388 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

If you want more than opinion on whether ACs are OP or not, there is no use in throwing at each other "But heat!" "But ammo and weapon weight!" "but pinpoint!" "but hitscan" or whatever.

You are just repeating the same arguments, but neither of you knows which arguments have more weight. What is the impact of the different trade-offs in play?

Maybe you could ask the devs to make a statistical analysis, seeing if there is a correlation between ballistic weapon use and Elo ranking or win rate.

Or you can try to make a mathematical model that tries to describe typical MW:O engagements between mechs and tries to determine what kind of builds would have an advantage. Trust me, that's difficult. The closest I got is in my signature.

But unless the "OP"ness of something is as obvious as the various LRM apocalypses or the PPC dominance, you won't be able to convince anyone of a different opinion than he already has.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 November 2013 - 01:01 AM.

[RickySpanish]

Sandpit, on 09 November 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Just because you have an opinion on whether the trade-offs are balanced does not mean there aren't trade-offs. My opinion based on all the factual evidence is that they are pretty well balanced.

Your opinion is that they are not. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is your own personal perception of the current mechanic based on the factual evidence.

Just because your opinion is based on factual evidence doesn't make your opinion fact. Your opinion is biased. All opinions are. That's partially what distinguishes the difference between fact and opinion. Facts and truth are facts and truth regardless of interpretation. The truth does not change regardless of opinion, consequences, or inconvenience.


see above

oh, and all day long until it runs out of ammo you mean

Running out of ammo is rarely a problem as long as you make most of it count. It might seem counter intuitive to build the effectiveness of your Mech around something that can run out, but each enemy you face also has a finite amount of hitpoints before they die.

On the other hand, although energy weapons have infinite uses the current game mechanics actually gate those uses to a number usually even more finite than that attributed to a ballistic weapon. This gate is better known as "****** I've overheated, I do wish that Cataphract would overheat too before he shoots my torso off oh no he won't because he has 3 AC 5s with hundreds of rounds of ammo and a pair of large lasers to back him up oh dear I'm dead".

[GalaxyBluestar]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 November 2013 - 01:00 AM, said:

If you want more than opinion on whether ACs are OP or not, there is no use in throwing at each other "But heat!" "But ammo and weapon weight!" "but pinpoint!" "but hitscan" or whatever.

You are just repeating the same arguments, but neither of you knows which arguments have more weight. What is the impact of the different trade-offs in play?

Maybe you could ask the devs to make a statistical analysis, seeing if there is a correlation between ballistic weapon use and Elo ranking or win rate.

Or you can try to make a mathematical model that tries to describe typical MW:O engagements between mechs and tries to determine what kind of builds would have an advantage. Trust me, that's difficult. The closest I got is in my signature.

But unless the "OP"ness of something is as obvious as the various LRM apocalypses or the PPC dominance, you won't be able to convince anyone of a different opinion than he already has.

i think that's the clincher, most metas have bee derived from a chassis or to stacking stuff, in this case it's about secondary weapons and primary weapons and how many are being fielded as such. i know there's more ac's being fielded than lasers with missles coming a close third but only through the trend of loadouts of seen in matches, not necessarily mechs. for sure highlanders or phract 3d's or victors etc are putting ac's first and ppc's second. the most lasers you see are jenners then stalkers then the reletively new battlemster and jester. i just get the feeling the top mechs with the top weapons have a point to make and missles and lasers look like the secondary choice.

still it'll pass in months to come when some other balance pass does something. so as much as i'm convinced ac's are fielded a little too heavy it doesn't really matter in the long run, i'll cope with running second best, done it before and i'll do it again.

[Khobai]

Quote

I disagree with toning the ACs down

So instead of only ACs doing insane damage you want all weapons to do insane damage? Thats even worse...

What the game needs is for most weapons to do mediocre damage. Pinpoint damage weapons like autocannons and PPCs need a huge nerf. PPCs should do splash damage and ACs should fire in bursts.

[Sandpit]

RickySpanish, on 10 November 2013 - 01:29 AM, said:

Running out of ammo is rarely a problem as long as you make most of it count. It might seem counter intuitive to build the effectiveness of your Mech around something that can run out, but each enemy you face also has a finite amount of hitpoints before they die.

On the other hand, although energy weapons have infinite uses the current game mechanics actually gate those uses to a number usually even more finite than that attributed to a ballistic weapon. This gate is better known as "****** I've overheated, I do wish that Cataphract would overheat too before he shoots my torso off oh no he won't because he has 3 AC 5s with hundreds of rounds of ammo and a pair of large lasers to back him up oh dear I'm dead".

That's your opinion on the trade-off, which is fine. You seem to forget that the entire point of me posting a list of trade-offs was that originally it was "There aren't any trade-offs, you're stupid and wrong" and now it's become "These trade-offs are insignificant" which is an opinion based on those trade-offs.

I posted information that disputed the OP and those that were on that bandwagon because all of this factual evidence was being tossed around while players were using those facts to attempt to have their opinion perceived as fact. I gave a list of factual evidence in regards to this. Your opinion on that matter doesn't make your opinion anything more than an opinion. I was merely pointing that out.

x+y = z but that doesn't make your opinion on the equation any more factual just because your opinion is based on facts. Everyone's opinion is based on their personal perception and interpretation of factual evidence. Too many people feel that their opinion is fact if it's based on factual evidence which simply is not true.

I have never once (that I can recall and if I did I apologize) told anyone they were "wrong". Their opinions is the right one for them. That doesn't mean their opinion is "right" either though. Blanket statements of "this weapon is useless" or "Everybody uses nothing but this weapon" ARE, however, wrong. I stand in direct contradiction of those statements so they simply cannot be true because I am part of the player population and I don't adhere to either of those statements.

If a player cannot comprehend the basis of this then they are probably one of the ones making these fallacies in the first place. I've been personally attacked because I stated my opinion and gave factual evidence to contradict the op and others claiming AC's are too OP and the only competitive weapon in the game. If that's your opinion on it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it true for the entire population or the game itself. My opinion is that it's fairly well balanced. Your opinion doesn't have to agree with mine but that doesn't change the fact that there's a whole list of trade-offs between the two weapon systems regardless of your opinion on those trade-offs.

[Commander Binz]

I think i killed the OP with my AC40 Jaeger...

[xengk]

Galenit, on 07 November 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

To much range:
3x range makes ballistics better then most other weapons.
Reduce it to 2x like energy and it would match better,
letting only the gauss, ac2, erppc, erll and lrm do noticeable damage around 1000m.

I like this bit.
Maybe even swap the max range for Ballistic and Energy.
Ballistic for up close face punching and Energy for long range poke war.

Imagine the humble medium laser can hit as far as 810m (same range as AC20). ERPPC will go as far as 2400m, thought for only 1 point of damage due to damage fall off.

AC2 can still hit at 1400m and GR 1300m.
GR will need a buff to effective range from 660m to maybe 800m to be more lethal for mid range sniping.

[MustrumRidcully]

GalaxyBluestar, on 10 November 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

i think that's the clincher, most metas have bee derived from a chassis or to stacking stuff, in this case it's about secondary weapons and primary weapons and how many are being fielded as such. i know there's more ac's being fielded than lasers with missles coming a close third but only through the trend of loadouts of seen in matches, not necessarily mechs. for sure highlanders or phract 3d's or victors etc are putting ac's first and ppc's second. the most lasers you see are jenners then stalkers then the reletively new battlemster and jester. i just get the feeling the top mechs with the top weapons have a point to make and missles and lasers look like the secondary choice.

still it'll pass in months to come when some other balance pass does something. so as much as i'm convinced ac's are fielded a little too heavy it doesn't really matter in the long run, i'll cope with running second best, done it before and i'll do it again.

But of course, consider what an auto-cannon costs you. Even the lightest costs you 6 tons, and you need extra ammo. the heaviest energy weapon sits at 7 tons, and your engine heat sinks come for free (or at least are non-negotiable- you'll have your 10 heat sinks, ammo always costs extra). Of course - once you start installing a ballistic at all (and plenty of mechs have ballistic hard poitns), you can't help but devote a lot of tonnage on ballistics. So how can we really compare these?
And I suspect that if you compare just by weapons mounted, I strongly suspect that medium lasers will win the count and lead to an overall energy weapon dominance in weapon spend. Tonnage-wise, energy weapons alone can't win, because ballistics are so freaking heavy. You'd have to count heat sinks, but every mech has them.

I think it might be more useful, if anything, to see how well energy only mechs fare against mixed loadouts and specialized ("only") ballistic loadouts, possibly compare by weight class. (Because I strongly suspect, based on my own mathematical analysis, that you'll see energy weapons clearly dominate the low weight classes, while ballistics will be crucial in the heavy and assault categories - a direct of the "race-to-heat-threshold" heat system.)

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 10 November 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

So instead of only ACs doing insane damage you want all weapons to do insane damage? Thats even worse...

What the game needs is for most weapons to do mediocre damage. Pinpoint damage weapons like autocannons and PPCs need a huge nerf. PPCs should do splash damage and ACs should fire in bursts.

This depends on the game you want to play. I for one do not want to have a battle of paper cuts. Killing my opponents in a savage rain of firepower/damage is how I have loved playing since the late 70s. Slicing a insane swath of Shock and Awe damage through the ranks of my enemy is euphoric. There are whirling Dervish players who like the graceful Dance of Scars AND there are your 'Hammer of the Gods' Players. A game cannot survive if it is a one trick pony when it comes to fighting. Also in all my fight training over the years, the objective when you have more than one opponent is to defeat each as quickly as possible. Anything less and you are playing smart at all.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 November 2013 - 04:30 AM.

[Galenit]

xengk, on 11 November 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I like this bit.
Maybe even swap the max range for Ballistic and Energy.
Ballistic for up close face punching and Energy for long range poke war.

Imagine the humble medium laser can hit as far as 810m (same range as AC20). ERPPC will go as far as 2400m, thought for only 1 point of damage due to damage fall off.

AC2 can still hit at 1400m and GR 1300m.
GR will need a buff to effective range from 660m to maybe 800m to be more lethal for mid range sniping.

Bring more weapons to over 1000m?
This woud make all missiles obsolente and wont be that much fun on the small maps ...

But 2x 2x 1x will make the ranges consistence:

Longranges around 1000m:
ERPPC / Gauss for pinpoint sniping
ERLL / AC2 for long range dot
LRMS for hitting Hills

Midranges (300-800m):
Most of the ACs and Lasers, LRMs for all types of damage.

Closeranges (0-300m):
AC20 for pinpoint damage
SRM for spread damage
Lasers/MG/Flamer for Dot

This way more weapons come to bear when the fighingline comes closer.

With your 3x energy/ballistic we all would just sit on the hill and snipe for 15 minutes ...

Edited by Galenit, 11 November 2013 - 04:41 AM.

[Dirkdaring]

Commander Binz, on 10 November 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

I think i killed the OP with my AC40 Jaeger...

I probably killed him too with my AC40 Jaeger. And several of the guys I run with with their AC40 Jaegers.

I just wish they would un-nerf gauss rifles.

[HalcyonWhisper]

"What you play better with is irrelevant. Mathematically, ballistics are out of balance" - The Justicar

As much as we can appreciate your mathematical approach. This is warfare, not classroom arithmetic. There are bonuses and tradeoffs to each weapon and category. I do not believe AC's are OP: to mount them, the pilot sacrifices speed, armor, durability(crit weapon,crit ammo - you are useless; vs energy crit DHS... ok so you fire more slowly), limited ammo.

The entire point for the ACs are to output high dmg in short time... Whereas a energy based build keeps on going.

Case: I run a twin PPC raven and consistently outgun your classic AC2/AC5 Jager - He is slow, I am fast: He can't hit me. To say that AC's are OP is a narrow point of view.

I cannot disagree I am not content with the total balance of the available arsenal... but please consider CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS. "AC warrior online" shows a very strong contempt and negativity. so does your "PGI:Ghost Heat is Bad etc"

Edited by HalcyonWhisper, 11 November 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Dirkdaring, on 11 November 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

I probably killed him too with my AC40 Jaeger. And several of the guys I run with with their AC40 Jaegers.

I just wish they would un-nerf gauss rifles.

I do miss using my Gauss Rifle. But looking at Smurfy I noticed what I feel is the real problem with Ballistics is! One AC5 delivers 3.33 DpS BUT an AC10 only delivers 4.00 DpS. That is not a proper escalation. An AC5 should deliver 1/2 the DpS of a AC10 and that should deliver 1/2 as much DpS as an AC20. An Ultra AC5 should deliver between an AC5 and AC10s DpS.

[Voidcrafter]

Ryche, on 06 November 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Is there a reason why MWO has devolved again to ridge humping and low skill kills with high damage pilots thinking they are great... Yes they are boating AC weapons like the AC 2 5 20 or ultra AC 5.

These weapons all fire faster than any other weapons require no time left facing the opponent for a quick snap shot and require little in the way of piloting skills as they mostly stand still from nearly 3 times the range listed on the weapon.

Ballistics need to be toned down in general. The fire times are way to low and the range drop off for damage is ludicrous. If they want the ranges to be what they are they need to list the ranges using the same rating as for energy weapons and have drop off in damage start past optimal range.

Missiles and Energy are not nearly as dangerous as Ballistics in MWO and this needs to be fixed. A mech that is energy based should be just as scary as a Jagger. Also in toning this down mechs would not as say heavies be even more scary than assaults in many cases.

Basically right now if you aren't bringing large caliber ballistics you are hurting you teams chance at winning. This is bad and they should be working on a fix for this.

For me is simple as that:
Ballistics -> they're used mostly for killing large, slow targets as assaults and heavies + some slow moving/silly standing still for way too long mediums.
Anything aside from that stereotype is kinda of an issue, even if you're around the average skill for a pilot.
If you're above it - you could be way more dangerous if you go for poptarting(which is the other meta around - you know).
Yea - I don't kill lights or any sorts of fast mechs hard with ballistics - but I tend to stand behind my claims that I do actually have a quite good aim and "feel" for the game - I can hardly blame the weapons for that.
So if those weapons present such great issue for you that means that on the battlefild there are more people, who drop in to the category of being easy targets aka - assaults and heavies?
Yep. They are.
And I think a game, that has 4 weight chasis and 12 man teams has some issues when 6+(more than half of the team) drops with the same chasis.
Which, in fact, is the chasis that's the most vulnurable toward being hit with ballistics.
And I think a lot of you forget about that too and start blaming the others for being crushed by the weapon, that's supose to be the most effective against you.
Sometimes posts like that makes me feel like I'm the only one around here that don't engage the different loadouts by different ways.
Ballistics? Find a flank, exploit the map cover/openings, DON'T FACEHUG IT unless you got the upper hand/firepower, don't stand still like an ***** etc. etc. etc.
I am more afraid of the LRMs right now, rather than "AC WARRIOR ONLINE"...
And if you think that any pilot, that's aside of the stereotype I described is that easier to hit well... you're wrong in my eyes.
And I would hardly call every single pilot using ballistics "low skill" pilot too - I am using it as my main source of damage since I started playing that game - the hell you want? To fight eachother with whistles and baloons?
And btw - before the PPC nerf and a bit before the PPC hell - I was doing the same damage with my AWS-9M as I was with any sorts of "balanced" ballistic build(aka. - 4xMed Lasers AC20 STD Cata 3D, 2xUAC5s 4xMed Lasers Cata 3D, 2x(U)AC5 + some lasers/missiles Jagger and etc.) that, at least I don't count toward being a "boat".
"The same damage" btw is equal to around 360<-->740-800+(in the good games) back then when the teams were 8 mans.
Ballistics havent changed that much(well.. except the UAC5, sadly...) but energy weapons have - and thus the reason lotta people see how good *were*(and currently ARE) those weapons(ballistics).
And they certainly have drawbacks.

Anyways - my point is - durring that mixed "meta" - FOM poptart builds, LRM boating, boom builds, AC boating... - I doubt that anyone can be 100% certain about if there is or is not a problem with any sort of weapon.
I THINK that PPCs need some love(but not too much - yea - I'm looking at you pepsi stalkers), as the SRMs(a bit more love) and the game would feel way better.
There were times when, you know, when you fought a DDC you reallly had doubts of which side torso you should go for... times where the hunchie 4SP or the zombie cent were considered some serious threat... too bad our current variety of medium mechs didn't catch up with those times huh?
"Mediums are not viable" - bulls... missiles are not.
What does that had to do with the ballistics?
More variety --> more choices --> people are not "forced" to use *something* just cause they lack a choice they previously had --> less people go on boating madness and more people can do builds they like.
I really love SRMs but I would actually put a bigger (A)cannon or more ammo for it rather than counting it would hit(AND actually register that hit) properly for the damage I expect.
I doubt that I'm the only one here with that thoughts in mind.

Nerfing something would only make all the rest *SEEM* better but would NOT fix what's alredy weak.
And one last thing - though I said it already with other words:
weapon with flight time can't hit you if you're not in the location it's supose to hit you know
Oh and yea - I consider myself to be a heavy pilot(meaning - considerably larger, somehow slower target and quite high in the shoot-at-sight priority list) - still... I can't see why all of you have issues with the ACs?

[Joseph Mallan]

HalcyonWhisper, on 11 November 2013 - 04:43 AM, said:

"What you play better with is irrelevant. Mathematically, ballistics are out of balance" - The Justicar

As much as we can appreciate your mathematical approach. This is warfare, not classroom arithmetic. There are bonuses and tradeoffs to each weapon and category. I do not believe AC's are OP: to mount them, the pilot sacrifices speed, armor, durability(crit weapon,crit ammo - you are useless; vs energy crit DHS... ok so you fire more slowly), limited ammo.

The entire point for the ACs are to output high dmg in short time... Whereas a energy based build keeps on going.

Case: I run a twin PPC raven and consistently outgun your classic AC2/AC5 Jager - He is slow, I am fast: He can't hit me. To say that AC's are OP is a narrow point of view.

I cannot disagree I am not content with the total balance of the available arsenal... but please consider CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS. "AC warrior online" shows a very strong contempt and negativity. so does your "PGI:Ghost Heat is Bad etc"

Ans as such there is no such thing as fair play. In War you use what your Government provides, or if you are a resistance fighter you use what you can get our hands on. Which force will have the better weapons?

But Ghost Heat IS stupid.

[Zolaz]

PGI wants AC Warrior Online ... that is why they nerfed everything else with ghost heat.

[R Razor]

Leave AC's the way they are and reduce ammo per ton.

OR

Make AC's spread their damage over time ala Lasers

OR

Be ready to lose customers due to a game mode that only rewards one type of game play.

[Joseph Mallan]

Zolaz, on 11 November 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

PGI wants AC Warrior Online ... that is why they nerfed everything else with ghost heat.

Sir... ACs got pile driven with the Ghost heat hammer. They are the only Weapon that has a double digit penalty for having 2 like weapons. IF PGI wanted ACs as top dog they would not have done such a thing.

[AlmightyAeng]

Lupus Aurelius, on 08 November 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

I'll go one better - 2 Firebrands, 1 energy based, the other ballistic: http://mwomercs.com/...-was-excessive/

As far as boating 4 AC5s, it can be done, but it's damn rare and you gimp yourself immensely with that build.

I will, with reservations, agree that mechs packing both ballistics and energy probably fair well. However, there are a significant amount of mechs that cannot fit ballistics, and under the current meta are sub-optimal to a ballistic heavy mech. How many Quickdraws do you see around? Few indeed.

Currently, I'm rocking a Shadowhawk 5M, 2 AC2s, 6 tons of ammo, 2 ML and 2 SSRMs. I's murder, quite frankly. But for the life of me, can't get the same damage and sustainability of fire with the Thunderbolt 5SS and 9E, which are all energy. Most of what you here in a battle now are dual to quad AC2s, dual to triple AC5s/UACs, and the occasional dual AC10. And I mean HEAR. It's deafening. That's a statement unto itself.

I was presenting opposite ends of the spectrum, with weapons I thought I'd consider 'relatively equivalent' between the energy and ballistic tree. I did this because of people saying that their ballistic boats were melting face, but their energy boats weren't, and that annoyed them. The comparison was to illustrate that you make concessions on fronts other than damage in return for boating AC's.

As you said, you CAN take 4 AC5's, but you gimp yourself to do so. I would argue that trip AC5 and trip UAC5 or quad AC2's ALSO require you to gimp yourself in some manner.

Yes, all energy-hardpoint builds can't benefit from a mixed loadout. Neither can all ballistic-hardpoint mechs. ALL 'mechs are NOT created equal.

[DaZur]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 November 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

I do miss using my Gauss Rifle. But looking at Smurfy I noticed what I feel is the real problem with Ballistics is! One AC5 delivers 3.33 DpS BUT an AC10 only delivers 4.00 DpS. That is not a proper escalation. An AC5 should deliver 1/2 the DpS of a AC10 and that should deliver 1/2 as much DpS as an AC20. An Ultra AC5 should deliver between an AC5 and AC10s DpS.

Just to fly in the face of the AC meta... I removed my UACs from my -3D and dropped in my Gauss and I've been fighting the learning curve to proficiency...

I took some dozen tough losses to find my balance but in short-order I was playing just as effectively (if not slightly more-so at range) as I was with my ACs.

I found that I had to essentially forget the Gauss inside brawl range unless I had clear opportunity... When I tried to supplement my mLas with it, I found I spent more time trying to time Gauss shots (most missing BTW) that I would have been better served firing the Mlas...