a visual demonstration of weapon variants, however I firmly believe the single-shot variants of all but the AC/20 should remain with the multi-shot variants for strong variety. The pros and cons of the single shot and multi-shot variants are addressed in the vid.
Not enjoying the fact that you are "sniped" by them is not a valid balancing reason.
Lore and insanely fast cheesey kills are a valid balancing reason. For example: The AC/40 is the only weapon combination that can guarantee an instant kill against ANY mech via the cockpit for 1 point of heat more than a single ER PPC (12 for 2 AC/20s, where a single ER PPC generates 11). That's a valid reason.
Upcoming UAC/20 and a Hunchback (II-C) that can carry 2 of them and still fit an XL engine is another valid reason for this measure.
(It's uploading. When you can see an image it's ready.)
It features each in sequence, and then side by side comparisons of two ways to do the ChemJet Gun, as well as comparisons of the single shot versus the others, where they all have identical DPS and kill stationary targets at the exact same speed. Annotations will be added tomorrow.
Monday when I get the chance I will make a video demonstrating them against moving targets of various sizes.
i won't even try to defend clan tech. without some form of repair and rearm clan tech is going to roflstomp any inner sphere mech.
that is a whole other batch of issues.
Well, UAC/5, all other UACs including UAC/20, are multi-shot guns of "smaller caliber" than regular ones.. So if you have a single shot AC/5, the UAC/5 variant of it would be twin-shot burst at 2.5 per 'shot', with a secondary twin shot ready to roll at a moment's notice from a secondary breach/chamber/feed. If the AC/5 is a 5 shot variant, the matching variant of UAC/5 would be 10 shots. If it's a 4 shot AC/5, the matching UAC/5 companion would be 8 shots. Since there's supposed to be more than 30 manufacturers of weapons, there's supposed to be a lot of variety out there.
The only possible singleshot UAC/5 with a secondary chamber would be of the same caliber and size as a twin-shot UAC/10, which the UAC/5 would have the barrel of an AC/5 and the UAC/10 would likely have twin AC/5-style barrels which may or may not rotate. However, there simply isn't a single-shot UAC/5 in available lore.
Every image there is depicts them as having a minimum of 6 barrels per UAC/20, at barrel sizes half that of the ChemJet Gun (a 3 round burst AC/20). Bam.
The UAC/20s pictured here are 3 to 6 shot burst AC/20 with a secondary feed to pump out an additional 3 or 6 shots.
Since their caliber is supposed to be smaller than an AC/20, it's easy to figure it's a 6 shot AC/20 (half the caliber, double the shots), with the secondary feed ready to churn out another 6 shots at the risk of jamming. When a jam occurs the remaining shots in the secondary burst should be ejected and simply 'lost' (actually in BattleTech the gun becomes completely unusable until the battle has ended).
Judging by the barrel size, though, it's far more likely that these cannons pump out far more rounds than that, but we'd be at the point of speculation rather than fact.
what i never see posted is 'lower all damage' if the best weapons did 5 pts then next lowest 4.5 then 4.....new players wouldnt die instantly and games would last longer and boats wouldnt be overpowered.
I've got a video I'm uploading which would give a visual demonstration of weapon variants, however I firmly believe the single-shot variants of all but the AC/20 should remain with the multi-shot variants for strong variety. The pros and cons of the single shot and multi-shot variants are addressed in the vid.
Then there's no point in introducing burstfire variants since the single-shot variants will be categorically superior. The point of moving ACs to a burstfire format is to combine a little rule-of-cool with a balance change to bring down the availability of front-loaded pinpoint damage.
Then there's no point in introducing burstfire variants since the single-shot variants will be categorically superior. The point of moving ACs to a burstfire format is to combine a little rule-of-cool with a balance change to bring down the availability of front-loaded pinpoint damage.
You sure about that?
Quoth the Raven, "Have a look."
In terms of DPS, every weapon there is identical. Some will work better against lights (oh yes if you can hit the light with a single shot AC/20 its devastating, but how often does hit detection fail you in this regard?), some will work better against assaults. The idea though is the single shot AC/20 isn't lore friendly and doesn't belong here, so it'd be removed.
The others such as single shot AC/10s are lore friendly, although there will be reasons to use the multi-shots anyway. Also, remember that the concept also relies on recoil, with the bigger and fewer the rounds, the greater the recoil. Picture trying to fire your AC/10 and PPC together when your single shot AC/10 jerks your arm up to the side, thusly taking your PPC with it to shoot the sky (although not everyone would mount a PPC and AC/10 on the same arm).
Also, remember that in NGNG Podcast 79 from 32 minutes to 40, it is explained that the long term plan to balance PPCs (and thusly fix SRMs, LRMs, and Streaks) is to
rewrite the CryEngine code for splash damage from the ground up (not an easy task as its a core component of the CryEngine) so it takes from a damage pool and splashes it (10 damage? Splash 25%, 7 damage concentrated 3 damage splashed!) rather than a base damage and multiplying it (2.5 damage per missile? Splash! ZOMG, 18 DAMAGE PER MISSILE! WHOA!).
After that, PPCs are getting a splash damage mechanic which will spread out the damage,
in addition to the 2 PPCs at a time to safely fire them limit and exponential penalties of 30% additional heat just for firing 3 at the same time.
And variants will eventually apply to all weapons, including Gauss Rifles. After all there's over 44 unique variants of medium lasers in BattleTech and that number goes well beyond 60 or even 70 if you count the variants of the variants. Some lasers "Stream" constantly but the heat soars. Some have shorter burst times but the heat is instant and dire. Then there's 9 unique variants of AC/20, and 15 total if you count the variants of the variants (for example there's 3 kinds of Chemjet Gun by 3 competing manufacturers).
There are over 15 Gauss Rifle variants. Some ways I've pictured them working include but are not limited to: If we assume there's going to be a few "two-shot" variants, here's a few ways they could work.
A two shot variant could have an evenly spaced amount of time in between shots, with 2 second cooldown. So say 2 seconds between the first shot and the second, and the 2 second cooldown we have a non-stop 7.5 damage gauss rifle.
A rapid burst just fires a second shot back to back x milliseconds after the first with even damage. Since stability is a balancing factor, it could have less risk of exploding compared to your standard gauss rifle or do less damage when it does.
This one's my favorite: A twin-shot gauss rifle that fires two bullets at different damages. First, it fires a 'test' shot of 1 damage and waits 0.25 seconds to fire a second, larger, 14 damage shot. The first one is used as a tracer to make sure you can hit the target and make any adjustments you need for aim. The second is the actual punch.
Reason I like the third is it can't be used in those quick-twitch shots that the "pro instant alpha sniper" guys do while jump jetting, but it can be used to help people that can't guess with the first shot to be able to adjust their aim and really deliver a punch.
I get that they're mathematically equivalent (barring the very, very slightly shorter TTK with lower numbers of shots, but that's basically a nonfactor). The problem is that they are mathematically identical, really. For the same DPS, heat, shake, ammo and so on, one gun requires less skill/effort (delete as appropriate) to achieve the same minimum TTK. With the current AC/20 you need 5 shots on target to achieve that exact Cicada kill, with the 2-dmg/shell AC/20 variant you need 50. That requires more time aiming which a: allows for them to defensive twist and b: requires your CT to be exposed for longer.
Frontloading damage is a major advantage in this game, and needs to be 'paid for' by reduced DPS if it's available. Given the same theoretical TTK, ammo consumption, etc - a damage-spreading weapon is just worse than a damage concentrating one.
*Points back up.* Didn't give me a chance to wake up and finish editing my post. Check back, also remember the video didn't demonstrate recoil (it's pretty hard to consistently do that).
This is the problem with shake as its implemented.
Still get pinpoint aim.
Shake according to the original concept throws your aim off. (Watch when the AC hits the Warhammer when the Warhammer goes to fire the PPCs)
Shake would be different depending on size. For example the smaller shots would introduce a constant twitch -- which part of the mechanic's concept is that the "perfect aim while being shot at" thing would be removed. The 10 AC/2 shots would cause you to jiggle, ideally. The Chemjet Gun's 3 round burst would cause you to violently jerk to one side or the other.
If you see an AC/20 hit an Atlas's shoulder, he jerks violently to that side as if he torso twisted 45 degrees with a 900-rated engine, and twists back. Cockpit doesn't see that, so this would eventually need the cockpit to show that. You'd get that one chance jerk with a single shot weapon. You'd get many twitches to help spread the enemy's damage with the multi-shot.
I do see your point, though, but honestly have you played against some of these players? Most of them don't understand the concept of torso twisting anyway. Also it's said in the video that a player with good aim and skill would clearly prefer a single shot variant in a risk all or gain all chance, where someone newer would likely prefer the solidarity of knowing if they missed they can drag it onto target and still hammer in good damage.
You are right however and there have been a few people who said that the faster reloading of the multi-shot guns isn't enough, since the DPS is identical. One suggested that the reload time of the single shot AC/20 be increased by reducing its DPS to 4. (Believe that adds 1 second, right?)
My own envisioned balancing solution, however, was that larger calibers would have harder kicks. Oh sure a single shot AC/10 doesn't mean much to an Atlas or to a Jager (aside from throwing arms up into the air for the Jager), but that Raven 4X with a single shot AC/10? Heh. A single shot AC/20 on a Raven 4x would be a fun way to 'rocket jump' or go flying away since if according to lore the only single shot AC/20 can knock the Atlas carrying it on his rear, then what's gonna happen to that Raven?
The larger the caliber and the smaller the mech, the greater the chance that the force is going to knock you down. And honestly if the AC/20 as it is remains and is supposed to not be mounted according to lore because even an Atlas standing still and braced firing one will fall over 75% of the time, then I expect to see lots of dual AC/20 Jagermechs on the field suddenly flying through the air and shredding their armor as they glide across the ground after firing their guns at full speed.
Of course, that wouldn't happen until knockdowns, but variants have been on the back burner since December, so I think it'll be around the same time or later before we see variants.
Shake would be different depending on size. For example the smaller shots would introduce a constant twitch -- which part of the mechanic's concept is that the "perfect aim while being shot at" thing would be removed. The 10 AC/2 shots would cause you to jiggle, ideally. The Chemjet Gun's 3 round burst would cause you to violently jerk to one side or the other.
That's not how recoil or shake work in MWO though, and I'm unaware of any suggestion that it ever will. I'm not sure it's wise to predicate a feature as requiring another non-existent and potentially unplanned feature to work.
Koniving, on 14 July 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:
I do see your point, though, but honestly have you played against some of these players? Most of them don't understand the concept of torso twisting anyway. Also it's said in the video that a player with good aim and skill would clearly prefer a single shot variant in a risk all or gain all chance, where someone newer would likely prefer the solidarity of knowing if they missed they can drag it onto target and still hammer in good damage.
That, however, leaves us with the problem that one weapon is still superior to the other. I see the point you're making about how a player with a poorer aim might like the security of spread damage, but look at it at the other end of the 'skill scale'. You can keep your AC/20 (rapid fire) on target for 100% of the time. That's sub-ideal to keeping your AC/20 (single shot) on target for 100% of shots. Ergo the single shot AC/20 is superior. Then compound that by carrying more of them. Compare the quad-AC/5 Jaeger/Phract that uses 5-damage shells (giving it an AC/20 with a nice high ROF) with one that uses 1-damage shells, leading to requiring near-100% ToT for the same damage output. That's 20 damage to a single compartment every 1.5s+- correction time compared with the same total amount of damage with a near impossibility of concentrating it due to enemy movement. Not all damage is equal, given the compartment system - otherwise the LBX-10 would be worth taking.
Koniving, on 14 July 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:
The larger the caliber and the smaller the mech, the greater the chance that the force is going to knock you down. And honestly if the AC/20 as it is remains and is supposed to not be mounted according to lore because even an Atlas standing still and braced firing one will fall over 75% of the time, then I expect to see lots of dual AC/20 Jagermechs on the field suddenly flying through the air and shredding their armor as they glide across the ground after firing their guns at full speed.
Of course, that wouldn't happen until knockdowns, but variants have been on the back burner since December, so I think it'll be around the same time or later before we see variants.
Honestly, I think non-single-shot ACs are a balancing thing that needs to happen, independent of any implementation of a variant weapon system. Consistent aiming just isn't either rewarded or necessary in MWO as it stands, and as a knock-on neither is defensive piloting. Secondly, there's no suggestion that firing weapons will ever knock you over in MWO - infact I don't believe there's any provision for that happening in Tabletop either, though I may be wrong.
0
