675 replies to this topic

[Prezimonto]

Cimarb, on 31 January 2014 - 09:22 AM, said:

So, while I was going to start a new thread about this, I thought that would be going against the very thing that irritates me about these forums - duplicate threads - so instead, I am resurrecting this great thread from its two week nap!

Here goes, and let me know your thoughts on it:

Autocannons as a whole need to be realigned. Currently, we have four versions of the AC20, since every one of them does roughly 20 damage in the same time period. Here are the stats:

AC2
Damage: 2
Cooldown: 0.52
DPS: 3.85
Damage per 5 seconds: 19.23

AC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50
DPS: 3.33
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65

UAC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50 (if only fired at normal rate)
DPS: 3.33 (varies)
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65 (varies)

AC10
Damage: 10
Cooldown: 2.50
DPS: 4.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 20.00

AC20
Damage: 20
Cooldown: 4.00
DPS: 5.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 25.00

So, in a "normalized" turn of five seconds (since all weapons in MWO can fire at least once in that time), the range of damage between all autocannons is 16.65-25.00. According to the definition of an autocannon in Sarna:

"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: (ac2-ac20)... Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each 'round' or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are (185mm Demolisher cannon and 203mm Cauldron Born cannon, which is actually a clan mech, btw)"

According to this definition, every autocannon currently in the game would be considered an AC20, as their DPS are all closer to 20 than any other classification.

Side note: Oddly, the AC5/UAC5 are the most common autocannons, yet they are also the lowest DPS of all of them... This means they happen to fit in the sweet spot of weight/space versus firepower that people like most. Anyways...

What should happen is all autocannon need to be normalized to each other. That means, in 5 seconds of time, an AC2 should do roughly 2 damage, an AC5 should do 5 damage, an AC10 should do 20 and an AC20 should do 20. While this would dramatically nerf the lower class ACs in damage potential compared to currently, this can be offset by making the optimum/max ranges actually matter again! An AC2 may not do nearly as much damage, but they are the longest range weapons of the bunch. As the class gets higher, the range gets significantly lower, so on the other end you have the devastating damage of the AC20, but it can only be used at very short ranges, similar to how SRMs are used.

Here would be my proposed adjustments:
AC2 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.52 - DP5S 2.0 - range 720 - max range 1440
AC5 - damage 1.5 - cooldown 1.50 - DP5S 5.0 - range 620 - max range 1240
AC10 - damage 5.0 - cooldown 2.50 - DP5S 10.0 - range 450 - max range 900
AC20 - damage 16 - cooldown 4.00 - DP5S 20.0 - range 270 - max range 540

These would be the "standard" versions. Once CW gets implemented, you could then adjust the "damage" and "cooldown" numbers all over the place to represent different manufacturers, as long as the "DP5S" value stays within a small range of that classification. Here are some examples for possible AC20 variants:

185mm ChemJet AC/20 - damage 20 - cooldown 5.00 - DP5S 20.0
Pontiac 100 AC/20 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.50 - DP5S 20.0
Imperator Zeta-A - damage 5 - cooldown 1.25 - DP5S 20.0

On top of this, to give some real variety, you could also have burst-fire versions, such as:

Kali Yama Big Bore AC/20 - damage 5.0/tick - 1.0 second burst with 4 ticks - cooldown 4.0 - DP5S 20.0
Armstrong Requiem AC/20 - damage 1.0/tick - 4.0 second burst with 20 ticks - cooldown 1.0 - DP5S 20.0

You now have balanced autocannons (both compared to other weapons and also compared to each other), enough variety for every person imaginable, and a reason to own certain manufactory plants, as you could limit ammo supplies/cost for certain weapons based upon the current ownership and faction difference.

Now, for all Ultra versions (including future releases), you can then have a toggle to double the rate of fire, but with an increasing chance to jam based upon how long you hold the trigger. The chance starts at 5%, then increases every second by another 5%, until it jams. Once the weapon jams, it is unusable for 5-10 seconds, but then the jam rate resets to 5%.

EDIT: just for clarification, when I mention a "tick" in terms of an autocannon, I'm not saying to make them hitscan like a laser. Each AC tick would be a separate projectile, but the ammo amounts would have to be adjusted to compensate for the rate of fire of that specific caliber. In the case of the burst-fire versions above, each pull of the trigger would let off the burst as described. For instance, a ChemJet AC/20 would have the current 7 rounds per ton, since it only fires one round per cooldown, while the Armstrong AC/20 would fire a burst of twenty projectiles per trigger pull and have 140 rounds per ton (7x20) and an Imperator AC/20 would have 80 rounds per ton (4x20). This is where supply and demand could be used to balance different manufacturers, such as the huge ChemJet rounds being extremely expensive to reload, countering the FLD advantage they provide.

How Cow, someone who's ideas are well communicated and make sense.

I would suggest that the numbers probably need tweaking... the AC2 would be a fair dog for it's tonnage and ammo per ton with these numbers in the game. At least least I'd like to see it's ammo per ton go up a little and it's range go up a good amount. Make a real long range harassment tool it it's going to get damage nerfed that hard. OR it's heat should go down a lot per shot, so it's low of consistent damage added.

I'd also add that the AC20 could have an even shorter max range in my opinion... 400 to 450 ish. I know that's not cannon, but those things are mean.

I LOVE, and I can not state how much I love, the idea of adding manufacturers to the weapons lists and varying weapons like you suggest.

When the first announced weapons modules, I suggested that instead of having module slots, our equipment get module slots, which can take so many upgrades of certain types. So you can leave them vanilla, or tweak them by adding aftermarket parts from companies. The weapon then goes from an AC20 to a Kali Yama Big Bore after a certain set of mods are added. Make the modules much cheaper, but permanent on weapons once added.

[Cimarb]

Prezimonto, on 19 March 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

How Cow, someone who's ideas are well communicated and make sense.

I would suggest that the numbers probably need tweaking... the AC2 would be a fair dog for it's tonnage and ammo per ton with these numbers in the game. At least least I'd like to see it's ammo per ton go up a little and it's range go up a good amount. Make a real long range harassment tool it it's going to get damage nerfed that hard. OR it's heat should go down a lot per shot, so it's low of consistent damage added.

I'd also add that the AC20 could have an even shorter max range in my opinion... 400 to 450 ish. I know that's not cannon, but those things are mean.

I LOVE, and I can not state how much I love, the idea of adding manufacturers to the weapons lists and varying weapons like you suggest.

When the first announced weapons modules, I suggested that instead of having module slots, our equipment get module slots, which can take so many upgrades of certain types. So you can leave them vanilla, or tweak them by adding aftermarket parts from companies. The weapon then goes from an AC20 to a Kali Yama Big Bore after a certain set of mods are added. Make the modules much cheaper, but permanent on weapons once added.

I really appreciate that praise.

Heat is a huge issue in this game and one of my biggest gripes about their decisions. I can deal with 3PV, cool shots, artillery strikes, and all of the other dumb things that have been added, but they are very small compared to the heat system. It has caused tons of other issues which should never have happened, such as the AC2 heat issue and the whole ghost heat silliness. That is why I didn't address it in my post.

My goal is to get autocannons and PPCs fixed, which will allow ballistics to go back to the low-heat weapons they should be. NONE of the ballistic weapons should ever be able to overheat you, IMO, no matter how many you boat or how fast you fire them.

As far as ammo, that would definitely need an overhaul, as different versions would need to have different amount/ton based upon their firing rate. This is by far one of the most important aspects, as it allows Repair and Rearm to help balance the different versions by making "better" ammo cost considerably more money to rearm.

I love your idea about the modules, though I am hoping they don't take the quick, easy route and instead make fully independent versions. Modules would be a great backup option, though.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

I really appreciate that praise.

Heat is a huge issue in this game and one of my biggest gripes about their decisions. I can deal with 3PV, cool shots, artillery strikes, and all of the other dumb things that have been added, but they are very small compared to the heat system. It has caused tons of other issues which should never have happened, such as the AC2 heat issue and the whole ghost heat silliness. That is why I didn't address it in my post.

My goal is to get autocannons and PPCs fixed, which will allow ballistics to go back to the low-heat weapons they should be. NONE of the ballistic weapons should ever be able to overheat you, IMO, no matter how many you boat or how fast you fire them.

As far as ammo, that would definitely need an overhaul, as different versions would need to have different amount/ton based upon their firing rate. This is by far one of the most important aspects, as it allows Repair and Rearm to help balance the different versions by making "better" ammo cost considerably more money to rearm.

I love your idea about the modules, though I am hoping they don't take the quick, easy route and instead make fully independent versions. Modules would be a great backup option, though.

Keep in mind many of us dont want them to be a non heat weapon. Frankly I like them producing heat myself. I dont view that as fixing them at all.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 19 March 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

Keep in mind many of us dont want them to be a non heat weapon. Frankly I like them producing heat myself. I dont view that as fixing them at all.

Low heat, not non heat. My point is ballistics should be low heat, high weight and ammo-dependent. Energy should be high heat, low weight and not dependent on ammo. Missiles should be medium heat, medium weight and ammo dependent.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Low heat, not non heat. My point is ballistics should be low heat, high weight and ammo-dependent. Energy should be high heat, low weight and not dependent on ammo. Missiles should be medium heat, medium weight and ammo dependent.

I think it depends. I think making something too low heat could really mess with the system and let someone unload to much dps overall. Right now your limited in your engagements.

[Prezimonto]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Low heat, not non heat. My point is ballistics should be low heat, high weight and ammo-dependent. Energy should be high heat, low weight and not dependent on ammo. Missiles should be medium heat, medium weight and ammo dependent.

The problem with repair and rearm is that the game exists essentially setting agnostic. We really need a version of repair and rearm that affects players IN THE MATCH, not in the pocket book after the match.

I proposed an idea a while back where maps get side objectives (off the beaten path) that have supply dumps you need to take and control for some length of time to achieve full repair and rearm on that mech in the next match. Basically, you assume that a players supply chain isn't perfect and they need to secure some supply or face a small deficit, and if you win, but don't take supply, you still get the deficit. I think I proposed something like small 15% penalties... so if you lost all armor in a section and didn't get resupply you'd have a chance to have 15% less armor than normal... or 15% less tons of ammo per/ton or 15% worse cooling if a bunch of heat sinks were messed up, or your engine rated 15% lower because it's not repaired to spec.

Add that costly and/or rare items need more frequent resupply.... all the upgrades would have a more likely chance to get that 15% hit.

Now let those start stacking... maybe 3 maybe 4 matches in a row before they go away. Mechs that rely on ammo, and costly upgrades would have a large advantage early, but might be in a world of hurt after 4 matches.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 19 March 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

I think it depends. I think making something too low heat could really mess with the system and let someone unload to much dps overall. Right now your limited in your engagements.

Too low isn't what I said. Ballistics aren't supposed to be balanced by it, though. They can contribute to it, but should never overheat you on their own - that should be your energy weapons and somewhat missiles weapons doing that! If Repair and Rearm is reinstated, you now have an ammo cost that actually means something.

Prezimonto, on 19 March 2014 - 06:37 PM, said:

The problem with repair and rearm is that the game exists essentially setting agnostic. We really need a version of repair and rearm that affects players IN THE MATCH, not in the pocket book after the match.

I proposed an idea a while back where maps get side objectives (off the beaten path) that have supply dumps you need to take and control for some length of time to achieve full repair and rearm on that mech in the next match. Basically, you assume that a players supply chain isn't perfect and they need to secure some supply or face a small deficit, and if you win, but don't take supply, you still get the deficit. I think I proposed something like small 15% penalties... so if you lost all armor in a section and didn't get resupply you'd have a chance to have 15% less armor than normal... or 15% less tons of ammo per/ton or 15% worse cooling if a bunch of heat sinks were messed up, or your engine rated 15% lower because it's not repaired to spec.

Add that costly and/or rare items need more frequent resupply.... all the upgrades would have a more likely chance to get that 15% hit.

Now let those start stacking... maybe 3 maybe 4 matches in a row before they go away. Mechs that rely on ammo, and costly upgrades would have a large advantage early, but might be in a world of hurt after 4 matches.

I kind of agree and kind of not. I don't think it should necessarily be added at the end of the match, but it should be something that you have to do before the next match.

Your in match re supply should definitely be part of the extended matches PGI has hinted at, where your second or maybe third objective is to re supply, either from your own base (defend) or the enemies (assault). Definitely lots of possibilities with that!

I don't think you should have a deficit, necessarily, but you have a good way of implementing it if they do. As long as you can pay the cost to remove it, I think it's a great idea, but not so much if it is team-based, since I only PUG.

[Prezimonto]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

Too low isn't what I said. Ballistics aren't supposed to be balanced by it, though. They can contribute to it, but should never overheat you on their own - that should be your energy weapons and somewhat missiles weapons doing that! If Repair and Rearm is reinstated, you now have an ammo cost that actually means something.


I kind of agree and kind of not. I don't think it should necessarily be added at the end of the match, but it should be something that you have to do before the next match.

Your in match re supply should definitely be part of the extended matches PGI has hinted at, where your second or maybe third objective is to re supply, either from your own base (defend) or the enemies (assault). Definitely lots of possibilities with that!

I don't think you should have a deficit, necessarily, but you have a good way of implementing it if they do. As long as you can pay the cost to remove it, I think it's a great idea, but not so much if it is team-based, since I only PUG.

If I remember my own ideas, I proposed that this be it's own game mode, where you committed a mech or series of mechs to a 3 or 4 match cycle. Opting out the cycle would cost (hire a dropship to pull your mech) and also put them on a cooldown while they travel home. So you can decide to quit, but at a price. While your mech was in the cycle, they're locked for editing (even if you leave between matches and come back.. you can launch back into a cycle, but with the exact loadout where you left off).

Edited by Prezimonto, 19 March 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[Noesis]

VLOG3: Ballistics being changed as they are considered a little too advantageous in the game play.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 07 March 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not at all.

Theorycrafting is enjoyable - trying to come up with something that works, within certain set rules and restrictions, is a good mental workout.

And sometimes after Closed Beta, I found it almost more enjoyable than playing the game.

That, I think, is sad.

Ultimately, Varent or anyone - do the number-crunching and theorycrafting as long a it is fun, but I strongly doubt that it will be really looked at by PGI.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[stjobe]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

And sometimes after Closed Beta, I found it almost more enjoyable than playing the game.

That, I think, is sad.

I don't know; any game I get into I theorycraft a lot. It's part of the game experience for me to theorize, think about, and discuss interesting (and perhaps not-so-interesting ) what-ifs and if-so's, and the more I enjoy a game, the more I do it.

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:

Ultimately, Varent or anyone - do the number-crunching and theorycrafting as long a it is fun, but I strongly doubt that it will be really looked at by PGI.

Personally I'm under no illusion that anyone other than other forum-goers will read what I type; that anyone from PGI would read it and go "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that!" is very, very far from any expectation I might have. I theorycraft to share ideas and what-ifs with other theorycrafters on the forums, and perhaps sometimes to show (with facts and numbers) just how badly imbalanced, over- or under-powered, or just plain stupid some implementation or other is.

I argued for over six months for a buffed MG here on these forums, and in the end I don't think any of the numerous posts I made did a lick of difference; that the MG got its buffs were all PGI, all the way. They look at their metrics, not on the forums.

And that is a bit sad, because in between the spam, the trolls, and the flames, there are some pretty good ideas around that would really help to improve the game.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 19 March 2014 - 07:36 PM, said:

Too low isn't what I said. Ballistics aren't supposed to be balanced by it, though. They can contribute to it, but should never overheat you on their own - that should be your energy weapons and somewhat missiles weapons doing that! If Repair and Rearm is reinstated, you now have an ammo cost that actually means something.

I disagree. I do feel that even if your using AC you should risk overheating. Heat should always be an issue since it slows mechs down and the overall game play and gives you a balancing point. Im ok with Machineguns not using heat since it gives them a very unique feel overall and makes them interesting based off that. Honestly I would have loved them to take away the charge up time with the gause, add CD and heat instead to it. Though I suppose again keeping it a non heat weapon makes it interesting. Just not my own cup of tea.

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 20 March 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I don't know; any game I get into I theorycraft a lot. It's part of the game experience for me to theorize, think about, and discuss interesting (and perhaps not-so-interesting ) what-ifs and if-so's, and the more I enjoy a game, the more I do it.


Personally I'm under no illusion that anyone other than other forum-goers will read what I type; that anyone from PGI would read it and go "hey, that's a good idea, let's implement that!" is very, very far from any expectation I might have. I theorycraft to share ideas and what-ifs with other theorycrafters on the forums, and perhaps sometimes to show (with facts and numbers) just how badly imbalanced, over- or under-powered, or just plain stupid some implementation or other is.

I argued for over six months for a buffed MG here on these forums, and in the end I don't think any of the numerous posts I made did a lick of difference; that the MG got its buffs were all PGI, all the way. They look at their metrics, not on the forums.

And that is a bit sad, because in between the spam, the trolls, and the flames, there are some pretty good ideas around that would really help to improve the game.

Maybe this is just my overly-hopeful attitude at work, but I actually think ideas are forwarded on from the forums quite often. That doesn't mean they are read directly by the developers themselves, but with the recent changes to LRMs and JJs, I think the BASE IDEAS are at least communicated and implemented eventually.

The problem with the forums, and you can see it in just this one thread, is that there are a huge amount of opinions on HOW to implement something, and we can't even agree on them amongst the 4-5 primary posters in this thread. How can we expect PGI to think something is a great idea when such a small number of people can have such divergent feelings about it?

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Maybe this is just my overly-hopeful attitude at work, but I actually think ideas are forwarded on from the forums quite often. That doesn't mean they are read directly by the developers themselves, but with the recent changes to LRMs and JJs, I think the BASE IDEAS are at least communicated and implemented eventually.

The problem with the forums, and you can see it in just this one thread, is that there are a huge amount of opinions on HOW to implement something, and we can't even agree on them amongst the 4-5 primary posters in this thread. How can we expect PGI to think something is a great idea when such a small number of people can have such divergent feelings about it?

A lot of that is we're working through a forum where we can't have a livid discussions and actually talk. It's a form of communication but there is a reason why most meetings are face to face or tele-conferenced so we can speak to one another. It's easier to check word choice and intent through a quick conversation than it is through writing an extensive counter idea or rebuttal followed with edits then waiting 2 to 24 hours for a response.

I think many of us primary posters have similar ideas, and could even compromise down to a unified idea with honest critiques and careful edits to create a system that's both balanced and functional meeting everyone's approval. That's just the nature of wanting to work collaboratively though.

Even so I know they actually can't use any numbers or systems we've submitted because we'd have grounds for a lawsuit for being that specific in using the values as we've done the work and they've taken it. Most of the time ideas like that are ignored unless we're under some legal contract to provide such feedback. And I honestly haven't read all the EULA for the title to see if that's mentioned in there. So I'm not sure anything other than our dissatisfaction is fully expressed onto the designers or producers.

Beyond that I'm not sure I've seen a moderator read or respond to any of these after sifting and reading through many of these posts. I just see the same ideas getting re-posted and many of the same discussions had in a circular fashion, with literally the same folks hammering on many of the same concepts.

-----------------------------------

On a side not I pulled my head out of my rear end and made a few observations that I thought could be of use.

PGI is either funded or owned by IGP (Infinite Games Publishing) which also funds or owns bluelizardgames which is making Mechwarrior Tactics this means the publisher would have access and possibly rights to the weapons design for the variations as applied in MWT. This system is derived from tabletop values and similarly as PGI has already done convert the weapons from there to MWO's system allowing for the variations some of us have been asking for. These could be used as a template to make a more diverse overall weapons system setup with much of the work done ahead of time including some pros and cons associated with the weapons.

Now if they'd ever do that - severely doubtful.

[Cimarb]

I totally agree, Mirkk. While posting on a forum allows you to spend a lot of time composing a good response, it also strips out all of the body language, which is something like 90% of all communication. As I tell my kids, it's not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 06:21 AM, said:

Maybe this is just my overly-hopeful attitude at work, but I actually think ideas are forwarded on from the forums quite often. That doesn't mean they are read directly by the developers themselves, but with the recent changes to LRMs and JJs, I think the BASE IDEAS are at least communicated and implemented eventually.

The problem with the forums, and you can see it in just this one thread, is that there are a huge amount of opinions on HOW to implement something, and we can't even agree on them amongst the 4-5 primary posters in this thread. How can we expect PGI to think something is a great idea when such a small number of people can have such divergent feelings about it?

Very true. I think this is where playtesting those ideas come into play.