Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:48 PM
TT stock builds usually bring 1 or maybe 2 tons of ammo per gun or launcher (or sometimes 1 ton shared between multiple weapons).
In MWO, even in 8V8 with the increased ammo count that we already have, there are very few weapons where TT ammo loads are useful. MGs tend to do well with 1 ton per weapon or so, but aside from that I've found that you want at least 25 volleys for SRMs and LRMs (more is better, especially for tougher or more mobile mechs), minimum of 21 AC20 shots (28 is my usual ammo goal), and Gauss you want 30 rounds minimum (40 is better).
AC2s have enough RoF that I like a minimum of 150 rounds per gun, with more emphasis on guns meaning more ammo per weapon (due to fewer secondaries to take up the slack once you're empty).
AC5s I want a minimum of 2 tons per gun (and I still run out in 8v8s). UAC5s need an extra ton to make up for the lower ammo count and the higher RoF.
AC10s can get by with 2 tons (30 shots), but 3 is far better (45).
For 12v12 I'd want to increase ammo counts a good bit. 90-120 rounds per AC5, 28-35 rounds per AC20, 30-50 rounds per Gauss, probably upwards of 300 rounds per AC2, minimum of 30+ SRM and LRM volleys (40+ would be better), and so on. I'd probably put MGs even at a minimum of one ton per gun.
Given that PGI has already increased ammo counts pretty much across the board it isn't a very big stretch to expect them to bump it up again. They don't need to do a flat increase, either, but can tailor it for each weapon. For example:
AC20 is base 5. 8v8 AC20 is 7. If they bumped it up to 9 per ton then a 3-ton build would have 27 rounds (instead of 21), which makes a very big difference when you add in 4 more targets. A 4-ton build would be up to 36 rounds.
Gauss is base 8. 8v8 Gauss is 10. If they bumped it up to 12 per ton then a 3-ton build would have 36 shots instead of 30. 4 tons would be 48 instead of 40.
AC5s are base 20. 8v8 AC5s are 30. If PGI bumped it up to 35 per ton then a 2-ton build would have 70 rounds instead of 60, which is pretty huge for combat endurance. 40 per ton would put them at 80 rounds.
The AC2 is base 45. 8v8 AC2s are 75. If they were increased to 90 per ton then a 2-ton build would go from 150 rounds to 180.
The AC10 is 10 base. 8v8 AC10s are 15. If they bumped them up to 20 you'd see a 2-ton build go from 30 shots to 40, or a 3-ton build from 45 to 60.
SRM ammo is actually close to TT (SRM4s and 2s are TT values, 6s get an extra 10 missiles). If they had their ammo bumped up a bit, say to 120, SRM6s would get 20 shots per ton (up from 16.7), SRM4s would get 30 (up from 25), and SRM2s would get 60 shots (up from 50).
This is not a huge increase, but would add up over several tons of ammo (I tend to take a minimum of 2 per launcher, more often trying for 2.5 or 3, and that's for 8v8; and I still run out).
LRMs got bumped from 120 per ton to 180. I don't know that they actually need more ammo than this, but I'd not object to 200 per ton or thereabouts.
What it all boils down to is a combination of potential damage per ton and likely combat endurance. The former is easy to figure out (taking average accuracy with base damage), but there are several factors that inform the latter.
1 - Armor was doubled, and weapons do reduced damage outside their optimum range (but still do some damage). These two factors mean that it takes more ammo to do the same relative amount of damage as would be required in the TT. This is mitigated by the precision and accuracy offered by the FPS format, but not entirely, and is exacerbated by target proliferation.
2 - Speaking of target proliferation, in 8v8 you often find yourself trying to make up for the lack of performance of your team. This is only worse in 12v12, as is the impact of a target-rich environment (which encourages "spray and pray" weapons usage, especially for high RoF weapons like the AC2). Sure, you'll have teams that are broadly equivalent in their individual members' performance, but you'll have plenty of other teams where some or most of the players are severely under-performing. This increases the required ammo count to sustain yourself in battle.
3 - Throw in the other costs of ammo, such as vulnerability to explosions (and the need for a half ton and a critical slot to install CASE, or double that for protecting both sides).
Compare this to energy weapons. Sure, they need heat sinks, but so do ballistics (though many of those need fewer relative heat sinks). For pure combat endurance, ballistics always have a hard cap and energy always has potentially infinite capacity for damage production. As target proliferation continues (the move from TT armor to 2x armor, the jump from 8v8 to 12v12, potential future increases to Internal Structure health, possible changes to base captures and objectives that introduce destructibles, etc.), the gap between energy weapons and ammo weapons will continue to widen. Increasing ammo count per ton is probably the best way to keep them competitive without messing with their basic stats.
8
Khobai, on 07 August 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:
