19 replies to this topic

[topgun505]

Despite all mechs having double armor ... even a max-armor assault mech can be dropped in seconds in MWO. The main culprit, of course, is the pinpoint damage that numerous weapons do in the game.

The developers solved problem of laser pinpoint damage (that was a plague in previous titles) by making it a beam over time.

That leaves PPCs and Autocannons.

PPCs have been reduced to some extent by jacking up their heat and ghost heat.

That just leaves Autocannons.

For anyone who is a long time Battletech fan I'm sure you have seen plenty of artwork depicting mech battles. In EVERY artwork I've ever seen in Battletech showing a mech firing an autocannon it is ejecting a STREAM of shell casings out of the weapon. Not a single shell casing.

My suggestion is to change autocannon mechanics so a single shot is turned into a stream of shells.

In the case of AC-2, AC-5, UAC-5, and UAC-2 (when it eventually comes out), the damage is broken up into one-shot projectiles. So an AC-2 is pumping out two one-damage shells. For any AC in the 10 caliber and up you break it up into 5-point shells (not 1-point shells as then it would make a regular AC10 too much like an LBX).

This keeps the damage output of the weapon the same but it reduces the pinpoint damage capability. You can buff/nerf as needed by increase/reducing time between shells in a volley and/or change the recycle time.

[Madw0lf]

No. This is a ridiculous "solution" that keeps coming up again and again and again and.....

Leave ballistic mechanics as-is. If anything reduce ammo/ton very slightly (6/ton for AC20 ie), increase risk of ammo explosion slightly( 30% ish) and/or add a "CoF" effect for all weapons (Just use the JJ reticle shake, simple and easy to implement) which would allow the DoT weapons (ie lasers) to shine a bit brighter.

[B E E L Z E B U B]

making ACs ****** isnt the way to balance them against lasers. they should give lasers some sort of boost, maybe shorten their beam time.

[topgun505]

And how is that in any way supposed to reduce the pinpoint issue? If you want an assault mech to last more than 10 seconds in a brawl reducing ammo is in no way going to impact this.

Madw0lf, on 14 January 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

No. This is a ridiculous "solution" that keeps coming up again and again and again and.....

Leave ballistic mechanics as-is. If anything reduce ammo/ton very slightly (6/ton for AC20 ie), increase risk of ammo explosion slightly( 30% ish) and/or add a "CoF" effect for all weapons (Just use the JJ reticle shake, simple and easy to implement) which would allow the DoT weapons (ie lasers) to shine a bit brighter.

[Khobai]

I agree ballistics need to fire in bursts to spread damage out more.

[Evil Ash]

Reducing ammo is the good bet, however a BETTER bet would be changing the weapon accuracy (horrible idea, but ballistic weapons aren't exactly as accurate as lasers when you think about it)

The map could increase/decrease accuracy (HPG leaves the accuracy the same, Frozen City decreases long range efficiency.

The Camera shake is also a good idea in my opinion.

Since PGI wants to make a more realistic simulation game for MW, they can implement more real world physics, they are using Cryengine anyways.

Edited by Evil Ash, 14 January 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Nope, the current weapons modeling is pretty good. Turning autocannons into overweight underperforming lasers isn't going to improve the gaming experience.

If you're looking for the culprit of "a max-armor assault mech can be dropped in seconds", look no further than massed fire from a full 12-man company. Lasers do it just as effectively, you just need a little steadier hand.

[Corvus Antaka]

make autocanons work like the uac/5 does now, 2 shots with each one doing half the damage of a full one. so ac/2 is 2 1 dmg shells, ac/5 is 2 2.5 dmg shells, uac 5 is 4 2.5 dmg shells, ac 10 is 2 5dmg shells.

etc.

this alone might work to break ballistics up.

up the heat on a regular ppc by 2 to 12 and pinpoint dmg will be a lot tougher to pull off and maintain. this should help brawlers and more mobile mechs as well.

should help the lbx too.

[Roland]

Khobai, on 14 January 2014 - 05:37 PM, said:

I agree ballistics need to fire in bursts to spread damage out more.

Why would anyone use them over lasers then?

[CrashieJ]

Roland, on 14 January 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Why would anyone use them over lasers then?

Reduced Heat, shorter Recycle Time.

Like in the canon BattleTech Universe

[FupDup]

gavilatius, on 14 January 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

Reduced Heat, shorter Recycle Time.

Like in the canon BattleTech Universe

In BT, they had the same reload time as energy weapons (10 seconds) excluding Ultra and Rotary ACs. Consequently, nearly all Autocannons were terrible barring the 20-rated ones and the Light AC/5. And the 20's were only situtational at best due to horribly short range (in a game where PPCs and Gauss ruled supreme...).

Edited by FupDup, 14 January 2014 - 07:35 PM.

[CrashieJ]

Madw0lf, on 14 January 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

No. This is a ridiculous "solution" that keeps coming up again and again and again and.....

Leave ballistic mechanics as-is. If anything reduce ammo/ton very slightly (6/ton for AC20 ie), increase risk of ammo explosion slightly( 30% ish) and/or add a "CoF" effect for all weapons (Just use the JJ reticle shake, simple and easy to implement) which would allow the DoT weapons (ie lasers) to shine a bit brighter.

I like the ammo Explosion and The CoF can work if it's tied to the Mobility, Reducing the ammunition count won't work since You'll have Builds where They'll find a way to pack on the ammo.

Reduce the Beam Duration on ALL Lasers, which includes Pulse Lasers.
Split the AC10 and AC20 into multiple AC5 or AC2 rounds.
Have Map Stats actually sway how Ballistics and Missles work
Reload Cost Mechanic also has to come back to provide an outside influence on Ballistic and Missile Fielding.

Balance pretty much done, if problems persist add a slight JumpJet Scramble mechanic to emulate a Cone of Fire.

not that hard.

[Wolf Ender]

i wouldn't say that this is my favored solution...but i see nothing wrong in his logic. the game designers decided that in order for you to get your full 5 damage with that medium laser, you were going to have to hold it on target for a full second. is it outrageous to ask ballistics to do the same? no, it's not.

Is that really the best solution to why lasers aren't seen as an efficient weapon compared to ballistics? there are probably other ways

There is nothing in the TT rules or lore that says the damage is all done by a single projectile... there are an infinite combinations of autocannons in different calibers and firing rates... but they all do the same amount of damage to the target corresponding to their 2,5,10 or 20 designation within the guidelines of a TT turn.

Edited by Wolf Ender, 14 January 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I wouldn't get rid of the big single shot damage ACs, I'd add different options, and consider limitations according to what was seen in the lore and consider other balance elements such as Ammo per Ton, Projectile Speed, Rate of Fire and so on.

So maybe the Atlas and Hunchback could still make use of the single-shot ACs, but other chassis cannot, that could be a matter of balancing out variants for example.

Here's a chart I made looking at some kinds of Autocannons that can be explored and tested and how Clan Tech could end up looking depending on where the devs take them:


Lets just put the test server to work.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

When making any change to a set of rules, including weapon balance in MWO, there are a few preliminary steps to make.

First, you should determine if a change is necessary, and if so, what specifically needs to be changed. For MWO, I would argue that the underlying issue behind pretty much all its balance problems is that of Time to Kill (TTK).

Second, you should determine underlying causes for said problems and potential ways that you can change them. There are a few culprits here, most prominent among them being human-controlled precise accuracy and weapon recycle/reload times.

Third, you need to decide if you are justified in making a change under the most fundamental rules of the system (the ones that you should neither change nor violate). Changing tonnage and increasing critical space requirements are decent examples in MWO, as doing either of those can potentially break canon builds. That leaves other things, like refire rate, heat, damage, and weapon mechanics (single-shot lump damage, dot beams, splash, or more exotic mechanics).

Once you've decided that a change is necessary, found a selection of specific proposed changes to address the underlying issues, and determined that they would not require violating core rules, then you can try to pick one or more of those potential changes.

Assuming that my judgement of TTK as the underlying balance problem is correct, and that the basic causes for a TTK that is generally too low are indeed excessive weapon precision and too-short recycle/reload times on weapons, then a few solutions come immediately to mind to mitigate those problems without violating fundamental rules such as tonnage and critical space.

1 - Do a recycle/reload time pass on all weapons. The first goal would be to make short-range weapons (SRMs, SLs, Pulse weapons, etc.) have generally superior recycle/reload times and long-range weapons have generally longer ones. The second goal would be to have low damage weapons cycle comparatively quickly compared to high damage weapons, though high damage weapons will need to retain a dps edge against weapons in the same broad category.

2 - Rework some weapons mechanically to reduce single-impact damage. I have long been an advocate of giving PPCs a damage arcing effect, where they do 50% damage to the impact location, then jump 30% to an adjacent location, and then jump again for the final 20%. I also find cassette-style ACs (3 to 5 rounds in a fixed cassette) intriguing, so long as the burst is fired within a short enough time span. Pulse lasers should have another round of slight reductions in burn time as well.

3 - Consider some slightly more radical changes to general weapon precision. First, movement penalties (based on % throttle, not on absolute speed) could apply to precision, much as JJs do currently. Second, heat penalties (again, based on % heat, not absolute heat levels) could reduce precision (again, like JJs do currently). This would allow a stationary mech with little heat to be very precise, while a hot mech that's moving at or around 100% throttle will see meaningful deviations in weapon precision. Note: precision is what should change, not accuracy. Shots should be centered on the point of aim and deviate around it, they should not all hit the same location after deviating from the point of aim.

4 - One other change that addresses TTK but is not related to recycle/reload timers or weapon precision is mech health. If all mechs had their internal structure doubled then not only would TTK be reduced but it would also make critical-hit seeking weapon systems more attractive. This proportional increase would give assault internal health more of a boost compared to light internal health, which would also help with the feeling that Atlases, Awesomes, Stalkers, etc., are excessively fragile given their front-line damage-soaking roles.

[Madw0lf]

topgun505, on 14 January 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

And how is that in any way supposed to reduce the pinpoint issue? If you want an assault mech to last more than 10 seconds in a brawl reducing ammo is in no way going to impact this.

Please note the "CoF" mechanic similar to (and based off of) the current JJ Shake. Which, while still allowing all weapons to hit a singular spot, would reduce the likelyhood of it being a kill shot.

gavilatius, on 14 January 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

I like the ammo Explosion and The CoF can work if it's tied to the Mobility, Reducing the ammunition count won't work since You'll have Builds where They'll find a way to pack on the ammo.

And theyll have to sarcifice even more in the way of armor/engine to carry the same ammount of ammo, making them easier to kill.

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 14 January 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

When making any change to a set of rules, including weapon balance in MWO, there are a few preliminary steps to make.

First, you should determine if a change is necessary, and if so, what specifically needs to be changed. For MWO, I would argue that the underlying issue behind pretty much all its balance problems is that of Time to Kill (TTK).

Second, you should determine underlying causes for said problems and potential ways that you can change them. There are a few culprits here, most prominent among them being human-controlled precise accuracy and weapon recycle/reload times.

Third, you need to decide if you are justified in making a change under the most fundamental rules of the system (the ones that you should neither change nor violate). Changing tonnage and increasing critical space requirements are decent examples in MWO, as doing either of those can potentially break canon builds. That leaves other things, like refire rate, heat, damage, and weapon mechanics (single-shot lump damage, dot beams, splash, or more exotic mechanics).

Once you've decided that a change is necessary, found a selection of specific proposed changes to address the underlying issues, and determined that they would not require violating core rules, then you can try to pick one or more of those potential changes.

Assuming that my judgement of TTK as the underlying balance problem is correct, and that the basic causes for a TTK that is generally too low are indeed excessive weapon precision and too-short recycle/reload times on weapons, then a few solutions come immediately to mind to mitigate those problems without violating fundamental rules such as tonnage and critical space.

1 - Do a recycle/reload time pass on all weapons. The first goal would be to make short-range weapons (SRMs, SLs, Pulse weapons, etc.) have generally superior recycle/reload times and long-range weapons have generally longer ones. The second goal would be to have low damage weapons cycle comparatively quickly compared to high damage weapons, though high damage weapons will need to retain a dps edge against weapons in the same broad category.

2 - Rework some weapons mechanically to reduce single-impact damage. I have long been an advocate of giving PPCs a damage arcing effect, where they do 50% damage to the impact location, then jump 30% to an adjacent location, and then jump again for the final 20%. I also find cassette-style ACs (3 to 5 rounds in a fixed cassette) intriguing, so long as the burst is fired within a short enough time span. Pulse lasers should have another round of slight reductions in burn time as well.

3 - Consider some slightly more radical changes to general weapon precision. First, movement penalties (based on % throttle, not on absolute speed) could apply to precision, much as JJs do currently. Second, heat penalties (again, based on % heat, not absolute heat levels) could reduce precision (again, like JJs do currently). This would allow a stationary mech with little heat to be very precise, while a hot mech that's moving at or around 100% throttle will see meaningful deviations in weapon precision. Note: precision is what should change, not accuracy. Shots should be centered on the point of aim and deviate around it, they should not all hit the same location after deviating from the point of aim.

4 - One other change that addresses TTK but is not related to recycle/reload timers or weapon precision is mech health. If all mechs had their internal structure doubled then not only would TTK be reduced but it would also make critical-hit seeking weapon systems more attractive. This proportional increase would give assault internal health more of a boost compared to light internal health, which would also help with the feeling that Atlases, Awesomes, Stalkers, etc., are excessively fragile given their front-line damage-soaking roles.

Minus the cassette thing, again, this sounds good.

[Zyllos]

The high accuracy of placing many shots onto a single location is what is keeping ammo based weapons from their drawback, limited ammo.

[topgun505]

I'm not against a CoF mechanic.

[990Dreams]

No.

Otherwise the Gauss is gonna become the favorite and you people are gonna cry about that. You almost never saw AC/s being used because of the burst-fire mechanic.

Maybe they were used sometimes but not very commonly from my experience.

Also: if that were the case and every slug did 1 damage for every gun type then the ammo should have 1 type: AC ammo. The guns would only need to adapt to have a different rate of fire. Thus meaning that each projectile travels at the same speed due to no weight difference/gunpowder difference meaning that AC/20s would travel as fast as AC/2s. And that would be a nightmare.

Also, even if you broke the ammo types up like the OP said you'd have an AC/2 problem. The shells would be coming out at twice the rate of a normal AC/2 (if you lower the fire rate to compensate these then ACs will become faded out into the unused).

Edited by DavidHurricane, 15 January 2014 - 01:50 PM.

[topgun505]

David. I'm assuming you are referring to previous MW titles as far as ACs using burst fire? Since they have never acted in this manner in MWO.

In regards to the AC2 the RoF would have to be slowed down a touch such that the volley of shells would about equal what a current AC2 is now.

Yes it would reduce the effectiveness of that weapon somewhat ... but frankly ... I don't see a problem with it. In the TT, ALL weapons had the same recycle rate, which meant AC2s in general were the laughing stock of the weapon world.

I'm not saying the AC2 should be totally worthless ... but it should never be powerful enough that anyone in their right mind would make an entire build revolving entirely around just 2 or 3 of those weapons (like you frequently see with Shadowhawks and Jagers currently).

Edited by topgun505, 16 January 2014 - 07:18 AM.