388 replies to this topic

[Galenit]

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.

To much ammo:
2x armor, but not 8 random hit locations, you need only 1/4 of the shoots to core a mech based on tt.
Reduce ammo to 1x tt values in a first step, then based on observation reduce it to maybe 1/2.

To less risk in taking ammo:
Armor destroyed, random hit chance occurs, random component where the crit hits in that location, then only 10% chance for explosion is no risk. If it would be a risk, case would be seen more often ...
Increase ammo-explosion chance (for all ammo, not only ballistics) in a first step to 35%, maybe tweek it after observation.

High rof and dps:
Thats what the ballistics are for in mechwarrior, heavy burst damage if you need it, but not the whole fight.
With the above changes the ballistics should stay at the dps they have now.

Edited by Galenit, 07 November 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I would be good with less range. Not less ammo cause frankly less ammo would not be good with doubled armor.

[Galenit]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I would be good with less range. Not less ammo cause frankly less ammo would not be good with doubled armor.

You know that tt has 8 random hit locations for every shot?

If you want to hit the center 10 times you need around 80 shots in tt,
in mwo you need for that only 10 shots, thats 1/8 of the ammo you need.

With 2x armor you need 1/4 of the tt ammo to do the same damage to one location.

1/4 tt ammo would be matching, i say lets test 1x tt ammo and maybe go down to 1/2.

Edited by Galenit, 07 November 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Galenit, on 07 November 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

You know that tt has 8 random hit locations for every shot?

If you want to hit the center 10 times you need around 80 shots in tt,
in mwo you need for that only 10 shots, thats 1/8 of the ammo you need.

With 2x armor you need 1/4 of the tt ammo to do the same damage to one location.

1/4 tt ammo would be matching, i say lets test 1x tt ammo and maybe go down to 1/2.

6.3 is the average roll on 2d6 So I am more likely to put my shots in the right torso/center than any other location. I have thrown A LOT of dice in 28 years of TT.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 November 2013 - 05:49 AM.

[Galenit]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

6.3 is the average roll on 2d6 So I am more likely to put my shots in the right torso/center than any other location. I have thrown A LOT of dice in 28 years of TT.

Can you please do the math and say how many shots in the average are needed to hit the center torso (not right or center) in tt 10 times?

I am not in the mute for that and its your argument, so please give me some numbers.

Edited by Galenit, 07 November 2013 - 06:00 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Galenit, on 07 November 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

Can you please do the match and say how many shots in the average is need to hit the center torso in tt 10 times?

I am not in the mute for that ...

Honestly, it depends on the person tossing the dice. If I had my dice tray with me I could tell you, I know a few guys that could do it in maybe 30 rolls tops. But then again that CT would be erased before I needed all 10. What you really want is a loosening of convergence. It isn't natural for so many weapons to hit the same location. But is just fine to be hit with all of it.

Remember a MW:O 30 point Alpha strike is a single Gauss round on TT. That is 2-3 weapons from MW:O to do the equivalent damage of a single Gauss/©ERPP blast on TT. I have a Mech that throws 5 15 point hits at +1 on heat. So imagine getting hit by 5 mechs for 30 damage each. at one time. Never heard a single complaint in 15+ years of using it.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 November 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[Sandpit]

Wolfways, on 07 November 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

You mean like how nobody ever bothers to talk about how energy weapons mean the mech has to be filled with DHS because it's not convenient to their ideas and opinions?

Uhm I did show the difference between tonnage and slots for DHS. Might want to read and understand. I'm not reposting all of that info just because you were too lazy to miss the part where I showed the added weight and slots for DHS as opposed to HS

[Galenit]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

If I had my dice tray with me I could tell you, I know a few guys that could do it in maybe 30 rolls tops.

But they cant do it allways in that 30 rolls.
Statistics will tell us who many rolls in the average are needed for that.

How many rolls in the average with 2w6 are needed to get 10x the 7?

[Joseph Mallan]

Galenit, on 07 November 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

But they cant do it allways in that 30 rolls.
Statistics will tell us who many rolls in the average are needed for that.

How many rolls in the average with 2w6 are needed to get 10x the 7?

As I said the average combination of 2d6 is 6.3. So I have a 44% chance of hitting any of the three torso. And what I shoot on TT I don nee 10 rolls to get the job done.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 November 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Fate 6]

Before I read anything... THE DAY HAS COME! AC WARRIOR FORUM POSTS!

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah... I know, Ben a long time coming hasn't it!

[Fate 6]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Then:

Nerf Gauss and PPC, Buff ACs!

PGI does as the community demanded.

Now:

Nerf ACs! Buff Energy!

No no no, don't nerf anything. Nothing is OP right now, ACs are slightly better but that's because the other systems in the game are broken.

1) Make SRMs worth taking again - it will make stinking snipers way more afraid to stand back and/or get caught alone if a light, medium or heavy can sneak up and gib them.

2) Reduce heat on ML - same thing really, it's so hard to justify running 2ML if I can run 1LL and have more range and less heat. True I get less DPS from the LL, but ultimately it does more because of the range and the fact that I won't overheat nearly as fast (this is also why larger mechs are so strong, they can fit in more big weapons in a game where loading up 4-6 smaller ones is a poor choice).

3) Make hot maps not the norm, or remove the randomness of mech/map selection. It's impossible to run a hot mech when more than half the drops are on hot maps where 2-3 alphas overheats you. Running ACs means you can constantly DPS and not care about the map drop. (Caustic used to feel like a hot map, ah the good old days before Tourmaline and Terra)

4) Slightly reduce ammo/ton. There was once a day when you took ML as backup weapons, but ACs don't run out of ammo right now so what's the point. The benefit of an extra ton of ammo is greater than 1ton for a ML.

I do like that we don't have an alpha strike meta, as it does allow mediums to slightly function with rolling their torso. But until we actually have a reason to take said alpha strike weapons again, we're just gonna be staring each other down with as many AC5s and AC2s as we can load up. My 3AC5+ERPPC Ilya smiles for now.

Edited by Fate 6, 07 November 2013 - 07:27 AM.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 07 November 2013 - 06:04 AM, said:

Uhm I did show the difference between tonnage and slots for DHS. Might want to read and understand. I'm not reposting all of that info just because you were too lazy to miss the part where I showed the added weight and slots for DHS as opposed to HS

After the post i replied to maybe, so i didn't miss anything.
Oh, and if you're going to be childish and insult someone try learning english first. "Too lazy to miss the part" doesn't even make sense.

[DaZur]

I dont care how much "maths" you throw out in this argument.... While I'll agree ballistics are parts of the new meta, they are hardly the world-beating dominator some of you folk are trying desperately to paint them as.

Real-world application (well, as real as it extends to MW:O) proves otherwise...

While not perfect by any means, and I am not so daft to refute that it can't be improved... Overall balance as it pertains to game-play is probably closer to being balanced as it has ever been.

It's human nature, particularly for anyone who wishes to edge their personal performance to migrate to what affords them the highest probability of success. A long while ago it was LRMs, then SRMs, then the 6xPPC, then the PPC+Gauss... and suprise-suprise ... the ballistics.

You guys act surprised that the meta swings with every flipping buff and nerf demanded... How flipping disingenuous.

There will always be a weapon or combination of weapons that the player-base will glom onto seeking the edge in personal production... While complete hyperbole, the only way to remove it would be to remove all weapons and hurl insults... and even then, there are some of us are better equipped than others.

Statistics and charts about how OP ballistics are, are useless when interpreted out of context and that context is that there are deficiencies in using ballistics, whether you choose to recognize the fact that these deficiencies keeps them in the ballpark with energy weapons.

[Davers]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I would be good with less range. Not less ammo cause frankly less ammo would not be good with doubled armor.

I have no problem with ballistics being powerful- while ammo lasts. But it is easy to have enough ammo to last all game (I carry 240 rounds of AC ammo in my Illya, but according to my stats I only fire 98 shots a match on average and I can only remember running out twice). I thought in BT that energy weapons were the 'long lasting sustainable fire weapon'?

I equip 3 UAC/5s for when my 2 medium lasers run too hot.

[Bront]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Then:

Nerf Gauss and PPC, Buff ACs!

PGI does as the community demanded.

Now:

Nerf ACs! Buff Energy!

No one asked them to buff ACs, and in fact they didn't (other than the UAC change that got fixed).

That said, they did buff the AC2 and AC5 to make them actual usable weapons (compared to TT, where the AC2 was dumb for ground work, and the AC5 wasn't very good either for the tonnage), but I think they went a bit overboard with the fire rate. Adding .1 to the refire rate of the AC2, (20% increase in cool down rate), and .25 to the AC5/UAC5 refire rate. (16.6% increase in cool down rate) would bring them more in line. Then, fix the UAC5 jamming on a normal shot, and you've probably mostly balanced the ACs. AC5s still have good range and a decent rate of fire, but the AC10 is worth looking at for the extra damage and a higher DPS. AC2s still are fun in bunches, but they aren't a machine gun substitute (though it also means they don't generate as much heat, which balances out a bit), and the DPS falls more in line with using the space to mount larger ACs (Right now, 2 AC2s out DPSs an AC10 by 7.5 to 4, and a single AC2 out DPSs a single AC5)

[AlmightyAeng]

What DaZur said, QFT.

The way I see it, the Energy vs. Ballistics argument being represented is missing a key component.

Energy weapons, even with necessary heatsinks, weigh less than ballistics. That's a bonus. They do not require leading, bonus. However, you have to be able to KEEP THEM ON TARGET to reap the rewards of these no-ammo, low-weight weapons (Medium lasers, I'm lookin' at you).

Ballistics, though heavy, have an ammo cap (and everyone knows to bring enough, meaning you sacrifice an addition 4-5 ton's AFTER the weapon so you can keep firing). You also have to LEAD your targets when they're in motion. However, they give you the advantage of slightly greater range, faster recycle, and fast, front-loaded damage. You can fire them off, and turn away.

Now, to my eye, the set of advantages and disadvantages, though DIFFERENT for each weapon class, are balanced (I'm not gonna get into missiles, that's another ballgame).

Based on the way these weapons FUNCTION, players who have an easier time maintaining a target in their sights will get more bang for their buck out of energy weapons. Those we can't, well, there are ballistics. But for the edge in getting the damage downrange, there ARE drawbacks.

Maybe the reason we are seeing more ballistics isn't because they're OP, but because they're just easier to use for a lot of players. I would also posit that this is why most of my builds boat mediums with mid-sized AC's as support...I find BOTH incredibly useful and damaging, and so a combination gets me the best results.

[Vodrin Thales]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 November 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

I would be good with less range. Not less ammo cause frankly less ammo would not be good with doubled armor.

I'd agree with this. I don't think that ballistics need the range advantage over energy weapons to balance them anymore. Nerfing ammo is definitely a bad idea. If there are no general changes affecting pinpoint damage then all weapons that do pinpoint damage probably need slight DPS nerfs to bring them in line with hitscan/missile weapons. All pinpoint damage weapons are currently unquestionably better than weapons that are not pinpoint (all lasers and missiles). By the way AC2's are not true pinpoint damage weapons, they require too many rounds to do decent damage and this will always spread against better players. Therefore they are inferior to PPC's and heavier ballistics. Superior DPS does not tell the story here.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 07 November 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Davers, on 07 November 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I equip 3 UAC/5s for when my 2 medium lasers run too hot.

Only because it fits

[Almond Brown]

Sephlock, on 07 November 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

Try cramming 4+ LLas into a Zeus.

The 6S doesn't have 4 Energy points, or were you just trying to be being funny?