269 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Regarding the burst fire:
you can simulate the same in TT:

Turn a AC 5 into a kind of LBX7 or ACB (AutocannonBurst) using cluster ammunition but instead of dealing up to 7 hits for 1 dmg it deals 1 hit with damage of 1 - 7
Even with a -1 to hit modifier the average damage is the same (without -1 to hit you need 8 pellets)

To use 2d6 is limiting the system somehow: a AC 2 -must be a AC B 3 but without -1 to hit modifer

AC 10 - ACB 13 with -1
AC 20 - ACB 30 with -1

Question is -> why should i take a AC 2 over a AC 20? I do fire short bursts and have time to redirect the weapon in the break...the AC 20 put a firestorm - and really really long burst....so its possible most shots will miss.

You can alternate the rof of each shell:
Light AC = 1 shot each 0.25sec (0.75 sec for a single burst)
Medium AC = 1 shot each 0.11sec
Heavy AC = 0.06sec
Assault AC = 0,026sec

However where to place the UAC 5? Simple more shells in a shorter period = 10 instead of 7

Edited by Karl Streiger, 06 December 2013 - 03:01 AM.

[Blurry]

The only problem is that you cant put 2 on each mech. And of course ammo!

Now PGI fix that spiders with 2x ac20=win

get on that please.

we dont need no stinking lazers or missles.

put up a hero spider mech =$$$$ to da bank.

[Hexenhammer]

Weapon convergence: It's easier to add ghost heat than deal with the problem.

[stjobe]

Blurry, on 06 December 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

put up a hero spider mech =$$$$ to da bank.

Yup, imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! PGI would be laughing all the way to the bank.

...seriously though, we need burst-fire ballistics if this game is ever going to have a semblance of balance between the three weapon types; as it is, the instant-damage of ACs combined with pin-point alphas is just so much more effective at applying damage than the spread damage that missiles and lasers put out that there's no contest. There's just no reason to ever take a missile or energy weapon (aside from the faux-ballistic PPC, which needs to be remade into a beam weapon) if you can take a (non-MG, non-LBX) ballistic instead. They're just better.

Edited by stjobe, 06 December 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 04 December 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

You are missing the point. You can't have random convergence without destroying the fun of the game. Who wants to play a shooter where you point the weapon at something and hope it hits something nearby? If you want that, just don't use your zoom and stay at least 500 meters from the enemy.

If you make it damage over a 0.5-1 second duration, you are skilled enough to place that damage in one spot, so it would be the same end effect. In that clip that you show of the Hulk, which is also one of my favorite parts of that movie, he doesn't do a single hit - he quickly beats Loki back and forth over and over again. Smash all you want, just do it in a balanced way.

I want to point my weapon at the target and it hit in relatively the same place. We are firing on walking 2 story buildings. a one Meter Cone is not insane. If you can show me a U-Tube of a Tank chain firing or Better, a Battleship firing its broadside and all the shells hit the the exact same spot, I will give up the discussion. Show me. This is what you are trying to say happens cause you got skillz, Show me professionals firing multiple ballistic weapons and everything hitting the same spot.

stjobe, on 06 December 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Yup, imagine the devastating effect that a 6 MG spider could do to the back of an Atlas! PGI would be laughing all the way to the bank.

...seriously though, we need burst-fire ballistics if this game is ever going to have a semblance of balance between the three weapon types; as it is, the instant-damage of ACs combined with pin-point alphas is just so much more effective at applying damage than the spread damage that missiles and lasers put out that there's no contest. There's just no reason to ever take a missile or energy weapon (aside from the faux-ballistic PPC, which needs to be remade into a beam weapon) if you can take a (non-MG, non-LBX) ballistic instead. They're just better.

I Disagree StJobe. The balance is in the differences we have now.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 December 2013 - 04:51 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

I Disagree StJobe. The balance is in the differences we have now.

What balance? Instant-hit weapons (ACs, PPCs, Gauss) are strictly better than any other type of weapons. There's no balance, and no balancing until they lose their instant damage.

Missiles spread their damage and they're considered inferior.
Lasers have beam duration and they're considered inferior.
ACs, PPCs, and Gauss are mounted on anything that can carry them, in as large numbers as possible.

It has to stop, and the way to stop it is burst-fire ballistics and a beam-duration PPC.

I know this means your precious AC/20 won't do 20 damage all to one place, but it never was supposed to. That was a simplification to avoid doing 20-100 to-hit rolls in the table-top board game.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 06 December 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

What balance? Instant-hit weapons (ACs, PPCs, Gauss) are strictly better than any other type of weapons. There's no balance, and no balancing until they lose their instant damage.

Missiles spread their damage and they're considered inferior.
Lasers have beam duration and they're considered inferior.
ACs, PPCs, and Gauss are mounted on anything that can carry them, in as large numbers as possible.

It has to stop, and the way to stop it is burst-fire ballistics and a beam-duration PPC.

I know this means your precious AC/20 won't do 20 damage all to one place, but it never was supposed to. That was a simplification to avoid doing 20-100 to-hit rolls in the table-top board game.

And yet I am finding my Kintaro to deliver more damage that My AC20 equipped Atlas!

[Trauglodyte]

Stjobe, you're right about the convergence stat being nothing but an XP tax. Why convergence was ever taken out is unknown to me. Personally, I'd like ACs to actually be autocannons instead of what they are now but I'd bet happy with some semblance of convergence and arm speed reduction added to the game. Aiming isn't really a skill in this game as much as people like to think it is and that is simply because you can immediatly put damage where you click due to there not being any real delay.

[Black Ivan]

There is no weapons balance in this game. PGI broke the system early on with their beam lasers and useless heat system.

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 06 December 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

Personally, I'd like ACs to actually be autocannons instead of what they are now

Me too, hence my little burst-fire "crusade" (tilting at windmills, more likely - but still).

Trauglodyte, on 06 December 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

but I'd bet happy with some semblance of convergence and arm speed reduction

I hope you've read Artgathan's marvellous and well researched thread on engine ratings and why they need to be reduced?

For anyone that hasn't, here's the non-math, severely abridged version: An Atlas is nimble enough to keep any 'mech in game in it's sights at ranges over 50m. You have to be faster than 170 kph or closer than 50m to stop an Atlas being able to track you. Just by turning. When you add arm movement, an Atlas can track a 'mech going 180kph at ranges over 25m.

That's just not right.

Edited by stjobe, 06 December 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

I skimmed over it cause all of the math hurt my face. But, I've been on the anecdotal end of it and have experienced what happens when you try to run circles around an Atlas let alone a Highlander (insert JJs need a meneuverability nerf here). The funny thing is that if you've ever tried leveling up, say, a Cataphract and put weapons in its arms but hadn't gotten any XP efficiencies yet, you see the impact of torso speed and arm speed. I've had more than a few situations where I've had a bead on someone and led them with PPCs only to see the bolts cross in front of the target due to convergence issues. THAT is how the game is supposed to work. The only way around that is to pick a mech where you can dump everything into the torso which then leaves you in the precarious situation where you can get torso stripped and/or you lose your angle of fire. That is a choice that you should have to make instead of where none of that matters.

And yes, I'd like multi-fire ACs. I would love if they all fired two shots within 0.15s, give or take, of each other. It wouldn't add a cone of fire and it might not do much to prevent all of the damage hitting the same spot but it would help and would add some real life fluff to the weapon group.

[Joseph Mallan]

We already have DpS weapons and scatter weapons, I want the ACs to stay Front loaded damage, so we have different ways to pummel each other.

[Trauglodyte]

I'm cool with that, JoMal. I just like the idea that there is some degree of ability to miss slightly with the AC while maintaining the upfront damage. It would go a long way to seperating the tier1 tech (ACs) and tier2 tech (Gauss UACs) while also implimenting some degree of chance which would seperate the actual snipers and those that kind of sort of know how to aim. I put myself in that last group...LOVE when I *cough* purposely headshot someone *cough cough*

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 06 December 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

I'm cool with that, JoMal. I just like the idea that there is some degree of ability to miss slightly with the AC while maintaining the upfront damage. It would go a long way to seperating the tier1 tech (ACs) and tier2 tech (Gauss UACs) while also implimenting some degree of chance which would seperate the actual snipers and those that kind of sort of know how to aim. I put myself in that last group...LOVE when I *cough* purposely headshot someone *cough cough*

I appear to miss 45% of the time with an AC20 while hitting for 80% using Medium lasers. I am also hitting for half as much damage per hit... I don't have any interest in having 1/2 as much damage or more accuracy with my BFH.

[MadcatX]

PPC/Gauss nerf (and Ghost Heat) results in the new meta.

If the AC20 becomes inferior, then the meta will shift to whatever the next best weapon in line is that can unload the best pinpoint damage for it's tonnage / heat.

And then a thread about that weapon will commence.

[Almond Brown]

Odins Fist, on 29 November 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Let's just NERF the range on ALL weapons down to 150 meters.. There ya go..!! Are you people serious..??
Go get your Frigging shine box.

Dude, a Shine Box only generate 89K c-bills per shine (no tip). Who can be frigging expected to deal with a crappy income base like that...

[Almond Brown]

MustrumRidcully, on 30 November 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Theoretically, the higher rate of fire would still give the AC/10 a leg up, but in practice, it doesn't seem to work out that way. I'd suspect it might also have something to do with what rate of fire you can actually sustain at long ranges if you actually try to hit.

I think the AC/20 and AC/10 are in the "sweet spot" range interval that players tend to have good accuracy and where also unobstructed sight lines exist so you can fight there often - and the AC/20 has a decent advantage the closer you get.

The AC20 also get less than 50% per ton of ammo (7 vs 15). A huge trade off if your gonna spend a lot of time firing rounds from the AC20 at +/- 540m, against moving opponents.

[stjobe]

MadcatX, on 06 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

the meta will shift to whatever the next best weapon in line is that can unload the best pinpoint damage for it's tonnage / heat.

And that's one of the reasons why I want to make ACs burst-fire and the PPC a beam-duration weapon; then we'd only have a single instant-damage weapon in the Gauss Rifle.

A single weapon can be balanced, and the other weapons finally can be balanced by weight, heat, ammo, range, crit slots, damage and so on without having to fight the instant/beam duration/missile spread divide that's currently making instant-damage weapons so superior to everything else.

[Trauglodyte]

MadcatX, on 06 December 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

PPC/Gauss nerf (and Ghost Heat) results in the new meta.

If the AC20 becomes inferior, then the meta will shift to whatever the next best weapon in line is that can unload the best pinpoint damage for it's tonnage / heat.

And then a thread about that weapon will commence.

Thing is, every game fluctuates like that. But, what I think every rationale person wants is some semblance of chance with a degree of survivability. The current meta exists because it, and the prior PPC+ meta, is the most efficient way of dealing damage AND, assuming that your aim is solid, there isn't any way of avoiding it if you're targetted. Lasers can be torsoed, missiles have a base chance to miss due to spread, LBs are meh, etc. So, it is less about making PPCs and ACs (20s in this case) less potent and more about making the game less about mass hammers.

I should point out that the one biggest failing of this game isn't so much about individual weapons. The biggest problem stems from the useage of multiples of the same or similar weapons. Single hit weapons by themselves are fine (see the Hunchy) but when they're multiplied things get loose. THere has to be something, aside from Ghost Heat, to dissuade that.

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 December 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

We already have DpS weapons and scatter weapons, I want the ACs to stay Front loaded damage, so we have different ways to pummel each other.

How about the AC's retain their 3X range but after 50% optimal, their ballistic curve/drop-off is increased 2 or 3 times.

That way, a shooter would have to calculate the rounds "drop" based on the shots range to target. The farther away, the more drop off.

A lot to remember for sure but that is what you get with your "front loaded" "pin point" damage type weapons.

Edited by Almond Brown, 06 December 2013 - 12:02 PM.