517 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

DocBach, on 27 March 2014 - 06:39 AM, said:

Khobai nailed it earlier in the post - drop effective ranges so that larger cannons don't do the smaller cannons jobs better.

Do they actually do the smaller weapons job better?

I'm asking as a new player, but so far when building I come up with two routes on most builds with ballistics.

1) I can go for shorter range, higher Alpha potential with a higher ballistic like an AC 20 or AC 10 - this also often saves weight & slots compared to 2 weapons from lower AC sizes for equivalent alpha potential.

2) I can slot multiple AC 2s or 5s, get better range and better total combined DPS but at a higher weight & slot requirement as well as lower alpha potential.



Am I looking at this incorrectly?

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 21 March 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

7- (THE most important) ACs need to behave in a burst fire mode WHEN they're put in a location whose bore is smaller than the weapon being used. In other words, if I put an AC20 in a slot dedicated to an AC2, I should fire 10 2 damage projectiles instead of one 20 point round. This would make it so that the pure AC builds maintain their flavor while offering up some differentiations among AC manufacturers (fluff added without making a sweeping addition to the inventory).

Prez is right... Its kinda dumb with LRMs but I sorta like the sound of it for ACs! Mind you I would not switch from an AC5 to an AC20... But a 10 to a 20??? More likely I would just stay with Mechs with the big stick already there but options are always better than one size fits all.

[Ultimax]

Cimarb, on 27 March 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

And just in case anyone missed this post earlier, StJobe has a very easy method for switching them to burst-fire:

I saw that, but I'm not convinced that's actually a fair change.

I know it might be shocking but there are a lot of situations I find the instant hit and adjustable trajectory as well as perfect trajectory (0 effect of gravity at range, i.e. AC shells start to fall, especially AC 10/20) of lasers to be an advantage.





I can often turn what would be a miss from a laser into "some damage" which is better than "no damage".
I can't do that with a ballistic weapon, it either hits or it misses. All the damage or zero damage.

Where ballistics have a high speed, lasers are instant.

They are not held back by speed at all.

I'd be concerned that a burst fire would have all of the drawbacks of a DoT weapon (laser, instant travel time) while retaining the drawback of either hitting or missing completely (ballistic travel time).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 27 March 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 27 March 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Do they actually do the smaller weapons job better?

I'm asking as a new player, but so far when building I come up with two routes on most builds with ballistics.

1) I can go for shorter range, higher Alpha potential with a higher ballistic like an AC 20 or AC 10 - this also often saves weight & slots compared to 2 weapons from lower AC sizes for equivalent alpha potential.

2) I can slot multiple AC 2s or 5s, get better range and better total combined DPS but at a higher weight & slot requirement as well as lower alpha potential.



Am I looking at this incorrectly?

At extreme range I have hear the AC20 is still throwing more damage than an AC10 does... It is unacceptable since it makes the AC10 less appealing.

[TygerLily]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

Prez is right... Its kinda dumb with LRMs but I sorta like the sound of it for ACs! Mind you I would not switch from an AC5 to an AC20... But a 10 to a 20??? More likely I would just stay with Mechs with the big stick already there but options are always better than one size fits all.

It could be:

MG slot
AC2 = 2 round burst, 1 dmg
AC5 = 3 round burst, 1.6dmg
LB10X = 3 round burst, 3.3 dmg per shotgun volley
AC10= 3 round burst, 3.3 dmg
AC20 = 3 round burst, 6.6 dmg

AC2 calibur
AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg (duh)
AC5 = 2 round burst, 2.5 dmg
LB10X = 2 round burst, 5 dmg per shotgun volley
AC10= 3 round burst, 3.3 dmg
AC20 = 3 round burst, 6.6 dmg

AC5 calibur
AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 1 round burst, 5 dmg
LB10X = 2 round burst, 5 dmg per shotgun volley
AC10= 2 round burst, 5 dmg
AC20 = 3 round burst, 6.6 dmg

AC10 calibur

AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 1round burst, 5 dmg
LB10X = 1 shot, 10 dmg
AC10= 1 round burst, 10 dmg
AC20 = 2 round burst, 10 dmg

AC10/Gauss calibur

AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 1round burst, 5 dmg
AC10= 1 round burst, 10 dmg
AC20 = 2 round burst, 10 dmg

AC20 calibur
One size fits all

Considerations:
UAC...maybe UAC's added bonus is that they ignore slot calibur.

Gauss...this kind of brings up rate of fire for each shot. Since it's long distance, Gauss could be at most 2 round burst for a calibur of 2 or 5, with very little time between shots leaving the barrel. And unchanged for calibur 10 or 20.

Time between shots:
- Should they prevent the AC20 in a 5 slot (3 round burst of 6.6 dmg) from being a crazy, triple barrel UAC 5? It seems horrifying at first, but remember that they are dedicating a lot of weight to the system, only 7 shots per ton, only a range of 270 meters, the whole system is still one weapon/component...I think it would be fine.
- They could also set this to be related to the "distance from the intended calibur". So an MG slot having an AC20 in it has a slower time between each round leaving the barrel (nothing super drastic...nothing more than .5 seconds, etc.) as compared to a faster time if you are trying to get an AC20 in an 10 calibur slot.


Weapon cooldown would start when the final round leaves the barrel.

Edited by TygerLily, 27 March 2014 - 08:44 AM.

[Lightfoot]

I am used to putting 2 AC20 or 3 UAC10's on a heavy mech or 5x Large lasers on an Awesome and consider this to be average damage for these weight classes in a MechWarrior game so MWO is a very nerfed down version of MechWarrior, since you can't do any of this without the game exploding. And that is the problem since Clan tech will potentially place this damage level within reach even with all the nerfs.

But it should not need to be nerfed, the mechs should be tough enough to shrug off this higher, but normal MechWarrior damage level for a little while. So MWO should dump it's nerfs of Ghost Heat and DHS 1.4 and the Gauss de-synch and create a normal version of MechWarrior gameplay. You know, based on Battletech, but make the mechs tougher rather than nerfing down all the weapons.

Or just cut the damage across the board in half to compensate for the 2xRecharge on most weapons while dumping all the PGI-invented nerfs.

The reward for either is a more robust Mechlab with all Mech chassis and variants being about equal, as they are portrayed in Battletech TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

I think I would exclude LB-X from the mix Tyger, They already have been Nerfed by not having a slug option.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

At extreme range I have hear the AC20 is still throwing more damage than an AC10 does... It is unacceptable since it makes the AC10 less appealing.

That part I agree with, absolutely.

However that's one specific comparison as opposed to an across the board with all ACs.

AC 10s feel like they don't have a specialty.

Not enough range or RoF to be compelling vs. AC 5s,
Not enough alpha potential to compete with AC 20s.
Too close in tonnage to AC 20s.


If they remained 7 slots, but were dropped down to 10 or 11 tons, I think that would help them a bit.

They still wouldn't be as specialized as AC 5s or AC 20s, but they would occupy a nice weight/slot advantage vs, AC 20s at that point.

[Joseph Mallan]

Oddly I really like the AC10. It is a good Medium range punch for not to much heat. I had good success with it on both Jagers and Centurions and it proved effective on my Treb-K as well. Different strokes I guess.

[DocBach]

Ultimatum X, on 27 March 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

That part I agree with, absolutely.

However that's one specific comparison as opposed to an across the board with all ACs.

AC 10s feel like they don't have a specialty.

Not enough range or RoF to be compelling vs. AC 5s,
Not enough alpha potential to compete with AC 20s.
Too close in tonnage to AC 20s.


If they remained 7 slots, but were dropped down to 10 or 11 tons, I think that would help them a bit.

They still wouldn't be as specialized as AC 5s or AC 20s, but they would occupy a nice weight/slot advantage vs, AC 20s at that point.

This is a good assessment. Pretty much the AC/20 can do everything the AC/10 can do. The AC/5 might not have the rate of fire that the AC/2 does, but it doesn't get affected as badly by ghost heat running in chain fire, and at long ranges where one would find the AC/2 useful, the AC/5 still does 2.5 damage.

[Khobai]

Quote

I can often turn what would be a miss from a laser into "some damage" which is better than "no damage".
I can't do that with a ballistic weapon, it either hits or it misses. All the damage or zero damage.

Where ballistics have a high speed, lasers are instant.

Except that whole assumption is based on missing with Autocannons. If you hit with Autocannons as often as you hit with Lasers than Autocannons are always better.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Oddly I really like the AC10. It is a good Medium range punch for not to much heat. I had good success with it on both Jagers and Centurions and it proved effective on my Treb-K as well. Different strokes I guess.

It's the AC that I want to love.

It fits into arms that AC 20s don't always fit into, so slot wise its in a good place at 7 (same as Gauss).

But for the tonnage, I always end up thinking "Couldn't I just squeeze an AC 20 for a higher alpha?" or "Couldn't I just squeeze in 2 AC 5s for more raw DPS and Range?".


It's not terrible, far from it. I think it's just lacks a speciality or something to compensate for not being a specialist.


If they were adjusted to say, 11 tons...

They would still be 3 tons heavier than AC 5s but they would be 5 tons lighter than 2x AC 5.

But importantly they would also be 3 tons lighter than AC 20s, which would almost feel like "free ammo" tonnage in comparison.

[Joseph Mallan]

I think those same questions but then I get all

AC10

[Ultimax]

Khobai, on 27 March 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

Except that whole assumption is based on missing with Autocannons. If you hit with Autocannons as often as you hit with Lasers than Autocannons are always better.

And your assumption is based on hitting with Autocannons as often as you can hit with lasers.

As most people have massively higher accuracy with lasers than Autocannons, clearly this is not the case.

Yes that is due to even a partial hit registering as a hit, but that was already one of my points. You can adjust with beams, AC hits are hits and misses are always misses. The only adjustment you can make is to fire again.


If you hit with Autocannons as often as you hit with lasers you are being rewarded for being an exceptionally skilled marksman.


Lasers are much more forgiving for the less than perfect marksman.


> They have 0 travel time. Where you place the laser is where it will hit, instantly.

> You can often correct your aim mid-beam, and drag it where you wanted it to be.

> Beams have 0 weight, they don't "fall" as higher AC shells can at range - sometimes you need to lead both ahead of as well as above the target.

> They are much, much easier to apply on speedy lights at close proximity.



The only two things I feel is are an issue are:

1) Ghost Heat, I feel it unfairly penalizes some categories of lasers.
2) Pulse lasers need to be tweaked. They have too many drawbacks for their slightly increased damage.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 27 March 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Personally while I'd like to see weapon overhauls, but I don't think any drastic change will occur to AC's in particular, they might adjust some cool down's or some crap or maybe introduce the much loved (/sarcasm) rolling dice mechanic jams from Ultra's on all AC's, but the grandiose ideas will be for naught. They are "looking" at AC's... but what the hell does that actual mean?

If the Devs are serious about more than a little stat tweaks, and just doing something... different, then I'll believe it when I see it. I mean heck, there is still no Slug for the LB-X, and they still have not upped the damage to 1.2 per pellet on cluster. There has been no overhaul of the Ultra's that still do their actual TT damage of (5x2), etc, and AC's are completely whacky with their damage/heat ratios.

The only weapon in my view that seems to be balanced 'ok' are lasers, just the regular ones. Everything else from nerf ball LB-x, stream MG's/flamers that require constant upkeep (unlike duration lasers and pinpoint ac/ppc/gauss), hardly different pulse lasers, hardly appealing blob SRM's, auto-aim streaks, is just poo. From Beta and onwards all I have seen are tweaks, but no work on introducing differing mechanics.

Edited by General Taskeen, 27 March 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

As most people have massively higher accuracy with lasers than Autocannons, clearly this is not the case.

I'd still argue that PPC/ACs are more accurate because PGI doesnt calculate laser accuracy correctly.

How PGI wrongly calculates laser accuracy=
If the laser grazes the target for a fraction of its beam duration it counts as a 100% hit. So even if you only hold the laser on the target for 10% of its duration it still counts as a 100% hit, which is entirely misleading.

How PGI should actually calculate laser accuracy=
Laser accuracy should be determined by the percentage of the beam duration that hits the target. If you only hold the laser on the target for 10% of the duration thats 10% accuracy. Not the 100% PGI says it is.

I believe if laser accuracy was properly calculated it would be very apparent that lasers are not very good weapons compared to ballistics. Someone with good aim who uses ballistics will consistently do better damage than someone using lasers.

Edited by Khobai, 27 March 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 27 March 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

I'd still argue that ACs are more accurate because PGI doesnt calculate laser accuracy correctly.

How PGI wrongly calculates laser accuracy=
If the laser grazes the target even for a fraction of its beam duration it counts as a 100% hit.

How PGI should actually calculate laser accuracy=
Laser accuracy should be determined by the percentage of the beam duration that hits the target. If you only hold the lase ron the target for 10% of the duration thats only 10% accuracy.

Well that show you see it. I look at the hit percentage AND the damage for a better illustration of my Laser accuracy.

[CyclonerM]

Burst fire should not mean beam-like damage. You just fire 3 shells which do slightly less than 7 damage each instead of a single shell dealing 20 damage. It would be similar, but not the same. It would be easier to deal full damage with autocannons.

[Prezimonto]

TygerLily, on 27 March 2014 - 08:40 AM, said:

I would change it up to help normalize things some. The smaller the ballistic hard point, the more rounds need to be fired (and consequently slightly longer firing times) to add up to full damage. This might be a reflection on the hardpoint mounting, or just plain build of the mech skeleton. It would give you a reason to want to stuff a weapon of not TERRIBLY larger caliber into a hardpoint... so those MG slot's make for pretty rough AC20 shooters, but would hold AC2's relatively okay, and maybe even AC 5's.

MG slot
AC2 = 2 round burst, 1 dmg fired in 0.25 seconds
AC5 = 5 round burst, 1 dmg fired in 0.5 seconds
AC10= 10 round burst, 1 dmg fired in 0.75 seconds
AC20 = 20 round burst, 1 dmg fired in 1.25 seconds

AC2 calibur
AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 3 round burst, 1.6 dmg fired in 0.25 seconds
AC10= 5 round burst, 2 dmg fired in 0.50 seconds
AC20 = 10 round burst, 2 dmg fired in 1 second

AC5 calibur
AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 1 round burst, 5 dmg
AC10= 2 round burst, 5 dmg fired in 0.25 seconds
AC20 = 4 round burst, 5 dmg fired in 0.5 seconds

AC10 calibur

AC2 = 1 round burst, 2 dmg
AC5 = 1round burst, 5 dmg
AC10= 1 round burst, 10 dmg
AC20 = 2 round burst, 10 dmg fired in 0.25 seconds

AC20 calibur
One size fits all


UAC's I'd turn into auto fire weapons, hold the button down and they start churning out low damage rounds every fraction of a second. Basically make them long range MG's. I'd consider giving the weapon an overheat counter or bar so as it fires it overheats... let if fire long enough to do around 1.5 damage of a regular AC of the type and then the heat has to bleed before it can be fired again. If it overheats it locks up for an extra second or two. This normalizes the damage, but the cool down could be slow relative to cool down of the non-ultra version so that it gives a single big burst and then a long time to do more big burst and so the relative damage output of the UAC's is roughly equal to AC's, but more about hit and run tactics.


Gauss I'd just leave alone, and keep the charge up. I know there's a lot of whining about it, but it's one of the few changes they've made I actually like and find a benefit to game play as it makes the Gauss NOT the best weapon for every situation, it's really only good at medium to long range.

Edited by Prezimonto, 27 March 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Short of changing the primary mechanics (adding burst fire, changing ranges, etc), what can be done to get things in line for the ACs?

1- putting the DPS, and as a result the refire times, on a lowering curve starting from that AC20 down (ie, the AC2 should have a DPS of 2 something, the AC10 should have a 3 something [near 4]).

2- reducing ammo back to TT levels (they were in lots of 100 damage per ton vs. MWOs 150 damage per ton)

3- increasing ammo explosions for all ammo; adding a heat level factor would be a nice wrinkle

4- add in recoil equal to screen shake for said weapons

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

They Can't... or NOBODY can? there is a difference, and that is important.

PGI can't (that isn't to say that it is impossible for everyone) because their coding has convergence tied into hit registry. I don't get why but it feels like they bipassed some things to get some other things working. I'm getting visions of Kaylee working on Firefly's engine. Oof! That being said, convergence can't be fixed by weapon spread can be altered. Convergence is based on what the range finder returns. Adding in heat and movement based penalties that ultimately provide a massive modifier to what the range finder returns would be helpful. Essentially, if you'd converge on center mass of a target that is 100m away when you're not moving and at 0 heat, you'd converge on a point that is 400m away if you were moving at max speed and at 60% heat capacity (as an example). That would mean that your shots would not be dead center but more on the side torsos thus providing a work around to convergence. PGI already has the mechanic in place with the JJ nerf that they put in back in June of '13.

Ultimatum X, on 27 March 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

Do they actually do the smaller weapons job better?

I'm asking as a new player, but so far when building I come up with two routes on most builds with ballistics.

1) I can go for shorter range, higher Alpha potential with a higher ballistic like an AC 20 or AC 10 - this also often saves weight & slots compared to 2 weapons from lower AC sizes for equivalent alpha potential.

2) I can slot multiple AC 2s or 5s, get better range and better total combined DPS but at a higher weight & slot requirement as well as lower alpha potential.



Am I looking at this incorrectly?

An AC10 maintains 10 damage at 450m. An AC20 does 20 damage at 270m and 10 damage at 540m. That means that the AC20 loses 0.074 damage every meter beyond 270m. So, calculating the new range of 450, we get the following equation: (450-270)*.074 = 13.3 damage for the AC20 at 450m. That is 3.3 more damage than the AC10. The real question remains is whether the two extra tons, added heat, and increased criticals invested in the AC20 merits the extra damage output?

Edited by Trauglodyte, 27 March 2014 - 09:54 AM.