70 replies to this topic

[Whatzituyah]

Jman5, on 27 November 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Autocannons have 3x max range, while energy weapons only have 2x.

For example: An AC/20 and Medium Laser both have a 270 meter optimal range. However, the medium laser has a max range of 540, while the AC/20 goes all the way out to 810 meters before zeroing out.

So not only do AC/20s hit further out than its counterpart the medium laser, but the ac/20 also has a much more gradual damage decline. At 540, it's still doing half damage.

ER PPCs? I mean come on the balance in that is how much weight the ammo and the weapon have combined while its max range is higher then a medium but it weighs alot and has a chance to explode. Like if people run balastics and think they are safe by putting ammo in the legs ok I will shoot the legs off.

Edited by Whatzituyah, 27 November 2013 - 10:10 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Autocannons AREN'T overpowered now...

Yes, they are. Anyone who understands why pinpoint alpha is a fundamentally broken game mechanic also knows that AC/20s are horrendously overpowered. 40 damage to one location will never be balanced in a game where medium mechs are as tall as assaults, only have 40 armor on their side torsos, and are forced to use XL engines to go their optimal speed. Since PGI adamantly refuses to rescale mediums, the only other option is to nerf AC/20s. An AC/20 nerf is all but inevitable because its irrefutably overpowered.

Edited by Khobai, 27 November 2013 - 10:24 PM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 27 November 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

Yes, they are.

No they aren't
Anyone who understands the list of trade-offs you have to make to use an AC over an energy weapon also knows that those trade-offs are a direct balancing feature.

[stjobe]

ACs are overpowered right now.

Yes, it could stand a range decrease down to 2x effective from 3x, but the main problem lies with two fundamental game issues:
* Pinpoint damage is superior to damage over time
* Low-heat weapons are superior to high-heat weapons

ACs are both pin-point and low heat, and that's why they are effectively overpowered.

The PPC (which is a faux-ballistic weapon) used to be the premier weapon in MWO due to its low weight, pin-point damage, and (relatively) low heat. Now that it has been nerfed at great expense with the byzantine Ghost Heat system, the only pin-point damage weapons in the game are ACs.

So really, it's not so much that ACs are overpowered as it is that pin-point damage is so effective at killing, and ACs are the only pin-point damage weapons we have left that hasn't gotten some overly complex nerfing system (I'm looking at you, Gauss charge system) put in place to stop them from being over-used.

The solution, of course, is to rework all ACs to be burst-fire weapons. That would leave the charge-up Gauss Rifle as the only pin-point weapon in the game, and that's fine.

Edited by stjobe, 27 November 2013 - 10:59 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I'd lower the maximum range from triple the normal range to double the normal range first.
Observe for a while.


If we're talking about small adjustments and keep refusing to fix the heat system and convergence and all that.

[Rorvik]

Sandpit, on 27 November 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

Anyone who understands the list of trade-offs you have to make to use an AC over an energy weapon also knows that those trade-offs are a direct balancing feature.

What trade off is that?

The only "trade off" I can see is weight, as AC weapons have longer range, pinpoint, instant damage, and relatively low heat when compared to lasers and missiles. Weight is definitely an issue with Medium and Light mechs, as you have to sacrifice something to use non-MG ballistics in them.

However, when you build an AC/40 Jager, it's a little difficult to take the "weight is a trade off" argument seriously...

[Galenit]

stjobe, on 27 November 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

The solution, of course, is to rework all ACs to be burst-fire weapons. That would leave the charge-up Gauss Rifle as the only pin-point weapon in the game, and that's fine.

2x range
1x tt-ammo, maybe only 1/2x
35% explosionchance for ammo

Let them be the high damage, high rof, burst damage weapons,
bring range in line with the other weapongroups,
make ammo count,
give ammo a risk thats noticeable.

Edited by Galenit, 28 November 2013 - 01:42 AM.

[Arend]

Sascha Kohlmann, on 27 November 2013 - 02:52 PM, said:

Nerf this, nerf that blablabla!

I'm so tired of this nerf this, nerf that Crybabies, simple solution even if its rude to say it like that, learn to play, Mister "i am an LRM Boat, press R" while sitting in an Atlas!

[Greyboots]

Khobai, on 27 November 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Wrong. Say you have three weapons.

Weapon 1 has a power level of 30 (i.e. Gauss)
Weapon 2 has a power level of 20 (i.e PPCs/Autocannons)
Weapon 3 has a power level of 10 (i.e. Large Lasers)

Say its patch day and weapon 1 gets nerfed from a power level of 30 to 10. What's the result? Weapons 1 and 3 are now balanced and weapon 2 becomes comparatively overpowered.

See how that works? Autocannons ARE overpowered now. Even though Autocannons themselves didnt change, PPCs and Gauss did, as did Large Lasers with ghost heat, and thats why Autocannons now occupy the #1 spot.

Balance has nothing to do with whether or not autocannons are changed. It has to do with how good autocannons are in relation to other weapons. So if other weapons are nerfed (i.e. from ghost heat), thats the same as autocannons being buffed.

Not quite.

For example, if 10 is the new standard, it would have likely been done to slow the pace of the game rather than as a "balance" move to make weapons equal. The the balance adjustment is a necessary byproduct of a need to slow the game down in this case.

If weapon 2 is still at the right pace for the game then they are indeed right where they should be and other weapons need to be buffed into line to achieve balance.

Changes are not always made to make things "even". As in the current case. The changes were instituted in order to tone down Alpha Strikes (slow down the game), not for any balance reason between weapons.

It simply isn't the same as Autocannons being buffed. That's a really simple way of looking at things that doesn't pan out in the long run.

SniperCon, on 27 November 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

ACs showed up when all the 4 ERPPC boats had to take off 14 tons and put their thinking caps on.

THIS is what it's all about. 4 ERPPC boat players NEEDED to have a reason to put their thinking caps on. But... they haven't really been given one. ACs and LRMs have become the obvious choices.

What happened that all of the sudden these seem so overpowered? Chances are that those changes were a little on the harsh side. Across 12 mechs? It doesn't take much to have a big effect.

Edited by Greyboots, 28 November 2013 - 02:25 AM.

[Tahribator]

Jman5, on 27 November 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Autocannons have 3x max range, while energy weapons only have 2x.

For example: An AC/20 and Medium Laser both have a 270 meter optimal range. However, the medium laser has a max range of 540, while the AC/20 goes all the way out to 810 meters before zeroing out.

So not only do AC/20s hit further out than its counterpart the medium laser, but the ac/20 also has a much more gradual damage decline. At 540, it's still doing half damage.

To add to that, a few more points;

• AC's aren't really gimped by weight compared to lasers. The extra tonnage for ammo and weapon is offset by not needing 10-12(t) additional heatsinks that barely help cooling.
  
• AC's keep their DPS up as long as their ammo allows. Heat management isn't necessary. Lasers builds need careful heat management instead, they can only afford 2-3 alphas before their DPS is gimped.
  
• AC builds have excellent synergy with SRM/Laser combinations since they are so heat efficient. Laser/SRM builds are very heat inefficient and are hard to manage.
  
• AC's deliver their damage instantly to a single component, not much time/thought into aiming is needed. Lasers need a lot of time on target and exposed to enemy fire meanwhile. Their only merit is that they hit instantly.

and now we have people just blurting spontaneously;

Adiuvo, on 27 November 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

ACs haven't had major changes to them... ever basically. They were never OP. They still aren't.

AC's got buffed indirectly by nerfs to the other weapons; LRM's, SRM's, Lasers(heatsinks) all were nerfed heavily in the last year. Only Gauss was nerfed on ballistics side and even some AC's got buffs. The apparent profileration of Cataphracts, Jagers, Shadowhawks and Assaults with ballistics show what's really happening.

Edited by Tahribator, 28 November 2013 - 02:37 AM.

[Galenit]

Arend, on 28 November 2013 - 02:03 AM, said:

I'm so tired of this nerf this, nerf that Crybabies, simple solution even if its rude to say it like that, learn to play, Mister "i am an LRM Boat, press R" while sitting in an Atlas!

Just show mathematical and logical that no balancing is needed.

If you dont do it, its just a whine from someone who fears to lose his unbalanced advantage but no contribution to the topic.
Please go around the corner if you only want to cry, if you have to say something about the topic, please do it.

Quote

nerf
Usually in first person shooters and RPGs, when game developers think a weapon is far too powerful, and threatens the stability of the game, and weakens the aspects of that power drmatically to rebalance it.

I dont understand why that much people cry and whine about nerfs.
Balancing sounds like a good thing for me ...

Edited by Galenit, 28 November 2013 - 02:49 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

TL;DR;
The game stats based on TT are not valid - because the damage/range ratio to weight/heat is not working.
The AC 5 in direct comparison to PPC or Gauss is to powerful
If the AC 5 is fine - all other weapons need to be buffed. Given the side effects -that will cause several new FoTM Combinations. - No balance could be achieved with current game mechanics. (keeping some TT values and ignoring others - is like trying to balance a equotation 10*x+2y = 11*x+2y)

OK:
MWO or BattleTech or all games with multiple weapons that approach the "task" deal damage on different routes are indeed hard to balance.
My favorite example for BattleTech is the PPC-> AC 5 for LosTech era and ERPPC-> Gauss in the SL tech era.

First both pairs have equal ranges. The only difference is weight, heat and damage.
The AC 5 deal only 50% of the damage of the PPC and weights with 1ton of ammunition 2t more with 2 crits more.
Predict a Mech can only mount 9tons - you should take the PPC plus 2 additional heatsinks -> Your Mech will never overheat and you deal twice the damage of the AC and you can't explode and you can't run out of ammo.

But what if you have 18tons available?
2 PPCs? - gives you the ability to deal 20dmg. But with 14 heat sinks you will overheat. Each time you fire both weapons - so you have to make a break every second turn - or fire in a pattern: 2x1x1x2
If you mount 2 AC 5s you can fire all the time 2x2x2x2 until you are out of ammo - may happen after 20 rounds.
OR you combine both weapons: you deal all the time 15 damage - you won't overheat and you may be able to have enough ammo.
The same could be done for the ER-PPC vs Gauss
17 ton available: gives you the option to mount a single gauss with 2tons of ammo - or you mount 2 ER-PPCs with 13DHS - you overheat - but with 24tons available the best combo is Gauss plus ER-PPC...
Hm - as you may see this is really balanced somehow. OK 2 AC 5s are inferior in comparison to a single GaussRifle (although it depends on other values - because with 2 AC 5s you have 2 chances to deal damage)

The fact is : the AC 5 of MWO in comparison to the PPC is not that kind of balanced:
Heat isn't a problem because you allready have upgraded your Heatsinks to double.
The AC 5 has greater range
The AC 5 deals more damage in a shorter time
You have 50% more ammo - while the costs for the PPC are increased.

What about ER-PPC and Gauss? Thats hard to say - the ER-PPC is inferior to the PPC because of the heat and the ********* heat system. The Gauss is inferior because of the charge and reload time in comparison with 2 AC 5s.

OK even with more damage and range the dual AC 5 could be balanced in TT vs a single Gauss. Because there is still the range bracket thing - if the Gauss have a short range of 8 and the AC 5 of 7 (like the ER-PPC) - and of course there is the random hit location table - and only 50% armor (hardly any light Mech has enough armor to take a single hit from a Gauss - but can take a dozen shots of a AC 5)
But this balancing mechanic isn't existent in MWO.

So strictly spoken - NO ACs are not balanced in MWO...they are not in the nice where they should work. They out range similar or even better weapons. They have reduced costs (ammunition - and C-Bills, too) - the damage is applied to the same area.

That means - the ratio of damage/range vs weight/heat is not working in MWO. For what they are capable of the current AC 5 should weight more and produce more heat.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 28 November 2013 - 03:25 AM.

[Troutmonkey]

I would love to use my Stalkers more, but I've found that unless I'm using a combination of AC and Lasers / Missiles I'm severly handicapping myself. For now the only things I can seem to run well are Cataphracts and Shadowhawks.

This has a lot to do with Ghost heat but also a lot to do with JJs + Movement Nerf.

[Troutmonkey]

It doesn't matter whether AC is "OP" or if energy weps are "UP".
As I see it:

AutoCannons > Lasers
AutoCannons + Lasers > Lots of Lasers

[Mudhutwarrior]

Yes lets just nerf every weapon in the game while ignoring what is really chasing away new players. Run Forest Run!

[Lupus Aurelius]

When you radically change a dynamic, such as firing time, you radically change the relationships. Translating that into a real time environment should have been done in such a way as to maintain those relative relationships in heat and damage output.

Increasing weapon firing speed, without increasing heat dissipation, creates an obvious imbalance between low heat and high heat weapons. Low heat weapons win big, whereas the converse is true for high heat weapons.

BT data has the DPS of the AC5 being 1/2 the PPC and ERPPC, which is as it should be, 5 damage vs. 10 damage in 10 seconds. But in the MWO data, the AC5 has a damage output of 1.332x that of the PPC/ERPPC.

Compared to BT. AC10 and LB 10X quadrupled it’s damage output, AC5 and UAC5(not counting double shot) 7 times the damage output. The big winner here is the AC2, at over 19 times the damage, and the big loser for ballistics, AC20, at only 2.5 times the damage output.

Compare that to the energy weapons, the highest was SPL at 4.133, the SL at 3.133, and the LPL at 3.05 times the damage, with everything else less than 3 times. But, heat dissipation rates remain the same as in BT, excepting external DHS, which are less than BT at 1.4 heat/10sec instead of 2.0 heat/10 sec.
-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. In addition, the dissipation rate has remained the same for SHS and engine DHS,0 .1 and 0.2 heat respectively. So an engine with 10 internal DHS has a heat rating of 50, but it is only shedding 2 heat per sec.

As stated above, ballistic average 2.14 heat per second. With a heat reservoir of 50, doing 2.14 heat/sec, but shedding 2.0 heat/sec, that’s a net difference of 0.14 heat/sec. Over 357 shots. Energy weapons average 6.34 heat/sec, so the net difference there in 4.34 heat per sec. that’s 11.52 shots.

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.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Ok. First people asked to nerf lurms because of lurm-apocalypse.
Lurms got nerfed and PPC-fest has begun.
Then people asked to nerf PPCs because they were getting killed by six-ppc stalkers.
PGI answered with ghost heat and whiners switched to PPC+gauss combo and its "horrible 35 pinpoint alpha, oh noes! we're all gonna die!"
PGI nerfed both PPCs and gauss into oblivion, but no, people are still getting killed by #weaponname#, what a surprise.

Well, guess what, next thing to be beaten with nerfbait will be gunz, but that wouldn't help as players will find the next Least-Crappy-Weapon-Combo and exploit it.

[DrSlamastika]

ACs are not OP, I dont have nothing about ghost heat, I love this gauss gun.

I think MWO is pretty good balanced. (for me)

[stjobe]

Lupus Aurelius, on 28 November 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

Increasing weapon firing speed, without increasing heat dissipation, creates an obvious imbalance between low heat and high heat weapons.

Yes, it should have been obvious.

The heat system needs to change, and the changes aren't even all that complicated:
* Increase dissipation.
* Implement heat penalties starting at 40-50% heat.
* Make all DHS 2.0.

Another thing that should have been obvious is that pin-point accuracy doesn't work with values designed for random hit chance. Therefore pin-point accuracy needs to be reduced as well, and here too the changes aren't all that complicated:
* Make autocannons burst-fire
* Optionally reimplement convergence and/or implement a cone of fire if burst-fire ACs isn't enough to get the TTL up.

With these rather limited changes we get a game where TTL is higher, tactics are more important, and heat actually is a factor.

[Mudhutwarrior]

Nerf small lasers. I got killed by them once.