109 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Roadkill, on 03 January 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

But that would make one of the end game Modules useless! Useless, I say! OH NOES!!!

Personally I see modules as the targetting computer, its just not called that.

But ya very good idea above for the pulse laser. I think it would be neat. obviously a complete rework and rework how it interacts with ghost heat etc.. but it would be nifty. I like.

[Skyfaller]

Rebas Kradd, on 02 January 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

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.

There's a very big difference between your atlas being torn up by AC2s which do not ALL hit your CT and you getting hit for 40 damage in one spot in an instant without you having any ability to react to reduce such massive damage (unlike an AC2 which you can twist torso to spread the damage around).

Point is: If the dual AC20 was hitting you in a burst mode you COULD twist torso and prevent the 40 damage to one component. As it is now, AC40 jagers simply expose themselves for half a second, toss 40 damage and get back into cover.

That is the equivalent of ~2 LRM20s hitting a single component at once with insanely less heat cost than any other weapon (to reach said damage) with zero time required for the person firing the AC40 to expose itself to return fire (unlike the LRM which has to keep lock until it hits).

To make these changes functional the following changes need apply to ballistics:

1- Increased ammo per ton (obvious)
2- Significantly increased effective range. This is important since this would be the key benefit of ballistics. We are replacing the old balancing act of 'weapon tonnage+ammo tonnage cost and front-loaded instant damage' for 'weapon/ammo tonnage cost and max effective range'. Aka an AC20 would retain full damage out to 600m since it would be firing 10 rounds of 2 damage each in burst mode during the ~0.75 seconds it fires the rounds in.


Therefore a dual AC20 jager now would be firing his AC20s in rapid fire bursts of ~0.75 seconds that deliver full damage out to 600m. AC2's would have full damage basically out to 3km. AC5s to 1.2km. AC10 to 1.6km.

Mechs on the receiving end of a burst would not be hit in one location by the entire burst unless they were static. If on the move or moving torso the damage would get spread around the mech no different than a laser would. The big difference is the ballistics would hit for full damage out to very long ranges.

[Sandpit]

Please no
As much of an opponent of nerfing AC weapons I'm just as staunch in not buffing them

They already have a much better effective range in comparison to every other weapon out there

What you're suggesting would buff the hell out of them

[Foxfire]

Extending the range, especially if you give the AC20 600m range, would be a horrible idea burst fire or no.

The trade off for losing single hit damage for the AC's would be an elimination of the all or nothing nature of hit/miss. This means that AC's will become more effective against faster mechs as well.

[Varent]

Foxfire, on 03 January 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

The trade off for losing single hit damage for the AC's would be an elimination of the all or nothing nature of hit/miss. This means that AC's will become more effective against faster mechs as well.

This is incorrect. It will only encourage bad aiming skills as upposed to players getting better.

[Foxfire]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

This is incorrect. It will only encourage bad aiming skills as upposed to players getting better.

Once skill can overcome wonky hit registration, that'd be true.

[Varent]

Foxfire, on 03 January 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

Once skill can overcome wonky hit registration, that'd be true.

The only major hit registration issue atm is SRM.

Yes there are some items that seem to have hit reg problems now and then but considering how inconstently consistent that is... im chalking that one up to lag.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

This is incorrect. It will only encourage bad aiming skills as upposed to players getting better.

It takes more skill to hold your reticule on a target then to twitch shoot. From my point of view anyhow.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 03 January 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

It takes more skill to hold your reticule on a target then to twitch shoot. From my point of view anyhow.

I can only judge from my own experiences.

That said in my experiences the opposite is true.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 03 January 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:

I can only judge from my own experiences.

That said in my experiences the opposite is true.

Well, they both start the same way, by aiming at a component, and then you pull the trigger. With a pinpoint weapon, you can now aim away and be done with it. With a burst weapon, you have to hold it on target for whatever span of time.

You run the risk of not hitting with the pinpoint frontloaded weapon, but with the theorical burst ACs, you still run the same risk. Distance amplifies the risk of missing.

[Lord de Seis]

Falloff's make weapons have untrue ranges when it comes to what they are meant to do, I understand why they added it but the damage is to high for some (AC20 for example)

[Vox Scorpus]

Burst a ballistic weapon? Are you kidding? Please don't touch any of the ballistic weapons as they are all working just fine for me at least. The problem is in the usage.

In TT an AC20 was a low ammo anti heavy or assault weapon. Designed to rapidly decrease the armor on a big mech so that it would not get a chance to rule the battlefield.

Ballistics vs lasers:

Ballistic you have to lead your target by different amounts at different ranges and speeds to get a hit.
Lasers don't need a lead, but you must keep the laser on the target for maximum effect.
2 different skills and not everyone can do both well.

Ballistics have low heat and low ammo (they run out eventually)
Lasers have high heat and no ammo (heat is trade off for unlimited fire capability)
Ballistic puts more damage onto one location (normally) but isn't as effective in a prolonged battle - a laser is.

Different Ballistics work better depending on circumstance and playstyle. Do you like advanced zoom and long range combat?
Then why would you use an AC20?
Lasers work the same. Do you get in close and brawl? Then go for the med lasers and forget the PPC (won't even do damage at short ranges and yes the PPC isn't a laser - just making a point).

I personally like a combination to minimize the weaknesses of both and enhance the strengths.

Final note on LB10. They were not so good in TT. They work well in MWO. Try 2 of 'em. Yes it's a spread of damage like a laser.
BUT, they take out lights easily, they have the potential to cause more damage - so the more you use them the higher the odds. And, they're a penetration weapon for taking out components. I run 2 in a Jager and an Orion and consistently get high damage (over 500) and good kills (especially the lights - I savor those).

Just my opinion but I think the weapons are pretty well balanced now (except the Gauss - what was done to that was almost criminal) They're not gonna run like TT so everyone knew a balance would be hard to reach and do. Thanks PGI.

[Skyfaller]

Vox Scorpus, on 03 January 2014 - 11:40 PM, said:

Burst a ballistic weapon? Are you kidding? Please don't touch any of the ballistic weapons as they are all working just fine for me at least. The problem is in the usage.

In TT an AC20 was a low ammo anti heavy or assault weapon. Designed to rapidly decrease the armor on a big mech so that it would not get a chance to rule the battlefield.

TT had random hit location of that AC20. Here we have pinpoint accuracy. Aka those 2xAC20 are hitting the same location at once. Burst fire would spread out that damage in a manner more consistent with TT gameplay.

[Livebait]

OP I like your idea. Thats the way AC's worked in other mechwarrior games. That's the way they should work in this game. It will promote balanced laser/balistics builds.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I love the way the "don't take away my ballistics" proponents are saying that it takes more skill to fire once in a split second to do all your damage rather than having to hold the crosshairs for 0.25 seconds or whatever?

[MustrumRidcully]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 January 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

So what is the Clan Targeting Computer going to do? That was the item that gave convergence like we have now for no tonnage or slots!

DOes it grant convergence, or did it just make aiming easier?
Unless I am mistaken, you could theoretically declare a different target location for every shot you make, which suggest it isn't convergence that it does, but provide other help for aiming. Whatever that help would be. A lead indicator?

[Noesis]

References:

Tech Manual, pg 238:


Total Warfare, p143:




How these could potentially translate to MWO as a twitch based shooter is another thing in itself however.

I suppose the more obvious idea would be to reduce accuracy like including a small amount of reticule shake akin to JJing if you don't have one fitted? But I don't think that would be a popular idea.

Edited by Noesis, 05 January 2014 - 08:57 AM.

[Sandpit]

They won't but this isn't TT

[Varent]

Noesis, on 05 January 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

References:

Tech Manual, pg 238:


Total Warfare, p143:




How these could potentially translate to MWO as a twitch based shooter is another thing in itself however.

I suppose the more obvious idea would be to reduce accuracy like including a small amount of reticule shake akin to JJing if you don't have one fitted? But I don't think that would be a popular idea.

Honestly ive always seen the modules as the advancments in targeting etc. A lot of them give similar benefits

[Noesis]

Varent, on 05 January 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Honestly ive always seen the modules as the advancments in targeting etc. A lot of them give similar benefits

I think your confusing Targeting Computer with C3. Since C3 is concerned with the relay of target acquisition and data as opposed to being focused on actual accuracy of a shot like the Targeting Computer.

Other than the zoom module which is a visual aid concerned with magnification, most modules are only really concerned with maintaining, acquiring or analysing target data. None actually improve the players aiming ability.