388 replies to this topic

[Howdy Doody]

I LOVE to run 4 AC/2s. And for every game where I rack up a ton of damage I have games where I get I high alpha'd as I can't shoot/twist. I always have to have my face looking right down their barrels to produce my dps. If I remember to stay in the back and become a fire support it's gravy. I get caught in a 1-1 it can get ugly.

Interesting topic.

[Oni Ralas]

Vodrin Thales, on 06 November 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

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

ML are currently the most balanced weapon in terms of tonnage, heat and range. Hence you finding them on everything from a Jenner to a BM. So no, they aren't broken. It's not just the iteration, but the scope of the weapon in question. AC2's aren't a large mech weapon, nor would they be a mainline weapon on something that big (lore and physics wise anyway). Yet, they account for the bulk of the damage output from those currently using them. Hmmm...

[Vodrin Thales]

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

ML are currently the most balanced weapon in terms of tonnage, heat and range. Hence you finding them on everything from a Jenner to a BM. So no, they aren't broken. It's not just the iteration, but the scope of the weapon in question. AC2's aren't a large mech weapon, nor would they be a mainline weapon on something that big (lore and physics wise anyway). Yet, they account for the bulk of the damage output from those currently using them. Hmmm...

I really don't get where you think they are not a large mech weapon as they are just as common on assaults (See Mauler) and heavies (see Jager) as any smaller mechs. The Mauler even boats 4 of them as what is arguably it's primary weapon system.

Also AC2's are not nearly as good as you think. They are never seen in competitive 12 man play as they are lackluster next to the combo of PPC's with AC5's and UAC5's. I think your argument here falls flat. AC's are not a problem. If there is a problem it is pinpoint weapons in general being superior to hitscan and spread weapons.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 06 November 2013 - 03:49 PM.

[Xeno Phalcon]

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

Blizzard keeps WOW in relative balance and it is, quite literally, orders of magnitude more complex.

Oh you ******* I think I broke a rib laughing so hard >.< I dont play any more but I CLEARLY recall a constant seesaw over the years of OP and useless classes in PVP, running around battlegrounds going derpderpderp as people smash a single macro button and roflestomp wingbubble everything in their path or the old school frostshock/windfury proc graveyard trip.
------------------

That aside, autocannons make sense as they are, as they are heavy and require ammo to allow for the direct fire pin point damage that they come with (not counting you LBX) but the problem is they offer no recoil so firing three UAC5's repeatedly only has the downside of chewing up ammo and maybe jamming for a few moments. In truth I suspect int he long run we will get a cockpit 'tug' like when mechs fall down around us now from firing autocannons in the future.

[GalaxyBluestar]

pbiggz, on 06 November 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

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.

hmm of the metas where all is "evil" i've encountered, the ecm floods were the worst followed by Lurm pocolypse and then JJ poptarters. the ecm and lrms were times when i really felt like i shouldn't play those were some seriously OP and broken times. JJ's is a skill thing you really need to know battlefield awearness and positioning to overcome them, it can be done but the disparity between trying to catch a poptarter out and being one is a huge skill gap in favor of the PT. SRM shotguns FTW was a strong meta, the only time awesome's were recomended and streak and splatcat were really hard under scrutiny. PPC meta is pretty much equal to the splat cat meta, just a few bad builds giving everything a bad name and that's one of a bunch of reasons why i so detest GH as a "solution" it was only quad ppc or 2-3ppc gauss which were horros, the rest were either expectant of heavy and assault capabilities ie: you built something right or were no more a threat than a bunch of other builds on the field.

that's why i find the numbers chosen for GH to be bafling. a limit on LPLs? limits on lrm 10's? cut to ribbions by duo ams which is easy enough to field and of course there's cover. ever since the first round of missle nerfs ie ecm i've never felt the need to equip ams never, why missles got hit with GH is beyond me.

Vodrin Thales, on 06 November 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

Pinpoint weapons are what is superior not just AC's. Standard PPC's with AC5/UAC5 or AC20 is largely what you see in 12 mans. Energy are only inferior due to lasers not being pinpoint weapons, and ERPPC's being too hot to boat. PPC's are still very strong.

yes this has happened, you can't nerf spreadsheet warriors. pgi needs to learn that and fix up elo by using more of a teir system or better evaluation than the W/L records, which are carried by teams not individuals skills.

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

And why are ACs so strong? Because they have been buffed at least 3 times, while Energy has been nerfed at the same time.

The reason? The forum QQ, very similar to this thread.

agreed.

I really wish I was around in june and july now to say no to more nerfs. i don't want ac's nerfed either the game can't carry on degrading everything because something else is now better. I left in april feeling good about my effort in the highlander vs the world tourney needing a break. i knew the uprising of ppc boats was going to be a problem but damn people like homeless bill and doch bach came up with solutions that would manage more playstyles not kill them outright to hard limits like GH. wish i was there to say splat cats were proven to be fine and so are the other boats, there are other ways to make things fair without limiting builds and playstyles.

hope it's not too late to re-evaluate and roll back some stuff change some stuff to get some sort of equality for single weapons vs grouped weapons, boats vs mixers and the amount of playstyles we used to have a year ago.

the hitbox revision is a promising start, i hope we see more gear being evaluated not that the majority of weapons and equipment and mechs are in the game now.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 06 November 2013 - 04:55 PM.

[MischiefSC]

A heat bump across the board for ACs isn't a bad idea at all. I also wouldn't complain about an end to direct fire weaponry in favor of even a 0.3 or 0.5 delivery length stream of shots. Suddenly lasers and ballistics are WAY more balanced. Ballistics have less 'beam duration' and lower heat but more weight, crit spaces and ammo dependence. I'd also never cry about a 0.1 bump to refire delay on AC2s. AC5s and UAC5s are good. AC10s and AC20s are IMO great for heat/refire/DPS. Spreading the shot time out just a bit isn't a bad thing though.

I get that people like sniping, I do. It's advantageous - you're limiting your exposure to enemy fire while delivering your full damage in short, sharp bursts. The problem is that end of the day that's a better tactic than, well, anything lasers or any DPS build can support. Just is what it is. Requiring snipers to expose themselves for longer smooths that advantage curve to one based more on weapon range and pilot accuracy than just raw mechanics of the equipment itself.

[MustrumRidcully]

KinLuu, on 06 November 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

And why are ACs so strong? Because they have been buffed at least 3 times, while Energy has been nerfed at the same time.

The reason? The forum QQ, very similar to this thread.

Energy weapons mostly received buff over the course of the game, too. Or at least things that were meant as buff, we can still debate whether the changes to the pulse lasers were of any use, for example.

But energy weapons had their damage increased and their heat reduced several times. PPCs were the only one that were "debuffed" again after some time. And apparantly, PPCs are still seen as competitive, even though now in smaller numbers than before.

Double Heat Sinks were also one of the biggest buff for energy weapons, since msot of their weight and crit investment has always been in heat sinks, not the weapon or ammo.

That doesn't mean energy weapons or ballistics are fine. but just get your facts straight.

But if we see that PPCs and Ballistics are the main source of firepower for premades - what do they share?
PPCs produce lots of heat and don't fire any faster than Medium Lasers (or AC/20s).
But they share one property with ballistics, and that is all damage is applied with a single projectile.

Heat (and ghost heat) is also a factor to consider, and it's the reason why a mix of PPCs and Ballistics is preferred over pure PPC builds now.

[MPBlackJack]

Oni Ralas, on 06 November 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

...
Ballistics offer too much reward for not enough drawback IMHO.
...

I think this is very true. Just look at the people piloting LRM boats. I see them running out of ammo on a regular basis, but mechs which are boating ACs almost never run dry, they can keep their dakkadakka up all the time and out of personal experience i can verify this. My Jager wields 2 AC5 with only 5 tons of ammo, which is more than enough for 95% of the battles meaning i have no major drawback wielding those, while other builds have those drawbacks.

LRM have a fair risk to run out of ammo
Laserbuilds easily run hot even with good amounts of DHS and Pulse laser offer very little range
SRM offer almost no range
ACs just do dakka all the time

So i would try to change the ammo/ton values of most ACs to put the use of using massive amounts ACs in Mech at a higher risk.

[Sephlock]

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

Nobody is asking for a buff to energy weapons. We're asking for balance across weapons in this game. AC DPS is too high, energy can't compete because of range and heat issues. That's what this thread is about.

I am, albeit indirectly!

Remove the ghost heat nonsense. That will indirectly buff up energy weapons, and bring AC/2s back to their rightful place as fun cannons that make the unskilled weep.

ALTERNATIVELY, if we MUST have an AC nerf*, how about instead of some hideous heat nerf**, we just increase the RoF of autocannons drastically and lower their damage per shot accordingly?

For the canon nerds, I point to every passage in every Batletech book ever that concerns autocannons firing. They refer to a steady (I forgot the onomatopoeia, but it was repeated 3x) sound, not a wimpy firing sound followed by a long silence....


*And knowing how PGI likes to overreact to player crying, that seems inevitable

**Which, being the dumbest option, is also the one that PGI is most likely to pick

[GRiPSViGiL]

I do pretty good in energy boats...I just hate carrying ammo.

[Sephlock]

GRiPSViGiL, on 07 November 2013 - 02:24 AM, said:

I do pretty good in energy boats...I just hate carrying ammo.

Try cramming 4+ LLas into a Zeus.

[Vagabond HT]

Autocannons are fine as they are. the more autcannon you carry the more chances they are using a XL engine, which is a big trade off as well as being ammo limited. For my Rule of thumb if you are using an assault mech with a AC20 you need at least 4-5 (28-35shots) tons of ammo depending on mech so thats about 18-19 tons with the weapon and ammo. To deal with the Double Ac20 jagers here is the best way, get close with in 70 meters and the cannons can't hit the same point or Kill from range with a good hit to the side torso, another good way is to leg him and get a lucky ammo explosion on a ammo bin. The only Autocannon that needed a nerf was the ultra5 which is now where it should be since before its last change it was more of a Rotary Autocannon 5.

Edited by vagabond The Scot, 07 November 2013 - 02:57 AM.

[3endless8oogie]

From my newbie point of view all those ac´s are too accurate and have a too high bullet velocity for the damage they are doing.

When I see (while being already dead) how easy my teammates with ac are getting kills it´s just disapointing to continue using lasers...
Most of the time at the end of the match they are not even close to being low on ammo, so saying that carrying ammo is a drawback or in any way balancing is just wrong.
Not saying energyweapons are terrible or weak, but in comparison ac´s are just too good and most matches don´t last long enough to make ammo count.

Edited by 3endless8oogie, 07 November 2013 - 03:00 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

3endless8oogie, on 07 November 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

Most of the time at the end of the match they are not even close to being low on ammo, so saying that carrying ammo is a drawback or in any way balancing is just wrong.

QFT

[Mudhutwarrior]

Only Pugging my scores suffer badly. I am aware most premades no better solo than I am but when facing such jerks constantly one needs to build and AC boat. My AC yeager is the most consitent damage machine. Its boring and easy stupid to drive but it works. I notice after a few matches I am falling asleep driving it so I shift to fun builds and just enjoy and die quickly to some jerk in an ac boat. Its a vicious circle and I would like to say I am sorry for pounding you with my simpleton build. Its the new meta if you need XP and cbills though it doesnt make it right.

[Rasc4l]

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.

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

Edited by Rasc4l, 07 November 2013 - 04:06 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Lupus Aurelius, on 06 October 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Multiple threads pro and con have been posted about the ERPPC/PPC heat increase, most of it subjective. The following is hard data as to the ERPPC performance with current heat mechanics, as compared to the long range ballistic weapons. Please, regardless of your feelings or opinions, read the data and listen to what the data tells you, not to what you want the data to be.

So, let's start with the data:

Engine Double Heat Sinks – cool at .2 heat per second, add 2 heat per.
External Double Heat Sinks – cool at .14 heat per second. Add 1.4 heat per.


Figure 1: Weapon Data

So we will assume 3 tons ammo for each ballistic weapon we are considering. Anything less is an issue, especially with 12 vs. 12 now, your major damage weapons would run out of ammo long before the end of the match, leaving you with only you short range weapons to fall back on.

Instead of ammo, we will figure on 5 external DHS for the ERPPC. ¹

So here are the figures with the inclusion of ammo on the ballistics, external DHS foe the ERPPC, and criticals:

· AC2s - 2 damage / 0.52 seconds / 1 heat / 9 tons, 4 crits ...3.85 DPS / 1.92 HPS
· AC5/UAC5s - 5 damage / 1.5 seconds / 1 heat / 11tons, 7 crits ...3.3 DPS / 0.72 HPS
· AC10s - 10 damage / 2.5 seconds / 3 heat / 15tons, 10 crits ...4 DPS / 1.2 HPS
· Gauss - 15 Damage / 4.75 seconds / 1 heat / 18 tons, 10 crits ... 3.75 DPS / 0.25 HPS
· ERPPC - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 15 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 3.75 HPS
· PPCs - 10 damage / 4 seconds / 10 heat / 12 tons, 18 crits ...2.5 DPS / 2.5 HPS

What is immediately evident is that of all the long range direct fire weapons, the ERPPC has the lowest DPS and the highest heat. AC10s do almost twice the DPS at less than 1/3 of the heat. Now, on a single volley, this isn’t an issue, but over time, DPS will drop even further on the ERPPC due to needing to cool off.

Let’s look at heat over time, using dual weapon setups, with the ACs and Gauss using just the 10 native DHS in an engine, and the ERPPCs using an additional external 10 DHS, with heat dissipation factored in:


Figure 2: HEAT VS. TIME (IN SECONDS) DUAL SETUPS, CONTINUOUS FIRE



Figure 3: Heat per Volley with Continuous Fire

The ERPPC mech has 20 DHS, giving it a max heat of 64 before a shutdown. The AC and Gauss mechs have only the 10 native DHS to the engine, and a heat cap of 50. Immediately apparent are the following:

• The Dual ERPPC mech - 4 volleys across 12 seconds, total 80 damage, until shutdown
  
• The Dual AC10 mech - 9 volleys across 20 seconds, total 180 damage, and no shutdown
  
• The Dual AC5/UAC5 mech - 14 volleys across 20 seconds, total 140 damage and no shutdown
  
• The Dual AC2 mech - 34 volleys over 17.7 seconds, total 136 damage, until shutdown
  
• The Dual Gauss mech - 6 volleys over 20 seconds, total 180 damage, no shutdown, negative temp. trend

The dual ERPPC mech, with 14 additional heat rating, and 1.4 additional cooling per second, can only volley 4 times before inducing a shutdown.






Note that the dual Gauss is heat neutral, with a negative temperature trend, and the dual AC5/UAC5 is effectively heat neutral, it could fire a full minute and not shut down. The AC10 can fire for 14 volleys and 32.5 seconds before shutdown. The dual AC2s have the highest climb in heat, but still capable of delivering 136 damage before inducing a shutdown.

For a comparison of a Dual ERPPC and Dual AC5 Firebrand, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...-was-excessive/

For analysis and discussion of the heat system, see this post: http://mwomercs.com/...eedback-thread/

Data is data; math is math, and not subject to opinion nor feelings. In order to have balance, the pros and cons of each weapon need to balance out so that along with the disadvantages, there are enough advantages to make something worthwhile to utilize. The latest increase in heat for the ERPPC brought the heat levels up too high, negating any significant advantage compared to ballistics, and unbalanced them, as we will discuss next.

First question you might ask, is why you would even use ERPPC at this heat level, and the lowest DPS of all the sniping weapons? Speed is now the same as the AC5/UAC5s, so it still has a faster travel time than the AC10, same damage as the AC10. The fact of having less than a third the crits necessary for an AC10 is not significant, since that amounts to, on the dual setups, 14 more crits, which is 4 more external DHS. The data presented earlier is based on 5 external DHS, which makes the ERPPC 18 crits and 12 tons.

· But, ERPPCs don’t need ammo!

Yes they do, heat sinks are the ammo of ERPPCs. Due to the current heat levels, you have no choice but to run DHS, because the engine HS actually run as double HS. In order to compensate for using SHS, and additional 10 tons and 10 crits is necessary, just to get you to the level of a DHS engine.

And, ammo takes 1 crit, DHS take 3 crits. When taking critical internal damage, the DHS are extremely vulnerable, and even though they do not explode, taking out DHS on an enemy mech means in the heat of battle, you lose capability to fire. So in that respect, they function like ammo.

· But, ERPPCs don’t run out of ammo!

No, they do not, but as noted, crit the DHS enough, and you will slow their firing. But that isn’t the main issue here. Matches are 15 minutes long, 12 vs. 12. If each ballistic weapon has 3 tons of ammo each has the potential to deliver 450 damage. A dual AC2 / AC5/ UAC5/ AC10/ Gauss mech can each put out 900 damage during that match.

Now, unless you are a very bad shot, that’s pretty significant. If the matches were 30 minutes to an hour long, against 24 mechs, then there would be a chance to run out of ammo and the ERPPC would shine a bit more then. But at current match sizes and times it’s hard to justify using ERPPCs, because normally, with 3 tons of ammo per gun, you are not going to run out, or if you do, it will be near the end of the match if you survived that long.

· But, ERPPCs take less crits!

No, they take more. Look at the figures for Effective Heat Sinks (EHS) to be heat neutral. For 1 ERPPC, it takes 38 EHS. So, you have 10 actual doubles in the engine, that’s 20. You need an additional 12.86 DHS to make a mech with 1 ERPPC heat neutral.

Problem is, with weapons, AMS, equipment, and ammo for the other weapons you will be carrying; you will have room for maybe 8-10, maybe 11. So there is no possibility of getting even 1 ERPPC, never mind 2, heat neutral or even close to it. Dual AC10 mechs CAN BE heat neutral; they each require only 12 EHS. Same with Gauss, at 3 EHS, and AC5/UAC5/UAC5/UAC5 at 7 EHS each and can still fire other weapons, like SSRMs, small and medium lasers, for significantly long periods of time.

This is the problem with PGI balancing by heat. Approaching the historical issues by addressing the root causes, such as convergence, the heat system in general, and the fitting mechanics would have addressed those issues in a more accurate way. Specifically, fitting, due to current mechanics making all mechs effectively omni mechs. Limiting criticals in a location for the weapon types allowed there would have prevented most of the major boating issues.

Currently, given a choice between taking dual long range ballistics, and dual ERPPCs, there is little to nothing to recommend taking the ERPPCs. That’s not balance, and for those mechs that cannot fit ballistics, it is the only long range pinpoint damage available to them. Right now, there is no reason not to use long range ballistics, compared to the ERPPC, and a balanced system would have advantages and disadvantages for both that would make neither superior to the other.

In no way am I advocating that ERPPCs should be heat neutral or near heat neutral. ERPPC heat needs to be lowered back down to 12, or possibly 13, and the ghost heat penalty needs to be increased for ERPPCs used beyond 2 volley fired, to prevent excessive boating. The other option, however, is that the AC10, AC5/UAC5, and Gauss be brought more in line with the current profile for the AC2. This would “balance” out these systems.

EDIT - corrected the Dual Gauss, damage, was 120, s/b 180, and cleaned up the format.
2nd EDIT - Clarified the weights and crits for ERPPCs with DHS at 1

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

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.

-By varying the firing speeds of weapons from the original once per 10 seconds, the relative damages of those weapons have been drastically changed. An AC2 fired once every 10 seconds for 2 damage, the Gauss fired once every 10 seconds for 15 damage, the ERLL fired 8 damage (TT) in 10 sec.

-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.

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.

A solution? 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.

Edited by Lupus Aurelius, 07 November 2013 - 04:32 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

Its a combat game. Killing people is supposed to happen. Stop trying to be "The Immortal Warrior".

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Nobody ever bothers to talk about the trade-offs such as additional weight, crit spaces, and ammo (which also takes up weight and slots) because it's not convenient to their ideas and opinions

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?

[Joseph Mallan]

Sandpit, on 06 November 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Nobody ever bothers to talk about the trade-offs such as additional weight, crit spaces, and ammo (which also takes up weight and slots) because it's not convenient to their ideas and opinions

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?

The answer to both points is Yes. Bunches of Sinks is the drawback to Energy weapons and Tons of ammo is the one for Ballistics (and Missiles).