129 replies to this topic

[skalapunk]

Obviously, ammo goes a lot distance with 12 enemies to kill. Does anyone else feel like slightly more ammo per ton would be a step in the right direction?

[Joseph Mallan]

Add another ton. problem solved.

[Sybreed]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 August 2013 - 02:12 PM, said:

Add another ton. problem solved.

do energy mechs need to add another heatsink? I respect your opinion, but here, I entirely disagree.

[Deathlike]

I'm thinking there could be an ammo boost but only in a limited fashion.

For SRMs, increasing SRM ammo from 100 to 120 should be a minor overall change that shouldn't make that 1 ton feel like too much.

For other ballistics... I'm not sure how much is effectively needed... I'm currently only willing to say that instead of the 50% additional ammo that those weapons get... it could be 75% additional ammo instead. Weapons like AC2s and AC5s are much more ammo consuming than their big brother counterparts (AC10s and AC20s) so I'm kinda leaning towards a small boost, and see how that works out. I'm not going much further for the sake of balance.

[Hellcat420]

ammo per ton is fine as it is. no need to increase it.

[AgroAlba]

While I would RATHER see people add another ton, you're right. If they don't bump ammo per ton then I can see people give up ballistics and move over to the PPC train.

Sybreed, on 07 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

do energy mechs need to add another heatsink? I respect your opinion, but here, I entirely disagree.

[Screech]

AgroAntirrhopus, on 07 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

While I would RATHER see people add another ton, you're right. If they don't bump ammo per ton then I can see people give up ballistics and move over to the PPC train.

This.
I like how it plays but it buffs PPCs. They really don't need it.

[Profiteer]

A lot of people will tell you that there are now 4 extra players on your side to deal damage to the 4 extra enemy, so everything's even.

But every game is not the same.

Sure, you'll get games where most of your team play decently and pull their weight, in which case you might only use 2/3rds or less of your ammo.

But then there are the games where half your team play like blind muppets, forcing you to carry them if you are to have any chance at victory. In those games you are now really hamstrung if you rely on certain ballistics.

I've personally had to drop AMS and .5 tons of armor to get an extra 2 tons of ammo ( 1x gauss 1x SRM) on my main mech, which is annoying.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sybreed, on 07 August 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

do energy mechs need to add another heatsink? I respect your opinion, but here, I entirely disagree.

Its called balance. What do you want, more shots with your cool running Ballistic or one more heat sink/Medium laser. If you want easy mode by all means buff ammo.

Oh and Energy Mechs need to add at least 5 more sinks under the present MWO system. But unlike Ammo Heat sinks was weakened from the start.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 August 2013 - 02:47 PM.

[Deathlike]

AgroAntirrhopus, on 07 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

While I would RATHER see people add another ton, you're right. If they don't bump ammo per ton then I can see people give up ballistics and move over to the PPC train.

Well, I dropped the ASRM4 on the Jenner, so I could put an LL on the it. I'm only 2 tons short of a PPC from the LL (so it won't change further at the moment), but sustainability of a weapon in combat is important enough to me that I had to do it.

There is a point where dropping a weapon outright for a PPC or LL (pretty much, an energy weapon) can be detrimental to the game.

Edited by Deathlike, 07 August 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Trynn]

Thats always been the tradeoff between ballistic and energy weapons, Heat vs ammo. This is why a balanced mech is prefered to allow for longer engagements while balancing damage output needs.

And the counter to the argument that there are more targets to hit, is that you are not alone and have more weapon platforms to put damage on the enemy.

Conserve fire and balance the weapons....or go huge damage dump with no stamina and feel useless for the later part of the fight

[stjobe]

Profiteer, on 07 August 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Sure, you'll get games where most of your team play decently and pull their weight, in which case you might only use 2/3rds or less of your ammo.

But then there are the games where half your team play like blind muppets, forcing you to carry them if you are to have any chance at victory. In those games you are now really hamstrung if you rely on certain ballistics.

Which is different to how it was in 8v8 how?

Theoretically, if you had enough ammo to fight the eight enemies before, the additional four team members should have enough ammo to fight the additional four enemies.

I've yet to see a significant difference dropping in my ammo-dependent 'mechs.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Hellcat420, on 07 August 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

ammo per ton is fine as it is. no need to increase it.

I honestly don't understand you "everything is fine" guys. What, will someone get hurt if we get more ammo? Will it ruin your day?

As I see it, those who want more ammo will be definitely happier, while those who think its already enough wont lose anything. Or even benefit from it by getting an extra spare ton for armor.

And again. I just done 900+ dmg with my pps+mlas BJ-3. Me and jenner were the last ones alive against an atlas and spider, and we killed them 20 points before they would have a cap victory.
IF I were in a mech with guns, my ability to do damage would be limited by 600 or so, leaving me with say two backup lasers in the end, unable to finish off targets in time.
Just as a simple usecase demonstrating how underpowered ballistic builds are.

Edited by Dymdr, 07 August 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Felbombling]

Generally speaking, players are allocating more ammunition for each weapon than would normally be necessary for Mechs in Table Top play. I think this is bad for a few reasons... 1. Players tend to boat weapons they've already invested heavily in by way of ammunition allotment. 2. Those extra tons going into ammunition pull tonnage away from other possible options, such as support lasers, heat sinks or electronics. You will notice that a major reason why Trial Mechs are so difficult to use is due to the limited ammunition stores, which go strictly by the technical readout statistics. The weapons fire faster in MW: O, so more compensation is needed, especially versus the doubled armour values. Some players brush it off as insignificant, but I think it actually has a fairly negative impact on balanced builds in favour of boated builds. In short, it kills variety.

[Braggart]

its not the heavy mechs that have problems with enough ammo.

It is the 50 ton and lighter mechs that are unable to carry enough ammo, and enough of the other weapon times to maintain a good heat ratio.

Without increasing ammo, you are basically making even more weapons useless to lights and mediums. An Atlas doesnt care about 2 more tons of ammo, but 2 tons to mediums and lights is about as critically important as you can get.

[AntiSqueaker]

Trynn, on 07 August 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Thats always been the tradeoff between ballistic and energy weapons, Heat vs ammo. This is why a balanced mech is prefered to allow for longer engagements while balancing damage output needs.

And the counter to the argument that there are more targets to hit, is that you are not alone and have more weapon platforms to put damage on the enemy.

Conserve fire and balance the weapons....or go huge damage dump with no stamina and feel useless for the later part of the fight

That's not the problem. Everyone knows the tradeoff between Ballistics vs Energy. The problem is that there are a lot more targets to engage. Energy mechs just keep on firing, maybe duck away and try to cool down. Ballistic mechs run out of ammo, and then try and clean up with medium laser backup, and then die.There's literally no drawback to being in a 12 v 12 as opposed to 8 v 8 situation for Energy based mechs, whereas there is a pretty noticeable difference in how Ammunition based weapons perform.

I've run 4 tons of AC/20 ammo in my Huchie since 12 v 12, and I run out about 15-20% of games (counting the roughly 50% games I die in, because I'm not super leet like everyone else). I don't just spray and pray either, I only fire when I can hit targets.

There's no reason for me to have to devote 10% of my Hunchbacks weight towards ammo, when instead I could just grab 2 PPCs (for the same tonnage as my AC/20, I should add) and load up on heatsinks, and enjoy unlimited shots.

I think a *minor* buff to ammo would be greatly appreciated (like 8 rounds/ton AC/20, 17 rounds/ton AC/10, etc etc).


edited for clarity and a bit of grammar.

Edited by AntiSqueaker, 07 August 2013 - 02:40 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Add another ton. problem solved.

My mech doesnt have any spare tonnage. So problem isnt solved.

You know what does solve the problem though? Using ERPPCs instead.

Edited by Khobai, 07 August 2013 - 02:44 PM.

[Profiteer]

stjobe, on 07 August 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Which is different to how it was in 8v8 how?

Theoretically, if you had enough ammo to fight the eight enemies before, the additional four team members should have enough ammo to fight the additional four enemies.

I've yet to see a significant difference dropping in my ammo-dependent 'mechs.

OLD:

I'm in a good 4-man in 8 vs 8.
Our 4 pugs are terrible and do little.
Our 4-man has to put out enough firepower to kill 8 mechs.

NEW:

I'm in a good 4-man in 12 vs 12.
Our 8 pugs are terrible and do little.
Our 4-man have to put out enough firepower to kill 12 mechs.

[Tezcatli]

Ballistics are already heavier, take up more slots, need to lead shots, and have to deal with more slots and tonnage taken up by ammo. I'm inclined to see a buff to ammo.

[Cabusha]

I've been running 4 tons of ac20 ammo for months now in my wang, and it does just fine in 12 man. Normally I either lose the arm early or finish the match with a round or 2 to spare. Feels fine.