195 replies to this topic

[Varent]

Rokuzachi, on 21 February 2014 - 04:17 PM, said:

I like the idea. If an AC20 fired a short burst of projectiles totaling its damage, it would help to alleviate the alpha-strike nonsense going on. If they all followed the same trajectory, you could still hit a stationary target in the same location with all of them but against moving targets they would probably get spread around. Or, if they had an LB-10X-style cone (but much, much tighter that the burst fired into) that would give a high chance of hitting two or more body locations at ranges beyond very close.

There's a variety of ways they could balance single vs burst fire types of the same caliber, and they'd all be pretty easy to implement.

Or just put them both into the game. Perhaps have a longer reload time on the large chunking one. Could also have it have quirks such as lower or higher durability. Tendency to jam in cold temperatures. etc. etc. etc.

[Varent]

Mcgral18, on 21 February 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

The 6 ton AC2 is actually a 6 ton AC20 since it does ~40 damage in 10 seconds, so equivalent to a TT AC20. The 14 ton AC20 does 60 damage in 10 seconds, so a TT AC30. Not too bad, but the 20 frontloaded damage is what makes it shine.

From what I've read, indeed there are single shot AC20s, which mounted on an atlas a single unbraced shot will knock it on it's rear. A Jaegermech would have it's arm actuators severed, making use of that arm impossible. That seems like a poor way to balance, until we get the Heavy Gauss (which WILL knock you down in TT.)

For the most part, we have 2 AC20s in game, and an AC60. The AC5 is the only one a tad weaker, but it's still a very popular choice.

As for balance, we will never get any decent balance if frontloaded isn't looked at. I know Joseph doesn't want to get rid of his "I WIN!" AC60 since it HAS to do 20 damage EVERY time it fires. For balance, we need to get rid of that, and fix this broken heat system. If nothing else, JUST fix the heat system, so energy weapons can at least compete in a brawl.

you dont necesarily have to change the heat system to make energy weapons competitive. Realistically id like to see how CW changes the prevalence of ammo reliant mechs down the road first before any major changes are made to that. I would say there is an exception to pulse lasers, but pulse lasers need an overhall with there implimentation in my own opinion.

[Mcgral18]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

you dont necesarily have to change the heat system to make energy weapons competitive. Realistically id like to see how CW changes the prevalence of ammo reliant mechs down the road first before any major changes are made to that. I would say there is an exception to pulse lasers, but pulse lasers need an overhall with there implimentation in my own opinion.

Well, mathematically TT SHS are more efficient than MWO DHS, because of the tripled RoF. I find that very silly.

To make it worse, we get one of the worst heat systems in Mechwarrior history: Instead of heatsinks dissipating raw heat, they instead dissipate a little bit (1:1 TT, 2.5x RoF) and then INCREASE the heat capacity....oh my.

[Varent]

I dunno I think it depends how you look at it really. Right now heat system discourages what I would like to call a 'quake' style, run and gun. Most of the time you have to plan your engagements out and you cant instantly re-engage since you usually will be running fairly hot, even if your ABLE to beat the next mech in line you may be so hot from the first battle that you need to disengage to cool down. I like this myself.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

The fluff for 203mm and 185mm suggests single shot.

You have shown canon descriptions of 2 very different AC5's in the very first novel.

So whilst in your preferred fantasy world every AC is a burst weapon, even the most current definition you have provided leaves the POSSIBILITY of a single shot open (ie, MOST).

These two guns also come up again and again, so let's have a look at them.

First up, the Chemjet 185mm AC/20. In the first place, it is not a 'mech-mounted weapon; it's mounted on the Monitor Surface Vessel (a boat) and on the Demolisher Heavy Tank. But more importantly, while the original description in TRO:3026 didn't specify number of rounds per burst, Era Report 3025 does:

Era Report 3025, page 89 said:

An engineer or armchair general might hold forth that the Crusher SH Cannon Autocannon (the only useful part of a Hetzer wheeled assault gun) is a completely different sort of weapon than 185mm ChemJet Guns of the fearsome Demolisher tank, because the former is a 150mm autocannon designed to fire a cassette of 10 shells while the latter is a 185mm weapon that fires a four-round cassette.

So that's the Chemjet out of the way; it's a four-round burst weapon.

Next up, and the single sliver of hope for the single-shot AC theory, the 203mm AC/20 mounted on the Cauldron Born A: It's an UAC/20, not a regular AC. Whether it fires single-shot or not is not really fluffed anywhere; what is fluffed is that the Cauldron Born A has to brace itself when it fires it lest it fall over - so one might suspect that if it is a burst it is a very short and/or very quick one. It is never stated anywhere that it is a single-shot weapon though.

However, Era Report 3025 then goes on to say:

Era Report 3025, page 89 said:

However, not everyone can afford the luxury of such nitpicking, and so militaries long ago adopted a scheme of rough classes to judge weapon systems. In the case of the aforementioned autocannons, military personnel and casual observers would consider both weapons to be “class 20” autocannons as they both fire 200 kilograms of ammunition in a 10-second period at an effective range of just under 300 meters. Any autocannon that falls into that range of performance is a class-20 autocannon, whether they fire a single 300mm, 200-kilogram shell or scores of 50mm shells.

And there you have it, in black on white (or white on black); if an AC fires a 200kg shell, it's a single-shot AC/20. The possibility exists, I have to concede the point.

The fact still remains though, that not one AC has ever been fluffed as being single-shot, and exactly one UAC/20 is in doubt. Every other AC ever described has been described as burst- or continuous-fire.


But that's really beside the point; I don't want burst-fire ACs because they fit better with lore, I want burst-fire ACs because they'd make MWO a better game, easier to balance and with more equality between weapon types. As it is, the ACs and PPCs are enjoying a rather unnecessary advantage simply due to the way they deliver damage.

Edited by stjobe, 21 February 2014 - 05:07 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

These two guns also come up again and again, so let's have a look at them.

First up, the Chemjet 185mm AC/20. In the first place, it is not a 'mech-mounted weapon; it's mounted on the Monitor Surface Vessel (a boat) and on the Demolisher Heavy Tank. But more importantly, while the original description in TRO:3026 didn't specify number of rounds per burst, Era Report 3025 does:


So that's the Chemjet out of the way; it's a four-round burst weapon.

Next up, and the single sliver of hope for the single-shot AC theory, the 203mm AC/20 mounted on the Cauldron Born A: It's an UAC/20, not a regular AC. Whether it fires single-shot or not is not really fluffed anywhere; what is fluffed is that the Cauldron Born A has to brace itself when it fires it lest it fall over - so one might suspect that if it is a burst it is a very short and/or very quick one. It is never stated anywhere that it is a single-shot weapon though.

However, Era Report 3025 then goes on to say:


And there you have it, in black on white (or white on black); if an AC fires a 200kg shell, it's a single-shot AC/20. The possibility exists, I have to concede the point.

The fact still remains though, that not one AC has ever been fluffed as being single-shot, and exactly one UAC/20 is in doubt. Every other AC ever described has been described as burst- or continuous-fire.


But that's really beside the point; I don't want burst-fire ACs because they fit better with lore, I want burst-fire ACs because they'd make MWO a better game, easier to balance and with more equality between weapon types. As it is, the ACs and PPCs are enjoying a rather unnecessary advantage simply due to the way they deliver damage.

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

How about your both right? canon supports both. Why not put both in the game.

you may feel it makes mwo a better game.

others may feel differently.

put em both in.

Edited by Varent, 21 February 2014 - 05:11 PM.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 05:07 PM, said:

These two guns also come up again and again, so let's have a look at them.

First up, the Chemjet 185mm AC/20. In the first place, it is not a 'mech-mounted weapon; it's mounted on the Monitor Surface Vessel (a boat) and on the Demolisher Heavy Tank. But more importantly, while the original description in TRO:3026 didn't specify number of rounds per burst, Era Report 3025 does:


So that's the Chemjet out of the way; it's a four-round burst weapon.

Next up, and the single sliver of hope for the single-shot AC theory, the 203mm AC/20 mounted on the Cauldron Born A: It's an UAC/20, not a regular AC. Whether it fires single-shot or not is not really fluffed anywhere; what is fluffed is that the Cauldron Born A has to brace itself when it fires it lest it fall over - so one might suspect that if it is a burst it is a very short and/or very quick one. It is never stated anywhere that it is a single-shot weapon though.

However, Era Report 3025 then goes on to say:


And there you have it, in black on white (or white on black); if an AC fires a 200kg shell, it's a single-shot AC/20. The possibility exists, I have to concede the point.

The fact still remains though, that not one AC has ever been fluffed as being single-shot, and exactly one UAC/20 is in doubt. Every other AC ever described has been described as burst- or continuous-fire.


But that's really beside the point; I don't want burst-fire ACs because they fit better with lore, I want burst-fire ACs because they'd make MWO a better game, easier to balance and with more equality between weapon types. As it is, the ACs and PPCs are enjoying a rather unnecessary advantage simply due to the way they deliver damage.

Well yes and no.

It's not beside the point at all, The point was that Canon allowed the possibilty of a single shot AC which you (and others) argued long and hard was not canon and no single shot AC ever existed.

I have only ever maintained that canon was not DEFINITIVE on the subject.

So we can put to bed now the POSSIBILTY of a single shot AC being permitted in canon.

As for the gameplay balance thing, well as I said above we have a rapid fire AC atm. Perhaps the damage over 10 seconds is significantly higher than TT rules I agree, but rapid fire none the less.

Maybe an alternative solution is to nerf the damage output of each shell?

[stjobe]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 05:10 PM, said:

put em both in.

Who would choose the burst-fire variant if the instant-damage variant was still in the game?

Nobody in their right mind, that's who.

Unless, of course, you suggest making the burst-fire variant somehow better than the instant-damage one? But how do you compensate the burst-fire variant for having a worse delivery mechanic?

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

So we can put to bed now the POSSIBILTY of a single shot AC being permitted in canon.

Permitted yes, existing - possibly a single model of UAC/20, compared to the hundreds of models of other ACs. Certainly not every single AC as in MWO.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

As for the gameplay balance thing, well as I said above we have a rapid fire AC atm. Perhaps the damage over 10 seconds is significantly higher than TT rules I agree, but rapid fire none the less.

For gameplay balance, rate of fire isn't the problem. The problem is this:

* Lasers spread their damage over their beam duration; a ML does 10 ticks of 0.5 damage over 1 second.
* Missiles spread their damage over their number of missiles; a LRM-10 does 10 hits of 1.1 damage each, and also have flight pattern spread.
* ACs, PPCs, and Gauss do not spread their damage at all, all of it is delivered in one hit to one location.
* Furthermore, if you use several ACs, PPCs, or Gauss Rifles, the combined damage is all delivered in one hit to one location.

That's the problem, not the rate of fire.

Now there's several ways of changing this to lessen the advantage ACs, PPCs, and Gauss have - but the easiest and least disruptive way is to somehow alter how these weapons deliver their damage. My suggestion is still, as it has been, to make ACs burst-fire and the PPC either a beam-duration weapon (which is closer to lore descriptions) or a splash-damage weapon. The Gauss already has its charge-up, and it is a single-projectile weapon in lore, so it can stay the way it is.

Edited by stjobe, 21 February 2014 - 05:37 PM.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Who would choose the burst-fire variant if the instant-damage variant was still in the game?

Nobody in their right mind, that's who.

Unless, of course, you suggest making the burst-fire variant somehow better than the instant-damage one? But how do you compensate the burst-fire variant for having a worse delivery mechanic?

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 04:28 PM, said:

Or just put them both into the game. Perhaps have a longer reload time on the large chunking one. Could also have it have quirks such as lower or higher durability. Tendency to jam in cold temperatures. etc. etc. etc.

You could also make the burst fire one have a FASTER reload time so that you dont get people complaining over the chunking one. Make one more about high FLD and the other about more dps.

Makes both parties happy, adds variety.


And I dont think either should be better or worse. They should be situational. One should have advantages over the other in certain situations.

Edited by Varent, 21 February 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 05:19 PM, said:

Who would choose the burst-fire variant if the instant-damage variant was still in the game?

Nobody in their right mind, that's who.

Unless, of course, you suggest making the burst-fire variant somehow better than the instant-damage one? But how do you compensate the burst-fire variant for having a worse delivery mechanic?

There does not need to be that many variants for ACs and some could be set to be exclusive too. I could see three or four possible variants for AC/20s, two to three for AC/10s and so on. Then, if limits based off of lore are established, we should be fine with having a bit more variety and keeping the different weapon variants available to different mechs.

As for the weapons themselves, if there are weapon variant choices available for say on a HBK-4G or any Atlas, I'd consider making the big single shot weapons have a lower rate of fire by increasing their cooldown and consider raising the heat up to also to keep a similar HPS benchmark on them as we currently have.

And to simulate a larger single round being fired, I'd also consider having a semi-auto fire mechanism where you need to click for each shot instead of being able to hold down the trigger as we currently can (where we are simply waiting for the cooldown to finish, if we have the shot lined up right now). This can be thought of as, with the auto loader having to handle something like a bigger 200mm compared to a 50mm or 20mm round.

Another difference that can be explored is to standardize projectile speeds by the size of the round. A big 200mm from one AC/20 variant might only go 650 m/s (or have it go slower as a balance measure), while a rapid fire burst or salvo of 50mm rounds from an AC/20 class might get to travel 725 m/s for example.

Ammo per ton can be another variable to change. Say, keeping a 140 damage per ton profile, we could keep seven 200mm rounds per ton, while a 50mm load could be like 28 rounds per ton, for example.

Ranges would need to stay to the AC classes so that any AC/20 variant would have the same range profile (270m to 810m) and so on.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Permitted yes, existing - possibly a single model of UAC/20, compared to the hundreds of models of other ACs. Certainly not every single AC as in MWO.


For gameplay balance, rate of fire isn't the problem. The problem is this:

* Lasers spread their damage over their beam duration; a ML does 10 ticks of 0.5 damage over 1 second.
* Missiles spread their damage over their number of missiles; a LRM-10 does 10 hits of 1.1 damage each, and also have flight pattern spread.
* ACs, PPCs, and Gauss do not spread their damage at all, all of it is delivered in one hit to one location.
* Furthermore, if you use several ACs, PPCs, or Gauss Rifles, the combined damage is all delivered in one hit to one location.

That's the problem, not the rate of fire.

Now there's several ways of changing this to lessen the advantage ACs, PPCs, and Gauss have - but the easiest and least disruptive way is to somehow alter how these weapons deliver their damage. My suggestion is still, as it has been, to make ACs burst-fire and the PPC either a beam-duration weapon (which is closer to lore descriptions) or a splash-damage weapon. The Gauss already has its charge-up, and it is a single-projectile weapon in lore, so it can stay the way it is.

Except that in MW:O we currently have all AC's delivering multiple shells over a 10 second timeline. There is no single 'bam' wait 9.5 seconds, fire again AC in MW:O.

I read your suggestion is to speed up the ROF and condense it into a 'burst' which has merit for sure. BUt dmg output is also affected by the raw dmg number so nerfing that is also a possible solution that won't require re inventing the wheel.

[Varent]

Praetor Shepard, on 21 February 2014 - 05:49 PM, said:

There does not need to be that many variants for ACs and some could be set to be exclusive too. I could see three or four possible variants for AC/20s, two to three for AC/10s and so on. Then, if limits based off of lore are established, we should be fine with having a bit more variety and keeping the different weapon variants available to different mechs.

As for the weapons themselves, if there are weapon variant choices available for say on a HBK-4G or any Atlas, I'd consider making the big single shot weapons have a lower rate of fire by increasing their cooldown and consider raising the heat up to also to keep a similar HPS benchmark on them as we currently have.

And to simulate a larger single round being fired, I'd also consider having a semi-auto fire mechanism where you need to click for each shot instead of being able to hold down the trigger as we currently can (where we are simply waiting for the cooldown to finish, if we have the shot lined up right now). This can be thought of as, with the auto loader having to handle something like a bigger 200mm compared to a 50mm or 20mm round.

Another difference that can be explored is to standardize projectile speeds by the size of the round. A big 200mm from one AC/20 variant might only go 650 m/s (or have it go slower as a balance measure), while a rapid fire burst or salvo of 50mm rounds from an AC/20 class might get to travel 725 m/s for example.

Ammo per ton can be another variable to change. Say, keeping a 140 damage per ton profile, we could keep seven 200mm rounds per ton, while a 50mm load could be like 28 rounds per ton, for example.

Ranges would need to stay to the AC classes so that any AC/20 variant would have the same range profile (270m to 810m) and so on.

off the tob of my head I could think of three different types.

1) A solid slug. - Goes without explaining.

2) A quick burst - quarter second of half second burst, shorter then a laser.

For example sake - about a .33 duration burst (have to make it significantly elss then the pulse laser to make it viable). Break the ac20 into a string of shells, maybe 2 damage each. To make this more appealing then the slug ac20 lower the heat to 4-5 and take off the ghost heat of 2 of them.

3) A non stop fire like a machine gun. - Full auto daka.

For example sake. - Fire Rate of an ac2. About .5 seconds, every round does 5 damage. Can hold down the trigger and in 2 second pump out 20 damage. 1 second cooldown. Another 4 Shells. Each of these shells counts towards one full (clip). Allow the fire rate to be interupted at any time. This creates a hard hitting close in weapon that actually lets you pump out more overall dps while having less risk of missing one shot. Would be higher dps overall then the normal ac20. Requires you to hold on target yes but man would it be fun to use. I would also suggest taking off the ghost heat from two of these versions.

*edit*

In regards to the third one, I would run that one in a heart beat over the other ac20. Just because I would love to make people rage with non stop cockpit shakes and lots of dps.


But all these are examples of how you could implment a gun with different 'models' that would make it more interesting. Also would make the game more complex as you might have to ponder what model of an ac type a mech is running since they all play and fight differently.

Edited by Varent, 21 February 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

There is wiggle room for what the devs may implement in the future, to increase the available weapons in MWO. We just need to hear from the devs if they're looking into doing something like this yet.

At any rate, here is a table where I was looking at some variables for possible ballistic variants for both IS and Clan that have a burst fire mechanism, for example (aside from having different rates of full-auto fire, which can be another possibility for ballistics also):

Spoiler

Edit: here's another table with different variants:

Spoiler

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 21 February 2014 - 06:17 PM.

[nehebkau]

You guys realize with all your solutions, you will just shift the pin-point damage problem onto another meta build of some type, which will require nerfing, which will switch the meta to another type, which will require nerfing.... Why not deal with the underlying problem -- not the weapons but how damage is applied. The current mechanic is too, well, dice-based-game-ish with it's hit-points and armor that is though of in terms of giant, plates of metal welded to a frame (one square for the chest, one square for the shoulder...).

[Lykaon]

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

It's not a problem and the game is working fine. Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

Let's just put aside any talk of M1A1 tanks or any real military hardware we are discussing game mechanics with the desired outcome of creating a more balanced and functional game.

Besides in Battletech a 10,000 kilogram laser weapon has a max range of 450 meters so that argument is already off the table.

So,why is pinpoint damage a problem?

Let me first define "pinpoint damage" so we all know what I am talking about.

Pinpoint front loaded damage is any means of applying damage to a single target location that is deployed in it's entirety during a single application of firing the weapon(s) system(s) ie: Auto cannons or PPCs are this type of weapon.

How is this a problem? Well it's not when examined all by it's onezies in a bubble.The problem occurs when we see how this type of damage delivery interacts with other mechanics present in the game.

The armor mechanics for example are derived directly from the Battletech table top game.These armor mechanics were designed to function within a framework of supporting mechanics.

Random to hit rolls
Random hit location rolls
Turn based play
Heat scale penalties
individual to hit rolls and hit location rolls for each distinct weapon.

As you can see MWo took the armor mechanics and nearly none of the support mechanics to make it work correctly.

Not only are support mechanics lacking for the armor mechanics but MWo uses game mechanics that were specificly prevented from interacting with the armor mechanics in table top play.

Manual aiming
Group fire

The above issue is present with every weapon that can be grouped into a weapon grouping AND can be aimed manualy to hit specific loactions on a target (so pretty much everything but SSRMs and LRMs)

The primary failing is the armor mechanics were never designed to function with manual aim and grouped fire.

So we see a general failing but how does "pinpoint" damage impact this mechanics failure ?

Well we have essentially 5 types of damage delivery.

1 Cone of fire weapons: LBx,Machineguns,SRMs.

2 Hitscan weapons: Lasers and pulse lasers.

3 Area targeted scattered effect weapons: LRMs/Artillery strikes.

4 Assigned target weapons: Streak missiles.

5 Front loaded pinpoint weapons: ACs and PPCs

In all but one damage delivery mechanics some degree of damage dispersal occurs.Only Front loaded pinpoint weapons inflict the entirety of the weapons damage potential to one location at one time.These weapons DO NOT disperse damage ever.

Dispersal of damage actually emulates a support mechanic for the armor mechanics that MWo lacks.Dispersal of damage is almost an effective replacement for random hit locations.

Front loaded pinpoint weapons in no way shape or form emulate a benificial support mechanic for the over whelmed Armor mechanics. In fact this damage delivery mechanics is optimized for exploiting the weakness of the armor mechanics by creating a situation the armor mechanics were never intended to interact with (manualy aimed group fired front loaded damage)

Now,take that for whatever you think it's worth.

If you don't like these answers I can give you a comparative annalysis of how front loaded damage is superior tacticaly

or how ACs are superior in heat use DPS and front load damage

The problem is once there is a clearly superior mechanic the game's meta evolves to exploit this superior method.The meta is refined to optimize the exploitation and this reduces available competative options. That ultimatley leads to a stale and limited meta where a small handfull of weapons (ACs and PPCs) are used on a few chassis (Highlanders and Victors).

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

Except that in MW:O we currently have all AC's delivering multiple shells over a 10 second timeline. There is no single 'bam' wait 9.5 seconds, fire again AC in MW:O.

There is no 10 second turn in MWO, so you're not making much sense. Every shot from an AC does the full damage with a single projectile.

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 06:00 PM, said:

3) A non stop fire like a machine gun. - Full auto daka.

For example sake. - Fire Rate of an ac2. About .5 seconds, every round does 5 damage. Can hold down the trigger and in 2 second pump out 20 damage. 1 second cooldown. Another 4 Shells. Each of these shells counts towards one full (clip). Allow the fire rate to be interupted at any time. This creates a hard hitting close in weapon that actually lets you pump out more overall dps while having less risk of missing one shot. Would be higher dps overall then the normal ac20. Requires you to hold on target yes but man would it be fun to use. I would also suggest taking off the ghost heat from two of these versions.

*edit*

In regards to the third one, I would run that one in a heart beat over the other ac20. Just because I would love to make people rage with non stop cockpit shakes and lots of dps.

Except that you cut the cooldown down to 1 second (and therefore more than doubled the DPS), you've basically described the burst-fire mechanic I've been talking about.

dakkadakkadakka - wait for cooldown - dakkadakkadakka - wait for cooldown.

If it has cooldown, it's not full auto; full auto is continuous-fire like the MG.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 22 February 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

There is no 10 second turn in MWO, so you're not making much sense. Every shot from an AC does the full damage with a single projectile.

Umm, OK, I'll try explain it a different way.

If I hold my finger on the trigger for 10 seconds my autocannon fires and fires and fires and fires ........ and dishes out a total of x shells over that timeline (i never said turn, just any old 10 seconds will do)

Thats one of the options that you articulated yes? that the damage is done over a duration.

So in effect, what MW:O has is exactly what you want, just over a longer timeframe than your idea, and dishing out a lot more damage.

So if the damage of each of those shells was nerfed by the relative percentage (lets say 10 shells in 10 seconds so nerf them all by 90% dmg) Over the timeline it does the same damage (ie, 10 x 10% = 100%) as currently with a rapid fire effect (albeit not a burst / burp) and you have your reduced FLD AND autofire.

Win win?

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 22 February 2014 - 02:21 AM, said:

There is no 10 second turn in MWO, so you're not making much sense. Every shot from an AC does the full damage with a single projectile.


Except that you cut the cooldown down to 1 second (and therefore more than doubled the DPS), you've basically described the burst-fire mechanic I've been talking about.

dakkadakkadakka - wait for cooldown - dakkadakkadakka - wait for cooldown.

If it has cooldown, it's not full auto; full auto is continuous-fire like the MG.

All MW:O weapons are full auto.

Full Auto

Quote

An automatic firearm is any firearm that will continue to fire so long as the trigger is pressed and held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber.

This is all Full auto requires, so long as you hold the trigger it will continue to fire until ammo runs out. The cyclic speed is not a indication of full auto.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 February 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[Madw0lf]

Belorion, on 21 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:

and No.

Would you be so kind as to actually explain your position? Or do only two keys work on your keyboard?

And guys, could we keep the lore debate on ACs out of the thread now.please, and just assume for the sake of argument lore supports it (that's still not me endorsing it as an option)