269 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 27 November 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

I didn't think 2xPPC+Gauss was overpowered either - it was fun for me - so join the crowd.

I am not complaining about the damage or any other stat of autocannons - they can all stay the same for all I care. I just think they should apply their damage in a more consistent manner to the other weapon systems.

eh, to me that's the upside to the trade-offs. That's really their ONLY perk. If you did that then why would anyone take them? they would do the exact same thing as energy weapons but require ammo, more slots, and weight. The only other thing they would have would be a little less heat

[Mercules]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

eh, to me that's the upside to the trade-offs. That's really their ONLY perk. If you did that then why would anyone take them? they would do the exact same thing as energy weapons but require ammo, more slots, and weight. The only other thing they would have would be a little less heat

You mean it would work a bit more like TT balance? Higher or equal damage for slightly less heat with a tradeoff of requiring more slots & weight and having ammo.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Quote

Ac20 Too Good And Too Wide Spread

[SniperCon]

Mercules, on 27 November 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

You mean it would work a bit more like TT balance? Higher or equal damage for slightly less heat with a tradeoff of requiring more slots & weight and having ammo.

We're not playing table top. Although, it would be creative to conduct an entire battle using the chat instead of guns.

[Sandpit]

SniperCon, on 27 November 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

We're not playing table top. Although, it would be creative to conduct an entire battle using the chat instead of guns.

No we're not, which is why we have different rules in effect here and yet there's still the trade-offs for ballistics.

[Whatzituyah]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

No we're not, which is why we have different rules in effect here and yet there's still the trade-offs for ballistics.

Even if so Sandpit the different rules don't make sense like for example Double Heatsinks are actually double in the engine and extras are 1.4.

[Sandpit]

Whatzituyah, on 27 November 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Even if so Sandpit the different rules don't make sense like for example Double Heatsinks are actually double in the engine and extras are 1.4.

that's been explained and discussed. repeatedly. excessively. a lot

all those little tweaks and changes in things are for balancing purposes.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

eh, to me that's the upside to the trade-offs. That's really their ONLY perk. If you did that then why would anyone take them? they would do the exact same thing as energy weapons but require ammo, more slots, and weight. The only other thing they would have would be a little less heat

People would take them the same reason most do now: the mech has a ballistic slot...

The tradeoff should not be in how the damage is implemented, but in the weight/heat/space. Ballistics take more space and weight, but the least heat. Energy takes the most heat, but the least space and weight. Missiles fall in the middle, with average heat, space and weight.

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 27 November 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

People would take them the same reason most do now: the mech has a ballistic slot...

The tradeoff should not be in how the damage is implemented, but in the weight/heat/space. Ballistics take more space and weight, but the least heat. Energy takes the most heat, but the least space and weight. Missiles fall in the middle, with average heat, space and weight.

We will jsut have to disagree on this point then

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 09:32 PM, said:

We will jsut have to disagree on this point then

No worries. O7

Have a Blessed Turkey Day!

[Sandpit]

Cimarb, on 27 November 2013 - 09:39 PM, said:

No worries. O7

Have a Blessed Turkey Day!

You too good sir, at least until I head out to brave the crowds for black friday. OP or not, I'd be happy for an AC once I hit the mall lol

[Koniving]

Fearing AC/20s?

Take a peek at this post which describes something from Battletech book lore that if implemented in MWO, would essentially remove this problem. Among other things, it'll make ACs generally more 'dakka' to feel even more awesome and fun to use even as it subtlely nerfs them without changing range or DPS.

[Taemien]

Koniving, on 28 November 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

Fearing AC/20s?

Take a peek at this post which describes something from Battletech book lore that if implemented in MWO, would essentially remove this problem. Among other things, it'll make ACs generally more 'dakka' to feel even more awesome and fun to use even as it subtlely nerfs them without changing range or DPS.

There's a hole in that argument. AC20s in TT and Lore were selected to have the tonnage, range, heat, and critical space that it does because it nailed a single location for 20 dmg. We can't alter Tonnage or Criticals. Giving it a multishot would hinder this weapon by way too much. You'd have to lower heat per second and alter the damage of each hit to make it work.

The lore is fluff and sometimes should be ignored for both TT and MW. To quote the writers:

Quote

FICTION VS. RULES
It is important to remember that regardless of the critical
role fi ction plays in immersing players in the Classic BattleTech
universe, such fi ction should never be construed as rules.

Then make it work with HSR. Thats alot of work for what benefit? To neuter the weapon? You should consider reading my posts earlier in this topic. Because personally I don't think the AC20 really needs a nerf. Its fine against Heavy and Assaults. What makes it utterly devastating is that it deals 8-10 damage at ranges beyond 270. This amount of damage is just as serious to a Medium or Light as the full 20 damage is to a Heavy or Assault.

The difference is the Mediums and Lights have no effective counter except to not engage AC20 users. Most weapons these ligher mechs carry go at most 540 and most 270. At least with short range weapons, you'd think a light could skip in, take a shot, and zip out before taking fire. But with 540 range.. they can't get away quickly enough and have to rely on a lagshield to survive. That shield won't always be there... so this problem isn't a major concern right now. But it will be in the future.

Thats why I suggested AC5s, 10s, and 20s, to recieve a hard limit of their maximum values. Adjust their rate of fire (and heat per second if needed) to compensate the lack of range. Now you have the AC20 become the king of short range <270m. The AC10 the king of medium, ect.

I see people calling the AC20 fine, quoting that its weight and heat make it so that firing at 270+ for 10 damage is a trade off. Ok... but where are the peeps using the AC10s as a normal weapon then? They don't, because they can use the AC20 instead and get the same damage at the same damage, for the benefit of doubling the damage when up close.

The AC10 needs a buff, the AC20 needs an adjustment. I don't wish to see the AC20 nerfed. Which is why I suggested the RoF adjustment to increase its DPS if it can't fire beyond 270m.

Edited by Taemien, 29 November 2013 - 04:26 AM.

[Urdasein]

AC20 is out of balance, YES !

BUT

I doesn't mean AC20 is overpowered.

YUP !

Nerfing/Buffing a particular weapon is useless. There will always be uber and subpar stuff. Pvpers will always adapt. Always. So balancing is more a game design politic, often used for gameplay renewal rather than being a "equality" stuff.

So you have two solutions:

1 Nerf the top/pinpoint damage weapon stopping power (AC20, AC10, multiple AC5... PPC on some cool-run builds).
MWO will tend toward more brawl since you can't be fast-killed while approaching. And can only kill on CQ combat. This is the actual meta since ghost heat. The release of hard-kill fast stuff like the SHD reinforce this feeling of brawl warrior online. Yeah the AC40 is a living dinosaurus. Being able to one shot lights, one shot rear ct and alphaing multiple times... Is out of current gameplay politic as far as i understand what PGI wants.

I'm not crying, i play AC40 most of the time =)
Nerf the AC40 and i will go for the next top dog stuff.

2 Buff the actual low/spread damage weapons (lasers, srm)
MWO will tend toward more "realistic" war, with positions and cover stuff since you can be killed very fast. This was the era before ghost heat with 6 PPC builds and popshooter paradise.


ME ?

I don't like brawl. I switched to the AC40 because i was tired to see those victors, lights, SHD and assault running straight in my face, ignoring incoming fire. Ac20 deal enough shake and dommage to stop them and one shot those fun-killing lights (imho, they have no place in MWO =). Other weapons don't have this "stopping power", especially lasers that don't dps, dont pinpoint, dont shake screen and dont blind with smoke...

I also use the UAV, because in PUG, making the whole team seing the ennemy fat-*** mob is more usefull than pooing an artillery strike. Often a win module.

Edited by loupgaroupoilu, 29 November 2013 - 04:57 AM.

[stjobe]

Taemien, on 29 November 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

There's a hole in that argument. AC20s in TT and Lore were selected to have the tonnage, range, heat, and critical space that it does because it nailed a single location for 20 dmg.

There's a hole in that argument. Lasers in TT did damage to a single location, but lasers in MWO are beam-duration weapons - which not only is more lore-friendly, but also works really well.

Why is it then so anathema to also follow the lore this time too and make ACs burst-fire (and the PPC a beam weapon while we're at it)?

I mean I understand people want their 20-damage-to-a-single-location; 20 damage to one location is simply superior to 20 damage potentially spread over several locations during a beam duration or by missile/projectile spread, but that's also the huge issue with it: It's a more efficient way to do damage, and at least to my eye it unbalances the ACs disproportionally.

ACs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifle are the only weapons in MWO that do all their damage in an instant to one location - do you think it's a coincidence that they are the overwhelmingly most common load-outs on the field? It is not, it's because it's so much more effective than beam-duration or missile/projectile spread.

If we could follow lore and make ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam weapon, we'd just have a single weapon that always placed its damage into one location: The Gauss Rifle - and that's described in lore as a one-slug-per-shot weapon.

We would then have this:
* Lasers spread their damage over their beam duration
* PPCs spread their damage over their beam duration (which may well be shorter than lasers)
* Missiles spread their damage with missile spread
* MGs and LBX ACs spread their damage with their projectile spread
* ACs spread their damage over their burst
* The Gauss Rifle does all its damage in one shot.

I think that would go a long way towards making the game more tactical, more interesting, easier to balance, and more fun.

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 29 November 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

There's a hole in that argument. Lasers in TT did damage to a single location, but lasers in MWO are beam-duration weapons - which not only is more lore-friendly, but also works really well.

Why is it then so anathema to also follow the lore this time too and make ACs burst-fire (and the PPC a beam weapon while we're at it)?

I mean I understand people want their 20-damage-to-a-single-location; 20 damage to one location is simply superior to 20 damage potentially spread over several locations during a beam duration or by missile/projectile spread, but that's also the huge issue with it: It's a more efficient way to do damage, and at least to my eye it unbalances the ACs disproportionally.

ACs, PPCs, and Gauss Rifle are the only weapons in MWO that do all their damage in an instant to one location - do you think it's a coincidence that they are the overwhelmingly most common load-outs on the field? It is not, it's because it's so much more effective than beam-duration or missile/projectile spread.

If we could follow lore and make ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam weapon, we'd just have a single weapon that always placed its damage into one location: The Gauss Rifle - and that's described in lore as a one-slug-per-shot weapon.

We would then have this:
* Lasers spread their damage over their beam duration
* PPCs spread their damage over their beam duration (which may well be shorter than lasers)
* Missiles spread their damage with missile spread
* MGs and LBX ACs spread their damage with their projectile spread
* ACs spread their damage over their burst
* The Gauss Rifle does all its damage in one shot.

I think that would go a long way towards making the game more tactical, more interesting, easier to balance, and more fun.

Read that again, as it is 99% perfect. The 1% that needs adjusted is the PPC should be a spread like LBX (albeit a much smaller spread), but I would take it as a beam if it meant autocannons were done correctly in the process as well.

[Urdasein]

Cimarb, on 29 November 2013 - 05:02 AM, said:

Read that again, as it is 99% perfect. The 1% that needs adjusted is the PPC should be a spread like LBX (albeit a much smaller spread), but I would take it as a beam if it meant autocannons were done correctly in the process as well.

I like that too. Would like to try it.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Good grief - some agreement on the forum. St Jobe really must be a saint!
As a long time user of ACs (my founders mech is a Hunch) I think that this is a good idea hat I'd like to try on the test server.
Perhaps turn it into an actual "suggestion"?
All it would need then is improving Pulse Lasers and SRM hit detection.

[Galenit]

Taemien, on 29 November 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

I see people calling the AC20 fine, quoting that its weight and heat make it so that firing at 270+ for 10 damage is a trade off. Ok... but where are the peeps using the AC10s as a normal weapon then? They don't, because they can use the AC20 instead and get the same damage at the same damage, for the benefit of doubling the damage when up close.

You are a little wrong, the ac20 do 10 damage at 540m and thats the problem.
If it would be 270/540m, it would do the 10 damage at 405m and 0 at 540m.

Triple range of ballistics is the mainproblem in balancing them with the other weapons.


To much ammo is the second problem,
TT ammo is for randomhitlocations, we only need 1/4 (1/8 but we have double armor) of that to do the same damage to one location, but we have 1.5 times the shells. You can say, we have now 6x the tt ammo for ballistics.

Not enough risk is the third.
10% after two random events is laughable.



Simple solution:
2x range for ballistics

1/2 x tt ammo for ballistics
(Maybe 1x tt ammo, but that would implement that we have a lot people that cant aim, as 1/2x tt ammo already says most people here need more then one try to hit a barn.)

35% ammo explosion chance (50% would be more matching i think, but i dont want to drown in tears.)

Edited by Galenit, 29 November 2013 - 05:41 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

staying at about 400 meters cures this and staying outside its max range is even better

Heat scale (ghost heat) also make the ac20 x 2 not very viable in concentrated firefights 1v1 its toast if it dosn't get you in the second shot, unless your dumb enough to stay in front of it while its shut down.

There are still a few that use the JM ac40 boom, but they hang back wait for others to get engaged and then boom, so rather than avoid the boomers engage when fresh

They are far less irritating then having a team full of lame Lurm boat assaults