404 replies to this topic

[Deathsani]

I would love if they used the test server for things like that, or even better, just release the game for modding.

[wanderer]

Quote

How about both? Put out different models of ac. Have some of them be a single shot and some of them be burst. YOu could play with cooldown, heat, durability, crit rate and many different cycle and fire times as well as jam chance to balance them nicely.

Lack of damage spread is the most powerful weapon ability in the game at this point and breaks almost every weapon that gets it. That was Streak-a-geddon and every LURMgeddon to date, BTW.

While I'd have no problem with variations in burst by chassis (much like missiles do today), AC's need to go to burst mode and stay there. 3+ shells per shot, minimum.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 26 February 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

How about both? Put out different models of ac. Have some of them be a single shot and some of them be burst. YOu could play with cooldown, heat, durability, crit rate and many different cycle and fire times as well as jam chance to balance them nicely.

Unless they made the single-shot variants inferior, everyone would go with them because FLD is just so much more effective than non-FLD. And, of course, if they made the single-shot variants inferior, nobody would use them - and then why bother?

Burst or bust.

Edited by stjobe, 27 February 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 27 February 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Unless they made the single-shot variants inferior, everyone would go with them because FLD is just so much more effective than non-FLD. And, of course, if they made the single-shot variants inferior, nobody would use them - and then why bother?

Burst or bust.

Bust

[ExplodedZombie]

TehSBGX, on 23 February 2014 - 03:56 PM, said:

I might be the only one who's thinking this, but if ACs become burst fire then PPCs will be king permanently.

PPCs have been a dominant weapon for about a year, Change them to a beam duration weapon if Acs become burst fire or the meta will stay roughly the same.

Although I do have a sneaking suspicion that PPCs are Paul's favorite weapon. >.>

PPCs are visually a long bolt that is fired. Why not make it a duration weapon but only over .25 or .5 seconds? It would make damaging a moving target slightly harder.

[stjobe]

ExplodedZombie, on 27 February 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

PPCs are visually a long bolt that is fired. Why not make it a duration weapon but only over .25 or .5 seconds? It would make damaging a moving target slightly harder.

Some of us have been saying that for a while now.

[Trauglodyte]

You know, the more that I think about it, the more that I'm liking the concept of using the missile "tube" structure for ACs. You take a chassis, but a caliber/mm size on it, and then you go on about your business. For Machine Guns, you simply set the size at a 2 so that it matches the AC2 (only makes sense cause you don't want to have AC20s on the K2 having to spend 20s to do it's full damage). The only other possible issue would be the Gauss Rifle but, to my knowledge, the GR isn't so much about caliber and more about the amount of speed it applies to the solid round for damage. So, in that case, it could be put at a size equal to the AC2 and we'd be fine.

This whole concept would then make it so that some mechs fire their ACs in bursts while others don't. It would further keep the power of the pure AC carrier intact while others would pay the price for their build change.

[Mcgral18]

Trauglodyte, on 27 February 2014 - 11:09 AM, said:

You know, the more that I think about it, the more that I'm liking the concept of using the missile "tube" structure for ACs. You take a chassis, but a caliber/mm size on it, and then you go on about your business. For Machine Guns, you simply set the size at a 2 so that it matches the AC2 (only makes sense cause you don't want to have AC20s on the K2 having to spend 20s to do it's full damage). The only other possible issue would be the Gauss Rifle but, to my knowledge, the GR isn't so much about caliber and more about the amount of speed it applies to the solid round for damage. So, in that case, it could be put at a size equal to the AC2 and we'd be fine.

This whole concept would then make it so that some mechs fire their ACs in bursts while others don't. It would further keep the power of the pure AC carrier intact while others would pay the price for their build change.

Hunch 4G AC20 1 shot, Hunch 4H 3-5 shot? Giving the less loved chassis a nice advantage.

That's the only obvious one I can think of, but something to that effect?

Edited by Mcgral18, 27 February 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Mcgral18, on 27 February 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

Hunch 4G AC20 1 shot, Hunch 4H 3-5 shot? Giving the less loved chassis a nice advantage.

That's the only obvious one I can think of, but something to that effect?

Well, the 4G comes with an AC20 so everything under the AC20 would still fire as a single round. The 4H comes with an AC10 standard so anything under the AC10 would fire as a single round but, should an AC20 be put in there, it would fire as two 10 shot rounds. It would go a long way to adding flavor to AC carrying mechs while giving the chassis that carry the actual large ACs a leg up on those that don't. I currently run a Jaeger A with an AC20 and 2 Lrg Lasers. If the "tube" adjustment were made, I'd end up firing 10 rounds at 2 damage per. It would be the penalty that I'd have to take for running an AC in a mech not designed to carry it. If I ran it on the DD or S, I'd end up lobbing 4 rounds at 5 damage per. Again, it would be the penalty that I'd pay for shoe horning in a much bigger bore.

Just as an added bonus, it would actually add some lore to the game. Both sides of the burst AC/non-burst AC arguement agree that different manufacturers built their autocanons differently. Some were single shot large bores while others utilized smaller rounds at a higher rate of fire. Making this adjustment would mean that the lore was actually represented in game.

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 27 February 2014 - 01:22 PM, said:

Some were single shot large bores while others utilized smaller rounds at a higher rate of fire. Making this adjustment would mean that the lore was actually represented in game.

Well, no. Not a single AC in lore has been described as being single shot, and just one UAC/20 is possibly single-shot (although it could as well be burst-fire). The lore says that single-shot ACs are *possible*, but none have yet been described.

Apart from that niggle though, bring on the bursts. Your idea is as good as any I've seen, with just one minor detail I'd like to get clarification on: You say that a smaller AC in a slot which used to carry a larger would still fire at the larger AC's rate - what about MGs? Or AC/2s? Do they keep their rate of fire?

E.g. an AC/2 in the slot of an AC/5 - the AC/2 has a higher rate of fire and a higher DPS than the AC/5, would it be adjusted any? An AC/10 in the same slot would fire 2x5, and an AC/20 4x5, but what about going down in sizes?

[Trauglodyte]

I guess that it woudl work just like if you had 10 tubes on a missile hard point and put in an LRM5 - nothing would happen.

The idea definitely isn't mine (it was listed a few pages back) and it probably isn't thoroughly fleshed out. But, if our biggest issue is too many heavy ACs in the playing field putting too much pin point damage in spots, then you need to look at what mechs are doing this. The Jaeger, while being non-meta with the double 20, is still an issue in that it mounts a larger bored weapon in a slot not built for it.

The unfortunately problem with this is that it doesn't address the Victor/Highlander combo of PPCs and AC5s. Though, in my mind, that is easily done by adding ACs to the PPC ghost heat. You can run the tandem if you want but 2 PPCs and 2 AC5s alphaed together goes from 22 heat on paper to 46 heat in game, if my math is right.

Like I said, I'm just spitballing on all of this.

[stjobe]

Trauglodyte, on 27 February 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

The unfortunately problem with this is that it doesn't address the Victor/Highlander combo of PPCs and AC5s. Though, in my mind, that is easily done by adding ACs to the PPC ghost heat. You can run the tandem if you want but 2 PPCs and 2 AC5s alphaed together goes from 22 heat on paper to 46 heat in game, if my math is right.

My favoured solution to that is making PPCs beam-duration weapons and all ACs burst-fire.

Instantly-applied damage is just too much of an advantage; with our perfect aim and convergence that advantage cannot properly be compensated for in other weapon types, so it has to go.

[OneEyed Jack]

Remarius, on 25 February 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

Might depend where you are. Playing in the UK I went on a gleeful killing spree the day after HSR came in as my hit rate and damage mysteriously soared through the roof. Before that I'd had to stick to lasers and used a tag to locate the target. Best change to the game since early beta for me. Still remember queries about why my Cicada 3M was perma running a tag despite no LRM's being in play.

That has nothing do do with hit registration. That only has to do with the visual aspect; whether you were seeing the hit on your client matching the hit on the server. Pre-HSR you had to guess at where the opponent was, if they were moving, and had to guess at when to fire ballistics so the delay would match up and put them in the same place as the target (which wasn't actually where you saw it) at the same time. But against a slow-moving or stationary target (disregarding the shutdown bug, which would cause some targets to be displayed in the wrong location) you could land hits all day and the server would apply damage.

The hit registration issue is that you can land hit after hit after hit, on slow or stationary targets so lag/ping isn't an issue, and sometimes the server will just fail to apply damage.

[Varent]

stjobe, on 27 February 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Unless they made the single-shot variants inferior, everyone would go with them because FLD is just so much more effective than non-FLD. And, of course, if they made the single-shot variants inferior, nobody would use them - and then why bother?

Burst or bust.

eh. Tired of arguing the same exact thing back and forth. *insert same argument here* it's balanced. You can have both you can tweak. Etc etc.

[Corvus Antaka]

lets be real now.

outside the gauss rifle, the only offenders anymore are the normal PPC & the ac/5 class of guns. everything else is pretty reasonable these days, and even the ac/5 and normal PPC just need some minor tuning to make lasers more appealing and the ac/5/uac not the only go to gun.

even then the margins are pretty thin.

normal PPC is by far the biggest offender for ripping into mechs & refiring many many times before heat problems leading to easy alpha boom mech dead gampelay like we had before qith quad stalkers, dual ac/20 with no ghost heat, etc.

[Prezimonto]

The issue with AC's isn't even single AC's... it's that cumulative burst you get out of 2 or 3 AC5's at one time.

Give ammo 1hp instead of 10 and set it's explosion chance to something like 50%... make ammo fairly frail.

Nerf the long range of the very heavy AC's... like the 20.. give it 2.5 or 2x range... while nerfing the short range of AC2/5's... first 80 meters or so like the PPC... either damage fall off, or a moderate CoF when firing on targets at close range... about all the balance AC's need.

Well.. the LBX is in a pretty bad spot, but I'd suggest increasing the per-pellet damage and lower it's range to knife-fight distance.

[Varent]

Prezimonto, on 27 February 2014 - 08:28 PM, said:

The issue with AC's isn't even single AC's... it's that cumulative burst you get out of 2 or 3 AC5's at one time.

Give ammo 1hp instead of 10 and set it's explosion chance to something like 50%... make ammo fairly frail.

Nerf the long range of the very heavy AC's... like the 20.. give it 2.5 or 2x range... while nerfing the short range of AC2/5's... first 80 meters or so like the PPC... either damage fall off, or a moderate CoF when firing on targets at close range... about all the balance AC's need.

Well.. the LBX is in a pretty bad spot, but I'd suggest increasing the per-pellet damage and lower it's range to knife-fight distance.

I actually like that idea for the lbx. No one should be using it at the max range it has anyhow.

[Zordicron]

I agree on the range of LBX. I would like to see the triple max range get cut to double across the board, some AC could just be left at that, stuff like LBX could get a tweak upwards a bit in any attribute, maybe AC2 could get a smidge lower heat output because range reduction, stuff like that.

i think part of the thing that bothers me besides the pinpoint of the bigger AC, is how the little ones exceed gauss range lol, and how most of them exceed LRM range. I honestly dont recall any other MW title where LRM werent the go to weapon for taking out fixed turrets or ambushing a patrol mech etc, because the dmg was more efficient and the range pretty well exceeded anything else realistically. in MWO, LRM is like mid range combat at best. Maybe thats ok that it doesnt follow in the footsteps of other MW titles in this regard, but i think when AC can outrange everything else, it is a bit odd for balance.

Colonel Pada Vinson: I agree about PPC. I actually consider them a ballistic, where heat is traded for ammo. I think they have actually just about got it right in that regard(how many DHS you need to add to get the same longevity of say an AC10 or UAC5 in fire duration) and I like the idea of adding a short duration to the PPC. it would need testing though to see how HSR affected it IMO. I do disagree though in regards to AC20, I dont feel it is in a good place, partly do to range, but also do to how having a mech or three with even a single AC20 loaded means time to kill on pretty much anything gets cut to nothing. Burst fire would still wreck face in that situation, but it would require more "face time" from the attackers instead of boom/twist.


The biggest reason I want to see the missile tube/calibre thing implemented though is simply to add variety to the mechs in game. it would allow variety within chassis even, like the HBK someone mentioned above. Not only would it reduce pinpoint dmg(increase TTK) it would make the whole mechlab part of MWO more interesting, and put more variety on the battlefield. Theres always a METAWINZ build, but some of that could be curtailed too without nerfing hitboxes or whatever else Paul has up his sleeve for highlanders and whatnot.

To summarize this thread so far, things in thread DO WANT:(insert cat meme here)
1.) Small duration added to PPC to reduce pinpoint dmg from them
2.) Missile tube/calibre ballistics to create multi-shot AC fire

[Trauglodyte]

stjobe, on 27 February 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

My favoured solution to that is making PPCs beam-duration weapons and all ACs burst-fire.

Instantly-applied damage is just too much of an advantage; with our perfect aim and convergence that advantage cannot properly be compensated for in other weapon types, so it has to go.

Well, the point of adding the "tube" concept to is to limit, prohibit, or slow down the impact of big ACs on mechs that weren't meant to carry them. Granted, it isn't a big red flag but it is, as always, a start.

Convergence, on the other hand, can actually be dealt with a couple of different ways IF PGI would ever get to adding in heat penalties. We actually have several stock mmechs in game that pair PPCs and ACs so this isn't even something that the community is putting together that is causing the problem. Rather, it is the landscape in which it is being used.

Now, do I mind PPCs getting a bit of a beam duration or an arc? Not really. The problem really lies in how to code it. As with everything in this game, I'm unsure as to what can and can't be done. Can you have a projectile work with a trailing edge? Could you take the Pulse Laser and give it a projectile speed so that the PPC would act like a single pulse weapon? Again, I don't know. Honestly, as ugly as it is, I'm all for adding ACs to PPCs with the ghost heat implimentation. If you want to do 30 damage at max range, you can either load up 2 Gauss Rifles and take the chance that they'll blow up or you can eat 40+ points of heat for that alpha. Choice is yours.

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 February 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

lets be real now.

outside the gauss rifle, the only offenders anymore are the normal PPC & the ac/5 class of guns. everything else is pretty reasonable these days, and even the ac/5 and normal PPC just need some minor tuning to make lasers more appealing and the ac/5/uac not the only go to gun.

even then the margins are pretty thin.

normal PPC is by far the biggest offender for ripping into mechs & refiring many many times before heat problems leading to easy alpha boom mech dead gampelay like we had before qith quad stalkers, dual ac/20 with no ghost heat, etc.

That's why I mentioned putting ACs on the PPC ghost heat. According to my math, the PPC x2 and AC5 x2 would go from a 22 point base heat to a 46.5 total heat when alphaed. If people want to contend with that, it is on them. I run a PPC x2 AC20 Victor and, while hot enough, that is a 40 point alpha which is the same as the 4x PPC builds and they were hammered by Ghost Heat. If the intent of GH was to slow down big alphas or to put in an extra penalty for those that refuse to manage their heat properly, then allowing heat neglicable ACs to continue to be paired with PPCs with abandone is disappointing.

[Voivode]

I think two things need to happen.

1) SRMs need to have their hit registration fixed. This is a primary brawling weapon period, and is doubly important for medium and light mechs with missile tubes.

2) Long distance, pinpoint damage weapons need longer cooldown rates.

The combined effect of this is running a brawler and moving up is less punishing (lower fire rate of long range weapons) and more rewarding (srms actually work)

Edited by Voivode, 28 February 2014 - 08:28 AM.