675 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 February 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

So long as I can keep firing a 203mm Shell every 4-6 seconds instead of burping out 15-20 in 4-6 seconds, then I will be happy. I dont play this game to DpS. I play it to crush you, and as such I accept when I am crushed. I don't complain either way.

I was much happier as a grenadier than I was as a Machine Gunner. Damage was done in a much more pleasing way for me.

I have tried to find a compromise on this, as long as it results in FLD being less common than it currently is, since I understand that some people really like their BFGs. I do still believe that the Gauss should be "that gun", with the AC20 being the equivalent to the Gatling gun Jesse Ventura uses in Predator. It most definitely gives the same "oh {Scrap}" feeling, but in a much different way!

Sturmforge, on 03 February 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

What about reducing the beam duration on the those weapons? From 1.00 to 0.75 for medium and large, 0.6 to 0.4 for medium and large pulse, 0.75 to 0.6 small laser, and 0.5 to 0.3 for the small pulse, or something similar. Lasers are easy to defend against just by turning and torso twisting.

Or even front-load the damage a bit. Say 1/4 to 1/2 of the damage hits on the first tick, with the rest spread out over the beam duration.

Just throwing out ideas.

We have discussed these ideas a lot over the months (and many threads), but the point is to reduce FLD (front loaded damage) to increase TTK (time to kill) and make matches more about strategy and survival than trying to blow up as much as possible before you get hit and killed. With the notable exception of Joe, most of us can agree that the TTK is far too low currently and there is a reason everyone is playing skirmish right now, as it is the only game mode that fits with the current match meta.

Improving lasers, which is great at face value, only decreases the TTK and exacerbates the problem, so it is not a viable solution. Giving lasers and other duration/spread weapons non-damage related buffs, on the other hand, would be a great way to make them more useful as primary weapons. For instance, having lasers cause heat buildup when they hit internals would be a great "buff", IMO, without changing their actual damage output at all.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 02 February 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

The AC20 SHOULD be king and the AC2 used for long range harassing, not serious DPS. As I said in my original post, the problem we have now is that every single AC is currently doing AC20 damage over time, and doing it to far more distance than any of them should.

Because there only doing damage based off of a dps scale. And even then the numbers are different. Your not basing it off of the actual different uses the weapons have in combat. Making the weapons simply all around stronger based off of scale just would create an imbalance favoring heavy and assault mechs. The argument of them all doing similar damage doesn't take into account the fact that they take varying degrees of time to do that damage. Right now they all fulfill different rolls and give an overall unique feel to the game with those weapons. What would these changes do other then literally make ac no brainer if you can fit the larger gun?

[TB Freelancer]

The whole 'pinpoint', 'instant damage' argument is an easy bandwagon to jump onto without having to actually think. I don't care how you slice it, turning slugs into laser beams, which is effectively what is being demanded here is about as enlightened as ghost heat was. It also completely ignores the underlying problem all weapons sit on top of and which is the single biggest thing benefiting ballistics at the expense of energy. Namely the heat system.

Under the current heat system a SHS ads 1 heat capacity and cools 0.1 heat per second. A DHS adds 1.4 heat capacity and cools 0.14 heat per second....

...see the problem here?

Heat sinks adding heat capacity to mechs where they can get as hot as nearly three times TT maximums?
Heat sinks that still cool at TT rates or worse (1.4 DHS) based on a 10 second turn while all weapons fire two to twenty times faster?

First let me get this out of the way. Normally I just groan when I see some guy self righteously proclaiming TT values. MWO is a real time shooter, not TT. But the problem here is that PGI lifted all sorts of stats from TT, massively screwed with how often weapons fire, but left heat dissipation at TT values without even looking at them.

With weapons firing about 2 to 20 times, at both extremes, faster that TT values, many weapons simply sit below a certain threshold where they reap massive benefits. Above a certain threshold heat builds extremely rapidly filling the buffer that MWO heat sinks create by adding heat threshold, then the mech stalls out.

In TT it only took 4 SHS to keep a medium laser completely heat neutral. In MWO you need 10. In other words, if you want to run a mech with 6 of them, you need 60 single heat sinks. If we had what PGI would call true double heat sinks, you'd need 30 which is still impossible.

A 100 ton Boar's Head with 25 DHS can't even run 5 medium lasers and be heat neutral. Granted it would take nearly 5 minutes to overheat. But add one medium laser to make it 6 and it would take the Boar's Head less than a minute to stall out. Seriously, that 6th medium laser cuts down its effective fighting time that much. With bigger energy weapons the situation is more abysmal.

While I do have some issues with ballistics, the single biggest one being ammo that explodes so rarely that C.A.S.E. or ammo placement aren't even things to consider, there isn't anything inherently OP about ballistics as they are. The single biggest thing benefiting ballistics is the single biggest thing that has made both energy builds and SHS worthless in this game and that's an utterly broken heat system.

Guys can babble all they wan't about pinpoint accuracy, front loaded damage, but until one of the most fundamental building blocks that effect how all weapons behave is fixed, its an asinine argument. Under a proper heat system, a stock BLR-1G, or an Awesome 8Q could run their stock load outs and be effective instead of stalling out in 13 or 14 seconds respectively.


Personally I think;
- a heat cap of 30 would do the trick
- hitting 31 would mean a shutdown
- there should be some upper, hard cap that means instant death
- tweaking SHS and DHS to dissipate heat more quickly and keep a 2:1 relationship between their effectiveness until a decent balance is found. From there start tweaking specific weapons.
- JJs really should produce heat, a minimum of 3 heat scaled up depending on the number, JJ class and distance jumped.
- Flamers and Lasers should have an increased chance to detonate ammo on exposed sections.

As I see it, that would do a number of things;
- Curtail the worst of the alpha poptart builds.
- Limit energy alhpas to reasonable levels. Keep in mind with a 30 point cap on a normal map firing 3 ppcs would require a mech to be standing still and fully cooled, on a hot map a mech might have to walk to be able to fire 2 because running gets it too hot, on a cool map a mech might be able to alpha 3 while running.
- Ammo that properly explodes or has increased chances of exploding because of flamer or laser fire would make mechs think twice about ammo placement. C.A.S.E. might not be about as useful as a C3 computer.

In the meantime I'll ride this stale meta out until PGI has its next brainfart.

[Cyborne Elemental]

7 reasons I can think of why Energy weapons don't outperform ammo weapons.

1. Triple slot heatsinks
2. Overbalancing of all energy weapons, because they can't figure out how to balance "ERPPC" "PPC"
3. Inclusion of modules to flush engine coolant.
4. Infinite ammo
5. Energy weapons have no travel time, except PPC and its still the highest velocity weapon in the game currently.
6. You need to use combinations of weapons, if you go with just energy, or just ballistics alone, its usually a bad idea, gotta balance out firepower with heat as much as you can.
7. Developer and Community disconnect, they probably only hear from a handful of the "best" players, and they likely don't want change unless if affects their own play styles.

Its not really an issue of ammo weapons being OP, its energy weapons being generally a little over nerfed.

Alot of it is about range as well, most heavy ballistic engagement takes place within 700 meters and shorter, if you can keep moving and keep your distance instead of closing in too far, energy weapons will outperform ballistics very well.

Edited by Mister D, 03 February 2014 - 07:58 PM.

[Cimarb]

TB Freelancer - I agree with you completely about the heat system, and think you have a great solution for it (and have suggested close to the same thing in other threads), but there IS a fundamental issue with how autocannons are implemented currently, as well as PPCs. Please don't disregard something just because you don't agree with it.

Varent, on 03 February 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Because there only doing damage based off of a dps scale. And even then the numbers are different. Your not basing it off of the actual different uses the weapons have in combat. Making the weapons simply all around stronger based off of scale just would create an imbalance favoring heavy and assault mechs. The argument of them all doing similar damage doesn't take into account the fact that they take varying degrees of time to do that damage. Right now they all fulfill different rolls and give an overall unique feel to the game with those weapons. What would these changes do other then literally make ac no brainer if you can fit the larger gun?

Varent, please stop disagreeing just to disagree. I understand the devil's advocate thing, but you aren't helping the conversation at all.

Autocannons are classified by the damage they do to armor over a set time period - that is their classification's very definition! DPS IS WHAT MAKES THEM A CERTAIN CLASS. You can set that time period to whatever you want, whether it is a second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds (like tabletop), or a minute, but the damage a certain autocannon does in that time period is what sets it as that class.

An autocannon that does 20 damage every 4 seconds is classified as an AC/20, just like an autocannon that does 5 damage every 1 second or an autocannon that does 40 damage every 8 seconds. They are all the same class of autocannon, BY DEFINITION.

Here, I'll repost the actual quote (from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon):

Quote

Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes:

Also, further (from http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20):

Quote

[color=#000000]An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.[/color]

Actually read that. Now look at the bold parts, and even the italics, a third time. Size of shell doesn't matter. Rate of fire doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the damage output (aka DPS).

Now, you do mention USE of the different classes as well. That is a good point. An AC/2 should be a long range harraser - just like a MG is a short range harasser - not a long range AC/20 like it currently is. An AC/5 should be heavier DPS at a shorter range, while it is currently LESS DPS at a shorter range. AC/10 slightly more damage than those, and AC/20 slightly more damage than those, both for slightly shorter ranges. The range thing is an issue, and they should be adjusted to x2 like everything else, but currently you have four ranges for an AC/20, not four different classes of autocannon.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 03 February 2014 - 07:57 PM, said:

TB Freelancer - I agree with you completely about the heat system, and think you have a great solution for it (and have suggested close to the same thing in other threads), but there IS a fundamental issue with how autocannons are implemented currently, as well as PPCs. Please don't disregard something just because you don't agree with it.


Varent, please stop disagreeing just to disagree. I understand the devil's advocate thing, but you aren't helping the conversation at all.

Autocannons are classified by the damage they do to armor over a set time period - that is their classification's very definition! DPS IS WHAT MAKES THEM A CERTAIN CLASS. You can set that time period to whatever you want, whether it is a second, 5 seconds, 10 seconds (like tabletop), or a minute, but the damage a certain autocannon does in that time period is what sets it as that class.

An autocannon that does 20 damage every 4 seconds is classified as an AC/20, just like an autocannon that does 5 damage every 1 second or an autocannon that does 40 damage every 8 seconds. They are all the same class of autocannon, BY DEFINITION.

Here, I'll repost the actual quote (from http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon):



Also, further (from http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20):


Actually read that. Now look at the bold parts, and even the italics, a third time. Size of shell doesn't matter. Rate of fire doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the damage output (aka DPS).

Now, you do mention USE of the different classes as well. That is a good point. An AC/2 should be a long range harraser - just like a MG is a short range harasser - not a long range AC/20 like it currently is. An AC/5 should be heavier DPS at a shorter range, while it is currently LESS DPS at a shorter range. AC/10 slightly more damage than those, and AC/20 slightly more damage than those, both for slightly shorter ranges. The range thing is an issue, and they should be adjusted to x2 like everything else, but currently you have four ranges for an AC/20, not four different classes of autocannon.

Im not disagreeing just to disagree I actually liked a lot of your ideas on the original statement. I just don't see how making all the weapons the same dps will make a positive change to the game.

[Craig Steele]

You do realize that quoting Sarna does not make it canon right?

As good as Sarna is, there are many variations to Source books and technical readouts in it's content.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 03 February 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Im not disagreeing just to disagree I actually liked a lot of your ideas on the original statement. I just don't see how making all the weapons the same dps will make a positive change to the game.

Making them all the same dps? I'm confused. They are CURRENTLY all roughly the same dps, whether you have an AC2 (19.23 dp5s), AC5 (16.65 dp5s), AC10 (20 dp5s) or AC20 (25 dp5s). There is seriously an 8.35 dp5s difference between them ALL, and the sad thing is it's the AC5 that is on the low end of that! There is a 0.77 dp5s difference between the AC2 and AC10... that's just plain silly, and explain why no one uses the AC10.

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

You do realize that quoting Sarna does not make it canon right?

As good as Sarna is, there are many variations to Source books and technical readouts in it's content.

Find a more reliable source and I would be happy to use it. Find me a respected source that contradicts it and I would be happy to adjust my stance.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 03 February 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Making them all the same dps? I'm confused. They are CURRENTLY all roughly the same dps, whether you have an AC2 (19.23 dp5s), AC5 (16.65 dp5s), AC10 (20 dp5s) or AC20 (25 dp5s). There is seriously an 8.35 dp5s difference between them ALL, and the sad thing is it's the AC5 that is on the low end of that! There is a 0.77 dp5s difference between the AC2 and AC10... that's just plain silly, and explain why no one uses the AC10.


Find a more reliable source and I would be happy to use it. Find me a respected source that contradicts it and I would be happy to adjust my stance.

Sorry my mistake. I meant to say I don't see how making it a step progression in dps will make the game or the weapons better.

[Craig Steele]

Cimarb, on 03 February 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Making them all the same dps? I'm confused. They are CURRENTLY all roughly the same dps, whether you have an AC2 (19.23 dp5s), AC5 (16.65 dp5s), AC10 (20 dp5s) or AC20 (25 dp5s). There is seriously an 8.35 dp5s difference between them ALL, and the sad thing is it's the AC5 that is on the low end of that! There is a 0.77 dp5s difference between the AC2 and AC10... that's just plain silly, and explain why no one uses the AC10.


Find a more reliable source and I would be happy to use it. Find me a respected source that contradicts it and I would be happy to adjust my stance.

Umm, thats kinda my point. Canon to me is the Source books published by the various owners of the licence over time. There is no definitive definition of "All Autocannons" albeit there are veiled references in different books to some manufacturers product.

My point is, just because some fan boy added it to Sarna, a public database, that doesn't make it Canon.

If you look at the ammo factor of all AC's in TT, they are all basically 100 dmg fully expended so in some regards it is the same dmg potential over longer time. Physically speaking this is plausible where the size of the shell is a factor. So in other words, canon suggests that firing smaller shells over a longer time or larger shells (with corresponding less spin and velocity, hence range) over a shorter time does the same damage.

Use your guff if you like, it sounds reasonably workable. But you probably shouldn't argue it's "canon" as some other fan boy with more books than me might prove you wrong.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 03 February 2014 - 09:15 PM, said:

Sorry my mistake. I meant to say I don't see how making it a step progression in dps will make the game or the weapons better.

That makes more sense, though I still disagree. Look at it this way: a class of autocannon describes a bunch of different manufacturers that may perform slightly differently in RoF and caliber, but do roughly the same amount of armor damage in a certain time period. If we assume that is truth, then you can make 4-5 (or more) different manufacturer versions for every single autocannon, greatly diversifying the number of choices for every player using them while also giving a balancing factor across the board. If we keep with the existing autocannon balance, though, every one of the weapons will do AC20 damage, but to different ranges based upon rate of fire alone, which is actually the exact opposite of how it should be, as a quicker firing weapon should have a SHORTER range, not longer.

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

Umm, thats kinda my point. Canon to me is the Source books published by the various owners of the licence over time. There is no definitive definition of "All Autocannons" albeit there are veiled references in different books to some manufacturers product.

My point is, just because some fan boy added it to Sarna, a public database, that doesn't make it Canon.

If you look at the ammo factor of all AC's in TT, they are all basically 100 dmg fully expended so in some regards it is the same dmg potential over longer time. Physically speaking this is plausible where the size of the shell is a factor. So in other words, canon suggests that firing smaller shells over a longer time or larger shells (with corresponding less spin and velocity, hence range) over a shorter time does the same damage.

Use your guff if you like, it sounds reasonably workable. But you probably shouldn't argue it's "canon" as some other fan boy with more books than me might prove you wrong.

Then find a sourcebook and screenshot it to prove me wrong - I welcome it! If it contradicts what Sarna said, I will be happy to adjust my stance, as I already said. Until then, you are just blowing smoke and wasting everyone's time.

Regarding the ammo amounts, you are correct that they all have roughly the same amount of damage potential out of a ton of ammo. The difference depends on how long it takes to get that much damage out of them. For instance, an AC/2 has a damage potential of 90 damage (45 ammo/ton times 2 damage per turn). The AC/20 has basically the same amount of damage potential at 100 (5 ammo/ton times 20 damage per turn). Now look at the time it would take to deliver that damage. Since in TT you can only fire an individual weapon once per turn, it would take you five turns, or 50 seconds, to deliver all of your damage potential with the AC/20, while the AC/2 would take a whopping 450 seconds (or 7.5 minutes) to deliver the same amount of damage potential with it. Do you see the difference now?

Edit: use my guff?....

Edited by Cimarb, 04 February 2014 - 06:32 AM.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

Umm, thats kinda my point. Canon to me is the Source books published by the various owners of the licence over time. There is no definitive definition of "All Autocannons" albeit there are veiled references in different books to some manufacturers product.

My point is, just because some fan boy added it to Sarna, a public database, that doesn't make it Canon.

But the references to the source material listed on every Sarna page does.

For ACs being "loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor", the reference is Tech Manual, page 207.

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 09:31 PM, said:

If you look at the ammo factor of all AC's in TT, they are all basically 100 dmg fully expended so in some regards it is the same dmg potential over longer time. Physically speaking this is plausible where the size of the shell is a factor. So in other words, canon suggests that firing smaller shells over a longer time or larger shells (with corresponding less spin and velocity, hence range) over a shorter time does the same damage.

In TT, an AC/2 did 2 damage per 10 seconds (2 DP10S), in MWO it does 38.5 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/5 did 5 DP10S, in MWO it does 33.3 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/10 did 10 DP10S, in MWO it does 40 DP10S.
In TT, an AC/20 did 20 DP10S, in MWO it does 50 DP10S.

See the difference?
TT: 2 - 5 - 10 - 20
MWO: 38.5 - 33.3 - 40 - 50

For MWO to have the same AC progression as TT, it would have to have these values:
AC/2: 5 DP10S
AC/5: 12.5 DP10S
AC/10: 25 DP10S
AC/20 50 DP10S

Or, starting from the other end:
AC/2: 38.5 DP10S
AC/5: 96.25 DP10S
AC/10: 192.5 DP10S
AC/20: 385 DP10S(!)

It's kind of easy to see that the AC/2 is seriously overpowered compared to what it was in TT, and the other values are also all over the place - but the point is, the ACs are all roughly equally powerful and does not have a good progression from AC/2 to AC/20.

Edited by stjobe, 04 February 2014 - 06:43 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Craig Steele, on 03 February 2014 - 08:14 PM, said:

You do realize that quoting Sarna does not make it canon right?

As good as Sarna is, there are many variations to Source books and technical readouts in it's content.

This is true, but it is faster than typing out the source material. and it is a fairly sound reference. I would like to see it be more detailed, giving information on even out of date material since some folks still use those by gone rules as originally printed.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

This is true, but it is faster than typing out the source material. and it is a fairly sound reference. I would like to see it be more detailed, giving information on even out of date material since some folks still use those by gone rules as originally printed.

You mean there's been rule changes since 2nd edition? Blasphemy! I still play like it's 1985!

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 04 February 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

You mean there's been rule changes since 2nd edition? Blasphemy! I still play like it's 1985!

Technically it is the same rules worded differently in most cases. There are some new interpretations, like Targeting Computers not being compatible with Pulse lasers, Squadron rules in AeroTech, and a few others.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 04 February 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

You mean there's been rule changes since 2nd edition? Blasphemy! I still play like it's 1985!

Battletech could really benefit from a 2nd Edition in the sense of how D&D or Shadowrun use editions.

Frell backwards compatibility.

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 February 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Battletech could really benefit from a 2nd Edition in the sense of how D&D or Shadowrun use editions. Frell backwards compatibility.

Just as long as it isn't like D&D 4th ed I could probably run with it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Just as long as it isn't like D&D 4th ed I could probably run with it.

But D&D 4 is awesome! I love to play and run it.

Let's build MW:O's next upgrade: Community Warfare 2.0: Edition Wars

[Joseph Mallan]

MustrumRidcully, on 04 February 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

But D&D 4 is awesome! I love to play and run it.

Let's build MW:O's next upgrade: Community Warfare 2.0: Edition Wars

I don't, It wasn't D&D anymore. Neverwinter online used 4.0 for its rules and my Fighters could not have ranged weapons. I have used Long bows and crossbows with every fighter since I first made Anton Shiningstar! My thieves used Short bows or slings. Neverwinter limited me to 2 daggers instead of a long sword dagger combo.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 February 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Technically it is the same rules worded differently in most cases. There are some new interpretations, like Targeting Computers not being compatible with Pulse lasers, Squadron rules in AeroTech, and a few others.

But that was the whole reason I fell in love with the Dire Wolf!!!! How dare they change it...?