147 replies to this topic

[Noesis]

Varent, on 13 January 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

agreed, to a degree. Though that hunch is still a massive target. Personally I had alot of ideas on the hunchy to make them more playable. Making the shoulder a weapon pod for example. Perhaps diverting armor from the left torso to the right.. etc..etc.

Still Im simply unsure. I think from a shooting perspective its hard to make that shoulder not attract fire.

The HBK needs to retain its "uniqueness". But it only needs a little dieting here to make changes that can help really. Same with other mediums that are overly generous with their proportions.

I just find it sad that a Mech more idealised for assaulting enemy lines with punch weaponry being changed into to a support fire role due to apparent capabilities.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 13 January 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

The HBK needs to retain its "uniqueness". But it only needs a little dieting here to make changes that can help really. Same with other mediums that are overly generous with their proportions.

I just find it sad that a Mech more idealised for assaulting enemy lines with punch weaponry being changed into to a support fire role due to apparent capabilities.

funny enough ive actually had great success with SOME forms of the hunchback as a flanking mech. But not many of them. I really like the 4SP with its missle and laser loadout and smaller hunches on either side. I also have found the founder hunchback to be decent with a uac5, 2 machine gun and 3 medium laser on a large standard, or 2 machine gun 1 uac5, 2 large laser and 1 medium laser on an xl. Admitedly both of those still suffer from the hunch but if you play them correctly they can still do there job. to a 'degree'. The others I use for supportive roles and boating and long distance fire support.

That said I agree with your statement. Just not sure how to go about it to get the mech to that point. Im not sure just slimming it would be enough.

Edited by Varent, 13 January 2014 - 07:57 AM.

[Xyroc]

I run energy builds a lot and NEVER am I thinking awe hell I cant fight that mech hes a ballistics build I'm surly to get pwned ...

[Prezimonto]

All I want to see done to ballistic weapons, at this point, is have the ammo explosion % increased. Single AC's are fairly well balanced for their tonnage/cost against energy weapons but it's very, very easy to bring enough ammo along with a large AC to dominate 2 to 3 mechs without AC's. Even if you run out of ammo, you've generally done enough damage, quickly enough, to come out ahead. One AC needs ~3 tons (give or take a ton) of ammo. Two AC's need a lot more for most builds to work. If ammo could actually explode then the double/triple AC builds would be significantly more dangerous and/or you'll take a standard engine and CASE (and have less weight free). As it stands CASE is meaningless on the majority of builds as ammo only has a 10% crit rate and if you lose the XL engine side torso you're dead anyway.

TLDR: Make ammo have a higher explosion rate and ballistics should be in the right place... powerful but dangerous to have many.

[Roland]

The first video seems to suggest that the OP doesn't really understand how damage transfer works.

For instance, when killing the original catapult, the AC's killed it much faster... but if you watch the video, it's obvious why. With the original PPC and laser, he continually hits the side torso.. and even after it is destroyed, he keeps shooing it, instead of shooting the CT. This causes the CT to blink (because damage is transferring to it), but that damage is being halved, since it's going through the side torso.

Then, when the AC's are used, he kills the target through the CT.

I mean, I'm not sure what exactly the OP thinks he's showing... that shooting a target in the side will kill it much slower if they don't have an XL? I mean, you're doing HALF damage do it at that point... I'm not sure if the OP realized that.

[mekabuser]

to be fair, I am sure there is a significant percentage of players who dont understand the whole damage transfer thing.. I mean the arm is gone, how is it halving damage to the side torso.. yet it does. Same for the side torsos,.

I played for a long time before I finally realized what was going on via threads etc. Its imo quite stupid.

[Ryche]

Sandpit, on 25 December 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

No one on the "ballistics are op" bandwagon ever takes into account those trade-offs. They either ignore them entirely or "argue" that those trade-offs don't count because (insert whatever reason here)

Medium laser 1 ton and loads of heat, hitscan, 3.25 second cooldown with a 1 second duration built in to the cooldown.
AC 5 8 tons pin point front loaded damage with a 1.25 second cooldown and minimal heat, screenshake, smoke, requires ammo but such a high amount of ammo per ton that 2-4 tons will carry through a 12 minute fight.

So for 7 more tons plus ammo, so say 10 tons more you get the same 5 damage, but you can unload it 3 times faster with a less heat and oh wait a range advantage because thats right ballistics have more range than energy does too.

It is funny hearing people say that there are trade offs, one is just flat out better, yeah it costs more tonnage but tons are eaten up by heatsinks to TRY to mitigate the heat on energy weapons. Also ballistics are used more for poptarting and ridge humping, peekaboo with front loaded weapons is rough on someone using energy as they have to find the source of the damage and then aim and hope the source doesnt move out of line of sight for hitscan.

By your logic spiders never had hitbox issues it was a trade off for having a lower damage output for them to be so hard to land hits on.

[Roland]

Quote

So for 7 more tons plus ammo, so say 10 tons more you get the same 5 damage, but you can unload it 3 times faster with a less heat and oh wait a range advantage because thats right ballistics have more range than energy does too.

It is funny hearing people say that there are trade offs, one is just flat out better, yeah it costs more tonnage but tons are eaten up by heatsinks to TRY to mitigate the heat on energy weapons.

Dude, those 7 tons more is a HUGE difference for a lot of mechs. I mean, sure, if you're a fatlass and have infinite tonnage, then it's a no brainer (although you then have to start worrying about the biggest limitation of assault mechs, which tends to be critical slots.. and balistic weapons are much larger than the energy weapons.

Also, the idea that the tonnage advantage doesn't count, because "it gets used up by heat sinks" isn't true... and anyone who knows anything about building and running mechs knows this.

I get 20 free heat sinks (since I am always gonna run doubles) just in my engine... That's a huge amount of cooling capacity that's gonna be in my mech, whether I use it or not. I'm pretty much ALWAYS gonna run some energy weapons as a result, because it's a waste not to.

And you don't need to run at neutral heat efficiency.. why? Because you don't have to just stand there shooting the enemy until one of you dies. If you get hot? You can disengage and cool down. And at that point, the fact that your enemy is running cooler and can keep firing? It doesn't matter, because he doesn't have a target to shoot at anyway. Being able to shoot constantly without overheating is only useful if you can force a close range engagement where the enemy cannot get any cover from you.

[Noesis]

Roland, on 13 January 2014 - 08:00 PM, said:

Being able to shoot constantly without overheating is only useful if you can force a close range engagement where the enemy cannot get any cover from you.

So, like at ML range?

On average, 2 AC10's can kill4 Mechs in the same time it takes 6 ML to kill 2 due to overheating twice in the same amount of time. In that time the AC10 will not have used 2 tons of ammo. ( http://mwomercs.com/...rts-2013-11-10/ )

Also on significant heat dependent builds external heat sinks do become very relevant and take up a considerable number of slots as a result.

[YueFei]

Noesis, on 14 January 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

So, like at ML range?

On average, 2 AC10's can kill4 Mechs in the same time it takes 6 ML to kill 2 due to overheating twice in the same amount of time. In that time the AC10 will not have used 2 tons of ammo. ( http://mwomercs.com/...rts-2013-11-10/ )

Also on significant heat dependent builds external heat sinks do become very relevant and take up a considerable number of slots as a result.

On the other hand, 6 Medium Lasers is 6 tons. 2xAC/10 weighs 24 tons before ammunition is loaded. Say you load 3 tons ammo per AC/10, versus 6 heatsinks. The Medium Lasers weigh 12 tons vs the 30 tons of the 2xAC/10. With the 18 tons you save, you can have a larger engine, and move faster.

If you wait until your foe is just a single barrier away from pushing over and forcing you into a sustained fight, it's your fault and you're gonna lose. If you see him bearing down and relocate ahead of time, you can prevent him from forcing you into a sustained shoot-out.

Obviously some mechs can't do it. Like Awesome variants with low engine limits, just too damned slow. But if you can go at a decent speed, energy weapons aren't bad.

[Viges]

The only problem with ballistics is that you can place ammo wherever you want.
Ammo from legs going to ballistics in arms - wtf?
Place ammo in the same sections as weapons - problem with explosions solved.

[Noesis]

YueFei, on 14 January 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

On the other hand, 6 Medium Lasers is 6 tons. 2xAC/10 weighs 24 tons before ammunition is loaded. Say you load 3 tons ammo per AC/10, versus 6 heatsinks. The Medium Lasers weigh 12 tons vs the 30 tons of the 2xAC/10. With the 18 tons you save, you can have a larger engine, and move faster.

If you wait until your foe is just a single barrier away from pushing over and forcing you into a sustained fight, it's your fault and you're gonna lose. If you see him bearing down and relocate ahead of time, you can prevent him from forcing you into a sustained shoot-out.

Obviously some mechs can't do it. Like Awesome variants with low engine limits, just too damned slow. But if you can go at a decent speed, energy weapons aren't bad.

So 4:2 kills which is a 100% more effective and the energy build would overheat twice being at full heat then twice in the same time it takes the AC to continuously fire doesn't represent a significant understanding of the heat issues you need to manage for lasers as a result, thus showing how much their balance mechanism is in fact inferior to the AC? End result: 50% less potential kills.

You have already suggested now that the Mech has to then use specific tactics and equipment to get any edge over the other Mech. Yet if the other Mech can equally use tactics well it is simply a case of time before the ML pilot loses. Especially if you then bring controlling ranges into the mix. And this is before considering using actual real values where beam effects will make them even less effective in comparison to the AC10.

Edited by Noesis, 14 January 2014 - 12:53 AM.

[Sug]

YueFei, on 14 January 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

With the 18 tons you save, you can have a larger engine, and move faster.

When you have assault mechs running 70-80kph speed isn't gonna help you.

Beams look good on paper but I'll take pinpoint damage over some weight savings. **** I'd take an armorless Jager over an Awesome.

[Rino88ex]

I think ballistic weapons are at a great disadvantage compared to lasers.

Are overweight and also need more ammunition to store tons which in turn require CASE because otherwise they will explode and kill you.

Lasers have infinite ammunition. With a ballistic weapon you can not waste any shots. Also keep in mind to make the look is difficult because you have to calculate the travel time from the moment the bullet shot to reach the goal and this calculated on the distance.

Ammunition should increase per ton of all ballistic weapons!!!

[Joseph Mallan]

Ryche, on 13 January 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Medium laser 1 ton and loads of heat, hitscan, 3.25 second cooldown with a 1 second duration built in to the cooldown.
AC 5 8 tons pin point front loaded damage with a 1.25 second cooldown and minimal heat, screenshake, smoke, requires ammo but such a high amount of ammo per ton that 2-4 tons will carry through a 12 minute fight.

So for 7 more tons plus ammo, so say 10 tons more you get the same 5 damage, but you can unload it 3 times faster with a less heat and oh wait a range advantage because thats right ballistics have more range than energy does too.

It is funny hearing people say that there are trade offs, one is just flat out better, yeah it costs more tonnage but tons are eaten up by heatsinks to TRY to mitigate the heat on energy weapons. Also ballistics are used more for poptarting and ridge humping, peekaboo with front loaded weapons is rough on someone using energy as they have to find the source of the damage and then aim and hope the source doesnt move out of line of sight for hitscan.

By your logic spiders never had hitbox issues it was a trade off for having a lower damage output for them to be so hard to land hits on.

Medium laser and AC5 should have the same DpS around 2.3 to balance these two 5 point damage weapons. AC5 and Medium laser has had the same DpS for 30 years on TT. Fix it! AC10 and PPC do the same DpS on TT. Fix it. Find the middle DpS between the two weapons and figit the numbers so they are doing the same amount of DpS! THAT IS BALANCE...

[Sug]

Rino88ex, on 14 January 2014 - 04:18 AM, said:

I think ballistic weapons are at a great disadvantage compared to lasers.

Are overweight and also need more ammunition to store tons which in turn require CASE because otherwise they will explode and kill you.

Lasers have infinite ammunition. With a ballistic weapon you can not waste any shots. Also keep in mind to make the look is difficult because you have to calculate the travel time from the moment the bullet shot to reach the goal and this calculated on the distance.

Ammunition should increase per ton of all ballistic weapons!!!

This is probably one of the most brilliant troll posts I've ever seen.

[cSand]

I've realized that if you can be hit by it, someone is on the forums posting about how OP it is.

Never ending cycle. People can't adapt so they ***** and complain. In fact, that applies to the almost everything, not just MWO

Edited by cSand, 14 January 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Artgathan]

YueFei, on 14 January 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

On the other hand, 6 Medium Lasers is 6 tons. 2xAC/10 weighs 24 tons before ammunition is loaded. Say you load 3 tons ammo per AC/10, versus 6 heatsinks. The Medium Lasers weigh 12 tons vs the 30 tons of the 2xAC/10. With the 18 tons you save, you can have a larger engine, and move faster.

If you wait until your foe is just a single barrier away from pushing over and forcing you into a sustained fight, it's your fault and you're gonna lose. If you see him bearing down and relocate ahead of time, you can prevent him from forcing you into a sustained shoot-out.

Obviously some mechs can't do it. Like Awesome variants with low engine limits, just too damned slow. But if you can go at a decent speed, energy weapons aren't bad.

The AC10s also only require 2 hardpoints and 20 crits (counting the 3t of ammo), versus the 6 hardpoints and 24 crits (using 6 DHS) of the MLs. I agree that there is a bit of a trade-off occurring in terms of speed, but speed is usually only relevant on smaller chassis (lights chiefly, some mediums as well). The speed advantage purchased by 18tons (usually only 10 tens will be used, as the speed payouts suffer at higher engine ratings) for Heavy / Assault mechs is not that huge (typically 8-20 kph).

That said, the AC/10s also have a significant range advantage over the ML, and their firing mechanics make them more conducive to MW:O's gameplay (peek-and-shoot).

[Roland]

I'm honestly baffled how people can have such a tenuous grasp of mech building that they could think that it's even remotely meaningful to compare 6ML to 2 AC10.

"HAY GUYZ, IT'S NOT FAIR that 24 tons of weapons is more effective than 6 tons!"

It's freaking 4 times the tonnage. Derp.

Compare it to equal tonnage, and what do you have? A single AC2, not even including ammo.

Which is gonna be more effective, 6 ML, or one AC2? Derrr... the ML's. Hell, you don't even need 6 of them... run like 5, and get a slightly smaller alpha, with better heat, throw the extra ton into another DHS...

And even if you wanted to then go into the fact that the single AC2 plus ammo is still going to be a few slots smaller than the 6 ML's. That's fine, but it's totally contrived when folks say things like "Well the medium lasers are actually the size of two ac10's plus ammo! Because you need to have 6 double heat sinks!" No I don't.. I don't need to run 6 double heat sinks at all. I can simply CHOOSE TO RUN HOT... and also, let us not forget the fact that my engine has 10 DHS built into it.

The best mechs run hot. Heat neutrality is not something that good mech designers pursue. You WANT to run hot... because being able to do a lot of spike damage is more useful than being able to generate lower damage in a constant stream. Why? Because you aren't going to consistently find yourself in a situation where you have your ideal target presented to you... You want designs where you can do your damage to your target, and then evade. This is why a metric like DPS is so meaningless in this game. Because it's not an MMO, where you're just generating damage numbers which are then applied to some generic health bar.

AC's are useful for spike damage (although the AC10 is kind of trash now). But so are PPC's, which are energy weapons.

The reality is that I rarely, if EVER, see a mech that isn't carrying energy weapons... But in past iterations of MWO, there were numerous times when you saw mechs that didn't carry any ballistics.

The fact that generally every mech carries a mix of both would tend to suggest that neither one of them is clearly trash now.

[Artgathan]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

I'm honestly baffled how people can have such a tenuous grasp of mech building that they could think that it's even remotely meaningful to compare 6ML to 2 AC10.

"HAY GUYZ, IT'S NOT FAIR that 24 tons of weapons is more effective than 6 tons!"

It's freaking 4 times the tonnage. Derp.

Compare it to equal tonnage, and what do you have? A single AC2, not even including ammo.

Which is gonna be more effective, 6 ML, or one AC2? Derrr... the ML's. Hell, you don't even need 6 of them... run like 5, and get a slightly smaller alpha, with better heat, throw the extra ton into another DHS...

And even if you wanted to then go into the fact that the single AC2 plus ammo is still going to be a few slots smaller than the 6 ML's. That's fine, but it's totally contrived when folks say things like "Well the medium lasers are actually the size of two ac10's plus ammo! Because you need to have 6 double heat sinks!" No I don't.. I don't need to run 6 double heat sinks at all. I can simply CHOOSE TO RUN HOT... and also, let us not forget the fact that my engine has 10 DHS built into it.

The best mechs run hot. Heat neutrality is not something that good mech designers pursue. You WANT to run hot... because being able to do a lot of spike damage is more useful than being able to generate lower damage in a constant stream. Why? Because you aren't going to consistently find yourself in a situation where you have your ideal target presented to you... You want designs where you can do your damage to your target, and then evade. This is why a metric like DPS is so meaningless in this game. Because it's not an MMO, where you're just generating damage numbers which are then applied to some generic health bar.

AC's are useful for spike damage (although the AC10 is kind of trash now). But so are PPC's, which are energy weapons.

The reality is that I rarely, if EVER, see a mech that isn't carrying energy weapons... But in past iterations of MWO, there were numerous times when you saw mechs that didn't carry any ballistics.

The fact that generally every mech carries a mix of both would tend to suggest that neither one of them is clearly trash now.

I didn't mean to imply that there should be "fairness" between the weapons; I simply meant that the medium lasers also have to make significant sacrifices in terms of critical slots. I realize that heat neutrality is not desirable (I design most of my mechs to deliver 120-200 in ten seconds), but it does impact your ability to output damage. Consider that a mech with 6 ML and 6 DHS will fire more often than a mech with only 6 ML, making it a larger threat.