258 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Abivard, on 11 March 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

You do not understand what burst fire or continuous fire is then.

I do understand that very well, and you're the one who's stretching definitions to the breaking point in an effort to be contrarian.

Abivard, on 11 March 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

All AC'20s will be of comparable calibers and weights, an AC20 IS CERTAINLY not comparable to an AC2.

AC/20s range from roughly 60-200mm in calibre, the weight's the same though, 14 tons.
And while an AC/2 shouldn't be comparable to an AC/20, in MWO an AC/2 does 3.85 DPS, AC/5 3.33 DPS, AC/10 4.0 DPS, and AC/20 5.0 DPS - quite comparable don't you think?

For the record - if it's not blindingly obvious - I am of the opinion that MWO does ACs wrong.

Abivard, on 11 March 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

You are reading an article from someone who has not a clue to what they are talking about and then misinterpreting what was said.

If you had bothered to click on and read the links I provided a few posts up you would have seen me quoting Decision at Thunder Rift (the very first BattleTech novel), the Tech Manual (together with Total Warfare, that's the rules for the BattleTech game), and Era Report 3025 (a canon lore document).

There's someone here who hasn't a single clue, but it's not me nor the ones I'm quoting...

Abivard, on 11 March 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

And not a single bit of it is even relevant to this thread!

Discussing autocannons isn't relevant to a thread on pin-point direct damage?

[Abivard]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 March 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Burst fire does not work like that... r at least it didn't. The M-16 I remember has singe and 3 rnd burst selections. On a pull of the trigger you fired one or 3 bullets. Continuous fire was removed from the M-16 cause Continuous fire wasted ammo.

Oh, well then. That seems like a perfectly sound reason to redefine the meaning of words in the English language.



Burst fire means economically viable ammo usage via a selector switch on the M-16

[Xarian]

I think the easiest way to fix pinpoint damage imbalance is to make torso weapons aim straight forward rather than converge at the cursor. Arms can aim and converge - torso weapons cannot. The exception would be certain mechs like the Jagermech, whose arms can't move left/right and thus could not converge either.

They could implement crosshairs for each weapon or something so you'd know where it's firing, but they shouldn't all automatically go to the same point.

This change would also make arm weapons (and thus arm destruction) more valuable, which is a good thing.

Edit:
Normally fire modes are defined by how many shots you fire when "pulling the trigger". Single - one shot, burst shot - several shots, continuous - until your ammo runs out. This has to be redefined for a video game, however, ; the fact that you can hold down the button ("trigger") to fire multiple shots over several seconds (e.g. 3 shots in 10.5 seconds) is a quirk of the fact that it's a video game - I don't think it's relevant to use this fact to define the shots as "continuous fire".

Thus:
burst fire means shooting multiple shots in a short period of time, then pausing
continuous fire means shooting multiple shots in a short period of time, and not pausing
single fire means shooting one shot, then pausing

The way that you define "short period of time" and "pause" is arbitrary. One of you is arguing that a 3.5 second cooldown period is a short period of time, and the other is arguing that a 3.5 second cooldown period is a pause.

My interpretation is that currently:
All AC weapons and PPCs are single fire because there is a fairly long time delay between single shots (I'm defining this as a "pause").
All laser weapons are burst fire because they hit multiple times in a short period, then pause between shots.
Machineguns and flamers are continuous fire because they fire multiple times in a short period and there is no pause.
Gauss rifles are special because you have to "pull the trigger" multiple times to fire once; I'm going to call this a "charge fire" mode.

Note that the only difference between the fire modes of AC weapons (single fire) and Flamers/MGs (continuous fire) is the time on their recycle rates. Flamers/MG fire at 10 shots/sec, while the ACs fire at 2 shots/sec or slower. Lasers (burst fire) inflict damage at 10 "shots"/sec, but have overall sustained fire rates < 1 shot/sec.

--

I like the idea of variety. It'd be cool to have AC/20s with "cannons" as they are now and some AC/20s with a stream of large (but not cannon-sized) bullets. They might be able to change the stats to compensate - e.g. a burst-fire AC/20 might have slightly faster recycle time or better range to compensate for the lack of damage concentration. On the other hand, having a burst-fire might be a huge bonus to hitting people if your torso wasn't so easy to aim.

Edited by Xarian, 11 March 2014 - 11:46 AM.

[Mcgral18]

Xarian, on 11 March 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

I think the easiest way to fix pinpoint damage imbalance is to make torso weapons aim straight forward rather than converge at the cursor. Arms can aim and converge - torso weapons cannot. The exception would be certain mechs like the Jagermech, whose arms can't move left/right and thus could not converge either.

They could implement crosshairs for each weapon or something so you'd know where it's firing, but they shouldn't all automatically go to the same point.

This change would also make arm weapons (and thus arm destruction) more valuable, which is a good thing.

Victors don't see how this is a nerf.

Also, I think you mean if the arms have lower arm actuators, they can converge together.

[Abivard]

xXBagheeraXx, on 11 March 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

So let me get this straight...

You are complaining in a game where the ability to kill is dependent on accuractly targeting a small location with pinpoint damage is being ruled by mechs (and weapon systems) that can do that very thing? And mechs that are dpm based and have to "stare" at thier opponent lose to said mechs?

You must be some special kind of stupid....

My dpm battle masters have no problem handling front loaded opponents, know why? Because i dont let him pull back into cover to reload/cool off after the alpha. Most of those high alpha builds with few exceptions are extremely hot running....hell my highest alpha atlas sits at a nice balmy 1.1 heat effeciency....I alpha twice, and hump a hill while i cool off....but can basically two shot most mechs if i hit the same section twice, or one shot anything with red armor or any kind of open internals. My penance for that? In a running fight, i can only fire my ac20 and srms...Yeah, you are right high, frontloaded damage is win in this game, if applied correctly, but the fix isnt to freaking NERF the weapons they are using ffs. People like you are why i no longer use gauss rifles much, all the QQing instead of trying to change your tactics has ruined quite a few weapons systems already, and i do NOT want them screwing with my autocannons if you please. So if you die to that atlas that you let alpha you with 3 or 4 ppcs several times, yeah, you deserve to die. not go to the forums and whine about high alpha builds ruining the game....have you TRIED running an alpha boat? Its rather frustrating getting circled by some jerk with a bunch of acs knocking you around, and God help you if you miss or overheat and he's still fresh.

I see you did not bother to read my post, just quote it and go off on a rant. A rather incoherent one at that, after 5 readings I am still a little unsure what you are attempting to say.

The majority seems to be hyperbole, and agreement that DD weapons are delivering far more of there potential damage on the target than ANY other weapon system can do, it is the way you like it, and anyone who doesn't use DD weapons is a fool.

Then you go off on some ALPHA firing/ over heating tangent, and then finish with what can only be termed a whine about how you get owned by mechs firing AC's when you are running a high heat ALPHA firing mech(hint; switch to chain fire when that happens).

So I really fail to see how anything you have said relates to DD vs DoT weapons being out of whack in MWO, except to agree with me that they are OP compared to DoT weapons.

[stjobe]

Disclaimer: Feel free to skip this post, it's a bit off-topic and probably only of interest to a handful of you. It's semi-relevant though, since the topic of autocannons and MGs often deviate to comparisons to modern-day tank guns.

As an addendum to my previous post on AC classifications, and with the huge caveat that BT autocannons by lore are developments of the Rifle family of weapons, which in turn were developments of our modern-day tank main guns, I couldn't help but to check out how our modern-day tank guns would be classified were they BT autocannons - even though they are not. So here goes:

The fastest-firing MBT main gun today is the GIAT CN120-26/52 on the French LeClerc tank; with its autoloader it can fire 12 rounds per minute. The M256 gun on the American M1A1 is manually loaded but can still fire up to 10 rounds per minute.

The rounds they fire are typically APFSDS kinetic energy penetrators, and they weigh about 18kg a piece, of which roughly 8kg is the penetrator itself.

Now plugging those numbers into a calculator, we arrive at these AC classifications of the two guns:

Counting shell weight:
M256: AC/3
CN120: AC/3.6

Counting penetrator weight only:
M256: AC/1.3
CN120: AC/1.6

So if these two guns were autocannons, they would be AC/2's.

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 11 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

I don't have a favourite; my stats tell me that I've used AC/2s more than any other variant, and UAC/5s the least. The AC/5, AC/10, and AC/20 are roughly even in time equipped.

Joseph Mallan, on 11 March 2014 - 10:29 AM, said:

And my memory may be off due to it being 20 years ago as well.

(I really need a day off work dam it!)

Data on Ballistics use:
Weapon Matches Fired Hit Accuracy
GAUSS RIFLE 290 4,139 2,112 51.03%
AutoCannon/20 221 3,130 1,737 55.50%
AutoCannon /10 36 712 408 57.30%
ULTRA AC/5 5 452 139 30.75%
AutoCannon /5 111 5,495 2,130 38.76%
AutoCannon /2 4 712 356 50.00%

I am best with an AC10!

I don't have enough usage to compare AC10, but of the rest of the ballistics, here are the basic numbers:
Weapon - DPM - DPS - efficiency
AC20 - 334.9 - 3.18 - 63.63%
AC2 - 145.8 - 1.97 - 51.14%
AC5 - 175.3 - 1.73 - 52.01%
Gauss - 156.3 - 2.06 - 54.90%
LBX10 - 158.0 - 1.74 - 43.60%
UAC5 - 283.3 - 1.59 - 47.55%

Joseph Mallan, on 11 March 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

Burst fire does not work like that... r at least it didn't. The M-16 I remember has singe and 3 rnd burst selections. On a pull of the trigger you fired one or 3 bullets. Continuous fire was removed from the M-16 cause Continuous fire wasted ammo.

Technically, the M16A1 is a semiautomatic assault gun. It originally had a fully automatic (full auto was the label) option, but it was removed as you mentioned. Pulling the trigger once would fire a single shot in the first setting, a 3-round burst in the second, or a continuous, full auto "spray" when that option was available. You then had the M240 SAW and M60 machine gun, which could be fired in bursts by the shooter, but were technically fully automatic as holding the trigger would fire until it jammed or ran out of ammo.

[Zordicron]

Prosperity Park, on 09 March 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

I know lots of people have said this...

... but a weapon balancing scheme that doesn't s**t on Light Mechs, while least impacting Assault Mechs' ability to remain Combat-Viable would be to make all large-bore Autocannons burst fire (i.e. a range of 3-6 shot bursts that then have to "cool down" for a certain amount of time, like a Bofors 40mm cannon that fires from 6-shot clips), and make the PPCs a duration-of-fire weapon that fires a single 0.25 second burst of ~10 projectiles that do 1 dmg and 1 heat each.

That would make "pinpoint damage" a concern only for very slow-moving targets.. and slow-moving targets deserve to be shredded by accurate fire.

Have you visited the "devs response to burst fire" thread PP? I really hope the dev team has read it and is considering it especially with clan UAC20 and the like on the horizon, and mechs like Mauler and Annihilator and King Crab out there that are highly anticipated.

[wanderer]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 March 2014 - 09:04 AM, said:

HAGs were good... bu they were just one more Groups of 5 weapon... Now RACs... you haven't seen scary till you put twin RAC20 on a Demolisher II! and I think 11 tons of ammo??? Yes it runs out of ammo fast... but 240 top damage in one turn and NO HEAT BABY!!!

You do know that there aren't actually any RAC-10's or RAC-20's in the rules, right? And stuff like that is -why- there isn't?

[xXBagheeraXx]

Abivard, on 11 March 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

I see you did not bother to read my post, just quote it and go off on a rant. A rather incoherent one at that, after 5 readings I am still a little unsure what you are attempting to say.

The majority seems to be hyperbole, and agreement that DD weapons are delivering far more of there potential damage on the target than ANY other weapon system can do, it is the way you like it, and anyone who doesn't use DD weapons is a fool.

Then you go off on some ALPHA firing/ over heating tangent, and then finish with what can only be termed a whine about how you get owned by mechs firing AC's when you are running a high heat ALPHA firing mech(hint; switch to chain fire when that happens).

So I really fail to see how anything you have said relates to DD vs DoT weapons being out of whack in MWO, except to agree with me that they are OP compared to DoT weapons.

Ok let me put this as simply as I possibly can.

Your argument is that High pinpoint damage weapons are OP correct? Ergo, mechs boating these weapons (alpha builds, DD builds, front loaded damage, whatever the hell you want to call it) better than DOT (dpm builds) because DD builds can unload all their damage accurately in one section of the mech. My argument, since you seem to lack basic reading comprehension is that Most of these builds that carry the high alpha, high pinpoint weapons are very hot running, the current thing being ppcs/Ac5's. One example, if you cared to read, was of my DPM based battlemasters, which carry several high rate of fire ac2s with a few medium lasers tossed on as well. I can handle alpha build mechs fairly well in this build because I constantly keep those mechs under fire, I do not let them reload, i do not let them cool down. My second example was my *VERY* hot running, frontloaded Atlas. It has a very bad heat efficiency due to the heavy weapons load, yet i can two shot, or very nearly two shot, pretty much any mech in the game at proper range, but i cannot survive long in a running brawl. What is needed is not nerfs to the weapons, or changes in convergence/burst fire or whatever, but changes in tactics. stop letting the guy alpha you and hiding while he cools off. and if youc annot get to that mech, while he is cooling off, then you are in a bad positon and need to move....Tactics, not nerfs are what is needed.

[Varent]

I must say, after actually being in game why are people so set on more changes still. I mean...... seeing and feeling the thrust of new JJ... and seeing how innefectual and slow they are... (Heavy somewhat of an exception though still sluggish) Im not seeing how people are still arguing over this. I maybe see... 2-3 Jump snipers in a game... at least traditional ones. I am seeing more medium ones... wich is a good thing and a nice trade off. Im seeing TONS of lrms and a lot of people playing brawlers, wich was the point. The meta is slowly and very surely shifting. Im seeing tons of people using srm (even with hit detection as well).

[Willard Phule]

wanderer, on 11 March 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

You do know that there aren't actually any RAC-10's or RAC-20's in the rules, right? And stuff like that is -why- there isn't?

Don't quote me on it, but I think it's further...way further...down the timeline. Like 3145 or something. Dunno, never went that far out with the tech.

Pretty much the only thing I use the RAC5 on is a fast VTOL escort for my infantry carrier VTOls. Each escort (there are 5) packs a RAC5 and 1 bomb. They can pretty much soften up any drop zone for the toads. The Toad Haulers have a CLPL and can carry a single bomb for a speed hit.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 11 March 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

You do know that there aren't actually any RAC-10's or RAC-20's in the rules, right? And stuff like that is -why- there isn't?

Not in the US rules! MechForce UK... Different story. Or at least according to the HeavyMetalPro basic weapons files. Not everyone plays by US CBT rules only.

[wanderer]

Exactly. MechForce UK's rules were never canonical to begin with, a lot like the German stuff. And that's why, because who cares if it's an ammo hog...one gun putting 120 damage on a single target in a single round is bah-roken. We get people making cracks about "AC70's" in MWO...that's an AC/120!

[wanderer]

Quote

Don't quote me on it, but I think it's further...way further...down the timeline. Like 3145 or something. Dunno, never went that far out with the tech.

Never happens, take it from someone who keeps up with the historical tech lines.

The proper hell-fire mode if you wanna stay canon is quad RAC/5's on a Demolisher. Because who cares if you're doing 5 damage per hit instead of 20 when you plow an average 16 of them into a target per salvo.

(Besides, more redundancy when inevitable jams happen, letting you keep pummeling with the other guns whilst waiting to clear the jams.)

Edited by wanderer, 12 March 2014 - 05:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 12 March 2014 - 05:01 AM, said:

Exactly. MechForce UK's rules were never canonical to begin with, a lot like the German stuff. And that's why, because who cares if it's an ammo hog...one gun putting 120 damage on a single target in a single round is bah-roken. We get people making cracks about "AC70's" in MWO...that's an AC/120!

And Some folks Used it... Like I said Dual RAC20 on a Demolisher II. And if you think those are broken... Look up the Nuke rules some time!

[Prezimonto]

wolf74, on 08 March 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

Repeat of what I have said in many other Posts

(Dev's can skip over due to the fact this will be it 5th posting)
Manual Controlled Convergence:
Con’s:

• Harder for New Player (unless they have played a GOOD WW2 Tank sim than it will be a cake walk for them).

Pro’s:

• This will give Pin Point damage for those who wait for the right range for the shot or can make the Corrections on the fly.
  
• High odds of spreading the damage around the targets.
  
• Gives Classic Battletech Targeting Computer* a reason to be in the game
  
• Give Pulse Lasers a better reason to be used over Normal Lasers

Things I would give the players if Manual Convergence is put in:

• +-5m auto Correction. (AKA if you target is within 5m of you Convergence point it will hit pin point).
  
• CBT Target Computers* upgrades the +-5m auto-correction to +-15m.
  
• Pulse Laser (Does not stack with Targeting Computers) get a +-25m auto-Correction
  
• Add a Column to the score page:
  
  • If using the current targeting system listed the player as a Rookie Pilot
    
  • If using the Manual Controlled Targeting listed the player as a Mechwarrior
• Add a boost to the C-Bills for Damage done if the player is playing using the Manual Controlled system (Can only be changed in the MechLab and not in a Match)
  
• Also a Meta-score boost could also be given for being in manual convergence.

Advance Use of Weapon Groups:

First off thank you all for the good feedback on my idea (In other threads that is). I was thinking of a simple one point convergence system at first. But feedback given to me made me think that as a player you could setup Fire group with pre-set ranges. The default keys would be for all Convergence points to move together. But have it where you could (did not say have too) setup the weapon groups for different ranges could also work. In other words as the players get better they could start doing something like the below if they took the time

AKA
Group 1 (Your best weapons the Main group you use & change the ranges all the time on)
Group 2 You have the weapons you want to fire at about 400m setup here
Group 3 You have setup for 270m Range
Group 4 You have setup when you can see the white of the enemy pilots eyes (aka Point blank hugging range)
Group 5&6 You setup for sniping at 800m but you only use it every now an than so you put it on two group so you can key ether key


*The I.S. Targeting Computer are normally not in game until 3058 but for game play reasons & New Player support I think most CBT player will over look the Date to help the Game along.

One of the first posts I made on these forums was suggesting essentially the same ideas.

[wanderer]

Quote

Look up the Nuke rules some time!

Those happen to be canonical WMD rules, however.

[Willard Phule]

Joseph Mallan, on 12 March 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

And Some folks Used it... Like I said Dual RAC20 on a Demolisher II. And if you think those are broken... Look up the Nuke rules some time!

Yeah, but, unless it's a Clan RAC20, the range has to be negligible.....especially on a tracked vehicle. Pop it with LRMs, sow the area around it with Thunders....hell...hit him with EM LRMs.....if he's got a fusion engine, he's in trouble.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 12 March 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

Those happen to be canonical WMD rules, however.

And thats the smallest Nuke.

I won't argue canon on the Cannons... They are out there, they get used. Deal with it.!

And I don't remember if they were or weren't Clan any more Phule!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 12 March 2014 - 05:31 AM.