109 replies to this topic

[lsp]

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, you know why they are penalized for taking smaller weapons vs larger ones? Because ac2's do the most dps in the game, 4 ac2s will kill you faster than a ac20.

Edited by lsp, 31 December 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Mcgral18]

lsp, on 31 December 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, you know why they are penalized for taking smaller weapons vs larger ones? Because ac2's do the most dps in the game, 4 ac2s will kill you faster than a ac20.

It also weights more, takes more ammo and is not pinpoint. Ghost heat on top of an already hot weapon. You cannot poptart with them, you have to ridgehump and hope your opponent doesn't know how to torso twist, or simply get into cover. The AC20 has the advantage of a high damage frontloaded damage.

AC20 has a DPS of 5, a single AC2 is 4, so with 4 you have 16, very powerful over a period of time, but your alpha is only 8, compared to the AC20s 20.

[Skyfaller]

lsp, on 31 December 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

Stopped reading after the first few sentences, you know why they are penalized for taking smaller weapons vs larger ones? Because ac2's do the most dps in the game, 4 ac2s will kill you faster than a ac20.

That is extremely subjective and not true in practical use of the weapon.

A Jager with 4x AC2:

16dmg every second (4 guns firing 2dmg each every 0.5 seconds is 8dmg. Fires twice in a second = 16)
Heat cost per second: 16 (1 heat per gun fired. BEFORE ghost heat).

This Jager has to land TWO salvos in the SAME spot on an enemy mech to almost match a single AC20.

Jager with 2x AC20.
40 damage every 4 seconds.
Heat cost: 12 heat (BEFORE ghost heat)

Jager delivers 40 damage to one spot on target mech. At once.

In practical terms, an AC40 jager build can fire TWO times before its heat reaches critical. AC2 fires approximately 6 bursts before it gets to critical heat. Note this is with ghost heat (from my own testing using my build today with both weapon types).

So, 6 bursts.. damage being 4x2x6 = 48dmg compared to two shots of dual AC20 doing 80 damage.

Take a guess which of these two mechs has the easiest time coring other mechs?

We all know the answer.


Hence if the AC20 and all AC's fired in a 'burst mode' that 2, 5, 10 and 20 damage respectively would not have the pinpoint accuracy front loaded damage that they do now.

Using the AC2 macro will show you how this concept works. Only a mech standing still and you having a perfect steady aim will deliver all bullets to the same location. If the mech moves the damage it takes is spread over the mech.

With this system ghost heat needs not be as crippling for ballistics as it is now.

[Alphawolf]

Why not cut the burn time on all lasers by say 25% that might even up the playing field between lasers & pin point damage weapons.

[Joseph Mallan]

Make weapons more powerful so the AC doesn't seem OP. Weak weapons are for losers.

[Almond Brown]

Skyfaller, on 30 December 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

There is a noticeable imbalance between these weapons.

The basic argument behind the reason why lasers do less damage at much less range, generate much more heat and 'lase' damage delivery is that ballistics weigh more and require ammo.

That, however is incorrect. The mechs that carry ballistics as their primary weapons are not limited in tonnage nor slots to equip said heavy cannons...quite the opposite, they are severely penalized if they load lighter ballistics (aka dual AC20 jager vs 4~6 AC2 jager vs 6MG jager) because the nature of the ballistic weapons themselves increase exponentially the larger the caliber with little to no penalty.

In contrast, lasers suffer the opposite. The larger the laser the higher the penalty for using them.

So the question is what makes ballistics this way?

1- Pinpoint front-loaded damage. Aka an AC20 delivers 20 damage in one hit, instantly.
2- Low heat. To deliver 20 damage a large laser mech would have to spend twice the heat.

This in mind, the AC20 does have shorter range...but it can deliver front loaded damage out to an equivalent range to a large laser. The 20 dmg @ 270m of the AC20 becomes 10 dmg @ 540..which matches the large laser's 9dmg max range. Out to 800m both the large laser and AC20 drop to ~2 damage.

...but the AC20 still delivers that damage instantly in one hit. The laser would need to stay on target for 1 second for the lase to work.

This instant damage application at equivalent ranges and far less heat cost is what makes lasers absurdly less practical than ballistics. The application of damage instantly is the source of the imbalance. Both combined create the current problem.

The solution would be this:

Make the ballistics fire 10 rounds per click during 0.5s or 1s. These 10 bullets will add up to the ballistic weapon's damage. The heavier the weapon the longer the 'burst' time.

Aka, an AC20 would fire 10 bullets of 2dmg each during 1 second.
....... an AC2 would fire 10 bullets of 0.2dmg each during 0.5 seconds.

This system would have the ballistics in-line with lasers in term of effect on the battlefield. Aka no more instant-damage delivery to a single mech component unless the aim is held true during the burst.

We know this system works. The AC2 macro literally is a window into this. By macro'ing 5 AC2s to chain fire every 0.2s from the next AC2 in the line the mech ends up firing 5 bullets in a burst that lasts half a second ... the equivalent of an AC10 broken down into laser-like damage bursts.

Unlike the AC2 macro however, the modified 'burst' ballistics would have their refire time come into play. An AC20 would still have its 4 seconds refire delay but it will be firing for very low heat (compared to 2 large lasers) and better range... but it wont deliver 20 damage to one component of the target mech UNLESS the aim is held true.

TT had damage be 'random hit location' unless you specifically had an upgrade in the mech to let it improve its CHANCES of hitting a particular location. Lasers do this in MWO via their 1s lase. Ballistics need to do this as well via a burst fire.

So you would be happy carrying a weapon that weight 14 tons, takes up 10 crit slots, needs ammo to operate and also have a chance to do only 2 points per trigger pull, versus the current 20 hit or miss?

Just checking...

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 January 2014 - 06:37 AM, said:

Make weapons more powerful so the AC doesn't seem OP. Weak weapons are for losers.

Hell YaY! Give us Energy users a "Heavy Laser" that does 20 damage in a .25s burn for 12 Heat, has an optimal range of 325m (x2 to maximum) and weighs a gross 9 tons. Then we will see what the "Ballista babies" have to say about **** not being OP...
Hell YaY!

[Varent]

Almond Brown, on 02 January 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Hell YaY! Give us Energy users a "Heavy Laser" that does 20 damage in a .25s burn for 12 Heat, has an optimal range of 325m (x2 to maximum) and weighs a gross 9 tons. Then we will see what the "Ballista babies" have to say about **** not being OP...
Hell YaY!

hitting the nail on the head as usual almond

[Sandpit]

I'm really starting to hope pgi makes the mistakes of listening to some of these ideas. My energy boat kdrs will go through the roof and the QQ will be enough to sustain me until the return of kerensky himself

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I'm really starting to hope pgi makes the mistakes of listening to some of these ideas. My energy boat kdrs will go through the roof and the QQ will be enough to sustain me until the return of kerensky himself

jester, 4 erlarge, 2 ams jump capable huge range... pew pew pew....

That said.. seriously.... god no... it would buff light mechs like crazy as well. we dont need any more added to the ultralight brawlers of death.

[Dino]

Making ACs damage-over-time would just homogenize the game. Others have pointed it out, but I will sum up what I feel is the solution:

Buff dhs up past 1.4. Make engine heat sinks equivalent cooling to non - engine heat sinks. Lower heat cap. Giving a ballistics mech a virtually heat free ppc compounds the problem.


Buff/fix specialized brawling weapons. Flamers, pulse weapons, srms, lbx, mgs.

If a nerf must be made for ballistics, reduce their 3x range drop off.

Make smaller balance changes with much greater frequency. Provide data metrics for historical weapon effectiveness, by Elo of user, to the community so we can provide more valuable ongoing feedback with less controversy within the community.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

jester, 4 erlarge, 2 ams jump capable huge range... pew pew pew....

That said.. seriously.... god no... it would buff light mechs like crazy as well. we dont need any more added to the ultralight brawlers of death.

Pffft 7LLs on a bmaster
Done *drops mic on stage* deuces yo

[Varent]

Dino, on 02 January 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

Making ACs damage-over-time would just homogenize the game. Others have pointed it out, but I will sum up what I feel is the solution:

Buff dhs up past 1.4. Make engine heat sinks equivalent cooling to non - engine heat sinks. Lower heat cap. Giving a ballistics mech a virtually heat free ppc compounds the problem.


Buff/fix specialized brawling weapons. Flamers, pulse weapons, srms, lbx, mgs.

If a nerf must be made for ballistics, reduce their 3x range drop off.

Make smaller balance changes with much greater frequency. Provide data metrics for historical weapon effectiveness, by Elo of user, to the community so we can provide more valuable ongoing feedback with less controversy within the community.

Agree on most things here but Why change heat sinks in the engine? and frankly not sure heat sinks really need a change, but my own opinion is that heat should be an important issue. Also machine guns are pretty damn good, so is the lbx... I think if you buff those it would be a pretty bad idea.... SRM are fine jsut need to fix the hit registration. Pulse dont really need a buff either since they are what they are supposed to be.... now flamers.. yes... but in my own opinion... why dont we just make them what they are supposed to be in lore... take away most of the damage and make them add heat and be able to push someone past 100% heat. I wanna roast someone alive in there {LT-MOB-25} pit and make enemeies truly pay attention to there heat more.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

Pffft 7LLs on a bmaster
Done *drops mic on stage* deuces yo

I dunno jump capability cant be overloooked... and immagine 12 jesters in a team all destroyingany chance of missles getting at them, hanging out at a far distanced ridgeline focusing fire and then firing over a hill top in scattered patters to literally supress a whole hill side and ridge so people cant move over top? :3

[Dino]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Why change heat sinks in the engine? ...

Also machine guns are pretty damn good, so is the lbx...

SRM are fine jsut need to fix the hit registration...


Pulse dont really need a buff either since they are what they are supposed to be.... now flamers.. yes... but in my own opinion... why dont we just make them what they are supposed to be in lore... take away most of the damage and make them add heat and be able to push someone past 100% heat. I wanna roast someone alive in there {LT-MOB-25} pit and make enemeies truly pay attention to there heat more.

Engine heat sinks need to be the same as additional heat sinks because the current implementation exacerbates an artificial point of diminishing returns that primarily punishes energy based medium+ mechs, which means lights and ballistic based mechs are, by comparison, not affected by this, and thus imbalance is created.

I agree with you on srms and flamers.

As far as the rest is concerned, I must say I flat out disagree. Look at mistrum's weapon charts and see for yourself. I'd find a link for you if I wasn't posting via phone. I'm not saying huge changes are needed, but specialist weapons (less flexible range range) need to have a bigger advantage than they currently do over generalist weapons (more flexible range).

Edited by Dino, 02 January 2014 - 12:58 PM.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

I dunno jump capability cant be overloooked... and immagine 12 jesters in a team all destroyingany chance of missles getting at them, hanging out at a far distanced ridgeline focusing fire and then firing over a hill top in scattered patters to literally supress a whole hill side and ridge so people cant move over top? :3

I'd just prefer my bmasters or stalker

[Varent]

Dino, on 02 January 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Engine heat sinks need to be the same as additional heat sinks because the current implementation exacerbates an artificial point of diminishing returns that primarily punishes energy based medium+ mechs, which means lights and ballistic based mechs are, by comparison, not affected by this, and thus imbalance is created.

I agree with you on srms and flamers.

As far as the rest is concerned, I must say I flat out disagree. Look at mistrum's weapon charts and see for yourself. I'd find a link for you if I wasn't posting via phone. I'm not saying huge changes are needed, but specialist weapons (less flexible range range) need to have a bigger advantage than they currently do over generalist weapons (more flexible range).

I think that weapons need to be specialized into there rolls and dont need to do excess damage just because of dps reasons. people argue the spread on lbx makes it ineffective but I like the spread for hitting light mechs more consistently and the lower heat value as well makes it great for brawling in close as well as the crit rate. I still also stand by machine guns.. primarly because I use them... ALOT... and gods if they were buffed? jesus christ man.... I mean hell I would do alot better.. .but... I dont think I should do that much better.. o.o....

Now regarding heat sinks... the current system actually only really nerfs light mechs. Most medium mech builds I know of run equal or larger sizes and are therefore able to fit more. It also specifically helps heavy and assault mechs wich is a good thing since they already have some heat problems. reducing this would help light mechs more then anything else wich I would be heavily against.

[Varent]

Sandpit, on 02 January 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

I'd just prefer my bmasters or stalker

Ill give you style points for battlemaster.

[Sandpit]

Varent, on 02 January 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Ill give you style points for battlemaster.

4 LL tbolts aren't anything to scoff at either

[Rebas Kradd]

Skyfaller, on 31 December 2013 - 09:10 PM, said:

That is extremely subjective and not true in practical use of the weapon.

A Jager with 4x AC2:

16dmg every second (4 guns firing 2dmg each every 0.5 seconds is 8dmg. Fires twice in a second = 16)
Heat cost per second: 16 (1 heat per gun fired. BEFORE ghost heat).

This Jager has to land TWO salvos in the SAME spot on an enemy mech to almost match a single AC20.

You claim "practical" problems and then start talking in purely "theoretical" terms.

Here's practical for you: My Atlas gets torn up by both dual AC20's and quad AC2's all the time. The solutions involve not standing still and begging to be hit, not wandering around alone out in the open so I attract every K/D-obsessed Jagerboomer in the map, and using smaller and faster mechs so I'm way harder to hit.