408 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 November 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

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)

Yup. Higher dissipation/lower cap is still one of the easiest, all-encompassing solutions to MWO's balance problems, as it has been since closed beta.

[Almond Brown]

Wolfways, on 03 November 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

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.

But, with no ammo increase, the ballistic carries will require more ammo and thus will have less room for Engines, JJ's, 2-3 Ballistic Guns and or max armor at the new levels. Energy players just need to control thier fire rates, same as now, despite the lack of that art currently. lol

P.S. Doubling the current Double is likely to much. Perhaps another 50% would be enough with everything else being equal... (or just increase Internals)

[Almond Brown]

Lefty Lucy, on 04 November 2013 - 11:17 AM, said:

Yup. Higher dissipation/lower cap is still one of the easiest, all-encompassing solutions to MWO's balance problems, as it has been since closed beta.

And yet, again, the players/Forum goers don't listen. The Dev have stated, and on more than one occasion, they tried variations of that methodology and it didn't fit the game play model they sought.

That doesn't change the Ballistics issue we face now anyways. Ballistics don't really have sour Heat cap issues, unlike Lasers. Being able to fire 4LL and waiting to cool, versus only be allowed to fire 2 but twice in the same time window would be a NERF to Laser users and do nothing tot he Ballistic users within the game play.

Increase Ballistics Heat or half their ammo.

Edited by Almond Brown, 04 November 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[Wolfways]

Almond Brown, on 04 November 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

But, with no ammo increase, the ballistic carries will require more ammo and thus will have less room for Engines, JJ's, 2-3 Ballistic Guns and or max armor at the new levels. Energy players just need to control thier fire rates, same as now, despite the lack of that art currently. lol

P.S. Doubling the current Double is likely to much. Perhaps another 50% would be enough with everything else being equal... (or just increase Internals)

That would just make stock mechs less viable, and they barely are now.

I'd rather see something like a % of the mechs armour made "floating armour" which can be applied to wherever the player wishes on the ct and st's. That would help mechs that have weak spots that weren't important in TT, like the HBK's hunch.

[Davers]

Ballistic ammo should be reduced back to TT levels at least. Players should need to carry and use back up weapons.

[Wolfways]

Davers, on 04 November 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Ballistic ammo should be reduced back to TT levels at least. Players should need to carry and use back up weapons.

You use more ammo in a MWO match than you do in a full TT match though.

[Tombstoner]

Davers, on 04 November 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Ballistic ammo should be reduced back to TT levels at least. Players should need to carry and use back up weapons.

ammo/ton should be increased because armor per ton was doubled vs. TT. current shots per ton vary but are still lower then TT adjusted values. so the weapon does less damage over extended times such as 20 minutes of fighting( you run out of ammo) for short bursts of suficant length to core the ct. they are sufficiently heat efficient to burn through ammo, but not for more then 1-2 assaults.

At no point in this game should a player be forced to do anything along the lines of back up weapons. we might as well get rid of customization all together and play stock. back up weapons would be better removed for more ammo in the primary. unless you think energy weapons are the only back up. but what a back up weapon for an energy only design?

[Roland]

Davers, on 04 November 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Ballistic ammo should be reduced back to TT levels at least. Players should need to carry and use back up weapons.

No way, this just cripples all ammo based weaponry.

If you double armor, you need to double ammo. This should be obvious to everyone.

[mike29tw]

Almond Brown, on 04 November 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

And yet, again, the players/Forum goers don't listen. The Dev have stated, and on more than one occasion, they tried variations of that methodology and it didn't fit the game play model they sought.

We don't listen? More like we disagree.

[krolmir]

I have to say, there are many good ideas in this thread. I don't want to see any particular weapons group get hit with a nerf any more than the next guy, but as some other posters have said, what is the backup weapon for an energy based mech? I'll tell you what it is, it's another hot as hell energy weapon. Which represents a number of significant hurdles for an all energy based mech, DPS drop off. Space and tonnage for DHS. Inadequate heat dissipation per second. Low enemy mech count, and short engagement times all give ballistics a big fat advantage. A ballistic mech will only experience DPS drop off when it runs out of ammo. Ballistics make so little HPS that critical overheat conditions only ever occur on the hottest maps, and even then the energy based counterpart would've shut down 3 or 4 times just trying to match the DPS and damage output of the ballistic based machine. I say trying because there is no way it could ever actually hope to match it even if it was heat neutral, because energy weapons have a considerably worse recycle time anyway. Proponents of ballistics' based mechs will try to rebuke this next statement, in the games current state ballistics hold all the cards. At this point I now issue the challenge again to build these 2 mechs and drop on test mode in tourmaline. Phract 4x with 2 AC/10s, Endo, 255 STD, 2 MLs, 10DHS, AMS, 6 Tons of AC\10 ammo, 2 Case, and armor 1/2 ton from max. The energy competition the Awesome 8Q 2 ERPPC, 1 ER LL, 300 STD, Endo, 19 DHS, AMS, and max armor. Drop into Tourmaline, find the Atlas and fire into his CT with the primary weapons (just ERPPCs and AC\10s) until shutdown occurs. Record the percentage of damage done. From there reach your own conclusions, and then your own honest opinion on energy weapons here. If your not willing to try this, do the rest of us a favor and stop posting.

[Davers]

Roland, on 04 November 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

No way, this just cripples all ammo based weaponry.

If you double armor, you need to double ammo. This should be obvious to everyone.

The ammo amount was based on the assumption that an average mech warrior could miss an atlas at punch range. I dare say we are better shots than that.

[Wolfways]

Tombstoner, on 04 November 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

we might as well get rid of customization all together and play stock.

I wish

[Galenit]

Roland, on 04 November 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

No way, this just cripples all ammo based weaponry.

If you double armor, you need to double ammo. This should be obvious to everyone.

You have no random hit location and pinpoint accuracy, you need only 1/8 of the ammo to core a mech compared to tt.

Lets double this because of 2x armor.

You should need only 1/4 of the ammo compared to tt ...

Edited by Galenit, 05 November 2013 - 04:49 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Galenit, on 05 November 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

You have no random hit location and pinpoint accuracy, you need only 1/8 of the ammo to core a mech compared to tt.

Lets double this because of 2x armor.

You should need only 1/4 of the ammo compared to tt ...

Exactly I really wish people would stop posting double armor = double anything that may be not balanced - naive fallacys.

Together with the ability to use as much ammo as you like ammunition shortage isn't a shortage at all.

Although nobody would run a JaegerMech Stock eighter...3 tons af ammunition....and paper thin armor? BTW: the Dragon 1N feels better in MWO in comparison to CBT single scenarios - because the excessive ammunition storrage is really good to stay in battle much longer

Edited by Karl Streiger, 05 November 2013 - 04:47 AM.

[Galenit]

Karl Streiger, on 05 November 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

Exactly I really wish people would stop posting double armor = double anything that may be not balanced - naive fallacys.

If we should only need 1/4 of the the tt ammo ...
but some need 2x the tt ammo ...
maybe they would be better of with the 8 random hit locations from tt,
because that would match exactly with 2x armor and 2x the ammo they need against it as they claim?

If you need sarcasm tags for this its your problem ...

Edited by Galenit, 05 November 2013 - 05:01 AM.

[Roland]

If you were to suggest that double armor doesn't require double ammo, because you should only need half as many shots to kill a mech, then energy weapons should generate double the heat.

Because, hey, you only need half as many shots to kill a target, right?

[Joseph Mallan]

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

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.

What hurts lasers is the NEED to keep your laser on target for the full beam length. Sure I hit you with 8 damage with a large laser, but that damage is spread over all the surfaces I trace the beam over. So 2 damage on the right arm, 3 damage on the Right torso and 3 damage on the center torso. But that is how a laser works. it is a DpS weapon. It may not be TT but it makes sense.

An Auto cannon is described as this:

But is treated like this:

There is a big difference between an ACs 90-2,500 shells a minute and a Cannons 10-12 Shells a minute.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 November 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Aidan McRae]

Actually, what should have been done:

Start with every weapon fire at 10 sec intervals, just like TT. Start off with the exact values of TT for heat, range, damage, et c. Then, start balancing the weapons in whatever way you want: lower the fire rate of AC's, increase heat of PPCs, et c. Once you find that balance, you can 'eff' all you want with the figures, because you have a base "balance" which has static, analyzable numbers which you can change any factor therein and retain the same base useability.

All the changes that would follow would be flavor, fluff, and fun.

Instead, they started effing with data before even implementing the weapons in game, so there's no baseline, and no way to effectively, simply balance the weapon systems.

[Karl Streiger]

Roland, on 05 November 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

If you were to suggest that double armor doesn't require double ammo, because you should only need half as many shots to kill a mech, then energy weapons should generate double the heat.

Because, hey, you only need half as many shots to kill a target, right?

Yep - exactly - thats the point. You need more heat for energy weapons and reduced ammo for ballistics. Because you need less damage to kill a enemy. Even with 2x armor you hardly need the same ammount of shots to kill a enemy as you would need in TT.

Or in other words - the game is missing the RTPCHLCF "random to point'n click hit location conversion factor"*

No matter what anybody of us brings to the table - no matter the math - you hardly can determine how many shots you need to core a enemy. Its a statistical value in TT. But I don't know if there is reasonable data available to determine how many shots in average are fired to kill a specific enemy and how the hit box sizes does have impact on that.

if you have a representativ value for MWO and each weapon system you can start to balance things out. That could mean that the ammunition for AC 20s drop to 2 shots per ton while AC 2 ammunition is increased because the major part of those players use spray n pray.

*ok i have made a PCTRHLCF or the other direction for the MWO PPC.
this weapon deals 25 damage and is linked to a targeting computer (with alternate rules - a missed shot may still hit the target in adjecent locations) on average you need 20-30 shots to bring an Atlas to its knees.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 05 November 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Demos]

Roland, on 05 November 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

If you were to suggest that double armor doesn't require double ammo, because you should only need half as many shots to kill a mech, then energy weapons should generate double the heat.

Because, hey, you only need half as many shots to kill a target, right?

Indeed. Due to the 1.4 "DHS" energy weapons got a bigger disadvantage regarding heat than ballistics alredy. they ARE hotter (besides the obvious increase in heat of S/M(P)L ).