62 replies to this topic

[James The Fox Dixon]

Shadey99, on 18 August 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

This works fine on Assaults, but most Jagers cannot really utilize any heavy energy weapons without trading off most of their ballistics. Their energy slots are also low on the torso, which limits them. The only Jager without those issues is the Firebrand with it's dual arm energy hard points. I've seen a S run a dual PPC + dual LL build, but frankly it sucked because it cannot do things other Jagers can like hill humping.

Catapults have similar issues with their ballistics slots on the K2 (The only mixed platform) in the torso and the energy weapons in the arms.

My Cicadas have different issues, mounting a AC2, AC5, or UAC5 takes so much weight their energy weapons are light. My Spiders cannot even do that, they are just too small to effectively use even a AC2 without sacrificing their energy weapons.

My Highlanders however run very mixed builds with energy weapons, ballistics, and even missiles... But as shown above not every build can do that.

It works fine on all chassis that has the hard points. Yes, some mechs are specialized to fit specific weapons, but there are hard points there for other weapons like on your Jager that have energy slots and ballistic. The energy weapons are your back up weapons and do not have to be "heavy" energy weapons. Simple medium lasers work just fine.

[Sahoj]

@Wolfways - We build differently for sure. My CN9-AL (2 PPC's, 2 ML) is a STD250/14 total DHS.

[Alex Warden]

well...dunno what is different for me, maybe it´s just that i fire my AC´s more controlled than others? running my ac20 with 35shots, and in the last 2 weeks it happened the lot of 3 times,that i ran out of ammo. 2 tons/ 150 shots per ac2 is also MORE than enough to get through a match

maybe people should consider not to run 4 or more ac2´s in perma-spam instead of calling for more ammo...

[PEEFsmash]

PGI has ammo totally right. No changes needed whatsoever.

[Lugh]

No soldier ever, would say less ammo good or /fine/ ... MORE ammo good.

Alex Warden, on 18 August 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

well...dunno what is different for me, maybe it´s just that i fire my AC´s more controlled than others? running my ac20 with 35shots, and in the last 2 weeks it happened the lot of 3 times,that i ran out of ammo. 2 tons/ 150 shots per ac2 is also MORE than enough to get through a match

maybe people should consider not to run 4 or more ac2´s in perma-spam instead of calling for more ammo...

You are already running with more ac20 ammo (if you are talking about a single ac20) than most people run.

[krolmir]

A slight buff to ammo would be nice, I don't run boating builds ever, but since 12V12 I have had to add a least a ton of ammo for primary weapons. Nothing worse than having a flaccid cannon and wishing you could shoot it....

[Tincan Nightmare]

I would like to see the half ton lots of ammo for MG's as this was an option in TT and gives you something to fill excess weight with that would otherwise go unused. As far as increasing shots per ton for the other ballistics, unsure about that. Armor was increased from TT levels, so my gut instinct is to say increase shots per ton by the same percent as the armor was increased. Since ballistic damage values are the same as in TT it still extends the longevity of mechs, while giving them a comparable combat load. Unlike TT, however, in MWO we can place shots where we want versus a random location, which means most mechs get cored without a lot of extra damage to the limbs or side torsos, so its hard to say if the increase is really needed or warranted. It does seem like most builds require far more ammo than their TT equivalents though. Also and ammo increase does weaken one of the main selling points of energy weapons, being able to operate without ammo. Man I'm on the fence on this one .

[Profiteer]

The AC-10, AC-5/Ultra, AC-2, could all use 20-30% more ammo.

There's a reason you see so few AC-10s on the battlefield - it's so heavy. (12 tons + 3 tons ammo = 15 tons.)

You can get a guass rifle with 30 rounds of ammo for only 3 tons more; or a PPC and 2 dedicated HS for a low 9 tons.

[Miekael]

OneEyed Jack, on 18 August 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

When most people refer to doubling ammo values, they aren't talking about doubling the current MWO numbers. They're referring to 200% of TT values, which MWO currently has at 150%, besides the MG which operates on a different system than in TT, entirely. Basically, they're talking about a ~33% increase to current MWO values

This is something I would like to see double TT values of ammo, which would be a rather small increase for most weapons. Missiles would probably see the most benefit, but I also think that it would help stock/mixed load outs and promote a little more diversity by allowing boats to have tonnage for back up weapons. I also feel that with more ammo per ton players might start carrying less ammo in tonnage (worst case the same) which would make ammo explosions a little more uncommon and promote mech survivability while also reducing the amount of kills that result from RNG type mechanics.

Double TT would look like this.
Ac/2 - 90 per ton
Ac/5 - 40 per ton
Ac/10 - 20 per ton
Ac/20 - 10 per ton
Gauss - 16 per ton
Lb10x - 20 per ton
Uac/5 - 40 per ton
Srm - 200 per ton
Lrm - 240 per ton

[Kahoumono]

Lets not do anything too drastic. If an ammo increase is considered it should only be 5-10% increase for ballastics and a few percentages more for missles. Although the increase should be done on a per weapon basis to promote the use of some less loved weapons.

[Taemien]

Koniving, on 18 August 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

You want energy weapons damage or dps tonned down? Are you insane? When is the last time you used a laser?

Every one of my variants include 2-4 medium lasers and/or a 2-4 large lasers, some even medium pulse lasers. So not sure what point you're trying to prove there.

Part of the point I was making is the fact that Energy Weapons can fire indefinitely. A PPC at the end of a match is just as effective as it is at the beginning. The same cannot be said of ballistic or missile weapons. For example my Catapult mounts 4 medium lasers in order to be effective once the LRMs run dry.

PPCs do not need nearly as much investment in heatsinks as a ballistic weapon of similar DPS requires in heatsinks and ammo. Therefor I don't see why it should be equal or even better.

But the real point I was making and you missed it, was that I believe that ammo based weapons should be effective. But the amount of ammo one takes should be a conscious choice. The question should be, "Do I take an extra 2 tons of ammo, or a medium laser and a heatsink?" Obviously this wouldn't be the exact question everyone will ask in every situation, but it just an example.

As it stands right now, people just throw on 2 tons of ammo per weapon and call it a day. However this is becoming an issue with 12v12. Its not quite enough to last to the end of the match. IMO I don't think simply increasing the ammo per ton is the only way to go about fixing the problem. Is it simple? Yes. Is it an elegant solution? Maybe not.

One of the complaints about combat in general (even from the Devs) is that its too fast. One of the ways to fix that is to leave ammo alone. Decrease DPS of energy based weapons (this has NO effect on the energy based weapons' ability to last through a match). And watch it balance out. Yes ballistic weapons will rise above energy weapons in effectiveness. But they won't last an entire match.

I know some of you are clinging to your energy boats to the bitter end, but this is definitely something worth testing out before launch and as I said before, I'm on the fence about it, but I'd like to see how it would play out. Showing spreadsheets, formulas, and charts does little to show how the real application works. We're not bots, so things work differently then simple math will show.

[Monky]

Currently in order to keep any ballistic aside from MG firing for a whole match I have to load at least 3 tons of ammuniton. It was about 2 in 8v8, which means I am having to get even more conservative with everything else just to use other ballistics and not expecting them to become dead weight when I need them in order to clutch the win. Multiple UAC5's and up with backup weapons are just a little too heavy to be practical unless I plan on dying early. Without backup weapons I'm still making my mech a walking bomb to keep my damage potential up, where a crit on most locations will likely score an ammo explosion.

increasing ballistic ammo to 200% tabletop would be perfectly fine (and pretty much in line with what you've proposed numbers wise).

Edited by Monky, 19 August 2013 - 01:38 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I am not convinced it's needed. The table top values do not translate so well into a game that replaces hit rolls and hit location rolls with mouse aiming and convergence. I think we are far more precise (both in terms of general hit chance and in terms of hit locations we hit, but especially if you combine it) with our weapons than the typical TT mech warrior would be, and thus we just don't need as much ammo for the same result.

If I'd routinely run out of ammo before I run out of hit points and before I score any kills, I might worry, but that's definitely not happening.

And remember, as ammo user, we have one advantage: Our ammo explodes with only 10 % chance when critted, TT ammo explosion chance is 100 %.

[Sir Ratburger]

I would actually like to see different ammunition for the machine gun. one that does more damage but no crit damage, and one that does more crit damage but almost no normal damage. oooh or maybe one that allows me to shoot down missiles :-)

Meh who am I kidding, those are silly ideas.

[Karl Streiger]

More ammunition?
Well I think instead of more ammunition we can use unlimited ammunition.
And when we have no limits for ammunition, limits for heat are not necessary too.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 August 2013 - 02:15 AM.

[627]

as much as i'm for an ammo increase, i'm totally against half ton ammo.

Tricking out a mech build is skill, too. It would be too much easy mode to allow half a ton of ammo. No, make some sacrifices to it that, drop some armor, use another engine, drop that AMS.

Btw, Narc Ammo is fine, Narc needs some buff for that 10sec counter and the limited damage before it fell off.

[Tombstoner]

James The Fox Dixon, on 18 August 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

As a stock broker will say, "Diversify, diversify, diversify!" You cannot build a mech around one or two ammunition based weapon system(s). You need diversity and utilize all of the hard points that a mech gives you. Yes, this means sacrificing your meta-ammo hog build for something that is sustainable for a long fight. This means you have to have energy weapons in addition to your meta-ammo hogs.

All of the mechs I've put together, with the exception of the Cat A1, I've had missile, energy, and ballistic slots filled in order to compensate for two-thirds of the options requiring ammunition. Guess what? It actually made me a better pilot and have a greater understanding of each weapon type's strengths and weaknesses. It also led to better heat management as a result. Granted, this definitely makes me not a One Click Wonder, but I never wanted to be one to begin with.

Stock brokers also make money on each transaction so if your diversifying your costs are doubled or more.... beware free advice.....diversification is for protection noting more.

Ammo builds need more ammo and have needed more since armor was increased by 2x. to have parity ammo must be increased 2x. this was not done. the move to 12 vs. 12 should have nothing to do with increasing ammo. in fact that's an excellent reason to diversify your builds and have energy backups. AC's should do more damage up front but once ammo is gone energy weapons will over take with damage done. so with ac builds you get higher burst damage with the trade off being going OOA

If ammo is not increased then damage must be increased to compensate for 2x armor. Not gona happen. PGI is good at some things balance is not one of them.

[TexAce]

I think ammo is fine in MWO. I have about 20 mechs and none of them run out of ammo, except perhaps my Vic with 4 tons of AC20. But when that happens I'm the last one on the field and already did far over 800 damage. Plus I got 2-3 MLs and some SRMs too in that mech, so whatever.

Besides:
Bumping ammo per ton -> Less tons of ammo needed -> more free tons to use somewhere else -> more weapons installed (bcs thats the first thing everybody does) -> more firepower/alpha power -> shorter Time-To-Kill

And I'm against everything thats makes the TTK even shorter. Its already pretty ridiculous.

Edited by TexAss, 19 August 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[Boogie Man]

I will just drop my handy ammo chart that I typed up a while back for other threads about this topic.

WEAPON --- TT AMMO - MWO AMMO - 2X AMMO
AC2 ---------- 45 ------------ 75 ------------- 90
AC5 ---------- 20 ------------ 30 ------------- 40
UAC5 -------- 20 ------------ 25 ------------- 40
LBX10 ------- 10 ------------ 15 ------------- 20
AC10 -------- 10 ------------ 15 ------------- 20
AC20 -------- 5 -------------- 7 -------------- 10
GAUSS ------ 8 -------------- 10 ------------ 16

LRM --------- 120 -----------180 ------------- 240
SRM --------- 100 ----------- 100 ------------ 200
SSRM ------- 100 ----------- 100 ------------ 200

MG ----------- 200* ---------- 2000 ---------- 4000

Machine Gun is a special case because they basically divided a single round of TT ammo into 10 rounds in this game so 200 TT is the same as 2000 MWO rounds.

[Almond Brown]

Karl Streiger, on 19 August 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

More ammunition?
Well I think instead of more ammunition we can use unlimited ammunition.
And when we have no limits for ammunition, limits for heat are not necessary too.

Sorta of sounds like a game mode from days passed. ULA - ULH. Fun, but sorta of newbie kinda stuff, really.