388 replies to this topic

[GalaxyBluestar]

what is the trade off exactly between heatsinks for ammo vs ammo?

3 crit slots and 1 ton vs number of shots per ton.

so if you want to be able to shoot 80 damage over a particular length of time, who's going to win? the energy mech whose run out of slots trying to make DHS count or the ballistic mech who gets on slots in the engines which is enough to contain heat weapons and then only has to worry about case and tonnage for ammo storage which for ac 10 is 45 shots for 3 slots compared to 1 DHS. and it only gets better for the ac5's with many more shots and range and the cooldowns to reach 10-20 damage over the same time as lasers which are hitscan scrapers...

i'll let a mathmatician show exactly how better a ballistic build is compared to energy, but it's looking obvious in the forums and in the game. spreadsheet warriors are at best ballancing out the ammo dependancy to energy punch/heat cripple ratio. hense the duo builds are reigning. seems obvious what's happened with GH and that it's highlighted real problems. hitboxes, hitdetection/HSR, free and forever pinpoint damage etc. no need to carry on the chain of nerf onto ac's but alot of fixes and rollbacks are needed.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 07 November 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Sandpit]

AC/10 7 slots 12.0 tons 3 heat
min 1 ton ammo = 15 shots + 1 more slot plus danger of ammo explosion = damage to mech and/or rendering weapon useless in combat.
Must lead shots and account for bullet drop but does pinpoint damage

Total with ammo = 8 slots 13 tons


Large Laser 2 slots 5 tons 7 heat no ammo for the same amount of slots and less weight I can also include 2 DHS or, for the same slots, I can add 6 HS for less weight for equivalent damage
No lead time needed for shots but damage can get spread as damage is done over the entire firing time.

Total with 3 DHS = 8 slots and 7 tons
Total with 6 HS = 8 slots and 8 tons

We won't bother going into the trade-off you can make from the lower tonnage of being able to drop in a bigger engine and possibly adding in extra heat sinks from that alone to help offset heat without taking up any extra slots.

If you can't see where the trade off is then you just don't want to see it. There's a trade-off. There's a tactical advantage and disadvantage for each type of weapon. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't simply look at damage production or heat production when you compare completely different weapon systems. This is exactly what I mean when I say you choose to only give a small section of the overall picture so that it strengthens your view on the subject. When you look at the totality of it without bias there are clearly trade-offs

[darkchylde]

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Again, this is opinion based on data that shows ballistics have trade-offs with energy weapons such as weight and crit slots and is also seen by the choices of mechs that people pilot, along with weapon loadouts

See how this works? It's opinion based on factual evidence.

If everything you said was factual (including your opinion on loadouts and such) we would never see anything but ballistic weapons. Because it's not factual we see a variety of weapons and loadouts from all weapon classes.

Again this is your opinion. The data is clear and to the point and we don't see a variety of weapons or loadouts. The last mech I saw running an erppc was several months ago and he was ripped apart. He was able to fire twice though before getting creamed by ac 2 fire. The last mech I saw running an ER laser was several weeks ago, and I have yet to see any mech try to run more than a few pulse lasers. However, I do see several people running AC's of every size, and combination possible, boating away happily with little to no concern from ammo counts, heat system, or the dreaded ghost heat which only hampers energy weapons, I have yet too shutdown from alpha striking dual ac20's and triple ac2's but I see mechs with energy weapons shutting down consistently. Balance has to be addressed for all and not a select few.

Edited by darkchylde, 07 November 2013 - 08:25 PM.

[Sandpit]

darkchylde, on 07 November 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

Again this is your opinion. The data is clear and to the point and we don't see a variety of weapons or loadouts. The last mech I saw running an erppc was several months ago and he was ripped apart. He was able to fire twice though before getting creamed by ac 2 fire. The last mech I saw running an ER laser was several weeks ago, and I have yet to see any mech try to run more than a few pulse lasers. However, I do see several people running AC's of every size, and combination possible, boating away happily with little to no concern from ammo counts, heat system, or the dreaded ghost heat which only hampers energy weapons, I have yet too shutdown from alpha striking dual ac20's and triple ac2's but I see mechs with energy weapons shutting down consistently. Balance has to be addressed for all and not a select few.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand yet again, you completely, totally, utterly, and unsurprisingly ignore the entire list I just wrote out showing you all of the trade-offs. It's ok though, anyone who looks at it in an unbiased manner can see. More importantly I'm sure that the devs take the big picture into account when they make balancing decisions like this.

[XphR]

Wheaponz, ivarybuddy iz uzin dem, whaaaa??!!

[darkchylde]

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand yet again, you completely, totally, utterly, and unsurprisingly ignore the entire list I just wrote out showing you all of the trade-offs. It's ok though, anyone who looks at it in an unbiased manner can see. More importantly I'm sure that the devs take the big picture into account when they make balancing decisions like this.

And once again you mirror your own statement. It's quite clear your biased, I suggest you take a step back and see things from both sides.

[Sandpit]

darkchylde, on 07 November 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

And once again you mirror your own statement. It's quite clear your biased, I suggest you take a step back and see things from both sides.

I suggest you do more than quote a selected paragraph as opposed to the entire statement that shows all of the trade-offs. THAT'S bias. Not once have you acknowledged the detailed post or factual evidence concerning all of the trade-offs and values. You won't acknowledge or quote those because they do show a trade-off but it's inconvenient to your opinion so as many others on here tend to do, you state your opinion as fact and completely ignore anything that disputes your factual opinionated views and statements

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

AC/10 7 slots 12.0 tons 3 heat
min 1 ton ammo = 15 shots + 1 more slot plus danger of ammo explosion = damage to mech and/or rendering weapon useless in combat.
Must lead shots and account for bullet drop but does pinpoint damage

Total with ammo = 8 slots 13 tons


Large Laser 2 slots 5 tons 7 heat no ammo for the same amount of slots and less weight I can also include 2 DHS or, for the same slots, I can add 6 HS for less weight for equivalent damage
No lead time needed for shots but damage can get spread as damage is done over the entire firing time.

Total with 3 DHS = 8 slots and 7 tons
Total with 6 HS = 8 slots and 8 tons

We won't bother going into the trade-off you can make from the lower tonnage of being able to drop in a bigger engine and possibly adding in extra heat sinks from that alone to help offset heat without taking up any extra slots.

So please darkchylde, show me how that quote doesn't explain and show the trade-offs between energy and ballistics? Stop ignoring this if you're going to take a stance at least look like more than a typical forum troll ignoring factual evidence that disputes your opinion based on factual evidence.

[mirrimon]

From my personal stats I fire my large lasers on average 67 times per game (due to heat, I run as hot as I can without shutdown) on my 4 llaser mech. It has 10 extra DHS with 2 in engine slots.

30t + 32crit slots
My lb10x mech runs 2 lb10x+5t of ammo giving it more than 67 shots (75).

27t + 17 crit slots (really 24t + 31 crit slots due to endo steel that my 4llaser mech can not use)

The lb10x does more damage per shot (though the llaser can technically shoot 4times per trigger pull in this setup), costs less t and less crit.

My llaser do 5.2 damage per shot average and my lb10x do 8 damage per shot average(even with spread), making them much closer than the raw stats suggest.

Edited by mirrimon, 07 November 2013 - 09:07 PM.

[Wolfways]

Average game for me in my JM6-S (2xAC2, 2xAC5, 10tons of ammo, 2xML only used on the very rare occasion i run out of ammo) = Multiple kills, highest match score, highest damage (800+). I only alpha fire my AC's, overheating in around 15 seconds. I can kill any mech in about 10 seconds. Need to find cover to cool down between 1-on-1 fights.

A game like that in any of my other mechs (current "main use mechs" are CPLT-K3, STK-3F, RVN-3L, CPLT-C1) is so rare that it's probably less than a dozen per mech since closed beta.
In fact, if i go 1-on-1 in any of those mechs with an AC-heavy enemy i'm dead 90% of the time.

Bullet drop/target leading? Practically nonexistent.
Anyone who has played any fps will tell you that these game mechanics are nothing compared to those in other games. I'd say in MWO leading a target at even 1000m+ is about as difficult as keeping a laser on a target at the same range.

Ammo vs. heat sinks?
Ammo - 1ton and 1 crit. Able to carry enough for an entire match in which you can fire at extreme range (AC2/5) and shred targets at short range (all AC's).
DHS - 1ton and 3 crits. Crit slot use negates the possibility of using Endo/Ferro and even without those modifications it is still impossible to fit enough DHS to continuously fire energy weapons for even short periods.
Long range fighting = firing while hiding between shots to cool down (large energy weapons).
Short range fighting = fire a few times then wait for heat to dissipate while being shot to pieces by the AC mech that doesn't need to cool down (any energy weapon size, the bigger the weapon the longer the wait).

Ammo explosions are so rare because there are no through-armour crits in MWO that i never notice them. By the time there's a chance i'll get one my mech is so badly damaged that i'm close to destroyed anyway.

My wife hated the idea of leading targets until i got her to try AC's on her CTF-4X (her rarely-used gauss sniper).
Now the JM6-S is her main mech (same weapons as mine minus ML's for a bit extra ammo) and is her "best" mech by far.
Her match results are similar to mine (on average probably better ).

The only mech either of us ever fear facing is another AC-heavy mech.

These are the "facts" as they pertain to my gameplay.

[3endless8oogie]

Is it just me or is it hilarious people still think ac´s are balanced ?
I mean seriously in every match the guys with ac loadout get the most damage and most kills.
The guys with lasers, ppc or missiles are just cannonfodder running for cover

Throwing numbers and stats around and trying to tell us ac´s have a drawback or are in anyway balanced makes everyone who tries it look somekind of "gaga" because ingame experience just shows they are wrong.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sandpit is correct that it's a choice of trade-offs.
If you disagree with that, you're wrong.

If you disagree with the trade-offs being equal, then you might have a point.

But at a fundamental level:
Ballistics pay "up-front" in the weapons weight and crit slots itself, and you must carry ammo. In exchange, they need less heat sinks.
Energy weapons are "cheap" on their own - they have low weight and crit slots. but you need to pay a lot in heat sinks.

The challenge in balancing ballistics vs energy weapons is gettnig these trade-offs to be fair.

The table top "ideal" example might be AC/10 vs PPC (3025 Tech, no Double Heat Sinks)
PPC: 10 damage at 90-540m every turn, needs about 10 heat sinks to work optimally, total 7+10 = 17 tons.
AC/10: 10 damage at 0-450m everye turn, needs about 3 heat sinks and 2 tons of ammo to work optimally in a typical engagement, total 12+3+2 = 17 tons.
These weapons are roughly equal just looking at this, but unfortunately, in practice the AC/10 has a big disadvantage in the tt, which is ammo explosions. FASA was close here, but not perfect. I guess they thought simulation trumps balance.
And of course, once all the powergaming features got into Table Top, and Level 2 Tech and Clan Tech were introduced, the classic auto-cannons became obsolete, you needed the new kids on the block to compete with double heat sink enabled mechs (Ultra, LBX, Gauss). (At least FASA realized that DHS ruined classic ballistics and introduced new ones, still I have a great distaste for the power creep.)

Anyway, back to the world of mechwarrior online.
The fundamental nature of the trade-offs is still the same. Energy weapons need more heat sinks. Ballistics need ammo and are heavier and bulkier.
Are the trade-offs still fair? Does the extra weight ballistics pay for the weapn and ammo equal to the extra weight of heat sinks required? What about pinpoint damage, convergence and all that?

That's something you can discuss.

The heat/heat sinks/ammo aspect of the discussion I tried to cover with a mathematical model, but for the convergence/pinpoint aspect I lack the necessary mathematical equipment and statistics to help us (without wanting to claim that my mathematical models for the heat/ammo/weight component are perfect, but as long as no one else bothers performing and sharing such an analysis...)
At least that aspect suggests that the low range energy weapons can be competitive to ballistics, but at longer ranges, ballistics tend to dominate, especially the longer the fight goes.

Spoiler

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2013 - 01:39 AM.

[Galenit]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 November 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

The table top "ideal" example might be AC/10 vs PPC (3025 Tech, no Double Heat Sinks)
PPC: 10 damage at 90-540m every turn, needs about 10 heat sinks to work optimally, total 7+10 = 17 tons.
AC/10: 10 damage at 0-450m everye turn, needs about 3 heat sinks and 2 tons of ammo to work optimally in a typical engagement, total 12+3+2 = 17 tons.

We need 14 instead of 10 dhs for the same effect (just the relation of 10 dhs tt/mwo, not the dhs needed to cool a ppc)
the 2 tons of ammo are 30 shells instead of 20
the range of 540m is 1080, but the range of 450 has growen to 1350m,
and our ammo nearly never explodes.

As posted above:
2x range for ballistics instead of 3 times,
only 1x (maybe only 1/2) the tt ammo,
35% explosion chance for ammo.
But let them keep their high dps.

Edited by Galenit, 08 November 2013 - 02:06 AM.

[Ziogualty]

Not a veteran, but they could solve the problem if lasers do (let's say) 75% of their actual total damage on contact, plus a 40% (just a slight damage buff of +15%) till the beam ends.

SO it could be effective and working very similar to ballistic, but if you are an ace and keep the beam for all the duration, you will be rewarded with some extra damage.

I think Energy weapons have a little drawback because who's firing them is more spottable than a ballistic one, so who dares to keep the beam for all duration on target must be rewarded for the risks it takes.
If you want just to hit and cover like a ballistic, you can be safe at last 75% of the damage goes to target.

Edited by Attank, 08 November 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Galenit, on 08 November 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

[/size]
We need 14 instead of 10 dhs for the same effect (just the relation of 10 dhs tt/mwo, not the dhs needed to cool a ppc)

not sure what you mean here - if you wanted the PPC to be heat neutral, I think it's 12.5 DHS or 25 SHS. But you might not need to be heat neutral anymore, since you suffer no heat penalties. That's what my math is taking into account.

The increased heat (and damage) generation and the lack of heat penalties make analyzing the real impact of the changes harder. Which is agian, what I am trying to model in the thread in my signature and results in the quoted chart.

Quote

the 2 tons of ammo are 30 shells instead of 20

But against doubled armor values.

Quote

the range of 540m is 1080, but the range of 450 has growen to 1350m,

Yes, that is also an important aspect. It's dangerous to use the full range value, because you really don't want to spend ammo to deal just 2 points of damage with an AC/10, but dealing 10 damage at 540m with an AC/20 for exapmle can be acceptable, and of course, due to the way mouse aiming operates, fighting beyond 800m range can be pretty ineffective even ignoring projectile speeds.

Quote

and our ammo nearly never explodes.

Yes, but as I mentioned, the ammo explosion thnigy was smoethnig that made the AC/10 (and all ammo-based weapons basically) inferior to their energy type competitors.

Quote

As posted above:
2x range for ballistics instead of 3 times

That's something I tend to agree with.

Quote

only 1x (maybe only 1/2) the tt ammo

This definitely is something I disagree with.

Quote

35% explosion chance for ammo.

I would prefer a very reliable ammo explosion chance, but a much lower damage, so it's a mitigatable threat. Maybe the explosion chance should depend on the amount of ammo left (90 % to 0 %), and the damage is always equal to the damage of a single projectile (or maybe two.) Than a half full AC/20 ammo bin might have a 45 % chance to explode in your face for 40 damage. But never a situation where your MG ammo explode and your entire mech is ruined. That was just dumb in the TT. It's a pure luck mechanic that is not conductive to good gampelay IMO.

Quote

But let them keep their high dps.

Mayhaps.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[The Justicar]

Rasc4l, on 07 November 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Mathematically, you are clueless. Please don't use the word if you don't know what it means. The points why ballistics are currently fine have been covered over and over:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2817626

Couple of take home messages from that to you, exchange "hard data" with mathematics in this sentence:

""Hard" data can easily be misleading due to false assumptions so please don't try to exclude factors outside your assumptions with "hard data is the truth" argument."

"You are basically wanting to balance things based on how things go in the first 5 minutes of the match."

EDIT: fixed link

Still not clear on how saying AC's are mathematically superior (in terms of DPS) to energy weapons and functionally superior (in terms of pinpoint damage) to all but PPC's is an incorrect statement. The numbers are very clearly on my side. You can't shift the topic to some other argument with someone else to suit you here and then call me "clueless." Red Herrings are first-year college stunts, nice try.

AC5 vs LPLas DPS:
3.33 > 2.75

AC5 requires 7 heat sinks to be neutral (in other words, 1 AC5 is by default heat neutral)
LPLas requires 23 heat sinks to be neutral (impossible to build viably)

As long as you have ammo, your weapons are superior to all missiles and all energy weapons.

Math.

AC/2's should not out-dps PPC's. If you cannot see this simple fact, you are blind.

Ammo cannot be considered a balancing factor [by itself] because it isn't guaranteed to affect calculations, whereas heat IS. You can die with unspent ammo, or lose your weapon, or you can finish the game with rounds to spare. Energy weapons? Heat is always there, so not only are you doing lower max DPS than your AC wielding opponent, but you also have to manage your heat! There needs to be something more than ammo to balance ballistics. For instance: cycle time or accuracy nerfs.

Logic.

Edited by The Justicar, 08 November 2013 - 02:38 AM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

AC/10 7 slots 12.0 tons 3 heat
min 1 ton ammo = 15 shots + 1 more slot plus danger of ammo explosion = damage to mech and/or rendering weapon useless in combat.
Must lead shots and account for bullet drop but does pinpoint damage

Total with ammo = 8 slots 13 tons


Large Laser 2 slots 5 tons 7 heat no ammo for the same amount of slots and less weight I can also include 2 DHS or, for the same slots, I can add 6 HS for less weight for equivalent damage
No lead time needed for shots but damage can get spread as damage is done over the entire firing time.

Total with 3 DHS = 8 slots and 7 tons
Total with 6 HS = 8 slots and 8 tons

We won't bother going into the trade-off you can make from the lower tonnage of being able to drop in a bigger engine and possibly adding in extra heat sinks from that alone to help offset heat without taking up any extra slots.

If you can't see where the trade off is then you just don't want to see it. There's a trade-off. There's a tactical advantage and disadvantage for each type of weapon. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't simply look at damage production or heat production when you compare completely different weapon systems. This is exactly what I mean when I say you choose to only give a small section of the overall picture so that it strengthens your view on the subject. When you look at the totality of it without bias there are clearly trade-offs

very good... so why are there more ac's being fielded and more ac boats than laser ones? skill, expenses, not enough good laser chassis available? the jester was a boost but most people would agree you see more dakka than pew pew on the field.

please explain why these are common experiences:

Spoiler

mirrimon, on 07 November 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

From my personal stats I fire my large lasers on average 67 times per game (due to heat, I run as hot as I can without shutdown) on my 4 llaser mech. It has 10 extra DHS with 2 in engine slots.

30t + 32crit slots
My lb10x mech runs 2 lb10x+5t of ammo giving it more than 67 shots (75).

27t + 17 crit slots (really 24t + 31 crit slots due to endo steel that my 4llaser mech can not use)

The lb10x does more damage per shot (though the llaser can technically shoot 4times per trigger pull in this setup), costs less t and less crit.

My llaser do 5.2 damage per shot average and my lb10x do 8 damage per shot average(even with spread), making them much closer than the raw stats suggest.

Spoiler

Wolfways, on 07 November 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

Average game for me in my JM6-S (2xAC2, 2xAC5, 10tons of ammo, 2xML only used on the very rare occasion i run out of ammo) = Multiple kills, highest match score, highest damage (800+). I only alpha fire my AC's, overheating in around 15 seconds. I can kill any mech in about 10 seconds. Need to find cover to cool down between 1-on-1 fights.

A game like that in any of my other mechs (current "main use mechs" are CPLT-K3, STK-3F, RVN-3L, CPLT-C1) is so rare that it's probably less than a dozen per mech since closed beta.
In fact, if i go 1-on-1 in any of those mechs with an AC-heavy enemy i'm dead 90% of the time.

Bullet drop/target leading? Practically nonexistent.
Anyone who has played any fps will tell you that these game mechanics are nothing compared to those in other games. I'd say in MWO leading a target at even 1000m+ is about as difficult as keeping a laser on a target at the same range.

Ammo vs. heat sinks?
Ammo - 1ton and 1 crit. Able to carry enough for an entire match in which you can fire at extreme range (AC2/5) and shred targets at short range (all AC's).
DHS - 1ton and 3 crits. Crit slot use negates the possibility of using Endo/Ferro and even without those modifications it is still impossible to fit enough DHS to continuously fire energy weapons for even short periods.
Long range fighting = firing while hiding between shots to cool down (large energy weapons).
Short range fighting = fire a few times then wait for heat to dissipate while being shot to pieces by the AC mech that doesn't need to cool down (any energy weapon size, the bigger the weapon the longer the wait).

Ammo explosions are so rare because there are no through-armour crits in MWO that i never notice them. By the time there's a chance i'll get one my mech is so badly damaged that i'm close to destroyed anyway.

My wife hated the idea of leading targets until i got her to try AC's on her CTF-4X (her rarely-used gauss sniper).
Now the JM6-S is her main mech (same weapons as mine minus ML's for a bit extra ammo) and is her "best" mech by far.
Her match results are similar to mine (on average probably better ).

The only mech either of us ever fear facing is another AC-heavy mech.

These are the "facts" as they pertain to my gameplay.

why?

edit: would you please adress the Uac5 and ac5 because those stats are the balance tipper, the ac10 isn't the top gun and true problem child, so stop focussing on it and deliberatly ignoring the more superior ac! for sure you have to aim it twice but it can score 10 damge in the same time a LL can over a greater range with 1.5 cooldown vs 3.25. and that's 10 dmg vs 9. i've bolded the weapons in the examples because they have greater range less slots and tonnage to use than your convenient ac10 examples. do your sums again please.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 08 November 2013 - 02:56 AM.

[Rasc4l]

The Justicar, on 08 November 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Still not clear on how saying AC's are mathematically superior (in terms of DPS) to energy weapons and functionally superior (in terms of pinpoint damage) to all but PPC's is an incorrect statement. The numbers are very clearly on my side. You can't shift the topic to some other argument with someone else to suit you here and then call me "clueless." Red Herrings are first-year college stunts, nice try.

AC5 vs LPLas DPS:
3.33 > 2.75

AC5 requires 7 heat sinks to be neutral (in other words, 1 AC5 is by default heat neutral)
LPLas requires 23 heat sinks to be neutral (impossible to build viably)

As long as you have ammo, your weapons are superior to all missiles and all energy weapons.

Math.

AC/2's should not out-dps PPC's. If you cannot see this simple fact, you are blind.

You neatly explain above what is exactly wrong with your argument. It is indeed so that ACs out-dps PPCs as you say, no denying the math. The logical fallacy comes from the assumption that there is something wrong with this situation and because Math (=God) shows AC/2 dps > PPC dps, you use this mathematical fact to back your false assumption.

It's a bit like people complaining about how Alpine is horrible to play if you start from the lower base. I mean what makes people think that all maps, weapons and life should be exactly equal? Do you think the clans cried "Nerf Comstar regulars and guerilla tactics!!" after Tukayyid?

Not all weapons are created equal is based on the fact that they will be used differently and have advantages in different situations. Of course, making weapons unequal DOES NOT mean that there should be one above all else like during LRMapocalypse or when PPC heats were much lower.

Like I tried to explain in the earlier posts, ACs have advantage in the beginning of the match when they still have ammo whereas energy weapons' performance is *stable* the whole match. Do you understand how big a deal this is without even going to any ammo tonnage/explosions? It is just as correct to say that "ACs are mathematically superior in the beginning of the match" as it is to say "energy weapons are mathematically superior at the end of the match (because they actually still work)".

The Justicar, on 08 November 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Ammo cannot be considered a balancing factor [by itself] because it isn't guaranteed to affect calculations, whereas heat IS. You can die with unspent ammo, or lose your weapon, or you can finish the game with rounds to spare. Energy weapons? Heat is always there, so not only are you doing lower max DPS than your AC wielding opponent, but you also have to manage your heat! There needs to be something more than ammo to balance ballistics. For instance: cycle time or accuracy nerfs.

Logic.

It is almost beautiful how you manage to disregard all the secondary negative effects caused by ammo. I don't know what would make PPC users appreciate those. How about if we make it so for a week that (ER)PPCs assume 5 tons of ammo with 15 per ton (AC/10 because damage = same). This would make PPCs to have 75 shots after which they stop working. In this imaginary test, the PPC ammo wouldn't even have to have weight or explode, just to have the weapon stop working after a while. Finite number of shots have an immense impact already on the playstyle alone. Unlike with PPCs, I don't usually start shooting with my AC/5 or AC/10 at 700 meters even if it's well in range. I have to think about not wasting ammo on this crappy distance so that I can still do something nearby when they make proper damage etc.

[KinLuu]

Rasc4l, on 08 November 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:

It is almost beautiful how you manage to disregard all the secondary negative effects caused by ammo. I don't know what would make PPC users appreciate those. How about if we make it so for a week that (ER)PPCs assume 5 tons of ammo with 15 per ton (AC/10 because damage = same). This would make PPCs to have 75 shots after which they stop working. In this imaginary test, the PPC ammo wouldn't even have to have weight or explode, just to have the weapon stop working after a while. Finite number of shots have an immense impact already on the playstyle alone. Unlike with PPCs, I don't usually start shooting with my AC/5 or AC/10 at 700 meters even if it's well in range. I have to think about not wasting ammo on this crappy distance so that I can still do something nearby when they make proper damage etc.

True, ammo puts a hardcap on the maximum ammount of damage you can do.

But luckily, the maximum ammount of enemies has a hardcap as well.

Thus it is easy to have more than enough ammo for a match.

[R Razor]

Reduce the AC10 to 9 damage and make it spread its damage over time and you'll have a valid argument, until then............meh.

[Rasc4l]

KinLuu, on 08 November 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

True, ammo puts a hardcap on the maximum ammount of damage you can do.

But luckily, the maximum ammount of enemies has a hardcap as well.

Thus it is easy to have more than enough ammo for a match.

Do you honestly think so? I design my mechs so that they can (in theory), take out at least 3-4 enemies (damagewise, of course I don't manage that usually).


With (S)SRMs and MG, ammo is plentiful and you seldom need more than 1-2 tons.

With LRMs, I never go with less than 2000 ammo, which is already more than 10 tons and usually means that I have to put it to side torsos of the boat with XL engine. So LRMs are basically broken because you have to boat them to make them work but let's not go there now.

With ballistics, the situation is between the two above. I feel that it's like "with great effort, I might manage to have enough ammo".

Example 1: I've recently liked the Shadowhawk 2D2, which I run with XL+2ML+AC/5+4xSSRM2. This build is a killler, a medium mech with all different hardpoints well utilized. The drawback is that I can manage only 2 tons of AC ammo, which is always depleted halfway of the match with streaks soon following just because there's so many of them. But that's the way it's supposed to work and it's fine. If the balance was shifted to the advantage of energy weapons, this would no longer be fine.

Example 2: One of my favorites is of course Atlas DC, which I run with 5 tons of AC/20 ammo. I've found that anything less and I'm at a great disadvantage and even with this, I tend to run out. There are so many 4+ kills + 1000+ damage matches with this build where the final moments of match is a desperate struggle against some PPC/laser wielding enemies. I have my AC/20 ammo depleted and a couple of SRM6 shots left and I'm just with my LL+ML. These moments are great! This is how it's supposed to be. The PPC and energy guys are SUPPOSED to kick my butt at the end of the match after bleeding me dry of ammo. Then, it is their time, not ours (said with Kosh voice). Actually, I think the match time should be increased to 20 minutes. This would highlight the unlimited ammo of energy weapons even more and would be fine. However, changing the current numbers for the weapons would not work.