62 replies to this topic

[A banana in the tailpipe]

I'm completely fine with Ammo limits as they stand. Lasers don't cause your entire screen to shake and fill up with explosive debris when hit. That is a HUGE advantage for ballistics.

[Kaldor]

Miekael, on 18 August 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

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

Pretty much this.

Add in the fact that we may be seeing doubled internals at some point and they will need it to burn thru that as well.

[Kaldor]

lockwoodx, on 19 August 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

I'm completely fine with Ammo limits as they stand. Lasers don't cause your entire screen to shake and fill up with explosive debris when hit. That is a HUGE advantage for ballistics.

Focus my good man.

Force yourself to concentrate and ignore it. It is not affecting where your aim is pointed in any way. Keep your target selected and shoot at the spot to need to hit. If you have your target locked (as you should) you should be able to know exactly where to shoot at them without even being able to see nothing but the lock box.

[Koniving]

Sahoj, on 18 August 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

Strange argument to take Koniving -
An AC10 weighs 12tons and most pilots will take a minimum 3 tons of ammo. This is a fifteen ton investment.

You can boat 2 PPC's, 2 LPL or 3 LL for this amount of weight and will probably have a faster mech because you took a minimum 250 rated engine for the 2.0 internal heatsinks.

I think the game can certainly spare allowing pilots to essentially free up one ton. Boating ballistics may save 2 or 3 tons.

True. You can. But you shut down more often. Ballistics don't shut down a mech in most cases unless it's extremely over abused.

Lasers are controlled by high amounts of heat. Insane amounts really. The beam times also control the damage flow they deal. They are nerfed even further by 'firing group limits'.

On that note however a PPC should not be in line with energy weapons. It should be in line with ballistic weapons, and heat shall be its ammunition. There's a reason why it's 10 heat for a PPC, 15 for an ER PPC in normal rules.

This said.. The only controlling aspect to autocannons is ammunition. If we lose that, there's no balance for the game.

For my debate earlier -- if lasers fired faster or as fast as autocannons, we still couldn't shoot them at full speed. We'd shut down that much faster.

Here we go.
10 DHS in MWO.
30 base + 10 *2 engine DHS = 50 capacity.
50 capacity - 30 base = 20 cooling per 10 seconds / 10 = 2.0/sec cooling.


Mech with 4 ballistic hardpoints, 4 AC/5s
Fires 4 AC/5s every 1.5 seconds. Make it even. 40 damage every 3 seconds. (0, 1.5, new cycle at 3).
Generates 4 heat every 1.5 seconds. Make it even. 8 heat every 3 seconds.
Breakdown to heat per second: 8/3 = 2.67 rounded.
Cools 2 every second.
2.67/sec - 2/sec = 0.67 heat per second.
Time to reach 50 capacity: Roughly 74 point some odd seconds at zero degrees celsius (Alpine is the closest).
Damage dealt in 74 seconds = 980 damage (done in 72 seconds with first shot at 0).
Mech with 4 energy hardpoints, 4 medium lasers. Current system ML fires every 4 seconds, 4 heat.
Fires 4 ML every 4 seconds. 20 damage. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 4).
Generates 16 heat every 4 seconds. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 4.)
Breakdown heat by per second.
16/4 = 4/sec.
Cooldown is 2/sec.
4/sec - 2/sec = heat gain of 2 per second.
Time to reach 50 capacity: 13 seconds (4 shots + burn time)
Damage done: 80 in 13 seconds (with first shot at 0).

If it were possible to reach 72 seconds where the AC/5s stopped firing? 380 damage.

So I'm sorry, but I fail to see how the argument is strange. One's controlled by ammo, the other is controlled by heat versus time. AC/5s are clearly superior to medium lasers in every aspect.

Even if medium lasers were allowed to shoot faster, we'd get...
Same scenario.
Mech with 4 energy hardpoints, 4 medium lasers. ML fire every 2 seconds, 4 heat.
Fires 4 ML every 2 seconds. (1 second burn time, 1 second cool down) 20 damage. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 2).
Generates 16 heat every 2 seconds. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 2.)
Breakdown heat by per second.
16/2 = 8/sec.
Cooldown is 2/sec.
8/sec - 2/sec = heat gain of 6 per second.
Time to reach 50 capacity: 8 seconds.
Damage done: 100 in 8 seconds (with first shot at 0, assuming the 8th second your beam starts and continues after you shutdown, otherwise just 80).

Edit: Forgot the proposed aspect.
Same scenario.
Mech with 4 energy hardpoints, 4 medium lasers. ML fires every 2 seconds, 3 heat.
Fires 4 ML every 2 seconds. (1 second burn time, 1 second cool down) 20 damage. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 2).
Generates 12 heat (3 per laser, tabletop) every 2 seconds. (Starts at 0, new cycle begins at 2.)
Breakdown heat by per second.
12/2 = 6/sec.
Cooldown is 2/sec.
6/sec - 2/sec = heat gain of 4 per second.
Time to reach 50 capacity: 13 seconds.

Damage done: 160 in 13 seconds (with first shot at 0, assuming the 13th second your beam starts and continues after you shutdown, otherwise just 140).

Notice something? Still remains extremely controlled. We'd have to hold our fire longer and restrain our trigger fingers, just like the autocannon users with their ammo. But at least we could compete.

Edited by Koniving, 19 August 2013 - 07:51 AM.

[Master Q]

Kaldor, on 19 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Focus my good man.

Force yourself to concentrate and ignore it. It is not affecting where your aim is pointed in any way. Keep your target selected and shoot at the spot to need to hit. If you have your target locked (as you should) you should be able to know exactly where to shoot at them without even being able to see nothing but the lock box.

Except when the explosions are covering your entire screen, which is what is happening since the last patch when they increased the effect sizes. Blanketed by a couple of AC/2 spammers and you're effectively "blind."

[Kaldor]

Master Q, on 19 August 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

Except when the explosions are covering your entire screen, which is what is happening since the last patch when they increased the effect sizes. Blanketed by a couple of AC/2 spammers and you're effectively "blind."

Focus.

I am not preaching some Zen BS. Youre not blind. If you can target the mech, get them bracketed, you should be able to hit them.

Im not saying its not annoying, because it is. Im just saying its not as game breaking as everyone thinks. Does it need to be toned down? Maybe.

[Vodrin Thales]

Steel Claws, on 18 August 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

I carry six tons of AC 5 ammo on my Quad AC 5 Jager and it isnt near enough. It wasn't even enough with 8 mans. I almost always run out.

That is only 1.5 tons of ammo per gun. 2 tons per gun is almost always necessary in the current environment and 3 tons is ideal. Obviously that makes boating smaller AC's challenging. You either need to be extremely selective with your shots or carry backup energy weapons, or build your mech with more ammo.

[Koniving]

Taemien, on 18 August 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

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.

You're assuming that a PPC is an energy weapon. Despite where it mounts and what it uses, the PPC is in fact, a ballistic weapon that uses heat as its ammunition. It needs a slower firing speed and more heat.

I was referring to energy weapons i.e. Lasers.

Also, the reason why we have issues with energy boats at all is this: Our capacity is superior to even MW4. MW4's capacity was 60 before Mektek.

We can realistically reach 88.56 capacity and still boat twin ER PPCs and an autocannon/2.
Tabletop and Mechwarrior 3 were 30 capacity (threshold, limit to shutdown). MW2 was 40.
We can reach 88.56. There's your problem about things being too fast. No one shuts down from the first simultaneously fired high heat alpha strike like they are supposed to.

It's the source of our pinpoint issues. It's the source of our balancing issues. It's the source of virtually every other issue.

Also as it stands now, people throw on 4 to 12 tons of ammo and carries just 2 to 4 autocannons and call it a day. Giving them more ammo enables them further.

I've never even heard of someone using just 2 tons of ammo. Heck that'd be pretty lore friendly.

My point is, energy weapons i.e. lasers suck and are inferior in every way. If it weren't for the low tonnage no one would ever even touch them. Thus to make them appetizing to mix with your ballistic weapons you need to be able to fire them fast enough to mean something.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kaldor, on 19 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:

Focus my good man.

Force yourself to concentrate and ignore it. It is not affecting where your aim is pointed in any way. Keep your target selected and shoot at the spot to need to hit. If you have your target locked (as you should) you should be able to know exactly where to shoot at them without even being able to see nothing but the lock box.

I can't agree with this, and those claiming they can "focus" through direct ballistic fire either turned their settings down for an artificial advantage, or are straight up BSing. Then again I claim Jenner pilots can be good regardless if they have ECM or not so maybe I'm the one BSing. I'll let the public decide.

Edited by lockwoodx, 19 August 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[Kaldor]

lockwoodx, on 19 August 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

I can't agree with this, and those claiming they can "focus" through direct ballistic fire either turned their settings down for an artificial advantage, or are straight up BSing. Then again I claim Jenner pilots can be good regardless if they have ECM or not so maybe I'm the one BSing. I'll let the public decide.

Settings are at max. Just doesnt effect me. Kind of like when the JJ shake was really bad. Didnt effect me in anyway.

This is how I deal with it. YMMV.

[PanzerMagier]

Maverick01, on 18 August 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

The developers should consider buffing ammunition for autocannons. However, I’m not in favor of doubling the ammo/ton as some people suggested, but increasing it slightly across the board. Increasing the ammo/ton will make autocannons competitive throughout the match, especially with 12 vs. 12. This change will not only help make stock variants slightly more viable on the battlefield, but will also promote mixed loadouts due to reduced ammo tonnage requirements. I’m also proposing to the developers to buff the ammunition for NARC while making the MG and AMS more flexible (we need more half ton options in the Mechlab)…

The proposed changes for autocannons are as follows:
AC/2: Ammo is increased from 75 to 100 shots/ton.
AC/5: Ammo is increased from 30 to 40 shots/ton.
ULTRA AC/5: Ammo is increased from 25 to 35 shots/ton.
AC/10: Ammo is increased from 15 to 20 shots/ton.
LB 10-X: Ammo is increased from 15 to 20 shots/ton.
AC/20: Ammo is increased from 7 to 10 shots/ton.

To make NARC more competitive:
NARC: Ammo is increased from 12 to 20 shots/ton.

To make MG and AMS more flexible:
MG: Players can now purchase ammo in one ton (2000 shots) or half ton (1000 shots) increments.
AMS: Players can now purchase ammo in one ton (1000 shots) or half ton (500 shots) increments.

Amen brother.

I find it a little repulsive that I have to carry 10 fracking tons of ac5 ammo and still run out on some matches.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kaldor, on 19 August 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

Settings are at max. Just doesnt effect me. Kind of like when the JJ shake was really bad. Didnt effect me in anyway.

This is how I deal with it. YMMV.

You deal with things by claiming they don't exist, got it!

[Kaldor]

lockwoodx, on 19 August 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

You deal with things by claiming they don't exist, got it!

I learned a long time ago in the Marines "If you dont mind, it dont matter"

[Jakob Knight]

The problem with modeling MWO ammo stock to TT stocks and using the doubled armor levels as a reason is that the TT didn't come with a hard 15-minute limit on how long you were in combat. You had to carry ammo based on general combat conditions instead of arena fighting as is the case in MWO. As it stands now, there is no need for more ammo, as the time limit prevents you needing ammo beyond a 15-minute supply.

And if you are running out in 15 minutes of fighting, I think the problem is either a ) poor fire discipline, b ) poor consideration of ammo requirements in the mechlab (only taking one ton of ammo per weapon), or c ) poor aim when firing. All of these are pilot error, and can be corrected by the pilot.

Lastly, remember that what works for you also works for your enemy. Be sure you want more ammo for those dual AC/20 and Guass builds you hate so much.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 19 August 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Kaldor, on 19 August 2013 - 08:23 AM, said:

I learned a long time ago in the Marines "If you dont mind, it dont matter"

Tell that to a camel spider waiting in your roll!

[Tezcatli]

Even assuming you don't run out of ammo regularly. The weight of the weapon plus ammo is completely ridiculous. Especially for the AC2 considering it has heat gains on par with energy weapons. Making it possible for us to carry less ammo would make the weapons a bit more competitive.

[A banana in the tailpipe]

Tezcatli, on 19 August 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

Even assuming you don't run out of ammo regularly. The weight of the weapon plus ammo is completely ridiculous. Especially for the AC2 considering it has heat gains on par with energy weapons. Making it possible for us to carry less ammo would make the weapons a bit more competitive.

What players need to remember is that ammo/tonnage limits are balanced around TTK (time to kill) and how long matches last. You get less ammo because that's all you really need before a match is over. As a side benefit having less ammo helps reduce campers who want to spend the entire match with dual guass from half way across the map.

[Jman5]

I find this argument that you need more ammo for 12v12 strange on a number of levels. If what you claim is true than wouldn't everyone's average damage have skyrocketed after 12v12 came out? I mean you guys claim you have to shoot more stuff right? If you're using waaaay more ammo as you claim, then you should be doing waaay more damage than before, right?

Well how come I'm not seeing that in my games?

[Lugh]

Jman5, on 19 August 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

I find this argument that you need more ammo for 12v12 strange on a number of levels. If what you claim is true than wouldn't everyone's average damage have skyrocketed after 12v12 came out? I mean you guys claim you have to shoot more stuff right? If you're using waaaay more ammo as you claim, then you should be doing waaay more damage than before, right?

Well how come I'm not seeing that in my games?

Because by hook or by crook you've been fortunate enough to drop into 12 mans with all the other 11 people doing their part in damage?

With that being done you don't need to do that much more damage. 12 v 12s have allowed me to see more 700+ games than previously.

[StalaggtIKE]

Something to consider, a greater ammo counts means more damage when your ammo crits.