517 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Autocannons need several changes, some more than others:

1. Normalization: an AC2 should do roughly 2 damage per "turn", which in MWO terms is roughly 5 seconds (it's probably closer to 4, but 5 is easier to use and every weapon in game can be fire at least once in that time frame). An AC5 should do roughly 5 damage in that time, an AC10 should do ~10, and an AC20 should do ~20. These numbers are debatable, but the concept is what matters. We currently have four AC20s, as they all do relatively the same amount of DPS, and that is silly.
2. Range: autocannons should have the same range modifiers as all other weapon systems. Buff the others or nerf ballistics, I don't care.
3. Burst-fire: I am not completely against FLD anymore, but manufacturer variants should be added to give variety to those of us that want burst-fire autocannons while balancing the more FLD versions with lower overall DPS numbers. For instance, an AC20 that fires like a Gatling gun can do 5 DPS, while a front-loaded AC20 only does 4 DPS. For more specifics on this, I'll repost my (long) post from another thread:

Spoiler

Autocannons as a whole need to be realigned. Currently, we have four versions of the AC20, since every one of them does roughly 20 damage in the same time period. Here are the stats:

AC2
Damage: 2
Cooldown: 0.52
DPS: 3.85
Damage per 5 seconds: 19.23

AC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50
DPS: 3.33
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65

UAC5
Damage: 5
Cooldown: 1.50 (if only fired at normal rate)
DPS: 3.33 (varies)
Damage per 5 seconds: 16.65 (varies)

AC10
Damage: 10
Cooldown: 2.50
DPS: 4.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 20.00

AC20
Damage: 20
Cooldown: 4.00
DPS: 5.00
Damage per 5 seconds: 25.00

So, in a "normalized" turn of five seconds (since all weapons in MWO can fire at least once in that time), the range of damage between all autocannons is 16.65-25.00. According to the definition of an autocannon in Sarna:

"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage versus armor. The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors. Autocannon are grouped into the following loose damage classes: (ac2-ac20)... Caliber is fluff for the size of the barrel that the shell or shells are fired from and no standard caliber has been set for any of the classes of Autocannon. Autocannon in a class vary by manufacturer and model. With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each 'round' or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are (185mm Demolisher cannon and 203mm Cauldron Born cannon, which is actually a clan mech, btw)"

According to this definition, every autocannon currently in the game would be considered an AC20, as their DPS are all closer to 20 than any other classification.

Side note: Oddly, the AC5/UAC5 are the most common autocannons, yet they are also the lowest DPS of all of them... This means they happen to fit in the sweet spot of weight/space versus firepower that people like most. Anyways...

What should happen is all autocannon need to be normalized to each other. That means, in 5 seconds of time, an AC2 should do roughly 2 damage, an AC5 should do 5 damage, an AC10 should do 20 and an AC20 should do 20. While this would dramatically nerf the lower class ACs in damage potential compared to currently, this can be offset by making the optimum/max ranges actually matter again! An AC2 may not do nearly as much damage, but they are the longest range weapons of the bunch. As the class gets higher, the range gets significantly lower, so on the other end you have the devastating damage of the AC20, but it can only be used at very short ranges, similar to how SRMs are used.

Here would be my proposed adjustments:
AC2 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.52 - DP5S 2.0 - range 720 - max range 1440
AC5 - damage 1.5 - cooldown 1.50 - DP5S 5.0 - range 620 - max range 1240
AC10 - damage 5.0 - cooldown 2.50 - DP5S 10.0 - range 450 - max range 900
AC20 - damage 16 - cooldown 4.00 - DP5S 20.0 - range 270 - max range 540

These would be the "standard" versions. Once CW gets implemented, you could then adjust the "damage" and "cooldown" numbers all over the place to represent different manufacturers, as long as the "DP5S" value stays within a small range of that classification. Here are some examples for possible AC20 variants:

185mm ChemJet AC/20 - damage 20 - cooldown 5.00 - DP5S 20.0
Pontiac 100 AC/20 - damage 0.2 - cooldown 0.50 - DP5S 20.0
Imperator Zeta-A - damage 5 - cooldown 1.25 - DP5S 20.0

On top of this, to give some real variety, you could also have burst-fire versions, such as:

Kali Yama Big Bore AC/20 - damage 5.0/tick - 1.0 second burst with 4 ticks - cooldown 4.0 - DP5S 20.0
Armstrong Requiem AC/20 - damage 1.0/tick - 4.0 second burst with 20 ticks - cooldown 1.0 - DP5S 20.0

You now have balanced autocannons (both compared to other weapons and also compared to each other), enough variety for every person imaginable, and a reason to own certain manufactory plants, as you could limit ammo supplies/cost for certain weapons based upon the current ownership and faction difference.

Now, for all Ultra versions (including future releases), you can then have a toggle to double the rate of fire, but with an increasing chance to jam based upon how long you hold the trigger. The chance starts at 5%, then increases every second by another 5%, until it jams. Once the weapon jams, it is unusable for 5-10 seconds, but then the jam rate resets to 5%.

NOTE: just for clarification, when I mention a "tick" in terms of an autocannon, I'm not saying to make them hitscan like a laser. Each AC tick would be a separate projectile, but the ammo amounts would have to be adjusted to compensate for the rate of fire of that specific caliber. In the case of the burst-fire versions above, each pull of the trigger would let off the burst as described. For instance, a ChemJet AC/20 would have the current 7 rounds per ton, since it only fires one round per cooldown, while the Armstrong AC/20 would fire a burst of twenty projectiles per trigger pull and have 140 rounds per ton (7x20) and an Imperator AC/20 would have 80 rounds per ton (4x20). This is where supply and demand could be used to balance different manufacturers, such as the huge ChemJet rounds being extremely expensive to reload, countering the FLD advantage they provide.

Edited by Cimarb, 21 March 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Autocannons need several changes, some more than others:

1. Normalization: an AC2 should do roughly 2 damage per "turn", which in MWO terms is roughly 5 seconds (it's probably closer to 4, but 5 is easier to use and every weapon in game can be fire at least once in that time frame). An AC5 should do roughly 5 damage in that time, an AC10 should do ~10, and an AC20 should do ~20. These numbers are debatable, but the concept is what matters. We currently have four AC20s, as they all do relatively the same amount of DPS, and that is silly.
2. Range: autocannons should have the same range modifiers as all other weapon systems. Buff the others or nerf ballistics, I don't care.
3. Burst-fire: I am not completely against FLD anymore, but manufacturer variants should be added to give variety to those of us that want burst-fire autocannons while balancing the more FLD versions with lower overall DPS numbers. For instance, an AC20 that fires like a Gatling gun can do 5 DPS, while a front-loaded AC20 only does 4 DPS. For more specific on this, I'll repost my (long) post from another thread (coming soon).

1. Seems to be the only thing we still disagree on. I still simply think weapons should be balanced on role, feel and overall use as uppose to dps. To use an example. I would still use the ppc even if they gave it a +3-4 second CD. Because it would still have its use as a long range weapon and the dps wouldnt matter. Hell I would use the Gause Rifle with the same CD added and the charge taken off for the same reasons. The dps wouldnt matter at all since the roll of the weapon simply doesnt matter. I feel AC should be the same. Not balanced by dps but other factors.

2. Agree. I also kinda feel lasers should have range increased. Id love to see ac reduced to 2.5 and lasers increased to 2.5 Maybe ppc too.

3. agree, I need to work on that, just moving and work suck right now.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 21 March 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

1. Seems to be the only thing we still disagree on. I still simply think weapons should be balanced on role, feel and overall use as uppose to dps. To use an example. I would still use the ppc even if they gave it a +3-4 second CD. Because it would still have its use as a long range weapon and the dps wouldnt matter. Hell I would use the Gause Rifle with the same CD added and the charge taken off for the same reasons. The dps wouldnt matter at all since the roll of the weapon simply doesnt matter. I feel AC should be the same. Not balanced by dps but other factors.

2. Agree. I also kinda feel lasers should have range increased. Id love to see ac reduced to 2.5 and lasers increased to 2.5 Maybe ppc too.

3. agree, I need to work on that, just moving and work suck right now.

I'm not going down the DPS rabbit hole with you again, lol. I'm just looking forward to whatever PGI decides to try first.

[Belphagor]

Recoil effect= impulse * [Damage*2/mechtonnage]

So AC20 out of a 80 ton mech is half impulse value on the mech that fires it.
But an AC20 out of a 40 ton mech is full impulse value on the mech that fires it.

PPCs also have recoil.

Heavier mechs just aren't going to feel it as much, but have higher jumpjet shake (... oh right)

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

I'm not going down the DPS rabbit hole with you again, lol. I'm just looking forward to whatever PGI decides to try first.

agree to disagree/handshake/fistbump etc?

And ya I am curious to see what they do too.

So far ive been loving the changes. I do think they are listening. Wich is nice for a change.

[Trauglodyte]

One of the big things that needs to really change is that ACs, and other front loaded weapon types (PPC), all greatly abuse the critical hit system. Case in point, I got popped last night by a DRG-Flame with a Gauss round to the right torso of my Jager. He breached the armor and lucked up with a 3 crit hit. So, I took an amount of damage to my internals (I had some armor left so not all 15 went to IS) and it also cleared out 1 Md Laser, 1 DHS, and 1 ton of Gauss ammo. Not a big deal there except for the fact that I took an amount of damage to the internal structure from the primary hit ALONG with another 6.57 damage to the internal structure because PGI decided that critical damage done to equipment would transfer 15% of the damage done back to the IS. So, that single Gauss Rifle round ended up doing 21.57 damage. You can't really do that with any other weapon in game because they're all pulse/scatter based.

[Phashe]

CIMARB - really interesting (and long) post. You might have something in how you break it down... A rare instance where paper-n-pen game may help to be considered!

Unfortunately, simple & wrong nerfs are easier to implement and bicker over.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Trauglodyte, on 21 March 2014 - 12:17 PM, said:

One of the big things that needs to really change is that ACs, and other front loaded weapon types (PPC), all greatly abuse the critical hit system. Case in point, I got popped last night by a DRG-Flame with a Gauss round to the right torso of my Jager. He breached the armor and lucked up with a 3 crit hit. So, I took an amount of damage to my internals (I had some armor left so not all 15 went to IS) and it also cleared out 1 Md Laser, 1 DHS, and 1 ton of Gauss ammo. Not a big deal there except for the fact that I took an amount of damage to the internal structure from the primary hit ALONG with another 6.57 damage to the internal structure because PGI decided that critical damage done to equipment would transfer 15% of the damage done back to the IS. So, that single Gauss Rifle round ended up doing 21.57 damage. You can't really do that with any other weapon in game because they're all pulse/scatter based.

The best part about crits is that they do full damage even if the shot doesn't actually make it to internals. Just stripping the armor will allow a weapon impact to crit for full damage. For example, if a PPC hits a component with just 10 armor left, it can still crit for full damage and destroy a component, even if it actually never damaged any internal structure. That needs to be fixed.

[Cimarb]

Phashe, on 21 March 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

CIMARB - really interesting (and long) post. You might have something in how you break it down... A rare instance where paper-n-pen game may help to be considered!

Unfortunately, simple & wrong nerfs are easier to implement and bicker over.

Lol, ala ghost heat? Wait, that isn't simple, just wrong...

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 March 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

The best part about crits is that they do full damage even if the shot doesn't actually make it to internals. Just stripping the armor will allow a weapon impact to crit for full damage. For example, if a PPC hits a component with just 10 armor left, it can still crit for full damage and destroy a component, even if it actually never damaged any internal structure. That needs to be fixed.

Has PGI confirmed that is actually the case? Seems like it would need to at least do a single point of damage to affect the internal components.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Lol, ala ghost heat? Wait, that isn't simple, just wrong...

Some disagree.

[Dawnstealer]

AC2s, in particular, are way more powerful than they were in TT (yes, that again, but PGI has tried to adhere to TT where possible). In this game, the AC2 is about as powerful as an AC2 with the added benefit of range. Granted it doesn't have the instant pin-point damage of the AC20, but given the weight and slots the AC20 takes up, that's a pretty good trade-off for most mechs.

If the goal was to approximate tabletop, ACs should all have the same refire rate - that would shove them back into the niches they were originally intended, lore-wise.

[C E Dwyer]

Increase the chance of ammo explosions, caused by heat . with ammo stored in torso more likely to go boom as closest to the engine

Reduce range by 15% a decrease in rate of fire of ac2, ac5, and ultra reduced by 10%

Change the way ammo is used up and adjust rate of fire accordingly.

rate of fire actually gets a BUFF of 10% (so weapons mentioned above would maintain the fire rate they have now) if its in the same location as the weapon using it and is used up first,

Rate of fire doesn't decrease if ammo is in the location next to the weapon. ie weapon in left arm ammo in left torso .

After that things reduce drastically with a reduction of 10% per location the ammo travels through.

The worse case scenario would be using ammo from the right leg feeding to a left arm balistic weapon which would reduce rate of fire by 30%

This does several things.

First it encourages ammo to be placed in semi sensible locations.

Secondly it gives a point to Case currently there is almost no point to case, as ammo rarely gets placed in side torso, and ammo in the CT gets used up pretty quickly.


Thirdly it makes energy weapons look more attractive as R o F stays constant and there isn't a chance of exploding.


Gauss would remain as is

[Trauglodyte]

Kaeb Odellas, on 21 March 2014 - 12:24 PM, said:

The best part about crits is that they do full damage even if the shot doesn't actually make it to internals. Just stripping the armor will allow a weapon impact to crit for full damage. For example, if a PPC hits a component with just 10 armor left, it can still crit for full damage and destroy a component, even if it actually never damaged any internal structure. That needs to be fixed.

I don't know if doing NO damage to the IS can trigger a crit. It might be that you caused like 0.01 points of damage which is enough for it to happen. But, the fact that you only did 0.01 damage, as an example, and yet lucked up with 3 crits for full damage is silly. Granted, that was the way it was in TT too but TTK is an extremely sore subject in this game.

And, for the record, which f'ing idiot thought it a good idea for damage done to equipment to transfer back to the IS? YOU JUST FREAKING HIT MY IS!!!

[MisterPlanetarian]

Pulse Lasers = 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 sec Cycle time for S/M/L. Leave heat alone. Pulse lasers will have high DPS and become excellent skirmishing weapons but won't be sustainable and require cooldown periods to dissapate the heat.

PPC = Splash damage. No chargeup. ERPPC heat reduced to 13 for IS only.

Gauss = 5 sec cycle time. Remove chargeup.

Autocannons = Burst fire would be the ideal soloution along with 2x max range. Have all AC's, including the UAC's fire 5 shots for their total TT damage inside a 0.5sec duration. This is a massive nerf to the AC2's DPS which is intended, reduce its heat to compensate.


LB10X = Increase DPS to 5.0. It's still spread wide and 11 tons for crying out loud.

[Phashe]

I think we should slow down all light Mechs, and speed up all assault Mechs. perhaps make the lights a little bigger. And the assault a little smaller.

Then I can be good at those also! :-)

Edited by Phashe, 21 March 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[Cimarb]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 21 March 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

(I wanted to make this a Poll, but either I am too dumb to figure out how to make one, or naive enough to believe a public forum was a good place for gathering consensus)

Polls are only allowed in the Feature Suggestion forum, unfortunately.

[Void Angel]

I would like to see most -or all -autocannons go to a burst fire system - not hitscan damage, but a true three-round burst. This would ameliorate the effect of targeted pinpoint damage by making it harder to place all of your damage on one hit location, leaving only PPCs and Gauss Rifles as true sniping weapons.

The drawback, of course, and why I suspect I'll never see this implemented, is that it will make autocannons and lasers somewhat more similar, and could be seen as reducing the variety of feel. It would also benefit lights more than larger/slower 'mechs, altering balance on the battlefield (and likely requiring a final solution to hit registration before implementation.)

Obviously, I believe that the drawbacks are worth the benefits, especially given the fact that while we do have big single-shot weapons, and little constant-fire weapons, we lack that satisfying "boom-boom-boom!" of a heavy burst-firing weapon. This change could actually be more lore-friendly, since most autocannons are described as rapid-fire weapons, and less tabletop-friendly, since ACs did all their damage to a single hit location in the tabletop game.

More likely, we'll see slight changes in heat or reductions in rate of fire, depending on how PGI's telemetry and testing leads them to believe the weapons are overperforming.

[MisterPlanetarian]

AC's would still retain superior DPS relative to Heat output, their intended advantage over energy weapons.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 12:27 PM, said:

Has PGI confirmed that is actually the case? Seems like it would need to at least do a single point of damage to affect the internal components.

Trauglodyte, on 21 March 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

I don't know if doing NO damage to the IS can trigger a crit. It might be that you caused like 0.01 points of damage which is enough for it to happen. But, the fact that you only did 0.01 damage, as an example, and yet lucked up with 3 crits for full damage is silly. Granted, that was the way it was in TT too but TTK is an extremely sore subject in this game.

I can indeed confirm this is the case from shooting at the mechs in Training Grounds. I posted my methodology and results in the Crits and You thread. I'll repost it here:

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 January 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

One thing I want to add that wasn't mentioned is that I believe you don't actually have to take internal damage on a component for an item to be destroyed. If a weapon impact removes all the armor from a component, the game triggers a crit roll, and then applies all the damage from that attack to an item if successful.

On one occasion a weapon impact (PPC I think) managed to destroy all the armor from one of my components without dealing any damage to the internal structure, yet I still lost an item (either a heatsink or weapon) in that component. This was before they added the 15% crit damage transfer to internals. It seem like a crit roll occurs when all the armor is removed from the targeted component, and if successful, deals the weapon's damage to that component regardless of how much of the damage was applied to armor (in my particular case, all of it).



EDIT: I can confirm that this is the case.



I hit the Centurion's left arm with exactly 20 machine gun rounds at point blank range to reduce its armor to 30 points. I then hit it 3 times with my PPC, which stripped the armor entirely without damaging the internals. I then did the same to the right arm. On the final PPC shot, the AC10 was destroyed by a critical hit. The damage was transferred to the internals, causing the arm to go yellow.

[Cimarb]

Void Angel, on 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

I would like to see most -or all -autocannons go to a burst fire system - not hitscan damage, but a true three-round burst. This would ameliorate the effect of targeted pinpoint damage by making it harder to place all of your damage on one hit location, leaving only PPCs and Gauss Rifles as true sniping weapons.

I agree. I don't at all want to change them into "shelled lasers". I want to see a variety of firing rates and caliber sizes so I can pick the AC20 I want, the AC5 I want, etc. Each of these should give me benefits and penalties, but be roughly equivalent in potential.

I don't think PPCs should be left alone, and have my ideas in a poll: http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Gauss are good to go with the charge mechanic, IMO. It's actually really fun to use once you get the hang of it.

Void Angel, on 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

The drawback, of course, and why I suspect I'll never see this implemented, is that it will make autocannons and lasers somewhat more similar, and could be seen as reducing the variety of feel. It would also benefit lights more than larger/slower 'mechs, altering balance on the battlefield (and likely requiring a final solution to hit registration before implementation.)

Not if different variations are implemented for each class. If 2-3 AC20s, 2-3 AC10s, 2-3 AC5s, and 2-3 AC2s are available, or even more, I don't think there will be any issue with people saying that they are all similar to lasers.

Void Angel, on 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

Obviously, I believe that the drawbacks are worth the benefits, especially given the fact that while we do have big single-shot weapons, and little constant-fire weapons, we lack that satisfying "boom-boom-boom!" of a heavy burst-firing weapon. This change could actually be more lore-friendly, since most autocannons are described as rapid-fire weapons, and less tabletop-friendly, since ACs did all their damage to a single hit location in the tabletop game.

Technically, only missiles spread their damage in TT, so ALL other weapons did their damage to a single hit location in tabletop, including lasers. I get what you meant, but some people want to grab onto comments like that to argue...

Void Angel, on 21 March 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

More likely, we'll see slight changes in heat or reductions in rate of fire, depending on how PGI's telemetry and testing leads them to believe the weapons are overperforming.

Unfortunately, you will probably be right, but baby steps... At least they are looking into them...