517 replies to this topic

[FactorlanP]

3rdworld, on 21 March 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Knowing PGI.

Rate of Fire & Ghost Heat.

Or something new! Ghost Rate of Fire! Or Ghost Ballistics drop! Or Ghost Cool Down!

[Eddrick]

I didn't know Pulse Lasers had a duration of 0.6 sec

Pulse Lasers are too much what Standard Lasers are like. I would prefer them be full auto. Like Laser Machine Guns.

Edited by Eddrick, 21 March 2014 - 03:57 PM.

[Zolaz]

They are adjusting ACs because everyone is using them. Because they are the most heat efficient weapons in the game. You know since the screwed all the laser weapons with Ghost Heat. LRMs should make a come back with the speed buff they got. At least LRMs can hit lights again.

ACs will get the nerf bat. PGI will think that corrects the problem and the forums will rage. Business as usual in MWO.

[3rdworld]

FactorlanP, on 21 March 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

Or something new! Ghost Rate of Fire! Or Ghost Ballistics drop! Or Ghost Cool Down!

Why would you say that?

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

if there are two things they do NOT need it's a burst fire mechanic and slower projectiles. Bloody ac20 lobs it shell at the same velocity as my .45 ACP 1911 already. Pretty laughable.

Agreed. Though AC damage doesn't come from velocity but rather the explosive shell, lowering speeds or turning ACs into DoTs isn't the answer.

I do believe that changing the Max Range compared to the Optimum Range is the answer for bringing ACs back into line and the way you keep ACs different from Lasers is you give Energy Weapons a non-linear damage decay while giving ACs linear damage decay.

That is, have AC Max Range be 2x Optimum Range like it is now for Energy. Change Energy Weapons from a Linear Damage Decay (Every 1% past optimum range equals a 1% damage loss) to a non-linear decay with a steep drop (The first 25% past optimum range only loses 10%, at 50% past optimum range damage loss ~75%, 50% to 100% past optimum range has a slow decay from 75% damage loss to 100% damage loss.)

What does this do? This compresses engagement range. AC weapons aren't able to deal damage at extreme ranges, sniping is more limited to specialized sniping weapons (I might even say have the Gauss Rifle not be changed, kept at 3x optimum range.) This also boosts energy by having them perform better than ACs in that Optimum Range +25% bracket, making MLs, MPLs and LPLs stronger choices.

This does nothing against how ACs are used in short range or has any negative effect on short ranged jump sniping or brawling. This does limit Sniper Options and pushes mechs built for sniping into weapons that are less suited for brawling, producing more 'roles' within the game and less 'jack of all trades.'

[wanderer]

Gauss rifles don't really need a performance change based on "bore size", they're already being balanced by awkward firing mechanics.

I'm also for -shorter- bursts for AC's that switch 1 for 1 down to a lower damage weapon. Set the default at 4 shells, (a .4 duration burst) and increase/decrease it by original weapon hardpoint type.

Put an AC/2 in a Hunchback's AC/20 slot? Make it a single-shot weapon. If it puts 2 in? Treat them as if it was an AC/10 slot, 2 shells (.2 duration) per AC/2. Three? Effectively AC/2's in an AC/5 slot, 3 round burst (.3 duration). What sizes? MG, AC/2, AC/5-UAC/5, AC/10-Gauss-LB-10X, AC/20. MG's and Gauss don't change in performance based on mount size, but have a size rating to show how an AC fits in the same slot. A K2 mounting an AC/20? MG slot, firing AC/20- +4 sizes, .8 duration. The K2's AC/20 fires eight shells for a total of 20 damage. A Blackjack replacing it's AC/2 with an AC/20? +3, fires 6 shells. Jagermech in it's AC/5 slot? +2, 5 shells. Orion in it's AC/10 slots? +1, leave it at 4 shells, ditto an "even-up" AC/20 in an AC/20 mount.

+4 = .8 duration shot
+3 = .6 duration shot
+2 = .5 duration shot
+1/0 = .4 duration shot
-1 = .3 duration shot
-2 = .2 duration shot
-3 = Single-shot weapon.

If a 'Mech has multiple hardpoints for a single weapon, take the weapon size and drop it a step for each additional weapon tucked in- 2 ballistic HP's with a single stock AC/10? One AC fits in as if it's an AC/10, two as if each was being tucked into an AC/5 slot, minimum "MG" size of course.

Take the Banshee. One AC/5, quad ballistic hardpoints. Put two AC's in and they're treated as being put into AC/2 slots, three or four as if they were MG's (so triple AC/5 = +2, firing .5 duration bursts, mixed AC/2 AC/5 quad mount would be .4 for the AC/2's (+1), .5 for the AC/5's (+2). Stuff an AC/20 into the AC/5 slot? Again, +2 for a .5 duration shot. AC/10 + AC/2? AC/10 is +2, AC/2 is +0. AC/10 + 2 AC/2? AC/10 is +3, AC/2's are +1. AC/10 + 3 AC/2's? AC/10 is +4, AC/2's are still +1.

Performance varies by chassis and stock mounts, much like missiles.

Edited by wanderer, 21 March 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[stjobe]

Burst-fire.

Why? Since it's the solution that fixes the most problems by the least amount of disruption. It allows us to retain pin-point accuracy, it allows us to retain HSR, and it still manages to alleviate the pin-point instant-damage alpha problem. It also increases TTK without having to raise armour or internal values, and if done right it'll not even affect your ability to put all your damage in one location from time to time (if you're good or if the target is bad).

I've posted extensively on the issue (as many of you are well aware, both those who agree and those who disagree) so I'll just quote a post I made in another AC thread instead of typing out the same arguments for the umpteenth time:

stjobe, on 12 March 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

I don't think anyone really wants to nerf pin-point accuracy; what most people seem to want toned down is the efficiency of the combination of
1. pin-point accuracy,
2. perfect convergence of multiple weapons onto that pin-point, and
3. instant delivery of all those multiple weapons' damage to that pin-point.

In fact, most people seem to prefer if weapons stay pin-point accurate, and damage done is spread out by some non-random mechanic - like e.g. burst-fire, beam duration, missile spread, or something else.

Spreading damage out in beams, bursts, or missile flights simulates random hit locations by a non-random mechanic; under perfect conditions - close range, stationary firer and target, sunny skies, and a fair breeze - you can still put all your damage in one location.

The problem with how ACs and PPCs work in the current system is that they also allow you to put all your damage in one location at extreme ranges, on moving targets, while moving at top speed yourself.

No other weapons can do this, and that's why some of us would like to see ACs changed to a burst mechanic (and PPC to beam duration or splash damage) - just to put them on equal footing with the other weapon systems.

If doing so means we'd have to further tweak their other characteristics, like damage, heat, range, etc, then so be it; that is a minor balancing issue. These weapons being superior through their damage dealing mechanic is a major balance issue.

[Mirkk Defwode]

SuckyJack, on 21 March 2014 - 02:08 PM, said:

Agreed. Though AC damage doesn't come from velocity but rather the explosive shell, lowering speeds or turning ACs into
...

No, Kinect Energy as applied for projectiles impacting an object do have applied force. The explosion is to compound the effects of the projectile striking an object. Also the assumption that all ammunition is explosive in nature is debatable for the Battletech universe, as currently we have purpose to serve ammunition that fits for many situations and opposition types.

Pure kinect energy weapons like the Rods of God apply immense kinect energy making it so an explosive is not required. This energy is compounded by the mass of the projectile as well. Meteor Crater is a great example of little (celestial) object - big hole. Though that comparison is a bit extreme just demonstrates the point. Another smaller scale example is the capabilities of a real Gauss Rifle test firing solid projectile doing immense damage from just having an extremely high velocity. Infact the gauss rifle in the game goes too slow compared to real test firings done today.

Not to mention many of the ideas discussed in this thread have already been talked about in this thread which has really come to no avail.

We all agree there is an issue, we all have quite a few plausible solutions that should be investigated and thoroughly tested.

My personal belief is we should get a variable weapon system based on a multitude of manufacturers that have differing behaviors within an acceptable range of classification. These would then allow for people to have diverse builds that can account for many differing perspectives and types of gameplay. As we know from the fiction that these manufacturers exist and their behavior differs from the novels, much of this to the choices of the authors, and a similar system exists in addition to being tested for another modern battletech title one could be implemented here. While this is a severe and major overhaul to do that across the entire title and wouldn't have any great value beyond some variety until Community Warfare comes out. Then this would shine as mech factories already have value, now add in arms factories on other planets to be contested for with similar results applied to the cost of getting weapons components.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 21 March 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Someone has to play devils advocate because otherwise people dont contemplate the worse case scenario or examine something from all angles and all opinions.

That is the correct use for it, yes, but when you argue just to argue the point, you have lost that correct usage.

Varent, on 21 March 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Its a nice idea... but I think the different manufacturers would be better. Here is why:

1) allows for not only different types of burst but different lengths. You could have longer and shorter lengths wich could be balanced on heat and cd as well as range, ammo etc. This makes a more dynamic system other then just missle tubes.

2) if you put in a missle tube system it could directly conflict with a manufacturer system.

3) It is too specific and only really hampers certain play styles. Right now AC are balanced on different styles of play, not by size... so are lasers, etc. Simply putting in this system doest.. necesarily change things.. it just limits a few styles... wich is kinda a bad thing.

The first two are very good points, the third I don't agree with, but focus on me agreeing with the first two

Eddrick, on 21 March 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I didn't know Pulse Lasers Pulse every 0.6 sec

Pulse Lasers are too much what Standard Lasers are like. I would prefer them be full auto. Like Laser Machine Guns.

They pulse FOR 0.6 seconds, not every 0.6 seconds. Big difference. I do think they could be changed to fire continuously, which is a great idea, as long as you could manage your heat.

[Varent]

Eddrick, on 21 March 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

I didn't know Pulse Lasers Pulse every 0.6 sec

Pulse Lasers are too much what Standard Lasers are like. I would prefer them be full auto. Like Laser Machine Guns.

I agree, sadly this isnt a popular stance.

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

That is the correct use for it, yes, but when you argue just to argue the point, you have lost that correct usage.

I dont do this. I try to think of the view points of the many people I game with as well as the many play styles of gamers and there questions and concerns.

Cimarb, on 21 March 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

The first two are very good points, the third I don't agree with, but focus on me agreeing with the first two

its the dps argument. *shrug*

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Here are my thoughts, based on feedback.

1. Reduce maximum range from 3x to 2x
It looks like a number of people moving to 2.5x rather than 2.0x. I would suggest that the AC20 and AC10 have already had their projectile speed lowered to the point where firing them beyond 2x range is very difficult. And that even at 2x range multiplier, the AC5, AC2, and UAC5 base ranges allow them to out range everything but an ER PPC, being on par with an ER Large Laser.

2. Projectile speeds
This idea didn’t get much traction, and I agree.

3. Cooldown.
A number of people like lowering the overall DPS of ACs, and I somewhat agree.
AC 20 stays the same. 20 Dam, 4.0 cooldown, 5.0 DPS (1.5 HPS)
AC 10 stays the same. 10 Dam, 2.5 cooldown, 4.0 DPS (1.2 HPS)
AC 5 changes. 5 Dam, 2.0 cooldown, 2.5 DPS (0.5 HPS)
AC 2 changes. 2 Dam, 1.0 cooldown, 2.0 DPS (1.0 HPS)
Corollary to this a minor heat adjustment
AC 5 increases to 1.5 heat (0.75 HPS)
AC 2 drops to 0.75 heat (0.75 HPS) and Ghost Heat threshold is increased or removed.

This drops the AC2 into sub LL DPS (barely) but at less than half the HPS and a 60% greater optimal range, it is still a very viable option for 1 more ton. The AC5 takes the biggest hit, but performance-wise this is where it should be compared to the other ACs (I think AC5 was hyper inflated to keep up with the UAC5).

4. Burst fire
Mixed reviews. I am not a fan of Burst fire, I agree that it blurs the difference between beams and ballistics. Although someone suggested the burst based on chassis, and that was intriguing.

5. Reduced Ammo
I was surprised by the number of people who like this solution. It seems like a tonnage tax that doesn’t directly address the issue, but I’ll play devils advocate. I think what people may be searching for is actually damage cap per match. Obviously the cap has to be low enough that players can potentially run out of ammo in a match, but what value? 400 damage? That means you get only 20 AC/20 shots or 80 AC/5. I am not 100% onboard with this idea, but it would definitely change the way battle is conducted, almost forcing a brawling battle at some point.

6. Increase Critical slots by 1
This wasn’t well received. And maybe it was a heavy handed approach to limit users to 1 AC5 per arm unless specifically designed to do so, like a Jagermech, Victor and Highlander… OK, I see the problem now.

7. Recoil
Mixed reviews, on this. I think the most compelling being that it doesn’t actually nerf autocannons unless you use a UAC5 or chain-fire. It was also mentioned that it desyncs ACs from other non-projectile weapons, which is a bad thing. As a balance tool I think it is a bad idea, as an immersion feature, I think it would be cooler than a plexiglass windshield.

8. Ammo Location
Another mixed review. I really like this idea, primarily because this is how the TROs built mechs, and CASE suddenly has a very important purpose.

9. Convergence
Only included because it is a hot-topic. I probably should have left it out since it affects everything, not just ACs.

10. Projectile Dropoff
As someone who has attempted to run a Rifleman build (2x LG, 2x AC5) I am not a big fan as it hurts weapon diversity.

TL;DR
I really like: 1. Reduced Max Range; 2. Longer Cooldown.
I kinda like: 5. Reduced Ammo; 8. Ammo Location Restriction.

Edited by Agent 0 Fortune, 21 March 2014 - 03:45 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Mirkk Defwode, on 21 March 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

No, Kinect Energy as applied for projectiles impacting an object do have applied force. [snip]

Nice nitpick. Thank you for pointing out that for many small scale ballistics like firearms the stopping power comes purely from kinetic force. Same is true for linear rail weapons like the Gauss Rifle. Ship Class cannons often use a delayed fuse for detonation after penetration and SABOT rounds are just a kinetic rod in a boot.

Yet, the tradition Anti-Armor round or HEAT round doesn't use the kinetic force of it's impact. It uses an explosive charge to propel a jet of molten metal to cut it's way through. High Tech Anti-Armor weapons like the Javelin Missile actually use a dual charge system to defeat armor, often raising the temperature of the target to the point that it would cook anyone inside it.

Not saying that BT does use explosive shells, I'm saying that MWO does use explosive shells and there is a difference between having a kinetic force at impact (hint: everything does) and having a weapon system designed to use kinetic force to cause damage instead as a delivery system for an explosive charge. But for most ACs in the BT setting explosive rounds would have been favored as they are not impacted by velocity decay in the same way that pure kinetic weapons are.

Ammo Explosion rules also support BT ACs being explosive rounds.

The problem with Delayed Detonation weapon systems is that if the armor of the target prevents penetration then the explosive charge within does little to no damage as said charge isn't shaped to penetrate armor.

[FactorlanP]

3rdworld, on 21 March 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:

Why would you say that?

Well, I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek... But I was attempting to hint that they sometimes choose overly complex and unintuitive systems to make balance changes.

[Mirkk Defwode]

SuckyJack, on 21 March 2014 - 03:52 PM, said:

Nice nitpick. Thank you for pointing out that for many small scale ballistics like firearms the stopping power comes purely from kinetic force. Same is true for linear rail weapons like the Gauss Rifle. Ship Class cannons often use a delayed fuse for detonation after penetration and SABOT rounds are just a kinetic rod in a boot.

Yet, the tradition Anti-Armor round or HEAT round doesn't use the kinetic force of it's impact. It uses an explosive charge to propel a jet of molten metal to cut it's way through. High Tech Anti-Armor weapons like the Javelin Missile actually use a dual charge system to defeat armor, often raising the temperature of the target to the point that it would cook anyone inside it.

Not saying that BT does use explosive shells, I'm saying that MWO does use explosive shells and there is a difference between having a kinetic force at impact (hint: everything does) and having a weapon system designed to use kinetic force to cause damage instead as a delivery system for an explosive charge. But for most ACs in the BT setting explosive rounds would have been favored as they are not impacted by velocity decay in the same way that pure kinetic weapons are.

Ammo Explosion rules also support BT ACs being explosive rounds.

The problem with Delayed Detonation weapon systems is that if the armor of the target prevents penetration then the explosive charge within does little to no damage as said charge isn't shaped to penetrate armor.

I don't disagree, but the rounds could be HEAP or just stand HE - the behaviors are then different.

I'd never discount the value of even a dud shell striking a target either. The force at which it strikes could do potentially severe damage.

Also to be a little more nitpicky. Ammo explosions based off the projectiles in the torso doesn't indicate exploding shells, or explosive propellent. But they could also be explosive shells with explosive propellent.

Either way - point is moot, I just wanted to raise the fact that objects with substantial mass striking at high speeds do generate sufficient damage to warrant questioning the velocity of the ballistics as a means of adjusting the weapons.

[Eddrick]

I fixed mine to say "Duration" instead of "Pulse".

Really, Burst Fire ACs can't really be done while Pulse Lasers fire they do. Which, Pulse Lasers need to change anyway. If Pulse Lasers change to a different firing mechanic. Burst Fire ACs can have whatever duration they need as long as it is different then Standard Lasers.

[Bilbo]

Eddrick, on 21 March 2014 - 04:08 PM, said:

I fixed mine to say "Duration" instead of "Pulse".

Really, Burst Fire ACs can't really be done while Pulse Lasers fire they do. Which, Pulse Lasers need to change anyway. If Pulse Lasers change to a different firing mechanic. Burst Fire ACs can have whatever duration they need as long as it is different then Standard Lasers.

Pulse lasers are instant hit (visually) and can still be drawn back to the target. If AC's become burst fire with a short enough burst duration, the rounds are down range before you can drag to the target.

[Sug]

Ballistics have no drawbacks to balance them.


Give them less ammo per ton, fewer hitpoints for ammo critical slots, and a 100% chance for ammo to explode when crit (It's 10% now) and maybe increase the cooldown to lower the dps.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Sug, on 21 March 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

Ballistics have no drawbacks to balance them.


Give them less ammo per ton, fewer hitpoints for ammo critical slots, and a 100% chance for ammo to explode when crit (It's 10% now) and maybe increase the cooldown to lower the dps.

Weight is their drawback, as well as limited ammo.

You're right in saying their weight as a drawback is mitigated by their damage potential though.

[SirLankyIII]

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).

This I like, make ballistic hardpoints sized like missile hardpoints are i.e. 2, 5, 10 & 20. Not sure about guass though, maybe it can only go in a 5 or higher as the slug is too big for an AC 2 bore.

[Sug]

Mirkk Defwode, on 21 March 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

Weight is their drawback, as well as limited ammo.

You're right in saying their weight as a drawback is mitigated by their damage potential though.

Weight is only an issue for lights/meds that can't boat ballistics. Short term damage potential makes them worth it for heavier mechs. And no one is running out of ammo in a match except maybe boats with 3+ of the same weapon, after they do 800+ damage.

They need to adjust them in a way that doesn't overly punish people using a single ballistic weapon. Realistically the only way they can is through ghost heat, projectile speed, damage, heat, range, and cooldown. Those are the only things they've ever changed.

They can't adjust slots or weight because of stock mechs, and they're not going to add recoil because honestly it would take them two years to figure it out.

Increasing cool downs would just make popping out of cover more viable. I'm all for more dakkka though so maybe a damage per projectile decrease but a rate of fire increase.

Edited by Sug, 21 March 2014 - 04:27 PM.