408 replies to this topic

[FerrolupisXIII]

Roland, on 01 November 2013 - 04:54 PM, said:

16 tons of weapons should be better than 6 tons of weapons, in every conceivable way except one. The way that they are inferior, IS THAT THEY WEIGH 16 TONS INSTEAD OF 6. In every other way, the heavy loadout is supposed to be better.

but 22 tons of weapons + equipment (2x AC-5, 6 tons of ammo) is allowed to be better than 22 tons of weapons + equipment (6x Medium Laser + 16 tons of Heat Sinks)

because it is. p.s. you cant even fit 16 tons of double heat sinks, and standards are grossly inferior. and you would STILL have heat problems. 22 tons in Large Lasers is even WORSE, and you cant even think about PPC's.

so your argument is pretty much total {Scrap}.

[MischiefSC]

FerrolupisXIII, on 01 November 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

but 22 tons of weapons + equipment (2x AC-5, 6 tons of ammo) is allowed to be better than 22 tons of weapons + equipment (6x Medium Laser + 16 tons of Heat Sinks)

because it is. p.s. you cant even fit 16 tons of double heat sinks, and standards are grossly inferior. and you would STILL have heat problems. 22 tons in Large Lasers is even WORSE, and you cant even think about PPC's.

so your argument is pretty much total {Scrap}.

I do fine with energy builds. Balanced energy/ballistic are better, energy/ballistic/missile work best if you've got the slots and tonnage.

Best solution IMO? Shorten beam duration. By 1/2. You'll still get spread but this keeps energy weapons more competitive with direct fire weapons. With the rise of mechs capable of mounting big groups of ballistics and the strong preference for PPCs you can really only do one of two things:

1. Make direct fire weapons spread damage out a little bit, slowing combat and time to kill. Pros and cons to this one.

2. Make DOT weapons take a bit less time, moving them a bit closer to direct fire. This seems like the easiest balancing fix to me.

[Chemistry Warden]

Did anyone else find that the tables in OP were poorly constructed?

Ignoring any information that was omitted, of course.

[BrockSamsonFW]

MischiefSC, on 02 November 2013 - 11:56 AM, said:

I do fine with energy builds. Balanced energy/ballistic are better, energy/ballistic/missile work best if you've got the slots and tonnage.

Best solution IMO? Shorten beam duration. By 1/2. You'll still get spread but this keeps energy weapons more competitive with direct fire weapons. With the rise of mechs capable of mounting big groups of ballistics and the strong preference for PPCs you can really only do one of two things:

1. Make direct fire weapons spread damage out a little bit, slowing combat and time to kill. Pros and cons to this one.

2. Make DOT weapons take a bit less time, moving them a bit closer to direct fire. This seems like the easiest balancing fix to me.

I don't think reducing laser duration would be a good idea. It would make the smaller high-alpha low-dps hit-and-run mechs like the 6xML Jenner far too powerful. They will have to nerf it by adding ML ghost heat or something similar and that will cripple the larger mechs that are already hurting thanks to the flat damage scaling (more tons doesn't increase your damage capabilities at all, just your range).

Lasers don't need a buff, they just need a non-flat scaling of damage to tonnage, and the ACs should get a few "soft" nerfs that don't directly reduce their power but instead make them more difficult or risky to use.


They aren't my ideal fix, but I think some reasonable-to-implement changes would be a reduction in the bullet speed (to make longer range or moving shots more difficult), adjusting ammo explosions so that they are much more likely (but also much weaker), and scaling down the hit effects so it isn't so blinding (or add some sort of comparable "soft" bonus to lasers).

[Red squirrel]

What I miss in this thread is a clear differentiation between DPS and actual damage dealt to CT durign that second.

Means: The AC2 might have a superb DPS value but nobody in his right mind should be stupis enough to allow you to put that damage to work. The AC20 on the other hand is a killer 20 damage punsh. Following your argument either the AC2 needs to be nerfed (aka made completely useless similar damage than an MG) or the AC20 get tripple damage!?

I see that PGIs weapon system could need some revision, but I guzarantee that your sugegstion would make it worse than it is right now.

[Bront]

Roland, on 31 October 2013 - 08:16 PM, said:

But it's SIXTEEN tons of weapons. Not even including ammo.
It's 260% of the tonnage. Of course it's a more capable loadout.

How could it possibly be balanced if it weren't more capable?

I'm making fun of the comparison, because you seem to think that there is something wrong with 16 tons of weapons being more powerful than 6 tons of weapons.

The problem is that arguably it's more than 260% more capable, to the point of being imbalanced.

Balistics currently feature:
- Incredibly high rate of fire for their damage
- The most heat efficient weapons per damage and per ton. (with 1 exception)
- Pinpoint damage
- Increased ammo capacity
- Screen Shake


Let's look at those and compare them to energy weapons. (I'm ignoring the MG, which is a situational weapon)

Incredibly high rate of fire for their damage
Everything in MWO fires faster than it's table top components, and the game is probably a bit better for it overall. And for the AC2 and AC5, it makes them more worthwhile. Still, the increase in ROF is significantly higher for ballistics than it is for any other weapon. End result is ballistics tend to be the DPS weapon of choice.

The most heat efficient weapons
Balistics, outside of the AC2, are incredibly heat efficient. Even the AC20 is very heat efficient. The result is you can mount them along side other weapon systems without any real heat issues. This benefits larger mechs with multiple ballistic hardpoints most, making them potentially superior. End result, mount balistics over energy weapons and heat sinks (since you need lots of heat sinks to deal with the extra heat of even a simple 2ML setup).

Pinpoint damage
This isn't balistic's fault that convergence is instant and completely on a point regardless of where the weapon mount is, but they benefit from it the most. This means balistic weapons are the weapon of choice for players who want to focus their damage to the best effect. The only drawpack is it makes the weapon hit or miss, unlike hitscan weapons.

Increased ammo capacity
Balistics got an increase in ammo capacity per ton. SRM Missiles did not (LRMs did). So this gives Ballistics an edge over missiles. Beyond that, heat sinks are somewhat gimped in MWO, not cooling as well as they did in table top, resulting in mechs not cooling off as fast. The end result is that you need more of them to run a mech that's reliant on energy weapons. So, not only did Balistics get an increased ammo capacity, but energy effectively got a decreased ammo capacity.

Screen Shake
Missiles do this too, but not as consistently as Balistics. It can make it hard to aim or drive, and combined with a high rate of fire, can take a mech out of the game while it's still fairly healthy simply because it can't shoot effectively.

So, what advantages to energy weapons have over Balistics?
- Weight and space
- Hitscan makes fast mechs easier to hit for some damage.

Simply put, the only advantage energy weapons have is weight and space, and in some situations, hitscan is easier to fight with. And the weapon that shares the pinpoint advantage of balistics is the PPC, which had to get nerfed to oblivion.

Now, I'm not looking for a perfect ton per ton balance here, and weight and space are significant issues, but .we can do better. Things that need to be addressed to help fix this:
1) ROF on the AC2 and AC5 are too high. I'm not sure of an exact solution yet, as it would require a bit of play, but adding .1 and .25 to the AC2 and AC5(and UAC5) ROF I think wouldn't be a bad start. AC10s, 20s, and Gauss are heavy enough and large enough that rate of fire isn't as big of a worry for them.

2) Heat dissipation needs to get better. The heat system is the biggest factor that ballistics are king, because you can't take enough heat sinks to make an energy mech heat neutral, but it's easy to do that with a ballistic build.

3) Energy weapons generate too much heat. I've suggested it elsewhere, but I'd drop: SL/SPL heat by 0.5, ML/MPL/LL/LPL/PPC heat by 1.0, and ERPPC heat by 1.5.

4) Revert back to the old PPC Minimum range (Seriously, no damage at 89M, 10 damage at 90? That seems silly)

5) Convergence needs to be fixed. Convergence is targeted on your current target, or max range of your weapons? That would fix some spider hitting issues and encourage players to actually target. Convergence is never 100% and adjusted for weapon placement? That would make some sense too (and allow for the pinpoint skill to be useful, as it would provide some level of convergence improvement then). I'm sure there's a fix for this, but it would help nullify pinpoint damage a bit.

6) Extended range is a bad idea. Balistics can do a reasonable amount of damage at double their max range, while energy weapons can only do so about about 50% beyond max range. The result is the AC20 that has a similar useful range to a LL and outdamages it till you get close to 3 times it's max range, and a Gauss that you can do effective (more than 1 point) damage at 1.5 Km away. Sure, you have to hit at those ranges, but given how damage decreases, the range advantage of larger energy weapons isn't really that large, because balistics are mostly effective still at those same ranges. They need to either reduce all extended ranges to double, or simply extend the range of weapons in MWO and drop extended ranges all togeather (Probably a better idea, to make LRMs really LRMs).

(Note, I'm not saying these all need to be implemented, but some of them in some form would help).

Edit: Fixed minor error in missile ammo.

Edited by Bront, 03 November 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

Balistics got an increase in ammo capacity per ton. Missiles did not.

Call me nitpicky, but long range missiles did get an increase in ammo capacity per ton.

You get 24 LRM5 shots per ton in the table top. That's 24 * 5 = 120 missiles per ton. (LRM ammo/ton figures don't list individual missiles. In fact, I believe the rules don't require LRM5s to fire 5 missiles, it could just be a single missile. AN LRM20 would need to fire at least 4 missiles to explain the clustering, but it doesn't have to fire 20.)
You get 180 LRM missles per ton in MW:O. That's a 50 % increase.

Interestingly, this is not true for SRMs, they didn't get more missiles (except SRM6s, since you get only 15 shots or 90 missiles per ton in the TT, but 100 in MW:O. Probably a rounding issue for TT.)
I always thought you got extra ammo for SRMs, but apparently not so. :tmyk:

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 03 November 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Bront]

MustrumRidcully, on 03 November 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Call me nitpicky, but long range missiles did get an increase in ammo capacity per ton.

You get 24 LRM5 shots per ton in the table top. That's 24 * 5 = 120 missiles per ton. (LRM ammo/ton figures don't list individual missiles. In fact, I believe the rules don't require LRM5s to fire 5 missiles, it could just be a single missile. AN LRM20 would need to fire at least 4 missiles to explain the clustering, but it doesn't have to fire 20.)
You get 180 LRM missles per ton in MW:O. That's a 50 % increase.

Interestingly, this is not true for SRMs, they didn't get more missiles (except SRM6s, since you get only 15 shots or 90 missiles per ton in the TT, but 100 in MW:O. Probably a rounding issue for TT.)
I always thought you got extra ammo for SRMs, but apparently not so. :tmyk:

Thanks for pointing that out, fixed my post.

I like how MWO handles missile ammo anyway, it makes more sense that way anyway.

[The Justicar]

As much as I agree with every thing you said and have been carrying the same torch for months, you (we) are wasting your breath. PGI doesn't care, they think everything is fine. Of course they're utterly wrong but do you really expect them to concede defeat at this point with current mechanics? We're "out" of beta.

But, hey, we have all these pretty mechs to spend $30 on, right?

[Swervedriver]

The easy solution to all of this, as I suggested about a month ago is Quadruple Armor instead of the current Double Armor.

http://mwomercs.com/...30#entry2726430

If you're a Battlemaster and show your torso for more than 3 seconds to a Jagermech or any other mech that's sporting multiple AC2s or AC5s, you can expect that side of your mech to be torn off.

This situation is just ******* ridiculous.

Wanna fix the direct fire ballistics issue and balance things once and for all?

Quad up the Armor PGI.

I'll say it again. Quadruple Armor.

http://mwomercs.com/...30#entry2726430

[MischiefSC]

BrockSamsonFW, on 02 November 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

I don't think reducing laser duration would be a good idea. It would make the smaller high-alpha low-dps hit-and-run mechs like the 6xML Jenner far too powerful. They will have to nerf it by adding ML ghost heat or something similar and that will cripple the larger mechs that are already hurting thanks to the flat damage scaling (more tons doesn't increase your damage capabilities at all, just your range).

Lasers don't need a buff, they just need a non-flat scaling of damage to tonnage, and the ACs should get a few "soft" nerfs that don't directly reduce their power but instead make them more difficult or risky to use.


They aren't my ideal fix, but I think some reasonable-to-implement changes would be a reduction in the bullet speed (to make longer range or moving shots more difficult), adjusting ammo explosions so that they are much more likely (but also much weaker), and scaling down the hit effects so it isn't so blinding (or add some sort of comparable "soft" bonus to lasers).

Here's the thing. There are, in the end, two options.

1. Some sort of buff to lasers (x10 for Pulse)

2. Nerf ballistics

Nobody is going to like 2. Especially after the ferocious nerf-batting that PPCs got (and deserved!) Give lasers a small buff. Not heat or damage which will create issues of their own. The problem of sudden explosive damage to single hit locations is already an issue. Ballistics (matched with PPCs) currently have 30 point pinpoint hits the 'gold standard' of mechs right now.

The sneaky truth? Smart choice is buff lasers considerably and the game will turn into swift death matches and people will complain. So when they nerf *everything* back a bit to slow TTK (time to kill) there will be less complaints than just a ballistics nerf right now.

It's an old gaming trick. Nobody wants a nerf when it's something they're doing to everyone else. Make sure it's a problem that everyone is doing to everyone else and suddenly everyone is behind a bit of a nerf.

Slowing up ballistic ROF isn't a good solution, they lose a lot of their key flavor. Upping heat doesn't help, they'll just start working more like PPCs - measured sniper hits. Fix SRMs, give lasers a little spice and suddenly ballistics + PPCs are no longer as much or more dangerous in a near-brawling situation as they are at range compared to other loadouts.

[Swervedriver]

MischiefSC, on 03 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Here's the thing. There are, in the end, two options.

1. Some sort of buff to lasers (x10 for Pulse)

2. Nerf ballistics

There's actually a better 3rd option: Quadruple Armor.

http://mwomercs.com/...30#entry2726430

[Wolfways]

Swervedriver, on 03 November 2013 - 08:15 PM, said:

There's actually a better 3rd option: Quadruple Armor.

http://mwomercs.com/...30#entry2726430

That would be a big nerf to energy weapons as energy-based mechs don't have the luxury of being able to fire non-stop and need to get the engagement over with asap before they overheat.

[Blackfire1]

Problems:
-Pin point conversion
-No Targeting Computer to knock out
-Double Heat sinks 100% requirement in all but a hand full of mechs.
-Ghost heat

Old news and problems of game design since early beta.
/thread

[krolmir]

I agree with the OP, and I think too many are taking the original post on a magic carpet ride. Here is my take on it, energy weapons need a heat reduction to compete with ballistics, or ballistics need a heat increase. This happened because the ROF in TT was increased, but heat dissipation was not; essentially giving energy weapons an unneeded hit with the nerf bat, all the while giving ballistic weapons a pat with the buff bat. Ultimately, it boils down to being competitive on mechs that can only mount energy weapons, and forcing them in to less than competitive niches; and being piloted by masochistic MechWarrior's like myself, give me moar heat, make me sweat like chicken in a rotisserie, as long as I can do it competitively......

Edited by krolmir, 04 November 2013 - 12:03 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

krolmir, on 03 November 2013 - 11:59 PM, said:

I agree with the OP, and I think too many are taking the original post on a magic carpet ride. Here is my take on it, energy weapons need a heat reduction to compete with ballistics, or ballistics need a heat increase. This happened because the ROF in TT was increased, but heat dissipation was not; essentially giving energy weapons an unneeded hit with the nerf bat, all the while giving ballistic weapons a pat with the buff bat. Ultimately, it boils down to being competitive on mechs that can only mount energy weapons, and forcing them in to less than competitive niches; and being piloted by masochistic MechWarrior's like myself, give me moar heat, make me sweat like chicken in a rotisserie, as long as I can do it competitively......

An alternative is an increase in heat dissipation: This doesn't help ballistics much, since they already have no heat issues, but it helps energy weapons. Couple this with a reduction in heat threshold, and you avoid making heat pointless ,and can use it to minimize the problem of alpha-strike builds. (Yes, ballistics still can alpha well iwth a low threshold, but to get a 20 point damage alpha at 500m, you need 14 tons of energy weapons or 24 tons of ballistic weapons)

[Joseph Mallan]

Blackfire1, on 03 November 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

Problems:
1-Pin point conversion
2-No Targeting Computer to knock out
3-Double Heat sinks 100% requirement in all but a hand full of mechs.
4-Ghost heat

Old news and problems of game design since early beta.
/thread

1 Pin point convergence is a issue. It should be reserved for Mechs with advanced targeting Computers.

2 This is thanks to us using a system like the old solaris box set. Our Stock Mechs would suck eggs on TT using Solaris rules. So you are seeing what we TT players learned 20-25 years ago!

3 Doubles were needed using Solaris rules on T too.

4 Ghost heat... dumbest system ever!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 November 2013 - 05:15 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 November 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

1 Pin point convergence is a issue. It should be reserved for Mechs with advanced targeting Computers.

2 This is thanks to us using a system like the old solaris box set. Our Stock Mechs would suck eggs on TT using Solaris rules. So you are seeing what we TT players learned 20-25 years ago!

3 Doubles were needed using Solaris rules on T too.

4 Ghost heat... dumbest system ever!

YEESS for solaris rules but while this is real time you can add much smother reload times.

It is acceptable that ballistics fire faster and deal more damage as in TT... thats the way it should be.

although its abnormal to place tons of ammunition in your mech - virtually knock out the real shortage of ammunition feed weapons.

We shouldn't even need this or several other topics regarding ballistis if ammunition per mech would be restricted

[Vodrin Thales]

FerrolupisXIII, on 01 November 2013 - 10:25 PM, said:

but 22 tons of weapons + equipment (2x AC-5, 6 tons of ammo) is allowed to be better than 22 tons of weapons + equipment (6x Medium Laser + 16 tons of Heat Sinks)

because it is. p.s. you cant even fit 16 tons of double heat sinks, and standards are grossly inferior. and you would STILL have heat problems. 22 tons in Large Lasers is even WORSE, and you cant even think about PPC's.

so your argument is pretty much total {Scrap}.

Yes you can 2 PPC's with 8 double heat sinks is a pretty effective setup, and can beat the dual AC5 setup easily if used correctly. With ML or LL you are correct though. People think that energy is worse than ballistics in this game but they are wrong. Pinpoint weapons are just better than hitscan.

[Mister Blastman]

MischiefSC, on 01 November 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Better idea.

Cut all beam durations by about 50%. Pulse to 0.33 seconds, lasers to 0.5. Hell, make pulse lasers 0.25.

This still spreads - a bit - when people turn but keeps them viable vs PPCs and ballistics. Suddenly those LLs and MLs look reasonable vs the AC10 and the pulse offers you a short range PPC with excellent accuracy. Given that a LPL isn't much good beyond 300m that extra accuracy isn't that serious, the PPC still keeps a significant range advantage and thus its non-hitscan accuracy is viable.

How about make the PPC a beam weapon instead of a ballistic one? The farther away from you the target, the more the beam spreads out when it hits--or "splash." The closer the target the better the focus but still will deal damage over a a .25 second interval allowing for some spread.

This way you remove front-loading at range and you reduce it up close making it have additional pros and cons.

OR... do the opposite. Make it have MORE splash the closer an enemy gets (i.e. less focused beam) and better focus the closer the enemy is to optimal range. At optimal range it is a perfect pinpoint shot with a .25 second beam interval. Go beyond optimal range... it starts losing focus again and spreading out once more, causing lesser amounts of damage to multiple areas of the mech instead of just in one spot (for a total of less than 10 pts damage).

This way it is kept a long-range weapon but has severe drawbacks of being used up close with reduced effectiveness thereby removing it as a swiss army knife of a weapon. All of a sudden, pushing a pack of snipers is meaningful because say at 250 meters they hit you, they still do 10 pts of damage but that damage only deals 4 to 5 pts in the spot they aimed at and the remaining points of damage are spread to adjacent areas due to the beam losing convergence.

Lastly, within 90 meters for the regular PPC, give it the ability to press a button to bypass the feedback inhibitor. It regains some focus but you run the risk of blowing up the weapon or worse, causing damage to yourself (maybe shorting out your radar/HUD for seconds to a minute or more).

Couple all this with reducing medium/small/medium pulse by 1 pt of heat while dramatically decreasing the beam duration for pulse lasers.

I think this would be an awesome and satisfying addition to the game.

It would give it not only better weapons diversity but also make it feel more sim-like.