1080 replies to this topic

[Noth]

mania3c, on 06 January 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

I played TT maybe once or twice..so I may be wrong of course..but isn't beam duration in MWO to somehow "simulate" accuracy system from TT? I am pretty sure devs already said beam duration was introduced as conversion of the accuracy system from TT ..

Okey.. I may be wrong that lasers are less accurate.. however..they hit instantly..compared to "travel time" od ACs ammunition..

They weren't given a duration because of TT. They were given duration because a hitscan, instant damage weapon is OP. They switch the roles of Lasers and ACs from previous MW games where laser did instant upfront damage and the ACs did damage over time.

[stjobe]

mania3c, on 06 January 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

I played TT maybe once or twice..so I may be wrong of course..but isn't beam duration in MWO to somehow "simulate" accuracy system from TT? I am pretty sure devs already said beam duration was introduced as conversion of the accuracy system from TT ..

Okey.. I may be wrong that lasers are less accurate.. however..they hit instantly..compared to "travel time" od ACs ammunition..

No, there's no difference in accuracy from weapon type in TT. Pilot gunnery skill + own movement penalties + target movement penalties + terrain penalties + heat penalties = what you need to roll over on 2 dice to hit, e.g. 4 (gunnery skill) + 1 (walking) + 3 (target moved 5 hexes) + 2 (2 hexes light woods in line-of-sight) + 1 (9 points of heat) = roll 11+ to hit on two dice - no matter what weapon you used.

As for dev explanation of why they did lasers as beam-duration, I don't think I've ever seen one. At least I can't currently remember one. But the beam-duration mechanic does to a degree simulate the random hit location system of TT, due to it spreading its damage over time, but I've never seen a dev say that was even intended.

And finally, yes, lasers are hitscan and thus hit instantly. However, that first hit is 1/10th of the total damage of the weapon - 0.5 damage in the case of a ML - with the rest following spread out over 0.6-1.0 seconds. Having travel time is a small price to pay for delivering all your damage in an instantaneous hit.

[Dock Steward]

Ammo Nerf!



Please forgive me if this has been stated already. This thread has moved along a bit since I last checked in and I just don't have time right now to play catch up.

The more I think about whether or not Ballistics are OP, and what ways we could go about reigning them in, the more I really don't care for the current multitude of suggestions. They all have their merits, but at the end of the day, I think Ballistics have a uniqueness in front-loaded damage and that should stay, and that adding any new mechanics to the game is not only unlikely but sure to cause some degree of further troubles.

In short, just nerf the ammo. Don't even do it across the board. Go through, weapon by weapon, and nerf the ammo of each in a way that makes sense for that weapon. Example: AC/20's seem to be a major culprit as far as some are concerned, make their ammo 5 rounds per ton. Not a huge difference but on on builds that really center around that cannon, ammo is a big deal, and having to find room for more means other sacrifices (armor, speed, other weapons).

Other weapons could have less severe nerfs if they seem okay where they are (or close to where they are). Does this break canon? Yes, it sure does, but canon is getting broken somewhere whether we like it or not. Isn't a simple ammo nerf the simplest and most easy to swallow concession that still deals with the problem?

Actually, I just looked at sarna, and 5 rounds per ton on the AC/20 IS canon. So there ya go. I'm not saying revert all ammo values back to canon, but at least start there before we make a much much much larger change.

Edited by Dock Steward, 06 January 2014 - 04:01 PM.

[mania3c]

stjobe, on 06 January 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

No, there's no difference in accuracy from weapon type in TT. Pilot gunnery skill + own movement penalties + target movement penalties + terrain penalties + heat penalties = what you need to roll over on 2 dice to hit, e.g. 4 (gunnery skill) + 1 (walking) + 3 (target moved 5 hexes) + 2 (2 hexes light woods in line-of-sight) + 1 (9 points of heat) = roll 11+ to hit on two dice - no matter what weapon you used.

As for dev explanation of why they did lasers as beam-duration, I don't think I've ever seen one. At least I can't currently remember one. But the beam-duration mechanic does to a degree simulate the random hit location system of TT, due to it spreading its damage over time, but I've never seen a dev say that was even intended.

And finally, yes, lasers are hitscan and thus hit instantly. However, that first hit is 1/10th of the total damage of the weapon - 0.5 damage in the case of a ML - with the rest following spread out over 0.6-1.0 seconds. Having travel time is a small price to pay for delivering all your damage in an instantaneous hit.

Isn't pulse laser more accurate version of normal laser? I don't know.. I am asking..

Because in different thread..there were guys talking about lasers, transitions from TT to MWO..and they were talking about better accuracy from tabletop..

Also ..for your instant hit vs beam.. when you miss you miss whole damage.. as you know it.. while you can still maintain some damage with lasers... I understand this is not much advantage in current meta.. I just wish meta would swing more towards to fast and small mech and than I can laugh when people will be crying about OP lasers..

[Varent]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 10:17 PM, said:

if you increase the dps you will lower the overall use of lesser autocannon.

you liked that, you actually think thats a good things...

..........................

That makes people make more cookie cutter designs instead of exploring there creativity.. that is a VERY bad thing....

[Varent]

Mister Blastman, on 06 January 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Guys, despite all the debates of for or against, a fact still stands:

Something MAJOR needs to be changed in the game balance system or as Rhent and others point out, the game will continue to be stale, stagnant and boring.

Load up on artillery and pack PPCs+ACs or else at the moment.

Battletech was never designed to allow pinpoint damage to single components from long range. I know, I know. The whole, "well our armor was doubled!" argument stating 15 = 30 still doesn't apply because, well, the doubled armor isn't helping at all.

The single most broken thing about this game at the moment is allowing pinpoint, convergent, instant direct damage in user-specified location; especially at long range (i.e. 500 meters+). This trumps all other weapon loadouts in the game at the moment and will forever continue to do so until drastic changes are made.

It trumps it because of the mobility allowed with jump jets and the problems with hit registration on SRM. Fix those two problems and change jump sniping so that its alot harder to do and the weapon issue goes away very quickly.

[Varent]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

No it doesnt. The traditional tabletop advantage of ACs is less heat generation. The advantage of ACs was never meant to be instant damage vs damage over time. That advantage was created by MWO's flawed system and should be purged by converting ACs into burst fire weapons.

actually it would strongly decrease the advantage since you could pound for pound pack more effective firepower on with heat sinks as well then you could with ac and you would be strongly more powerful since they both would then have the same damage mechanisms.

[Myomes]

Noth, on 06 January 2014 - 03:35 PM, said:

They weren't given a duration because of TT. They were given duration because a hitscan, instant damage weapon is OP. They switch the roles of Lasers and ACs from previous MW games where laser did instant upfront damage and the ACs did damage over time.

actually it was the first reason, to "simulate" how randomized weapon fire would be. The secondary reason was to appeal to people who didn't know TT and didn't care about it.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

No it doesnt. The traditional tabletop advantage of ACs is less heat generation. The advantage of ACs was never meant to be instant damage vs damage over time. That advantage was created by MWO's flawed system and should be purged by converting ACs into burst fire weapons.

That's just it, we aren't playing TT.
I love TT.
I've played TT for decades (longer than some on this forum have been alive I'd wager to guess)
Did I mention I love TT?
I was actually pretty good (I'm willing to give lessons any time anyone wants to test that theory out in some megamek lol )

But this isn't and can't be TT. I'm not talking about the advantage the weapon had in TT. I'm talking about the advantage it has here. We can argue TT all day long but it's a moot point as this simply is not TT.

Cimarb, on 06 January 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

Honestly, are my posts so horrible the opposition doesn't feel they are worth debating constructively, or so good they are scared to debate constructively? I would like someone to answer my points without a "don't touch my boomstick cause I think it's fun" comment, lol.

your posts are op lol

[Cimarb]

Dock Steward, on 06 January 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

Ammo Nerf!

Please forgive me if this has been stated already. This thread has moved along a bit since I last checked in and I just don't have time right now to play catch up.

The more I think about whether or not Ballistics are OP, and what ways we could go about reigning them in, the more I really don't care for the current multitude of suggestions. They all have their merits, but at the end of the day, I think Ballistics have a uniqueness in front-loaded damage and that should stay, and that adding any new mechanics to the game is not only unlikely but sure to cause some degree of further troubles.

In short, just nerf the ammo. Don't even do it across the board. Go through, weapon by weapon, and nerf the ammo of each in a way that makes sense for that weapon. Example: AC/20's seem to be a major culprit as far as some are concerned, make their ammo 5 rounds per ton. Not a huge difference but on on builds that really center around that cannon, ammo is a big deal, and having to find room for more means other sacrifices (armor, speed, other weapons).

Other weapons could have less severe nerfs if they seem okay where they are (or close to where they are). Does this break canon? Yes, it sure does, but canon is getting broken somewhere whether we like it or not. Isn't a simple ammo nerf the simplest and most easy to swallow concession that still deals with the problem?

Actually, I just looked at sarna, and 5 rounds per ton on the AC/20 IS canon. So there ya go. I'm not saying revert all ammo values back to canon, but at least start there before we make a much much much larger change.

While I am not for or against an ammo nerf, it wouldn't fix the issue we are even talking about, so there is no reason to do it.

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

you liked that, you actually think thats a good things...

..........................

That makes people make more cookie cutter designs instead of exploring there creativity.. that is a VERY bad thing....

I did like that, because an AC2 should be less powerful than an AC5, which is less powerful than an AC10, which is less powerful than an AC20. That is how it is supposed to be, by their very definition. I really need to just requote myself every page just to save time...

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon: "An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist. Among the earliest tank/BattleMech scale weaponry produced, autocannons produce far less heat than energy weapons, but are considerably bulkier and are dependent upon limited stores of ammunition."

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2: "Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/2s having an extremely long range at the cost of having a very small damage output."

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/5: "Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/5s usually having a long range with a small to moderate damage level.

This continues with http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/10 and http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20 in the same manner, and all of them use the same example to illustrate it:

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.

I want to tie this to what I already suggested, since you are saying this burst change we are talking about would make people have cookie cutter mechs instead of "exploring their creativity". Making it a burst would dramatically increase variety by giving this flexibility:

Cimarb, on 05 January 2014 - 10:07 PM, said:

As an example of how they could do the various manufacturers, I'm seeing something like this:

1. ChemJet SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 4 5-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 seconds between rounds
- no additional cooldown
2. Avenger Cannon
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 10 2-damage rounds fired
- 0.6 second burst
- 1.9 second cooldown
3. Gatling Light Cannon
- AC5 classification (5 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 50 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 0.5 second burst
- 2.0 second cooldown
4. Gatling Heavy Cannon
- AC10 classification (10 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 100 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 1 second burst
- 1.5 second cooldown
5. Gatling SHC
- AC20 classification (20 damage in 2.5 seconds)
- 200 0.1-damage rounds fired
- 2 second burst
- 0.5 second cooldown

Hopefully that gives an idea of the diversity you can get. Autocannons would be extremely diverse, like they should be, and you could still have just as much fear inspired by the big cannons as there currently is.

NOTE: I used 2.5 as the normalization number for the ACs. It would be an increase in DPS for the AC20 class, but I think it is the most balanced choice while still allowing for a variety of firing rates. ACs would all do their classifications damage (2/5/10/20) in the 2.5 second duration.

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 05:21 PM, said:

That's just it, we aren't playing TT.
I love TT.
I've played TT for decades (longer than some on this forum have been alive I'd wager to guess)
Did I mention I love TT?
I was actually pretty good (I'm willing to give lessons any time anyone wants to test that theory out in some megamek lol )

But this isn't and can't be TT. I'm not talking about the advantage the weapon had in TT. I'm talking about the advantage it has here. We can argue TT all day long but it's a moot point as this simply is not TT.


your posts are op lol

I dislike the TT argument as well, but it is almost impossible to ignore it usually.

and dangit, I knew it!...


EDIT: dang Chrome and it's copy/paste formatting... /fail

Edited by Cimarb, 06 January 2014 - 05:29 PM.

[Sandpit]

I don't try to ignore anyone's posts but sometimes I'll miss a few here and there when lots of people are posting....



I'm all up for balancing. I don't think things are perfect now but they're good. The only two sticking points I have when it comes to balancing ballistics are convergence and switching them to a burst fire. To me it just entirely defeats the purpose of the weapon and having a pilot's skill with aiming be rewarded.

Now with THAT said, I do have one caveat to the convergence. It's well known that any "realistic" shoots has some sort of convergence mechanic. It's why you can run, walk, stand, kneel, or go prone in most shooters. The more stable you are, the more accurate your aim on your reticle will be. I don't think it would be bad to have MINOR (and I do mean MINOR) chanfes to convergence when moving at walking speed, running full tilt, and standing still. That would simulate the modifiers from TT rules actually.
We have a similar system now in place with JJs and shooting. So if you're running at full tilt there's a slight chance that the perfectly placed shot to the CT you fired off might shift just enough to hit the LT instead. Walking would be less, standing still would be nothing.
Now with THAT being said, there are some things that I think would have to be done. This mechanic would work very well into making things like the targeting computer, pinpoint pilot skill, etc. in actually being useful by countering that convergence.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 06 January 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

While I am not for or against an ammo nerf, it wouldn't fix the issue we are even talking about, so there is no reason to do it.


I did like that, because an AC2 should be less powerful than an AC5, which is less powerful than an AC10, which is less powerful than an AC20. That is how it is supposed to be, by their very definition. I really need to just requote myself every page just to save time...

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon: "An Autocannon is a type of rapid-firing, auto-loading direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) or kinetic rounds at targets in bursts. It is, basically, a giant "machine gun" that fires predominantly cased explosive shells though models firing saboted high velocity kinetic energy penetrators or caseless ordnance do exist. Among the earliest tank/BattleMech scale weaponry produced, autocannons produce far less heat than energy weapons, but are considerably bulkier and are dependent upon limited stores of ammunition."

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/2: "Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/2s having an extremely long range at the cost of having a very small damage output."

Per http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon/5: "Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/5s usually having a long range with a small to moderate damage level.

This continues with http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/10 and http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20 in the same manner, and all of them use the same example to illustrate it:

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.

I want to tie this to what I already suggested, since you are saying this burst change we are talking about would make people have cookie cutter mechs instead of "exploring their creativity". Making it a burst would dramatically increase variety by giving this flexibility:




I dislike the TT argument as well, but it is almost impossible to ignore it usually.

and dangit, I knew it!...


EDIT: dang Chrome and it's copy/paste formatting... /fail

If your going to quote sarna to make changes, understand a few things.

1) its a failed system.
2) its designed for an entirely different rule set then what we are under.
3) it doesnt take into account the physics of a shooter.
4) we are playing a shooter, not TT.
5) if we institute sarna concepts you will drive off most of the younger playerbase (wich will kill the game)
6) if you institute sarna concepts with weapons you will need to drastically lower speed across the board in all mechs to put it in line with speeds for basic chasis.

You dont want that. If you do then you pretty much are wanting to kill the game for any longevity.

[Cimarb]

Sandpit, on 06 January 2014 - 05:38 PM, said:

I don't try to ignore anyone's posts but sometimes I'll miss a few here and there when lots of people are posting....

I'm all up for balancing. I don't think things are perfect now but they're good. The only two sticking points I have when it comes to balancing ballistics are convergence and switching them to a burst fire. To me it just entirely defeats the purpose of the weapon and having a pilot's skill with aiming be rewarded.

Now with THAT said, I do have one caveat to the convergence. It's well known that any "realistic" shoots has some sort of convergence mechanic. It's why you can run, walk, stand, kneel, or go prone in most shooters. The more stable you are, the more accurate your aim on your reticle will be. I don't think it would be bad to have MINOR (and I do mean MINOR) chanfes to convergence when moving at walking speed, running full tilt, and standing still. That would simulate the modifiers from TT rules actually.
We have a similar system now in place with JJs and shooting. So if you're running at full tilt there's a slight chance that the perfectly placed shot to the CT you fired off might shift just enough to hit the LT instead. Walking would be less, standing still would be nothing.
Now with THAT being said, there are some things that I think would have to be done. This mechanic would work very well into making things like the targeting computer, pinpoint pilot skill, etc. in actually being useful by countering that convergence.

I miss posts all the time too.

I like the minor convergence idea, though I think it actually is already in place in a minor way: the faster you move, the harder it is to hit anything, and vice versa. Adding a minor shake/wobble/convergence to that may hurt smaller mechs more than bigger ones.

Oh, and you said the "TT" word...

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

If your going to quote sarna to make changes, understand a few things.

1) its a failed system.
2) its designed for an entirely different rule set then what we are under.
3) it doesnt take into account the physics of a shooter.
4) we are playing a shooter, not TT.
5) if we institute sarna concepts you will drive off most of the younger playerbase (wich will kill the game)
6) if you institute sarna concepts with weapons you will need to drastically lower speed across the board in all mechs to put it in line with speeds for basic chasis.

You dont want that. If you do then you pretty much are wanting to kill the game for any longevity.

1) its a true and tested system, albeit for a different game
2) I agree, which is why exact numbers should not be used
3) physics of a shooter? Can you explain that one a bit more?
4) understood
5) how will following lore-founded concepts drive away one of the most lore-centric fanbases? If you mean the twitch crowd, you have said many times that you think my suggestions would make this game more twitch-based, so you are contradicting yourself.
6) why would you "have to" do that? Can you be more specific on why one would be reliant on the other?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 05:40 PM, said:

If your going to quote sarna to make changes, understand a few things.

1) its a failed system.
2) its designed for an entirely different rule set then what we are under.
3) it doesnt take into account the physics of a shooter.
4) we are playing a shooter, not TT.
5) if we institute sarna concepts you will drive off most of the younger playerbase (wich will kill the game)
6) if you institute sarna concepts with weapons you will need to drastically lower speed across the board in all mechs to put it in line with speeds for basic chasis.

You dont want that. If you do then you pretty much are wanting to kill the game for any longevity.

I have to say that I'm confused again by your post.

Are you arguing that descriptions on sarna are BT's Rules sets?

[Mister Blastman]

Varent, on 06 January 2014 - 04:18 PM, said:

It trumps it because of the mobility allowed with jump jets and the problems with hit registration on SRM. Fix those two problems and change jump sniping so that its alot harder to do and the weapon issue goes away very quickly.

No, it won't. It will not go away until front-loaded, instant shot weapons are prevented from converging or forced to spread their damage.

SRMs need to be additionally buffed in both damage and their spread needs to be tightened back to how it worked a year ago. In addition, splash damage would be nice to have back on them. They will only MASK the problem.

The convergence problem STILL EXISTED a year ago, especially with laser boats. It existed to a lesser degree with PPCs + ACs because they would go through enemies and not hurt them or fly off in random directions. I have news to you though... the Ultra 5 mechs were MONSTERS 1.25 years ago. Murder machines. Hardly anyone used them. Those of us who knew what really was going on however, did.

[Sandpit]

Praetor Shepard, on 06 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I have to say that I'm confused again by your post.

Are you arguing that descriptions on sarna are BT's Rules sets?

No, Sarna and TT aren't MWO. That's the distinction. The rule sets on Sarna for TT are not going to translate to a shooter. They'd translate GREAT to an RTS style game, not so much when you can't factor in PSR and to hit modifiers due to individual skill when it comes to aiming without killing off a good portion of your player base because they simply will not understand and accept that rules made 3 decades ago won't "jive" with their notion of a modern-day shooter.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 06 January 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

I miss posts all the time too.

I like the minor convergence idea, though I think it actually is already in place in a minor way: the faster you move, the harder it is to hit anything, and vice versa. Adding a minor shake/wobble/convergence to that may hurt smaller mechs more than bigger ones.

Oh, and you said the "TT" word...


1) its a true and tested system, albeit for a different game
2) I agree, which is why exact numbers should not be used
3) physics of a shooter? Can you explain that one a bit more?
4) understood
5) how will following lore-founded concepts drive away one of the most lore-centric fanbases? If you mean the twitch crowd, you have said many times that you think my suggestions would make this game more twitch-based, so you are contradicting yourself.
6) why would you "have to" do that? Can you be more specific on why one would be reliant on the other?

1) actually the game designers have said multiple times it was unbalanced, thats why they came out with more and more expansions, to try to balance it.
2) and yet you are trying to use examples from sarna for your own ideas and why they should be implimented that way.
3) Twitch shooting is part of a shooting game, it just 'is' its what sperates good players from bad ones. Good groups of players and teams will actually play mini games and focus on this to get better as players to be able to compete. You want to take away a major facet of the concept of a shooter....
4) if you understand that why are you trying to make it a non shooter game and take away a direct fire weapon/slug weapon? every shooter has them, why shouldnt this one, why limit it to just gause rifle.
5) because the population isnt enough of true bt fans to make this game run? Im sorry but it simply isnt. You need younger players. when did I say your suggestions would make this more twitch based. Quotes?
6) Light mechs and some mediums are already very hard to hit to an extreme, solid slug projectiles evens the field abit, right now lights beat assaults but heavies are fast enough they can somewhat fight, take away there main gun and they will lose to lights as well, there only counter at all will be medium mechs, that will be a bad thing.

[Khobai]

Quote

Yet..laser's disadvantage was inaccuracy .. accuracy penalty was transfered as a beam duration.. so in fact.. making AC beam weapon is removing it's advantage comparing to lasers//

Lasers were never inaccurate in tabletop, where are you getting this from? Lasers and autocannons both made unmodified attack rolls.

Lasers/autocannons/ppcs dealt damage in the same exact way in tabletop... you rolled for a random location and then applied the FULL damage to that location.

So logically lasers/autocannons/ppcs should all deal damage similarly in mwo too. If lasers are damage over time, then autocannons should fire in bursts, and ppcs should do splash damage. That way all three weapons consistently spread their damage around, and the overpoweredness of pinpoint damage is kept at a minimum.

Edited by Khobai, 06 January 2014 - 06:23 PM.

[Varent]

Mister Blastman, on 06 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

No, it won't. It will not go away until front-loaded, instant shot weapons are prevented from converging or forced to spread their damage.

SRMs need to be additionally buffed in both damage and their spread needs to be tightened back to how it worked a year ago. In addition, splash damage would be nice to have back on them. They will only MASK the problem.

The convergence problem STILL EXISTED a year ago, especially with laser boats. It existed to a lesser degree with PPCs + ACs because they would go through enemies and not hurt them or fly off in random directions. I have news to you though... the Ultra 5 mechs were MONSTERS 1.25 years ago. Murder machines. Hardly anyone used them. Those of us who knew what really was going on however, did.

I doubt that, all front loaded mechs are fairly heat inefficient compared to srm using faster mechs that can flank more effectively. If you take away the jump jets capability so there ability to soften up groups on approach then it can end up in more close in brawls in which the srm using mechs have a clear advantage.

With the use of artemis the numbers on srm are really high for there weight.

Edited by Varent, 06 January 2014 - 06:11 PM.

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 06 January 2014 - 06:06 PM, said:

lasers were never inaccurate in tabletop, where are you getting this from? lasers and autocannons both had the same exact chance to hit in tabletop, both were unmodified attack rolls.

lasers and autocannons both did damage in the same exact way in tabletop... you rolled for a random location... and then you applied the FULL damage to that location.

so logically lasers and autocannons should both apply damage the same way in mwo. If lasers are damage over time then autocannons should logically fire in bursts... so they apply damage similarly to lasers.

Yea not sure who you quoted on that one but you're correct. There was no distinction between weapons (other than L2 pulse and lock on weapons SSRM) and their accuracy.
AC
PPC
Lasers
SRM
LRM
Flamers
MG
were all considered just as accurate as the other. The only modifiers came in from range, movement, heat, pilot gunnery skill, targeting computers, C3, (i'm sure there's one or two I missed) but they all had the same base to hit

Don't and can't agree with ballistics burst fire though

Another thing I don't understand. Even if they went to a burst fire mechanic they still wouldn't do damage the same way lasers do. Lasers do instant damage, ballistics have travel time