408 replies to this topic

[Nimura Nekogami]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

I wouldnt mocking my users if i cant hold promissed shedules.....you guys are way behind your plans.
Im still waiting for UI 2.0 and DX11.
Id given up on CW because i dont think you got the manpower to release this "soon".

But.....nice to see you in the forums showing you are alive.

For the record: My K2 uses 2 PPC`s
(Even without your Gaus change i wouldnt run a dual Gaus Cat again. )

Edited by Nimura Nekogami, 27 November 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[stjobe]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh?

The reason the PPC is so popular, and incidentally also the reasons you have had to go to such lengths to stop people from using them en-masse, is that you for some unfathomable reason implemented as a hybrid weapon.

It has pin-point damage like the ballistic weapons, but it doesn't have the high weight or ammo dependency that other ballistics have. It has rather high heat, but it doesn't have the damage spread that other energy weapons have.
In short it has the best features from both ballistics and energy, and not many of the drawbacks.

It really should be redesigned as a beam weapon; it's supposed to be one if you look at the lore descriptions.

And while we're on the subject of lore descriptions, all autocannons should be burst-fire weapons; that would also have the benefit of removing almost all pin-point damage from the game, leaving the Gauss Rifle as the only real pin-point damage weapon:

Missiles have their missile spread.
Energy weapons (including a reworked PPC) have beam duration.
And ACs have burst-fire to spread their damage.

Now that would make MWO a more interesting game, at least to my eyes.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

The reason the PPC is so popular, and incidentally also the reasons you have had to go to such lengths to stop people from using them en-masse, is that you for some unfathomable reason implemented as a hybrid weapon.

It has pin-point damage like the ballistic weapons, but it doesn't have the high weight or ammo dependency that other ballistics have. It has rather high heat, but it doesn't have the damage spread that other energy weapons have.
In short it has the best features from both ballistics and energy, and not many of the drawbacks.

It really should be redesigned as a beam weapon; it's supposed to be one if you look at the lore descriptions.

And while we're on the subject of lore descriptions, all autocannons should be burst-fire weapons; that would also have the benefit of removing almost all pin-point damage from the game, leaving the Gauss Rifle as the only real pin-point damage weapon:

Missiles have their missile spread.
Energy weapons (including a reworked PPC) have beam duration.
And ACs have burst-fire to spread their damage.

Now that would make MWO a more interesting game, at least to my eyes.

Nimura Nekogami, on 27 November 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

I wouldnt mocking my users if i cant hold promissed shedules.....you guys are way behind your plans.
Im still waiting for UI 2.0 and DX11.
Id given up on CW because i dont think you got the manpower to release this "soon".

But.....nice to see you in the forums showing you are alive.

For the record: My K2 uses 2 PPC`s
(Even without your Gaus change i wouldnt run a dual Gaus Cat again. )

OWNED!

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 27 November 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

The reason the PPC is so popular, and incidentally also the reasons you have had to go to such lengths to stop people from using them en-masse, is that you for some unfathomable reason implemented as a hybrid weapon.

It has pin-point damage like the ballistic weapons, but it doesn't have the high weight or ammo dependency that other ballistics have. It has rather high heat, but it doesn't have the damage spread that other energy weapons have.
In short it has the best features from both ballistics and energy, and not many of the drawbacks.

It really should be redesigned as a beam weapon; it's supposed to be one if you look at the lore descriptions.

And while we're on the subject of lore descriptions, all autocannons should be burst-fire weapons; that would also have the benefit of removing almost all pin-point damage from the game, leaving the Gauss Rifle as the only real pin-point damage weapon:

Missiles have their missile spread.
Energy weapons (including a reworked PPC) have beam duration.
And ACs have burst-fire to spread their damage.

Now that would make MWO a more interesting game, at least to my eyes.

And OWNED again!

[Jun Watarase]

Im probably wasting my time replying to this thread, but the reason why energy weapons need so many heatsinks to be heat neutral compared to balistics in TT is because every mech got free heatsinks.

So for example you start with 10 SHS. That gives you enough free heatsinks to mount a large laser and be heat neutral. It doesnt make sense to mount a AC10 in this situation.

But then you realise that mounting the second large laser requires a ton of heat sinks and isnt very feasible. So what do people do? People mount a AC10 instead, and only need one extra heatsink to be heat neutral.

It was intentionally done to encourage weapon variety rather than spamming heatsinks + energy weapons.

If DHS were 2.0, we would be seeing a energy spam problem but the issue is that energy weapons do not function the same as in TT....here, they are beam duration weapons. Which makes them inferior to the poptart/alpha metagame.

[stjobe]

Jun Watarase, on 02 December 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Im probably wasting my time replying to this thread, but the reason why energy weapons need so many heatsinks to be heat neutral compared to balistics in TT is because every mech got free heatsinks.

No, the reason why energy weapons need so many heat sinks to be heat neutral is because they fire 2-3 times faster than in TT but dissipation is on the same 10-second cycle as in TT; that is, they're 2-3 times hotter than in TT.

The reason this doesn't affect ballistics is of course that three times a large number is much more than three times a low number; i.e. 3 x 3 heat (AC/10) = 9 heat, but 3 x 7 heat (LL) = 21 heat.

Jun Watarase, on 02 December 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

So for example you start with 10 SHS. That gives you enough free heatsinks to mount a large laser and be heat neutral.

No, it's not heat neutral by a long shot. A LL generates 1.65 heat/second (7 heat divided by 1 second beam duration and 3.25 second cooldown) and 10 SHS dissipate 1.0 heat/second.

Jun Watarase, on 02 December 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

It doesnt make sense to mount a AC10 in this situation.

An AC/10 generates 1.2 heat per second, so not even an AC/10 is heat neutral with 10 SHS. But it makes more sense heat-wise to mount that than a LL.

Jun Watarase, on 02 December 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

If DHS were 2.0, we would be seeing a energy spam problem but the issue is that energy weapons do not function the same as in TT....here, they are beam duration weapons. Which makes them inferior to the poptart/alpha metagame.

I don't think making DHS 2.0 would make a lick of difference, to be honest. What's needed is to increase dissipation, if energy weapons are to hold up to ballistics. Then we can make ballistics burst-fire so as not to be the no-brainer choice due to their damage being both pin-point and immediate, and finally make the PPC a beam weapon like all the other energy weapons.

That would leave us with just a single pin-point, immediate-damage weapon in the Gauss Rifle, and the balance between ballistics and energy weapons would be restored.

[Jun Watarase]

I was referring strictly to TT rules. I dont know why you are using realtime values there.

In TT a mech fires a large laser, generates 8 heat, has 10 heatsinks, is heat neutral.

[Karl Streiger]

Jun Watarase, on 02 December 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

I was referring strictly to TT rules. I dont know why you are using realtime values there.

In TT a mech fires a large laser, generates 8 heat, has 10 heatsinks, is heat neutral.

Well that is the interesting part - transfer - TT values to another time scale.
Based on your first part - MWO is 100% like the TT rules:
you fire your large laser on a Mech with only 10 SHS - wait for 7sec and are heat neutral.

But what if you have two large lasers? Considering the heat of MWO and the dissipation values:
If that would be strictly TT: to vent 7 heat in 10 secs means 7 SHS. so i need 14 SHS to vent 14 heat in 10 sec right?
Happens in MWO too: fire two lasers with 14 SHS and after 10secs you have a cool Mech.
With 20 SHS you only need 7seconds.

So the MWO heat system should work. But it doesn't the second value for heatsinks is the heat capacity. That gave your Mech some shots for free...that give your Mech the ability to fire your weapons faster. In the end when you are close to overheating - its again 100% like in TT.

OK- thats one approach:
Second approach:
S7 Rules:
Some Weapon fires faster - Laser = 6-7 sec. Each event deals 4x as much heat as in TT. Heatsinks dissipate with the same rating. Heatscale is also muliplied with factor 4.

So in case of the 10SHS.
I fire it once...and got 8*4 = 24 heat - with 10 SHS this heat is reduced to 14 - (movement penalties happens at 20)
I cool for another 2 rounds and have a heat scale of 0 when I'm able to fire the laser again.

What about 2 Large Laser and 16 SHS?
2*8*4 = 48 heat - 16 = 32 (i got a modifer of +1 for next weapon usage and -1 for movement)

Third Approach:
Mechcommander:

weapon heat and damage is divided by the same value: A Gauss for example fires every 5 sec and deals 7.5 damage. Ammunition is increased to 16 from 8
Same for the PPC 5 heat; 5 damage and 1 shot every 5 seconds.
Necessary heat sinks have to be placed in the Mech to get a heat neutral MEch


So the second S7 approach - would be great to keep Alpha Boating in check without any needs of abnormal Ghost Heat systems.
The third reduces damage per alpha strike and helps to reduce the pace of battle.

A more optimal system would use a combination of both systems:

In case of the AWS-8Q
PPC
1 shot every 4 seconds dealing 15 heat and 5 dmg
Heat dissipation is 11.2
Firing all three PPCs at once - produces 45 heat -> shut down is imminent -on a 30 heat scale
So the player has to fire a single PPC every second...after 4sec he is at 11.4 heat. When he is able to fire its first PPC again heat is at 0.2 - that Mech hardly overheats when using chain fire - and is as good as dead when using an Alpha Strike (great isn't it - the same function that was done with Ghost heat but much simpler to communicate)

[Lupus Aurelius]

Karl Streiger, on 03 December 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

Well that is the interesting part - transfer - TT values to another time scale.
Based on your first part - MWO is 100% like the TT rules:
you fire your large laser on a Mech with only 10 SHS - wait for 7sec and are heat neutral.

But what if you have two large lasers? Considering the heat of MWO and the dissipation values:
If that would be strictly TT: to vent 7 heat in 10 secs means 7 SHS. so i need 14 SHS to vent 14 heat in 10 sec right?
Happens in MWO too: fire two lasers with 14 SHS and after 10secs you have a cool Mech.
With 20 SHS you only need 7seconds.

So the MWO heat system should work. But it doesn't the second value for heatsinks is the heat capacity. That gave your Mech some shots for free...that give your Mech the ability to fire your weapons faster. In the end when you are close to overheating - its again 100% like in TT.

OK- thats one approach:
Second approach:
S7 Rules:
Some Weapon fires faster - Laser = 6-7 sec. Each event deals 4x as much heat as in TT. Heatsinks dissipate with the same rating. Heatscale is also muliplied with factor 4.

So in case of the 10SHS.
I fire it once...and got 8*4 = 24 heat - with 10 SHS this heat is reduced to 14 - (movement penalties happens at 20)
I cool for another 2 rounds and have a heat scale of 0 when I'm able to fire the laser again.

What about 2 Large Laser and 16 SHS?
2*8*4 = 48 heat - 16 = 32 (i got a modifer of +1 for next weapon usage and -1 for movement)

Third Approach:
Mechcommander:

weapon heat and damage is divided by the same value: A Gauss for example fires every 5 sec and deals 7.5 damage. Ammunition is increased to 16 from 8
Same for the PPC 5 heat; 5 damage and 1 shot every 5 seconds.
Necessary heat sinks have to be placed in the Mech to get a heat neutral MEch


So the second S7 approach - would be great to keep Alpha Boating in check without any needs of abnormal Ghost Heat systems.
The third reduces damage per alpha strike and helps to reduce the pace of battle.

A more optimal system would use a combination of both systems:

In case of the AWS-8Q
PPC
1 shot every 4 seconds dealing 15 heat and 5 dmg
Heat dissipation is 11.2
Firing all three PPCs at once - produces 45 heat -> shut down is imminent -on a 30 heat scale
So the player has to fire a single PPC every second...after 4sec he is at 11.4 heat. When he is able to fire its first PPC again heat is at 0.2 - that Mech hardly overheats when using chain fire - and is as good as dead when using an Alpha Strike (great isn't it - the same function that was done with Ghost heat but much simpler to communicate)

Any of those 3 would be viable, but the current increase in firing speeds and the keeping/ reducing heat dissipation from BT is utterly ludicous, and Paul should be smart enough to know that.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Russ's post shows how PGI rates balance etc. 18 people making mechs (and the odd map) and 18 people working on coding, HSR, bug fixes, patches, etc. No wonder they don't have time to alter weapons values very often. Someone probably has the monthly task of glancing at the weapon metrics to see if there has been aby "spontaneous" improvement.

[Tombstoner]

4th approach - how to transfer TT heat/damage values to any fire rate you want and still be TT or how to begin balancing TT for MWO.

Scale heat and damage relative to the changed fire rate.... done.

Example - the PPC 10 heat, 10 damage per shot. one shot every 10 seconds. Let’s say you’re PGI and implemented full TT rules but think the game plays way to slow: Firing once every 10 seconds will do that. Then you change one thing and adjust the rate of fire to once every 4 seconds. What happens is you changed not just rate of fire but increased damage and heat output by 250%. In 20 seconds a TT ppc generates 20 damage and 20 heat. After fire rate adjustment the ppc now does 50 damage and 50 heat.
All would be good if dissipation rates and armor where also increased by the same amount as the fire rate. They weren't, later like within one week, armor was doubled: because everyone died way to fast. I presume PGI didn't realize they inadvertently buffed damage and heat by 250%. Unfortunately we are still living with a 50% boost in damage and heat is completely fubared.
Using the method I posted
The ppc with a fire rate of 4 becomes 4 heat and 4 damage. So in 20 seconds the weapon fires 5 times and does 20 damage for 20 heat and preserves the ppc heat dissipation relationship with heat sinks: Heat sinks that are still scaled for one 10 second TT turn. PGI should recalculate all weapons this way and improved game play(fire rates) without breaking TT cost function and the interactions between weapons, armor, heat dissipation. Heat neutrality is paid for in tonnage and results in lower damage output.

1- Not using the method I posted is the first balancing mistake PGI made 2 years ago and we are living with the consequences and band aid fixes. It’s also the first reason why auto cannons are so out of whack.
2 -The game doesn’t need a heat capacity system – the shutdown mechanic was interpreted wrong its 30+ heat for 10 continuous seconds not a 30+ heat spike. If this is an issue it can be changed to 30+ heat for a 15 second duration. Heat neutrality is paid for in tonnage and results in lower damage output. Lower damage output make for more meaning full game play.
3 – Embrace convergence fully by adding in COF versions of existing direct fire weapons the fire as long as the trigger is pulled. Then let the players decide what to use.
The all or nothing super concentrated alpha or the heat efficient higher damage output but spread over an area version.
4- Above all else the names for the weapon must be changed. The damage values need to be removed. It’s causing way too much confusion.

Edited by Tombstoner, 18 December 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Prezimonto]

If ammo had something like 3HP or less I'd be much happier with the state of AC's. They'd actually be dangerous to take if you wanted to pack enough tons of ammo to last a match OR you'd have to take case and a standard engine to really protect yourself.

If BAP, or some information warfare would actually allow certain mechs to find out where you're put your components I'd like it even more.

Even if AC's dropped their damage over 0.5 seconds instead of instant it would be a lot better as well.

[Karl Streiger]

Tombstoner, on 18 December 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

1- Not using the method I posted is the first balancing mistake PGI made 2 years ago and we are living with the consequences and band aid fixes. It’s also the first reason why auto cannons are so out of whack.
2 -The game doesn’t need a heat capacity system – the shutdown mechanic was interpreted wrong its 30+ heat for 10 continuous seconds not a 30+ heat spike. If this is an issue it can be changed to 30+ heat for a 15 second duration. Heat neutrality is paid for in tonnage and results in lower damage output. Lower damage output make for more meaning full game play.
3 – Embrace convergence fully by adding in COF versions of existing direct fire weapons the fire as long as the trigger is pulled. Then let the players decide what to use.
The all or nothing super concentrated alpha or the heat efficient higher damage output but spread over an area version.
4- Above all else the names for the weapon must be changed. The damage values need to be removed. It’s causing way too much confusion.

So basically - the MechCommander Gold(1) / Mechwarrior 4 approach?

So the 4th point becomes extremely important.
The Light Autocannon -> should be comparable with a Large Laser
(trading range for pure damage)
I still would add multiple range brackets with differend slopes of damage drop off
So for example
the Large Laser deals 16 dmg in 20 seconds - at ranges up to 450m with damage drop off till 900m
and the Light AC deals 8 dmg at ranges up to 720m - and a damage drop off till 2160m

If you reduce the range for the Light AC (double effective range)
The Light AC must deal 10dmg till 720m and drop off till 1440m

So how could that look like?
With a beam duration of 1second the Large Laser recycle after 4sec
one shot each 5sec with 4dmg each (at effective range)

To reflect the DOT damage the Light AC should use an really high RoF
So 0.26 dmg every 0.66 seconds
Alternative Version 0.26 dmg every 0.52 seconds

Question remains - would this be enough to reduce high Alpha Builds -> you will need more shots -> more shots mean you don't aim that carefully (you know you can take the heat/ammunition consumption) -> the ability to land multiple shots in the same region more as once - will also increase the gap between veterans and rookies.

However - is still would keep the option of changing the armor distribution in the backhand.

[Tombstoner]

Karl Streiger, on 19 December 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

Question remains - would this be enough to reduce high Alpha Builds -> you will need more shots -> more shots mean you don't aim that carefully (you know you can take the heat/ammunition consumption) -> the ability to land multiple shots in the same region more as once - will also increase the gap between veterans and rookies.

However - is still would keep the option of changing the armor distribution in the backhand.

The only way i see to balance out high damage alphas in a meaningful way is to give players a choice and add in burst fire COF vertions of existing direct fire weapons and to use location specific armor coefficients. what theses values become needs to be determined in what i call a gunnery range. then modified by data mining generated from game play.

The interaction between skill based targeting and target speed and size is not quantified in MWO and had no relevance in TT.
the skill needed to hit a spider with direct fire is considerably more then an atlas at any range. it affects the mechs over all durability/survivability disproportionately in a way that's unique to live action pc games. This needs to be quantified, other wise mech art becomes a factor in survivability -please see the aswome, kintarto and others - making lots of headaches for PGI to balance.

The gunnery range collects data on hit frequency and location for a variety of mechas under as many conditions as possible.
a spider moving fast at long range and you hope to just hit it. the atlas and you start to pick the spot you want to shoot.
once calculated you can build a modle and see how easy it is to hit the atlas CT and maybe assign it a co-factor of 2. effectively doubling armor for that location. 1.5 for the L/R-T and 1.2 for the arms 1 for the rear. the spider would be a 1over all, no reason to gimp it unnecessarily. but theses values would come from hit frequency and locations: 1 being the minimum.

mech specific armor coefficient derived from real targeting data. is the only way i can see to balance out speed-size interactions. as a consequence it would breath new life into mediums. since there speed is not suficant to grant them the same protection as lights and they lack the armor to counter the incoming firepower. if its corrected for things change.

I would like to add the effective co factor would be dependent on the mechs top speed and thus engine size. bigger engines = lower co factors.

[SpiralRazor]

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

BT ran almost 30 years, giving a lot of time to work out balance issues to get the relative strengths and weaknesses between weapons worked out. BT firing speeds were all the same, once per 10 sec, and the balance between weapons was based on heat and damage only. By changing the firing speeds, the balance between the direct fire weapons, energy and ballistic, was severely disrupted.

This is not about making all the weapons the same.. Both ballistics and energy weapons had their “apex” weapons, but they were balanced against each other by the 10 sec. turn. By altering that “firing” speed asymmetrically across those weapons, while trying to maintain the same or close to the same damage per shot,, radically altered the relative damage capabilities of each weapon.

Let’s start with the data:



The above chart shows what happened by changing the firing speeds in the way PGI did. What is important in this chart is the change in relationships between the weapons. Weapon balance in BT was damage per turn, and the relative strengths of those weapons was based on that. By changing that relationship, as with any closed dynamic system, you throw the process out of balance.

Example, the BT data has the DPS of the AC5 being 1/2 the PPC and ERPPC, which is as it should be, 5 damage vs. 10 damage in 10 seconds. But in the MWO data, the AC5 has a damage output of 1.332x that of the PPC/ERPPC.

The most obvious result are the ACs. AC10 and LB 10X quadrupled it’s damage output, AC5 and UAC5(not counting double shot) 7 times the damage output. The big winner here is the AC2, at over 19 times the damage, and the big loser for ballistics, AC20, at only 2.5 times the damage output.

Compare that to the energy weapons, the highest was SPL at 4.133, the SL at 3.133, and the LPL at 3.05 times the damage, with everything else less than 3 times. But, heat dissipation rates remain the same as in BT, excepting external DHS, which are less than BT at 1.4 heat/10sec instead of 2.0 heat/10 sec.

• -Ballistic firing speeds average at 2.36sec, or 4.24 times faster than BT, with average damage of 8.39, and an average heat of 2.14 .
  
• -Energy weapons firing speeds average 3.14 sec, or 3.19 faster than BT, with average damage of 6.67, and an average heat of 6.34 .

Even though the heat reservoir is increased from TT, the heat dissipation of DHS external to the engine has been severely nerfed at 1.4 heat/10 sec. In addition, the dissipation rate has remained the same for SHS and engine DHS,0 .1 and 0.2 heat respectively. So an engine with 10 internal DHS has a heat rating of 50, but it is only shedding 2 heat per sec.


As stated above, ballistic average 2.14 heat per second. With a heat reservoir of 50, doing 2.14 heat/sec, but shedding 2.0 heat/sec, that’s a net difference of 0.14 heat/sec. Over 357 shots. Energy weapons average 6.34 heat/sec, so the net difference there in 4.34 heat per sec. that’s 11.52 shots.

ACs, with lower heat, can fire 4 times faster and still not cap out the heat, but energy weapons firing barely over 3 times faster cannot, because the average heat for energy is 3 times greater than for ballistics, and the heat dissipation rates remain based on the 10 sec TT turn. Heat generation went up, but dissipation remained the same.

Ballistics fire on average 1.33 times faster with an average of 1.26 times more damage, than energy weapons. If you ratio the differences to bring them in line, in the 2.36 average firing time, energy weapons average 4.76 damage, vs 8.39 of ballistics. Thats half the damage in the same amount of time, on average.

Ballistics need to be balanced with other weapon systems. More heat and slower firing times to bring them back more in line with BT precedence. A quick fix would be to bring things back to the same relative values in TT.

If it fires 4 times faster than TT, have it generate 1/4 damage and 1/4 of the heat. Hard cap heat at 30, make DHS dissipate at 2.0 instead of 1.4. That would bring things back into the same relative balance from TT, and that that point, you look at armor and heat cap for mechs.

Could easily have kept the original armor amounts from BT, instead of having to had to double them, boating high heat/high alpha builds would never had been possible, and high alpha builds in general would not produce anywhere near the same damage output we currently see, making damage over time a more viable option, and truly making MWO more of a “thinking man’s shooter”.

This all would be obvious to a lobotomized chimp, and should have stood out like a sore thumb to PGI. In reality, ballistics have always been OP in MWO, but it took severely nerfing the energy suite to make it so visible.


Associated threads:
http://mwomercs.com/...34#entry2815834
http://mwomercs.com/...77#entry2774277
http://mwomercs.com/...35#entry2771535

MUSTRUMRIDCULLY's Weapon Balance Thread:http://mwomercs.com/...78#entry2829078

I read your wall of text...and i am familiar with Ridcullys stuff..

But none of this makes a shitload of difference when the real Warfare stuff is implemented vs basically gang dueling like we have now. Ammo conservation in death match is rendered pretty much meaningless, as to win it, you only need to inflict 30% casualties before the other side does.

The builds you see now will be reduced in longer scenario engagements.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Current ballistic weapons have both solid Damage, along with a high rate of fire that scales high when grouped. Once a player gets a feel for the weapons, they can easily dish out a lot of pain quickly. So, I'd like to have more of a tradeoff with the two while keeping options available to the player.

I was thinking that we could explore keeping some ballistics fully auto as they are, but reducing their damage; also looking to make them fire in bursts is another option, while also keeping variants keep their current high damage but with a longer cooldown and a need to pull the trigger for each shot sorta like semi auto.

Here's a table showing some example of what I'd like to test out for ballistic weapons.

Spoiler

Also included one for energy that has an alternative burst style for PPCs, while also giving lasers a slight boost and a possible boost for Pulse Lasers:

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 19 December 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Varent]

In general its hard to equate dps in this game due to the inherit risk of it being a shooter. DPS was a system designed to equate MMO'S overall damage to a raid boss. It does not take into account the concepts of taking damage since its assumed you have a healer to keep you going.

MWO is a game in which you are or at least should be punished for staying on target and exposing yourself. Thus While dps is a great statistic to look at for a short basis its not something you can fully equate into this game and point to it as a balancing issue.

Example.

AC2- is one of the highest dps weapons in the game. However if requires you to stay on target to deal this damage.
AC20-is one of the lowest dps in the game. However it lets you fire a single round to gain 5 times the damage of the ac2 and directs it in one area.

To gain the same damage as an ac20 you have to hold the ac2 onto an area for at least 10 shots, roughly 8 seconds. During this time you are exposing yourself to fire from the enemy.

Using an AC20 you can fire and then twist your torso to protect yourself from returing fire. Only exposing yourself when you need to.

Shooters dont really revolve around the concept of dps as much as people think. You can throw numbers out there as much as you like and although sometimes they may work, when you go against players that truly know how to play this game they mean very little.

[MustrumRidcully]

SpiralRazor, on 19 December 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

I read your wall of text...and i am familiar with Ridcullys stuff..

But none of this makes a shitload of difference when the real Warfare stuff is implemented vs basically gang dueling like we have now. Ammo conservation in death match is rendered pretty much meaningless, as to win it, you only need to inflict 30% casualties before the other side does.

The builds you see now will be reduced in longer scenario engagements.

Who is to say that there will even be longer scenarios?

What kind of longer scenarios? No rearm, but still repair between engagements? WOuldn't that be strange? Or neither repair and rearm? But then, I don#t need ammo for mechs that died last match.

The table top fluff notes that ammo can pose a supply problem, but it ignores that the same is true for spare parts, and that you need a lot of spare parts after a non-one-sided-stomp battle.

[Tombstoner]

Varent, on 19 December 2013 - 08:18 AM, said:

In general its hard to equate dps in this game due to the inherit risk of it being a shooter. DPS was a system designed to equate MMO'S overall damage to a raid boss. It does not take into account the concepts of taking damage since its assumed you have a healer to keep you going.

MWO is a game in which you are or at least should be punished for staying on target and exposing yourself. Thus While dps is a great statistic to look at for a short basis its not something you can fully equate into this game and point to it as a balancing issue.

Example.

AC2- is one of the highest dps weapons in the game. However if requires you to stay on target to deal this damage.
AC20-is one of the lowest dps in the game. However it lets you fire a single round to gain 5 times the damage of the ac2 and directs it in one area.

To gain the same damage as an ac20 you have to hold the ac2 onto an area for at least 10 shots, roughly 8 seconds. During this time you are exposing yourself to fire from the enemy.

Using an AC20 you can fire and then twist your torso to protect yourself from returing fire. Only exposing yourself when you need to.

Shooters dont really revolve around the concept of dps as much as people think. You can throw numbers out there as much as you like and although sometimes they may work, when you go against players that truly know how to play this game they mean very little.

When balancing weapons for a game system that uses tonnage and space, they need to be included.
the ac 2- has a dps/ton value of .6 the ac-20 has a dps/ton value of .4. when building a mech these values affect what gets taken and a mechs combat utility. hard point arrangement is extremely important and not really included in mech design or weapons balance.
so some mecha can mount 3 ac-2's for 4 more tones then 2 ac-20's and in one section. then consider DPS/tone and the ac-2 beats the other 3 auto cannons. when tonnage and space are no longer an issue the ac-2 clearly wins. This is broken.

Edited by Tombstoner, 24 December 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Zyllos]

Prezimonto, on 18 December 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

If ammo had something like 3HP or less I'd be much happier with the state of AC's. They'd actually be dangerous to take if you wanted to pack enough tons of ammo to last a match OR you'd have to take case and a standard engine to really protect yourself.

If BAP, or some information warfare would actually allow certain mechs to find out where you're put your components I'd like it even more.

Even if AC's dropped their damage over 0.5 seconds instead of instant it would be a lot better as well.

It's not that they have 10HP, it's that they only have a 10% chance of exploding, regardless if it was done by destroying the section or getting enough critical hit damage to break the ammo slot.

10%!!!...where is the danger in this?