388 replies to this topic

[Oni Ralas]

I'm going to let everyone in on a secret: You can read the state of things by the players before you investigate the issue. They are the ultimate litmis test - because deep down, people will always play what works the best (because hey, we all like to win at heart).

Remember when LRM's were everywhere?
Splatcats wiped the field?
3L ravens swarms?
PPC fire like it's going out of stle?

Each of these was ultimately tied to a *legitimate* problem. So, if you look at the most common mechs and weapons on the field at any given moment - if there is a *heavier than normal* bias towards something, it's likely an indicator something is wrong.

Right now, look at any given game. What do you see the most of? Dakka. We've swung to the other size of the pendulum - ballistics are now no logner the black hole of hit chance (for the most part). To that end, with the reduction of LRMs and the must harsher penalties for energy weapons (via direct and ghost heat changes) - ballistics are now the most common weapon. Is that bad? Not in itself, but the sheer volume and *type* lead to invesitgation.

Ballistics offer too much reward for not enough drawback IMHO. Despite what the "pros" say, it's not all that hard to put crosshairs over a target and press a button. Honestly, it's *harder* to keep a beam on target for it's full DoT style of application than it is to hit with a ballistic.

We eliminated the natural enemy of long ranged/sniper activity (the LRM) and have nerfed the hell out of the brawler weapon of the 31st century (lazzzooorrzzzz!!!!) so all we've got left is dakka.

Now, with all that being said, I leave with you one question: Do you think it's a normal state of affairs when heavy and assault mechs are carrying AC2s? Negative ghost rider... that's a big ol' negative.

[The Justicar]

DaZur, on 06 November 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Great... another post that hangs it's hat on "math" while ignoring the mitigating factors of using ballistic weapons such as lead-time, ballistic drop at range, weapon and ammo weight... Not even mentioning the unavoidable exposure time DPI ballistics require.

Oh and before anyone throw "heat" into the counter argument... Very few mechs run ballistics exclusively, this with mixed weapons, heat is a valid mitigator. Oh... and the mechs that DO boat ballistics have the mitigating factor of running XLs...

Would you like a DPS comparison on equal weight loadouts AC vs Lasers? AC's require tonnage and crit space for ammo. Energy weapons require tonnage and (much more) crit space for heat sinks. So long as you have ammo, your weapons are plainly, mathematically superior to energy weapons. And sorry, but most of the high-end meta builds right now focus on boating ballistics basically to exclusion.

Stated differently, do you think AC/5's should be so vastly out-damaging PPC's? I certainly hope not...

Edited by The Justicar, 06 November 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[Oni Ralas]

Vodrin Thales, on 06 November 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

AC10 is a 12 ton weapon that requires 2 tons of ammo to be effective. Compare this to a single PPC that weighs 7 tons and takes up 6 less crit spaces when ammo is factored in, and the PPC has a higher projectile speed and unlimited ammo (as opposed to 30 shots). The PPC will require additional heat sinks to maintain a reasonable fire rate, but the weapons are really fairly comparable and many would argue the PPC is superior even after the nerfs.

PPC is a projectile weapon. It's calculated like one, shot like one, subject the same basic principles as one. Only difference is ammo requirement - which is has to offset by the slower fire rate and much higher heat rate.

I loved the old PPC (back when it was actually hard to use) but in it's current iteration, an AC10 will always have a higher rate of return per shot in the real world.

[Davers]

Honestly after 289 games using PPCs and ERPPCs I only average 18 shots a game. With the AC/20 I average 14 shots a match, after 697 matches. I fire medium lasers 19 times a match on average. These are all high heat weapons (medium lasers are usually fired in groups) that require heat management. On the other hand I fire an average of 98 shots a match with the UAC/5 (367 matches played). Is it just that I have a lot more targets to shoot at, or is it I can just keep firing and not care about heat with the UAC/5? Doesn't seem ammo limitations bother me much.

[OneEyed Jack]

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.

Sooo...

AC2s require no face time, because they can take quick snap shots, and AC20s fire faster than any other weapon type?

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

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.

So, are you complaining about fast-firing weapons or large, short-range, slow-firing weapons. Because ACs are not even remotely all the same weapon? It's just what all the weapons except 2 that fit into ballistic slots are called. So what you're really whining for is for an entire weapon class of the 3 (Ballistic, Energy, Missile) to be nerfed.

[Corvus Antaka]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

It is not an opinion. It is a fact. Ballistics are WAY more powerful than energy based weapons. The proof is in the math. The following post's calculations don't even factor in instant damage vs. beam duration, which would even further skew results in favor of AC's.

See:
http://mwomercs.com/...t-fire-weapons/

Yup. ballistics need some tuning.

[JSparrowist]

This thread is not complete until PEEF enlightens us with the "competitive" truth.

[MizarPanzer]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

What a ridiculous and unconstructive comment.

Everything they've done is terrible, broken, and stupid.

I find the irony hard in this one.

On the other hand, PGI should get rid of ghost heat at least on lasers.

Edited by MizarPanzer, 06 November 2013 - 02:57 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

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.

If you believe that such weapons are too easy to use, and that your skills are better than others, then play with those weapons and beat everyone repeatedly with them. That is how you prove weapons are OP.

Otherwise, you're just crying, and you aren't actually any better than those people who are beating you.

If someone beats you, it means they are better than you. It's how competition works.

[Oni Ralas]

JSparrowist, on 06 November 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

This thread is not complete until PEEF enlightens us with the "competitive" truth.

We need a PEEF symbol to broadcast into the air.



...I can think of a few LOL

OneEyed Jack, on 06 November 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Sooo...

AC2s require no face time, because they can take quick snap shots, and AC20s fire faster than any other weapon type?

AC2's do require face time, but they've got so much damn range on them and such a low fire rate that you can spew out several rounds and duck back. Weird thing happens when >2 of them are used, they become an inexplicably good weapon and stripping armor. Like, shred that sheit like it's tissue.

Again, if you see these kind of weapons on BIG mechs, we know something is wrong. They're a smaller caliber AC for smaller mechs.

[FupDup]

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

...

AC2's do require face time, but they've got so much damn range on them and such a low fire rate that you can spew out several rounds and duck back. Weird thing happens when >2 of them are used, they become an inexplicably good weapon and stripping armor. Like, shred that sheit like it's tissue.

Again, if you see these kind of weapons on BIG mechs, we know something is wrong. They're a smaller caliber AC for smaller mechs.

The reason you don't see the AC/2 on smaller mechs is because:

1. They're too heavy to make them worthwhile on mechs which are known for being severely lacking in tonnage to spend on equipment. Smaller mechs need to use weapons with a high damage:tonnage ratio such as Medium Lasers and SRMs for maximum efficiency.

2. They are rather underwhelming unless boated in large quantities--and only large mechs have the tonnage to handle the weight sacrifices. By the very nature of their construction, the AC/2 is one of the worst possible weapons that you could ever mount on a medium or light chassis.

Edited by FupDup, 06 November 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[Vodrin Thales]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

What you play better with is irrelevant. Mathematically, ballistics are out of balance. I'm not here to debate your play style or preference, that's pointless.

I don't think they generally are. Do an experiment once. Arrange a sink drop with two catapult K2's, one equipped with an AC10 and 3 tons of ammo, the other with 2 LL and 5 double heat sinks. Both builds have the same weapon tonnage. Let me know which one wins in a close range engagement.

Kittenkrusher, on 06 November 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:

Repair and Re-Arm ......they would not be so popular if they sent u broke...

Cost is a terribad way to balance weapons. Many vets (me included) have very deep pockets and cost would be no deterrent for us to use as many of these weapons as possible, assuming they are truly better. While new pilots would be unable to use them creating a perception that new pilots could not afford to run the same gear as vets. This is a terrible way of designing a game.

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Again, if you see these kind of weapons on BIG mechs, we know something is wrong. They're a smaller caliber AC for smaller mechs.

Find a stock light mech that mounts AC2's and I will buy this argument. As I think most of the mechs that have AC2's stock are heavies. Oh and AC2's are just as good singularly or in groups. DPS is a constant with them and whether you pair them with other AC2's or any other weapons with extended effective ranges they still work.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 06 November 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[FupDup]

Vodrin Thales, on 06 November 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

Find a stock light mech that mounts AC2's and I will buy this argument. As I think most of the mechs that have AC2's stock are heavies.

Actually there is a Commando variant that does, but as expected it's also completely terribad and nigh useless because of it.

Edited by FupDup, 06 November 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[Oni Ralas]

FupDup, on 06 November 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

The reason you don't see the AC/2 on smaller mechs is because:

1. They're too heavy to make them worthwhile on mechs which are known for being severely lacking in tonnage to spend on equipment. Smaller mechs need to use weapons with a high damage:tonnage ratio such as Medium Lasers and SRMs for maximum efficiency.

PGI ****** up on the tonnage requirements. Doesn't change the weapon scope.

Quote

2. They are lackluster unless boated in large quantities--only large mechs have the tonnage to handle the weight sacrifices.

And there is the problem. Stacking them - on paper - shouldn't even be in the cards for a heavy/assault. Not due to tonnage, but to damage. But, since we've established they're too much output (when stacked) without the drawback.

Again, mathematics aside - if you see something big boating a weapon that's small, something is broken.

[Vodrin Thales]

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

Again, mathematics aside - if you see something big boating a weapon that's small, something is broken.

So does that mean that the Battlemaster builds we see "boating" 6 ML mean medium lasers are broken too?

[Howdy Doody]

MizarPanzer, on 06 November 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

I find the irony hard in this one.

On the other hand, PGI should get rid of ghost heat at least on lasers.

I don't feel they are that far off. But I agree with panzer. It seems reducing Ghost heat values on some lasers or doing something positive for Pulse LL would help.

It's just a damn shame there aren't more Pulse lasers in battles. Such a fantastic looking/sounding weapon.

Doody

[FupDup]

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

PGI ****** up on the tonnage requirements. Doesn't change the weapon scope.

The base tonnage of the AC/2 is the same here as it has always been (although you do need a lot more ammo and heatsinks in MWO than BT to maintain them). 6 tons + ammo and heatsinks for a ballistic weapon that does 2 damage per shot is something no sane light and most mediums would consider to be an option. In the lore, the AC/2 was never useful on smaller mechs. In fact, it wasn't useful on anything in BT, no matter what its size was. The weapon literally only existed to increase the amount of ink required to print rulebooks.

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

And there is the problem. Stacking them - on paper - shouldn't even be in the cards for a heavy/assault. Not due to tonnage, but to damage. But, since we've established they're too much output (when stacked) without the drawback.

Again, mathematics aside - if you see something big boating a weapon that's small, something is broken.

The drawback for large mechs stacking them is that they have reduced burst damage compared to large mechs armed with higher alpha loadouts, and have to poke their neck out a bit longer to deliver that DPS. They are also not as good against fast-targets due to their rapid-fire low-damage nature (best anti-light weapons are typically high-alpha such as AC/20).

Edited by FupDup, 06 November 2013 - 03:31 PM.

[Sandpit]

The Justicar, on 06 November 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

What you play better with is irrelevant. Mathematically, ballistics are out of balance. I'm not here to debate your play style or preference, that's pointless.

o,0 That's exactly what you're debating. You don't like AC's so you give half truths, your opinion on the math, and state for a fact opinion that energy builds can't possibly be as good.

Sorry earlier I was doing too many thigns at once,
AC10 = 12 tons + 1 ton min of ammo for total of 13 tons and 7 slots
Large Laser = 5 tons and 2 slots
PPC = 7 tons and 3 slots

Nobody who starts these threads ever posts THESE mathematical comparisons because it's inconvenient to show the whole picture when you want to jump on the forums and begin the "Nerf, remove, buff, change, fix" thread.

Even if I add an extra DHS or HS to any of those energy weapons that take the totals to
6 tons and 5 or 3 slots for an LL
8 tons and 6 or 4 slots for a PPC

But again, those kinds of things aren't conducive when someone wnats to claim something like ballistics need to be "fixed" or nerfed because they're "op".

Then players want to say that because they have mathematical equations that show the perks to a ballistic weapon (while completely ignoring the above mentioned trade-offs) in comparison to an energy weapon that it's a fact that ballistic weapons are "better" universally for every player and play style.

Then players want to laugh at your example of two mechs that are energy boats are invalid because of their weight class even though I can easily show jenners being great energy boats that are just as effective for my personal play style.

Opinion does not equal fact no matter what factual evidence (even if you dont' give all of the factual evidence in the comparison) you give for the comparison

Let me show you how factual evidence is used to become opinion

This coffee is hot (fact)
This coffee is TOO hot (opinion)

I hope you can see the difference. No amount of mathematical equations showing the temperature of that coffee is going to turn the statement, "This coffee is too hot" into fact because that statement is completely subjective

[D04S02B04]

As reiterated by others earlier on. MLasers + SRMs > ACs.

You have only yourself to blame for a poor playstyle that favours AC play. Even then, a dual ER LL easily beats ACs at long range because of insta hit and damage dealt within 1 second as opposed to travel time + continuous fire. Due to long range, moving in and out of cover etc etc. the heat is really negligible.

FupDup, on 06 November 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

The drawback for large mechs stacking them is that they have reduced burst damage compared to large mechs armed with higher alpha loadouts, and have to poke their neck out a bit longer to deliver that DPS. They are also not as good against fast-targets due to their rapid fire low damage nature (best anti-light weapons are typically high-alpha such as AC/20).

Precisely, burst damage trumps ac. Do we see a lot of good brawling players/good burst builds/good pushes in game? Not really. Does that mean AC is OP? No. Players are just not building and/or playing their mechs right.

PS: And yeah, they need to make pulse lasers useful. Getting them almost seems pointless unless you're a light and move too fast for burn time.

[pbiggz]

If ACs need a nerf, it should only be slight. In my honest opinion, AC meta is the least repulsive meta we've had thus far. I'd pick this one over double ppc gauss meta any day of the week.