201 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

Whenever you compare this game to TT, you have to consider that some things will have to change to make it work as a first person shooter. We can't have everything literally follow TT values and mechanics. TT does make a great resource to base the game after though, as far as numbers and some basic concepts of game play and customization. However, we can't follow TT too strictly or we will see problems arise.

Thus my suggest for 33%. Ammo is meant to be a weak point, but 100% boom would be a weak point even beyond TT levels. We pack twice the ammo, so at most, half the odds for it to explode is fair. 33% is less than that, but still significant enough to matter.

[Tesunie]

wanderer, on 19 January 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Thus my suggest for 33%. Ammo is meant to be a weak point, but 100% boom would be a weak point even beyond TT levels. We pack twice the ammo, so at most, half the odds for it to explode is fair. 33% is less than that, but still significant enough to matter.

(That part of my response was "to everyone in the thread", just so you know. )

Exactly. However, 33% might even be too high as well. I wouldn't mind trying that out though. It seems reasonable enough. (And for the record, most if not all of my LRM mechs use Std engines. Only my light weights and my Dragon/Quickdraw have XLs in them...)

[Oriius]

Was just sat thinking, who would upping the chance of ammo exploding hurt most do we think?

I see people talking of AC's and XL engines, but as i see it when i play, those mechs are built for range and play at range, if they are in close they have messed up anyway, so that ammo going up is the least of their issues.

I think this change would hurt new players a lot more than vet players. In my opinion the last thing we want to do is hurt the new players.

I still hold to the real issue being the heat system.

[wanderer]

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 09:03 PM, said:

(That part of my response was "to everyone in the thread", just so you know. )

Exactly. However, 33% might even be too high as well. I wouldn't mind trying that out though. It seems reasonable enough. (And for the record, most if not all of my LRM mechs use Std engines. Only my light weights and my Dragon/Quickdraw have XLs in them...)

10% or so means nearly zero explosions. In BT, 'Mechs are supposed to explode now and then. It's really pretty and without them, CASE is sorta meaningless. Which it isn't supposed to be. We're supposed to go up like firecrackers now and then.

This, in other words.

[Tesunie]

wanderer, on 19 January 2014 - 09:23 PM, said:

10% or so means nearly zero explosions. In BT, 'Mechs are supposed to explode now and then. It's really pretty and without them, CASE is sorta meaningless. Which it isn't supposed to be. We're supposed to go up like firecrackers now and then.

This, in other words.

Really love that Gif. So pretty...

Anyway, The thing is you want to balance it between exploding and being safe. You don't want to make it so that "you have to take the .5 ton CASE TAX" (it being too high), but neither do you want it to be a "Just throw it anywhere and don't worry" (it almost never blows up) either. You have to have it somewhere in the middle. Have it just dangerous that CASE can look good, but not so dangerous that you HAVE to take CASE either. It's a delicate balance.

I see the ammo explosion chances being regulated as one of either two ways, change crit rates, or change explosion ratings. The nice middle ground might be to actually change each a little, but for ease of math, it is easiest to change one, or at least one at a time.

Increasing the chance rate is very negotiable with me. Making it 100% is "THAT'S TOO MUCH!" panic. 10% does feel a little too low, but people do still try to hide their ammo, which tells me it still happens enough to be a risk. (I know I've had the one ton I placed in my head go pop once as soon as my armor got breached... and rather recently.) The risk though still might not be enough, as CASE is almost never taken.

I'd also wouldn't mind having CASE do something to help XL engines somehow if we increased the ammo explosion chances, but what I would want it to do, I don't know. (In TT, CASE in an XL mech saves repair costs to the XL engine and saves the chassis as well. In this game, with no repair in, CASE with XL does nothing... (and many Stock mechs still come this way when you buy them.)

[stjobe]

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

- In MWO, to help counter the extra ammo needed, they made it have 10 health, but many weapons can quickly deal 10 damage to it in a crit.

The health of an item has nothing to do with us needing extra ammo.

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

- Crits also have something close to 42% chance of causing a crit, compared to TT, which last I recalled had a much lower chance of a crit actually happening.

If you hit an exposed section in TT, the crit chance is 45% (8+ on 2d6). Please notice how that is not "much lower" than the MWO number of 42%. In fact, it's higher.

TT also had through-armour crits at the rate of about 4% (you needed to roll 2 for your to-hit roll, and then 8+ on the crit table), which MWO does not have.

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

- To counter that, in MWO, ammo was given a 10% chance, instead of 100% chance, to detonate.

So to "counter" MWO's lower crit chance and no through-armour criticals plus health mechanic for components, they also lowered the chance to go boom with 90%?

You're not making sense, but then you are making things up as you go along, aren't you?

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

Basically, when we do carry ammo here, we generally need lots of it. In TT, less ammo was needed for a single match, a lot less. More crit slots being taken by ammo means far more chance that a crit slot hit will be ammo, instead of something else.

The chance of ammo explosion with a single ton of ammo in an otherwise empty side torso currently is 4.2%. Put another ton in there and the chance increases to ... 4.2%. Hell, fill the side torso up with 12 tons of ammo and the chance is *still* 4.2%. It never gets higher than 4.2%, no matter how much ammo you pack in.

Pack non-volatile components in there though, and you can get he ammo explosion chance down to 0.3% (in the case of 1 ton of ammo in a side torso with 11 non-volatile components)

So please, let's give the "oh but we need more ammo in MWO" argument a rest, shall we?

[MustrumRidcully]

Variations on how to make ammo explosions more common without making them too devestating:

Variant 1 - Damage Fixed Value, Ammo Explosion Chance dependent on filling level of ammo bin
A bin of ammo explodes on destruction with a percentage chance equal to the total amount of ammo still in the bin, for example, if you have still 5 shots left in a 7 shot AC/20 bin, the explosion chance is approximately 71 %.
If a bin of ammo explodes, it inflicts x points of damage to the internal structure of the section, damage transferring as usual, CASE stopping the transfer as usual.


Variant 2 - Damage Variable, Ammo Explosion Chance fixed
A bin of ammo expodes with a chance of 90 % on destruction of the ammo bin.
The damage inflicted is x and is scaled down by the amount of ammo still left in the ammo bin. For example, if you still have 5 shots of a 7 shot AC/20 ammo bin, the damage would be around 0.71x damage.
Damage is applied to internal structure and damage transfers to adjacent inner-wards section as usual.

Suggestion for Value of x:
I would recommend something between 10 to 15. If you really get a cascade of ammo explosions when a section is destroyed, the damage would still be nasty. Ammo explosionsions in the leg for example are relatively likely, since there are only 2 crit slots even available for the crit system so you can expect an explosion after taking 10-20 damage internally, and the resulting ammo explosion will likely blow up the rest of your leg. You basically cut your leg structure shot by placing ammo in the legs.

In all cases, you know that your ammo is likely to explode and you know how much damage it will likely deal to you, so as a defender you can gauge the risks sensibly. As the attacker, you also have a reasonable idea how much damage a few ammo explosions can do and whether it is worth pursuing it.

Optional Features
CASE can also be installed in the arms and legs, and stops the ammunition explosion damage from transferring to the next inward section.

[Asmudius Heng]

I prefer the damage fixed and the chance to explode be variable on how full the ammo is.

It is dangerous enough and feels more predictable as to not feel overly cheated on a lucky hit.

I also think that some ammo would explode way too much and do huge damage even though the weapons system is not great because it needs all that ammo because it spreads damafe - SRMs and LRMs mainly.

So if you could modulate the damage levels to find a scary but not excessive level for each ammo type and then vary the chance to explode based on how full the bin is i think it would work better.

This is less realistic in some ways as a ful bin would certainly explode more but ... space magic damn you.

[Hydrocarbon]

I'm all for this Ammo Armageddon, so long as they double the weight of energy weapons or drastically drop the weight of ammo & AC's. One thing ballistics are is HEAVY compared to energy weaps, and AC-haters fail to take that into account.

This game IS NOT TABLETOP, so start treating it like an actual FPS.

When I started, I took nearly a gig in screenshots consisting of 98% of death stats when I died. One thing I did NOT notice was an overwhelming amount of ballistic weapons as being listed as cause of death. Furthermore, when I play my favorite chassis (jagger), I can do more damage/kills with the A & FB variants than the S & DD. Why? Because ballistics aren't OP as much as everyone here thinks.

[RW Phelinx]

How about the rule about having ammo in same or adjacent sections? If ammo was mounted the way it had to be in BT we might see more balance of these gun boats. The ammo would take up critical slots in torsos and arms and help push builds to different weapons because of reduced space for heat sinks, engines, and larger weapons. The increased risk of ammo explosion with this addition might just shift builds closer(I know it will never be perfect) to BT.

[ImperialKnight]

When I read the title, I thought this thread was going to talk about the fact that autocannons are not supposed to be single shot weapons.

In the novels, they are more like burst fire weapons. It would make ballistics less pinpoint damage and more dakka dakka. Make all ACs work in 5 round bursts with each round doing X over 5 damage, where X is the AC class.

[Gaan Cathal]

Tesunie, on 19 January 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

I use LRMs a lot as well. I do have a fondness for them, and I feel I am better at using them than I am other weapons.

As for ammo, an increase to it's "boom" chance I could see. A 100% chance would be... way to devastating. Especially with how much ammo we need to take to do anything significant in this game compared to TT.


Whenever you compare this game to TT, you have to consider that some things will have to change to make it work as a first person shooter. We can't have everything literally follow TT values and mechanics. TT does make a great resource to base the game after though, as far as numbers and some basic concepts of game play and customization. However, we can't follow TT too strictly or we will see problems arise.

I reffer you to the maths earlier in the thread. A 100% explosion chance only produces between 10 and 20% chance of actual damage explosion when an unarmoured ammo-containing location is shot. That's not 'devastating'. Thats 'and actually present disadvantage' to a weapon group that has it's downsides largely neutered.

[stjobe]

Gaan Cathal, on 20 January 2014 - 03:51 AM, said:

I reffer you to the maths earlier in the thread. A 100% explosion chance only produces between 10 and 20% chance of actual damage explosion when an unarmoured ammo-containing location is shot.

Let's take a real example and see if it gets through this time:

The stock Atlas AS7-D has the following items in its Left Torso:
LRM-20: 5 crit slots
SRM-6: 2 crit slots
LRM ammo: 2 crit slots
SRM ammo: 1 crit slot
Std Heat Sink: 1 crit slot

Now what is the chance of having an ammo explosion if that location gets hit?

There's three ammo bins and eleven crit slots, so the chance of an ammo bin getting hit is 3/11, or 27% (0.27).
The chance to crit is 42% (0.42), and the chance of ammo explosion is 10% (0.1).

Putting all that together, we get 0.27 * 0.42 * 0.1 = 0.011, or almost exactly 1% (1.1%).

So as you can see, the current system makes it a 1 in 100 chance to cause an ammo explosion on that Atlas (and that's without taking into consideration that it's only the shot that actually destroys the bin that gets the ammo explosion chance - the numbers above assume that the crit does 10 damage or more, which is the exception, not the norm).

Now, would it suddenly become "way too devastating" if the ammo explosion chance was 100%?

Let's do the math:

The chance to crit is still 42%, and the chance of hitting an ammo bin is still 27%, so we end up with 0.42 * 0.27 * 1.0 = 0.11, or an 11% chance of an ammo explosion.

1 in 10 is a lot riskier than 1 in 100, but I really don't think it's enough to make everyone stop using ammo-based weaponry.

Edit: With a 100% rate of ammo explosion, the actual chance of causing said explosion would be somewhere between 42% (only ammo in the location - use CASE!) and 3.5% (one ton of ammo + eleven non-volatile items in the location) instead of what it is now - between 4.2 and 0.35% chance.

Edited by stjobe, 20 January 2014 - 04:17 AM.

[Galenit]

wanderer, on 19 January 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

Thus my suggest for 33%. Ammo is meant to be a weak point, but 100% boom would be a weak point even beyond TT levels. We pack twice the ammo, so at most, half the odds for it to explode is fair. 33% is less than that, but still significant enough to matter.

33% is near 35% what i suggest pre christmass,
together with 2x range for ballistics and 1/2x (maybe 1x) tt ammo.

If the explosionchance is the only number that would be adjusted, i would prefer the 100%.
Around 4-40% explosion chance rewards good mechbuilding and is a real risk.

But i still think 35% + 2x range + 1/2 tt ammo would balance them more and is a way to let them still do high rof, high dps, pinpoint damage with ranges that matches the overallranges and with advantages and disadvantages.

A game needs choises and lightbeams or bullets over time are no real choise, its just the same mechanic.

[Gaan Cathal]

Galenit, on 20 January 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

33% is near 35% what i suggest pre christmass,
together with 2x range for ballistics and 1/2x (maybe 1x) tt ammo.

If the explosionchance is the only number that would be adjusted, i would prefer the 100%.
Around 4-40% explosion chance rewards good mechbuilding and is a real risk.

But i still think 35% + 2x range + 1/2 tt ammo would balance them more and is a way to let them still do high rof, high dps, pinpoint damage with ranges that matches the overallranges and with advantages and disadvantages.

A game needs choises and lightbeams or bullets over time are no real choise, its just the same mechanic.

35% explosion chance will give ~3% chance of actual detonation in a stock AS7-D, in the case of two tons ammo in a leg, probably one of the most explosion-encouraging situations you'll find in live play, the actual chance would be 4%.

Chances that low, especially when you consider that we're ignoring the damage requirement in our calcs, does not constitute a significant balancing element.

[Gaan Cathal]

Galenit, on 20 January 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

33% is near 35% what i suggest pre christmass,
together with 2x range for ballistics and 1/2x (maybe 1x) tt ammo.

If the explosionchance is the only number that would be adjusted, i would prefer the 100%.
Around 4-40% explosion chance rewards good mechbuilding and is a real risk.

But i still think 35% + 2x range + 1/2 tt ammo would balance them more and is a way to let them still do high rof, high dps, pinpoint damage with ranges that matches the overallranges and with advantages and disadvantages.

A game needs choises and lightbeams or bullets over time are no real choise, its just the same mechanic.

35% explosion chance will give ~3% chance of actual detonation in a stock AS7-D, in the case of two tons ammo in a leg, probably one of the most explosion-encouraging situations you'll find in live play, the actual chance would be 4%.

Chances that low, especially when you consider that we're ignoring the damage requirement in our calcs, does not constitute a significant balancing element.

[Ambuscade]

Ammo explosions should be a more common occurrence. Although the actual explosion can be fairly destructive, lets not forgot that the loss of usable ammo can be just as devastating as the explosion. This is especially true for heavily ammo dependent builds. Just my 2 c-bills worth of opinion.

Ambuscade

[Galenit]

Gaan Cathal, on 20 January 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

35% explosion chance will give ~3% chance of actual detonation in a stock AS7-D, in the case of two tons ammo in a leg, probably one of the most explosion-encouraging situations you'll find in live play, the actual chance would be 4%.

Chances that low, especially when you consider that we're ignoring the damage requirement in our calcs, does not constitute a significant balancing element.

Thats why i say together with 1/2 tt ammo and 2x range.

If its only exposions to tweak, take the 100%.

[MustrumRidcully]

stjobe, on 20 January 2014 - 04:10 AM, said:

Let's take a real example and see if it gets through this time:

The stock Atlas AS7-D has the following items in its Left Torso:
LRM-20: 5 crit slots
SRM-6: 2 crit slots
LRM ammo: 2 crit slots
SRM ammo: 1 crit slot
Std Heat Sink: 1 crit slot

Now what is the chance of having an ammo explosion if that location gets hit?

There's three ammo bins and eleven crit slots, so the chance of an ammo bin getting hit is 3/11, or 27% (0.27).
The chance to crit is 42% (0.42), and the chance of ammo explosion is 10% (0.1).

Putting all that together, we get 0.27 * 0.42 * 0.1 = 0.011, or almost exactly 1% (1.1%).

So as you can see, the current system makes it a 1 in 100 chance to cause an ammo explosion on that Atlas (and that's without taking into consideration that it's only the shot that actually destroys the bin that gets the ammo explosion chance - the numbers above assume that the crit does 10 damage or more, which is the exception, not the norm).

Now, would it suddenly become "way too devastating" if the ammo explosion chance was 100%?

Let's do the math:

The chance to crit is still 42%, and the chance of hitting an ammo bin is still 27%, so we end up with 0.42 * 0.27 * 1.0 = 0.11, or an 11% chance of an ammo explosion.

1 in 10 is a lot riskier than 1 in 100, but I really don't think it's enough to make everyone stop using ammo-based weaponry.

Edit: With a 100% rate of ammo explosion, the actual chance of causing said explosion would be somewhere between 42% (only ammo in the location - use CASE!) and 3.5% (one ton of ammo + eleven non-volatile items in the location) instead of what it is now - between 4.2 and 0.35% chance.

Note that it's an 1 % respectively 11 % explosion chance for every time you shoot at the torso dealing 10 damage or more. If you deal less damage, thnigs become more complicated, as the damage will be "scattered".

But I thin kthe important aspect is - you can hit the same torso multiple times. A Atlas side torso has 42 hit points, so you can have basically 4 chances to explode the ammo prematurely (in the 100 % explosion chance case, a

IIRC, ammo has an additional explosion chance every time a section is destroyed. That shouldn't be ignored, and I am not against that also being a 100 % chance (if the damage is lowered to 10-15 maximum per bin), a 34 % chance of that happening.)
Lighter mechs have less internal structure, but will also often not have as many items in the torso, raising the chance for crits against ammo again. And of course - the ammo explosion chance for torso mgiht be bad, but think of the one for leg ammo. Currently, that's capped at 19 % for the lifetime of the leg (no matter how good you crit, on destructio nof the leg there is a chance for the ammo to explode). Moving the chance to 100 % per destroyed bin would raise the chance of it to whatever the chance is for a crit (with a 10+ damage weapon.)


----
Of course, I also think the crit system is badly designed and way too computation complex for the little effect it has.

I would replace it with a simple system like this:
every time you lose 1/5th of internal armor, one randomly or predetermined* object is destroyed by a crit. That basically guarantees the destruction of 4 items before the entire section is destroyed (the last fifth of damage inflicted will not need to crit, the section is gone with it and so are all items inside.)
This way, it doesn't matter what weapon you use, lasers don't become ineffective for critting because they spread their damage. Weapons that used to be "crit-seekers" can instead simply get a DPS bonus against internals. That's considerably more straightforward than the current system.


*) I consider defining a simple sequence in which crit slot are hit. For 12 slot sections, for example 1-12-3-10-5-8-7-6-9-4-11-2, ignoring any empty or already destroyed items. That way, you could even try to optimzie you build so that you lose the ammo bin / or the AC/20 as second or last item or whatever. (Would work better if we could place items freely in the bin.) I want to have as little RNG as possible here.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 January 2014 - 06:49 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

Yiazmat, on 19 January 2014 - 01:22 AM, said:

Who'da thunk, eh? Here's how they did it: when your armor was breached, your ammo was exposed. when your ammo was hit/crit out, it detonated 100% of the time. None of this sissy-footing around that PGI has done with mwo's *EDIT not 20* 10% ammo detonation chance when crit out.

Think about it. "Oh. {Scrap}. here's a [insert most hated ammo dependent mech here]. he probably puts his ammo in his legs. he probably runs an xl engine to support all dem guns. and he probably shaved off a ton of armor off those chicken legs to fit 'moar' ammo." *gnaws on mechs legs*

BOOM!

suddenly the monsters with hella guns are walking time bombs about to go off. this should apply to all ammo types: ballistic, missile and ams.

"but, but Yiazmat, that wouldn't be fair, my ballistic mech is already paying the price for its guns with the xl, why make them weaker? " I'm not. I'm bringing them into line with the rest of the game. you want pinpoint damage and no heat? here, have an AC, but get ready to pay with weight and ammo EXPLOSIONS (inner Mr. Torgue popped out there sorry) If you want pinpoint damage and little weight, go with ppc's, but be prepared to pay for it in crippling heat and dead zones (or no dead zones and worse crippling heat) And if you want great weight and decent heat management, go for medium and large lasers (and be prepared to spread ze damage all over the target and that bs ghost heat).

TLDR, we need this little shift back to the game's roots to help balance out the game (I hate saying that but whatever). the best part is its really really really easy to do! An afternoon of shifting through the ammo crit code and changing all the values to 100%. nothing added. nothing new to program. ****, gimme access and I'll do it for free!

well blame the min maxers for the state the games in, old battle tech fans that circulated into mech warrior computer games and wanted closer ties have all ways been shouted down by the kind of people who want viable quad ppc stalkers.

Battle tech is a well balanced game where there are positives and negatives in all the weapons systems in the game, customisation is limited and its a joy to play.

Mech warrior online's path was dictated to by the crowd that want open customisation which causes massive imbalance and then cries of you swine you nerf my sextruplet guass guzzler, which is why the games a freaking mess as far as weapons meta goes.