56 replies to this topic

[MadKobold]

IMO way too much damage is being thrown around currently. The game is feeling much less Battletech and more like COD. Energy weapons feel just about right atm (except for the absurd PPC heat) but ACs are way out of hand.

I feel the damage need to be slowed down, not sped up. To bring ballistics back in line with energy, I propose a 30% nerf to the cycle time of all ballistic weapons.

Edited by MadKobold, 21 October 2013 - 12:36 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

focuspark, on 21 October 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Really, in all cases when I follow the links and compare the MWO muzzel velocity vs the real world equivalent, the MWO velocity it least 50% greater and in some cases 300% faster.

Slow ballistics and they'll be on par with energy. Nothing else needs to change.

The AC/5's shells fairly close (1300 m/s, which matches that of the Ordnance QF 75mm), as are those of the AC/10 (1100 m/s, versus the 1000 m/s of the D-10 Tank Gun and the 1580-1750 m/s of the Rheinmetall 120mm Gun) and the AC/20 (900 m/s, versus the 925 m/s of the 20.3cm K(E) and the 805 m/s of the 15cm K(E)).

That being said, the AC/2 shells are indeed much faster than their modern contemporaries (the best I could easily find is the 4.2cm Pak 41, with a muzzle velocity of 1265 m/s)... though, it's also not unthinkable that several centuries of technological development couldn't bring them close to the likes of the Rheinmetall 120mm's muzzle velocity range.

In fact, the post I previously linked (which, it should be noted, is from Feb. 2012) included proposals for the ACs' muzzle velocities that were significantly slower than that they are currently:

• AC-2: ~1500 m/s
  
• AC-5: ~1200 m/s
  
• AC-10: ~900 m/s
  
• AC-20: ~600 m/s

With these velocities, each weapon's shell would reach the weapon's current optimal range between 0.45 and 0.60 seconds after firing (more specifically: 0.48s for the AC/2, 0.51667s for the AC/5, 0.50s for the AC/10, 0.45s for the AC/20, 0.60s for the LB 10-X, and 0.50s for the UAC/5).

The Gauss Rifle slugs have been more-often-than-not described in canonical sources as "hypersonic", which implies a muzzle velocity between Mach 5.0 (1701 m/s) and Mach 10.0 (3415 m/s), so its current MWO muzzle velocity (2000 m/s) is indeed appropriate.
(However, muzzle velocities as low as Mach 2.0 (681 m/s) have also been attributed to the Gauss Rifle in canonical sources.)

The current muzzle velocity of the MWO Machine Gun's bullets is 100 m/s, which is roughly one-ninth of that of the M2 Browning (which is 890 m/s) - they certainly do not need to be slowed further!

[focuspark]

Strum Wealh, on 21 October 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

The AC/5's shells fairly close (1300 m/s, which matches that of the Ordnance QF 75mm), as are those of the AC/10 (1100 m/s, versus the 1000 m/s of the D-10 Tank Gun and the 1580-1750 m/s of the Rheinmetall 120mm Gun) and the AC/20 (900 m/s, versus the 925 m/s of the 20.3cm K(E) and the 805 m/s of the 15cm K(E)).

That being said, the AC/2 shells are indeed much faster than their modern contemporaries (the best I could easily find is the 4.2cm Pak 41, with a muzzle velocity of 1265 m/s)... though, it's also not unthinkable that several centuries of technological development couldn't bring them close to the likes of the Rheinmetall 120mm's muzzle velocity range.

In fact, the post I previously linked (which, it should be noted, is from Feb. 2012) included proposals for the ACs' muzzle velocities that were significantly slower than that they are currently:

• AC-2: ~1500 m/s
  
• AC-5: ~1200 m/s
  
• AC-10: ~900 m/s
  
• AC-20: ~600 m/s

With these velocities, each weapon's shell would reach the weapon's current optimal range between 0.45 and 0.60 seconds after firing (more specifically: 0.48s for the AC/2, 0.51667s for the AC/5, 0.50s for the AC/10, 0.45s for the AC/20, 0.60s for the LB 10-X, and 0.50s for the UAC/5).


The Gauss Rifle slugs have been more-often-than-not described in canonical sources as "hypersonic", which implies a muzzle velocity between Mach 5.0 (1701 m/s) and Mach 10.0 (3415 m/s), so its current MWO muzzle velocity (2000 m/s) is indeed appropriate.
(However, muzzle velocities as low as Mach 2.0 (681 m/s) have also been attributed to the Gauss Rifle in canonical sources.)

The current muzzle velocity of the MWO Machine Gun's bullets is 100 m/s, which is roughly one-ninth of that of the M2 Browning (which is 890 m/s) - they certainly do not need to be slowed further!

The AC5 example contains at best 910 m/s, but nothing close to 1300 m/s. Similar results down the line.

Agreed about MG, they should be faster not slower. I tend to forget MG when discussing ballistic weapons in general.

[RandomLurker]

Spoiler

Strum Wealh, on 21 October 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

The AC/5's shells fairly close (1300 m/s, which matches that of the Ordnance QF 75mm), as are those of the AC/10 (1100 m/s, versus the 1000 m/s of the D-10 Tank Gun and the 1580-1750 m/s of the Rheinmetall 120mm Gun) and the AC/20 (900 m/s, versus the 925 m/s of the 20.3cm K(E) and the 805 m/s of the 15cm K(E)).

That being said, the AC/2 shells are indeed much faster than their modern contemporaries (the best I could easily find is the 4.2cm Pak 41, with a muzzle velocity of 1265 m/s)... though, it's also not unthinkable that several centuries of technological development couldn't bring them close to the likes of the Rheinmetall 120mm's muzzle velocity range.

In fact, the post I previously linked (which, it should be noted, is from Feb. 2012) included proposals for the ACs' muzzle velocities that were significantly slower than that they are currently:

• AC-2: ~1500 m/s
  
• AC-5: ~1200 m/s
  
• AC-10: ~900 m/s
  
• AC-20: ~600 m/s

With these velocities, each weapon's shell would reach the weapon's current optimal range between 0.45 and 0.60 seconds after firing (more specifically: 0.48s for the AC/2, 0.51667s for the AC/5, 0.50s for the AC/10, 0.45s for the AC/20, 0.60s for the LB 10-X, and 0.50s for the UAC/5).


The Gauss Rifle slugs have been more-often-than-not described in canonical sources as "hypersonic", which implies a muzzle velocity between Mach 5.0 (1701 m/s) and Mach 10.0 (3415 m/s), so its current MWO muzzle velocity (2000 m/s) is indeed appropriate.
(However, muzzle velocities as low as Mach 2.0 (681 m/s) have also been attributed to the Gauss Rifle in canonical sources.)

The current muzzle velocity of the MWO Machine Gun's bullets is 100 m/s, which is roughly one-ninth of that of the M2 Browning (which is 890 m/s) - they certainly do not need to be slowed further!

Nice research. Most people may not care, but I find RL/SciFi comparisons cool. One correction, machine guns are hitscan in terms of game mechanics. The projectiles are just for show. You could make them any speed without affecting balance.

[Scryed]

Fire rate of weapons is too high and heat dissipation is too low, if they want to keep the current heat scale then the base fire rates should be based off of a 5 second scale and tweak the weapons from there.

Edited by Scryed, 21 October 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

focuspark, on 21 October 2013 - 04:14 PM, said:

The AC5 example contains at best 910 m/s, but nothing close to 1300 m/s. Similar results down the line.

Agreed about MG, they should be faster not slower. I tend to forget MG when discussing ballistic weapons in general.

Oh... the 1300 is the muzzle energy, rather than the muzzle velocity - a misreading of that table on my part.

The rest of the AC examples are correct, however - the D-10 article says "Muzzle velocity 1,000 m/s (3,281 ft/s)", the Rheinmetall 120mm Gun article says "Muzzle velocity 1,580 to 1,750 m/s (5,200 to 5,700 ft/s)", the Pak 41 article says "Muzzle velocity 1,265 m/s (4,150 ft/s)", and so on.

The page linked for the Gauss Rifle - the classification of Mach regimes - gives "hypersonic" as 1,710-3,415 m/s (also 6,150-12,300 km/h & 3,840-7,680 mph).

[Strum Wealh]

Alright, a working example for the AC/5: the 7.5cm Pak 41, with a muzzle velocity of "1,230 m/s (4,035 ft/s)".
"The weight of the powder charge fired is 95 percent of the weight of the projectile, which had an estimated velocity of approximately 1200 m/s (4,000 f/s), and a penetration of 15 cm (5.94 inches) of homogeneous armor at 900 m (1,000 yards)."

Additionally, the Ordnance QF 6-pounder (a 57mm weapon) when firing "APDS (from March 1944)" can achieve muzzle velocities of 1151 m/s (L43 guns) and 1219 m/s (L50 guns), and the 57 mm anti-tank gun M1943 (ZiS-2) & 57 mm AZP S-60 each have a muzzle velocity of 1,000 m/s (3,300 ft/s).

Between the 7.5cm Pak 41 & the QF 6-pounder, 1300 m/s (the current MWO muzzle velocity for the AC/5 and UAC/5) or 1200 m/s (what I proposed for the MWO muzzle velocity for the AC/5 and UAC/5) are not unreasonable muzzle velocities for Class-5 BT/MW autocannons.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 21 October 2013 - 05:27 PM.

[Fooooo]

Only things ill say on this,

I agree with maybe making some ballistics burst fire to even the instant dmg vs duration dmg (lasers). Multiple shots for each trigger pull etc. So to get the full rated dmg you need to hold on target for X amount of time....similar to lasers, except its done in larger instant bursts.

For pulse lasers I guess I'd like them to actually be pulse lasers. The sounds make them sound like one I guess, however the way the dmg is done does not.

I would make them match the sound effects, so a LPL would do an instant 3.5? dmg on the first pulse, wait .5 or so of a sec, then do another instant 3.5dmg etc etc. (numbers arent correct, but should show the idea. )

In effect making them very similar to what ballistics would be with burst fire.......

I'd probably also then change lasers, I think lasers use ticks atm making them pretty much burst fire also in a way (if im wrong here then ignore the rest ), id basically shorten the ticks, so basically a LL would do 0.33333 dmg constantly over a duration of 3 sec, for a total of 9dmg. (if you stuck to current values)

Edited by Fooooo, 21 October 2013 - 09:19 PM.

[Mordin Ashe]

Wow, great to find out I am not the only one thinking something may be a bit off with ballistics. Personally I would decrease RoF, because that is the only thing I don't get with ballistics. I mean, look at their DPS. Two or even better 3 AC/2 give you better DPS and punching power than any energy build could.

[Treye Snow]

Irreverent, on 19 October 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

I just had another post on this, and this was pretty much my point. Lasers are at a huge disadvantage right now to ballistics. Why they insist on throwing over 30 years of functional game balance out the window I don't understand. Lasers as designed and already balanced in the original game did all their damage to a single location. Yes, this makes them more scary. That's the point. In the current game, they're clearly secondary weapons. Is it easy to hit your target with the constant beam? Sure it is. If it's running 130+ kph good luck doing any real damage to them though. Their firing time should be really short, as suggested, maybe 0.2 to 0.3 seconds Would this make a Jenner more effective? Yes, but it also makes it a lot easier to kill as well if you concentrate the damage that's hitting them. This would also give lasers a much needed dps boost to bring them in line with the other primary weapons.

Yes, AC take up space and weight, and have ammo restrictions. Lasers are smaller and lighter but generate significantly more heat and have shorter ranges. That's the trade off. If you disagree that's fine, but you're arguing against 3 decades of established playability and balance, so good luck with that. And you can pretty effectively argue that ammo is not a major consideration in this game due to the short length of the matches. You can build a dual AC/20 build, or quad AC/2, or 6 MG, and give it enough ammo to last through most matches, so that argument really holds little weight for me.

The problem with that whole "30 years of functional game balance" sillyness is TT had something called DICE. You know, those things you roll and get a RANDOM number, on a RANDOM spot.

Here. Let's play a game. You with TT balance, and me with MWO. Ready?

You roll a 4!
Your medium laser hits RT for 3!
Your medium laser misses.

My turn!

<click>

Mr Terribad has killed Irreverent
Oh look, my -everything- went into your cockpit.

Sorry to sound like an *** but, the argument you can take a dice game to a FPS is ridiculous and needs to stop being used. You can't base an action FPS on a board game with chance.

[R Razor]

Best idea yet is to use burst / time for ballistic damage ala lasers.......maybe 4 shots @ 5 damage for AC-20, 2 shots at 5 for AC-10, 5 shots at 1 for AC-5 and a 2 shots at 1 for an AC-2. Spread the timing out a bit for each AC, say .3 seconds between rounds for the 20, . 2 for the 10 and .1 for the five and 2 to simulate the larger machinery required to provide the automatic fire capability for each weapon.

Heat could stay the same as could cool down time, a single press of the trigger could initiate the burst with the heat spiking at trigger press and cool down starting the moment the final round left the tube.

[Wolfways]

I'll just put up something that i posted a while ago in another thread,
And yes i'm comparing MWO weapons to TT weapons because PGI are using the same stats but increasing the weapons ROF by varying amounts for different weapons.

"MWO's weapons have the same weight and ammo dependency as TT but the fire rates have been changed a lot.
In TT:
AC2 = 2 damage/10 seconds.
AC5 = 5 damage/10 seconds.
AC10 = 10 damage/10 seconds
SL = 3 damage/10 seconds.
ML = 5 damage/10 seconds.
LL = 8 damage/10 seconds.

Looks pretty similar there.

In MWO:
AC2 = 38.5 damage/10 seconds.
AC5 = 33.3 damage/10 seconds.
AC10 = 40 damage/10 seconds.
SL = 10 damage/10 seconds.
ML = 12.5 damage/10 seconds.
LL = 21.2 damage/10 seconds.

Not even close. An AC5 does almost triple the damage of a ML? In TT the SL does more damage than the AC2, yet in MWO the AC2 does almost four times the damage of the SL?

Add to that they gave energy weapons double range and ballistics triple range, and personally i don't see any point in using an energy-based mech over a ballistic-based mech.
And people wonder why PGI are having trouble balancing weapons...

Edit: I just remembered that the cooldown starts after the burntime on lasers finishes, so lasers actually do a little less dps than i stated above."

[Joseph Mallan]

That is exactly why a MW:O turn should never have been modeled after TT. 3-5 seconds tops for a combat turn. Including venting heat.

[RandomLurker]

For the record, burst-firing autocannons exist in canon. While AC caliber/etc is never technically defined (a class 20 AC seems to be any ac that can strip off a certain amount of armor, regardless of caliber or round burst), ACs that fire a rapid burst of rounds then reload are confirmed to exist.

[Strum Wealh]

RandomLurker, on 22 October 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

For the record, burst-firing autocannons exist in canon. While AC caliber/etc is never technically defined (a class 20 AC seems to be any ac that can strip off a certain amount of armor, regardless of caliber or round burst), ACs that fire a rapid burst of rounds then reload are confirmed to exist.

It actually goes further than that - burst-fire ACs are (literally!) the rule rather than the exception.

• "Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be 'walked' across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case."
  
• "Determine the to-hit number for both targets and make separate to-hit rolls against each target, using the higher (more difficult) of the to-hit numbers and adding a +1 modifier for firing at multiple targets with a single shot."
  
• "If the to-hit roll succeeds, the target is struck by a single hit that inflicts damage equal to half the normal damage done by the weapon (rounded down)."

(Tactical Operations, pg. 100, under the heading "Multiple Targets")

Essentially, the more basic rules found in Total Warfare can be seen as simply assuming that all of the shells in a given burst land in the same general area.
For example, if each of the shells in a three-shell burst (such as that fired by the Marauder's 120mm "GM Whirlwind" AC/5) hits the upper leg (e.g. thigh), lower leg (e.g. calf/shin), and middle of the foot, the entire burst "hit the leg".
Likewise, having each of the shells in a four-shell burst (such as that fired by each of the Demolisher's 185mm "ChemJet Gun" AC/20s) hit the upper arm, elbow joint, lower arm, and hand is considered to have the entire burst "hit the arm".

From a more official fluff-wise perspective:
"The existence of weapon classes is an old point of contention among purists and the pragmatic. An engineer or armchair general might hold forth that the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette. However, not everyone can afford the luxury of such nitpicking, and so militaries long ago adopted a scheme of rough classes to judge weapon systems. In the case of the aforementioned autocannons, military personnel and casual observers would consider both weapons to be “class 20” autocannons as they both fire 200 kilograms of ammunition in a 10-second period at an effective range of just under 300 meters. Any autocannon that falls into that range of performance is a class-20 autocannon, whether they fire a single 300mm, 200-kilogram shell or scores of 50mm shells. Thus all autocannon that deliver approximately the same mass of ordnance on target in the same elapsed time at the same range belong to a single class (in this case, AC/20)."
(Era Report: 3052, pg. 98, under the sidebar "Regarding Military Technology Classification")

Edited by Strum Wealh, 22 October 2013 - 01:56 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Wolfways, on 22 October 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I'll just put up something that i posted a while ago in another thread,
And yes i'm comparing MWO weapons to TT weapons because PGI are using the same stats but increasing the weapons ROF by varying amounts for different weapons.

"MWO's weapons have the same weight and ammo dependency as TT but the fire rates have been changed a lot.
In TT:
AC2 = 2 damage/10 seconds.
AC5 = 5 damage/10 seconds.
AC10 = 10 damage/10 seconds
SL = 3 damage/10 seconds.
ML = 5 damage/10 seconds.
LL = 8 damage/10 seconds.

Looks pretty similar there.

In MWO:
AC2 = 38.5 damage/10 seconds.
AC5 = 33.3 damage/10 seconds.
AC10 = 40 damage/10 seconds.
SL = 10 damage/10 seconds.
ML = 12.5 damage/10 seconds.
LL = 21.2 damage/10 seconds.

Not even close. An AC5 does almost triple the damage of a ML? In TT the SL does more damage than the AC2, yet in MWO the AC2 does almost four times the damage of the SL?

Add to that they gave energy weapons double range and ballistics triple range, and personally i don't see any point in using an energy-based mech over a ballistic-based mech.
And people wonder why PGI are having trouble balancing weapons...

Edit: I just remembered that the cooldown starts after the burntime on lasers finishes, so lasers actually do a little less dps than i stated above."

in addition there's GH and hitscan further damaging the energy family's potential. laser boat players have hit hard times

[MadCat02]

SmurfOff, on 18 October 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Maybe it is time to give laser mechanics another review. The current game is dominated by ballistic builds because even with the ammo / weight issues, they are the most effective weapons. I think the core of this issue is the time on target need for lasers to deliver full damage, and it is not clear if there are hit detection issues mid fire on a target. For a ballistic pilot, the only challenge is the lead time, all damage is done in one instant.

So in any situation, the ballistics pilot will outdamage a similar configured energy mech. The ballistics pilot can torso twist and time shots, where the laser pilot needs to manage time on target, cycling weapons to avoid heat penalties, and reducing fire rates to prevent self immolation.

The question to Devel:
Do you feel there are any issues with lasers?
would you be willing to run a test run with different fire times on laser weapons?
I know that the DX11 test has been in works for some time, would it possible to run a laser test before the DX11 test, or would we need to wait?

Funny all i see is exloding XL engines on heavy mechs .

What you said was true before UAC nerf

Edited by MadCat02, 22 October 2013 - 02:11 PM.