25 replies to this topic

[TehSBGX]

I've put some thought into it and seems like there might be an ammo increase. In a game like that LRM support will likely be more important due to area denial, so at the very least LRMs will get an increase. Also since srms are getting buffed soon, brawling is prolly going to be more viable so brawling weapons might get an ammo increase too.

What do you guys think?

[RetroActive]

I don't think any more ammo/ton is needed. Even though there are more enemies to kill, there are also more teammates to kill said enemies. With more teammates shooting each enemy mech, you may even get less shots off due to the enemy dying a little faster.

During the 12 v 12 tests it actually seemed like I ended up with more ammo at the end of matches.

[Devil Fox]

It won't... you don't survive long enough for a final toe to toe death at 12-11... once you lose 3 people it became a steam roll effect. All 12v12 did was prove how broken the current meta balance was, and how small the maps were for 12v12. At present the downside to big powerful ammo based weapons is the ammo, you run dry fast regardless of how much you have, hence why majority of mechs ran energy weapons to supplement them. What you might see is more balanced builds, but in all seriousness it's gonna be PPC spam and LRM boats for quite awhile, why? Because it works.

[Nauht]

RetroActive, on 12 July 2013 - 06:00 PM, said:

I don't think any more ammo/ton is needed. Even though there are more enemies to kill, there are also more teammates to kill said enemies. With more teammates shooting each enemy mech, you may even get less shots off due to the enemy dying a little faster.

During the 12 v 12 tests it actually seemed like I ended up with more ammo at the end of matches.

Yep this. It seemed to work out to me too. Remember that it's not you v 12.

[Kanatta Jing]

My LRM cat had a lot more trouble then usual emptying it's ammo stores in 12 v 12.

Cry for more ammo after a month if you feel you need it. I don't think you will.

[General Taskeen]

Fact: Most ammunition per ton is short by a lot with the translation to double armor and triple fire rates.

[One Medic Army]

Negatively.

[Sephlock]

I know my 4x Ultra Autocannon Jager is getting retired when 12 v 12 becomes mandatory.

[Ralgas]

multi ac builds will feel it, single ac and lrm builds not so much. My experience with lrms in the test was they were easier to get on target due to the extra view time/targeting afforded by the extra mechs.

[One Medic Army]

Ralgas, on 12 July 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

multi ac builds will feel it, single ac and lrm builds not so much. My experience with lrms in the test was they were easier to get on target due to the extra view time/targeting afforded by the extra mechs.

My quad AC/5 Cataphract will be sad.
WHERE IS MY BALLISTIC ASSAULT?

[Deathlike]

The only ammo change that I would advocate is increasing the # of SRMs in 1 ton of ammo from 100 to 120... primarily because of how nice it fits number-wise with respect to # of shots. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sold with any other suggestions.

[M0rpHeu5]

Since in 12vs12 the energy weapons get no drawback i think that the ammo per tone should be increased as well

P.S.:I beleave they should increase ammo per tone to TTx2 since the rase the armor to TTx2 regardles of 12vs12

[Shadowsword8]

TehSBGX, on 12 July 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

I've put some thought into it and seems like there might be an ammo increase. In a game like that LRM support will likely be more important due to area denial, so at the very least LRMs will get an increase. Also since srms are getting buffed soon, brawling is prolly going to be more viable so brawling weapons might get an ammo increase too.

What do you guys think?

I don't see an issue with ammo.

Right now, do you take enough ammos to kill 8 mechs?

Of course not, because you won't kill all 8 enemy mechs all by yourself. The amount of ammo you take is dictated by experience of past matches, and the total number of enemies is irrelevant to that. And there's no reason to think a 12v12 will last significantly longer than a 8v8.

[Joseph Mallan]

So far my ammo has held up through the full 12v12 Then again I like having enough ammo to kill 4-5 Mechs anyway.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

One Medic Army, on 12 July 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

My quad AC/5 Cataphract will be sad.
WHERE IS MY BALLISTIC ASSAULT?

They refuse to make a ballistic assault because they can't figure out how to fix convergence and lower the heat cap.

The Victor should have been able to mount at a minimum 2 Gauss based on passed hardpoint translations to MW:O, they purposely gimped it.

[Khobai]

12v12 just promotes steamrolling worse than 8v8. Without respawns there is no chance for the losing team to recover. It makes games very one sided as the chance to turn the tide is virtually non-existent.

That is why respawn is needed... so bad players dont automatically cause your team to lose and so good players can respawn and by consistently playing good can turn the tide of a fight.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Khobai, on 13 July 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

12v12 just promotes steamrolling worse than 8v8. Without respawns there is no chance for the losing team to recover. It makes games very one sided as the chance to turn the tide is virtually non-existent.

That is why respawn is needed... so bad players dont automatically cause your team to lose and so good players can respawn and by consistently playing good can turn the tide of a fight.

Before we go the respawn route, and by the way, the word respawn is terrible to use in this context by the by; I'd like to see them scale back damage first.

And no that doesn't mean nerf every weapon. I mean make it harder to insta-gib even a heavy mech.

If we could slow damage, limit the alpha heavy battles we have now, and move towards chain fire being the bread and butter with alpha being the "BOOM" to finish a fight...we might not need to worry about a mechanic to play multiple times in one game.

There needs to be a reason to want to shoot an arm off, or shoot to take out a weapon cluster. The problem is we ALL go center torso immediately.

If games were more drawn out, maybe losing one guy isn't as big of a deal because skill has a longer time to assert itself.

But if they refuse that, then I suppose I'm ok with some kind of drop ship mode as they'd alluded too, or MAYBE a repair deck (but repairing mid fight is VERY out of place in Battletech/mechwarrior).

I also think we really need to get to where the only way to win isn't standing on a square or blowing each other to hell. Having real mission objectives and dynamic game play could fix this problem too.

I don't want to jump directly to a respawn mechanic if we can avoid it.

Edited by Nicholas Carlyle, 13 July 2013 - 12:48 PM.

[Monky]

I found I ended up running dry about halfway through matches, even though I wasn't spamming and was connecting on the vast majority of shots.

More mechs seems to mean more targets, and that means for fast firing weapons like the UAC5/AC5 you need more ammo to capitalize on this, or they just become dead weight about halfway through the match.

For example - I run 5 tons of UAC5 ammo in my HGN 733C (2x UAC5's), and was running dry quickly, wheras in 8 mans I rarely if ever run out.

Edited by Monky, 13 July 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Monky, on 13 July 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

I found I ended up running dry about halfway through matches, even though I wasn't spamming and was connecting on the vast majority of shots.

More mechs seems to mean more targets, and that means for fast firing weapons like the UAC5/AC5 you need more ammo to capitalize on this, or they just become dead weight about halfway through the match.

For example - I run 5 tons of UAC5 ammo in my HGN 733C (2x UAC5's), and was running dry quickly, wheras in 8 mans I rarely if ever run out.

That's part of it, also sounds like your teams were perhaps not carrying their weight.

When I PUG there are two versions of my mechs. And both versions carrying the same amount of ammo.

One version of my mech is when I'm with a good team and I'm lucky to go through half my ammo because things die quickly.

The other version of my mech (mind you same amount of ammo), runs out of ammo because our team isn't focus firing and I'm putting down a lot more damage then is necessary to kill a mech in todays game.

[Monky]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 13 July 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

That's part of it, also sounds like your teams were perhaps not carrying their weight.

When I PUG there are two versions of my mechs. And both versions carrying the same amount of ammo.

One version of my mech is when I'm with a good team and I'm lucky to go through half my ammo because things die quickly.

The other version of my mech (mind you same amount of ammo), runs out of ammo because our team isn't focus firing and I'm putting down a lot more damage then is necessary to kill a mech in todays game.

I think a major issue is just how sustainable AC5/UAC5 firing is really, 2-4 of them aren't likely to overheat you unlike AC2's, and they get less than half the ammo that an AC2 gets. It may need to be reviewed on a case by case basis.