517 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 06:56 AM, said:

The Ammo argument I cannot really comment on. I was not here when we had TT Ammo amounts... I follow the logic used, but question the standard. I like the increase, but could work around less per ton I think.

I am on the "nerf AC" camp, but am totally against ammo changes, as it doesn't fix anything that actually needs fixing. RoF/burst, range and recoil are really the only things that will be worth the work. Of those, range is the easiest fix, and RoF/burst is a pretty simple fix as well.

[Cimarb]

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

stjobe, on 26 March 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

So, being a programmer, I was thinking about how difficult it would be to turn ACs into burst-fire weapons (it makes a nice change from bashing my head against trying to get a very peculiar 32-bit COM DLL running on a 64-bit .Net server application).

As it turns out, it most likely wouldn't be hard at all. In fact, I doubt if it would take a programmer more than half a day's work to get it ready for testing. Here's what I figure:

All weapons have an entry in ItemStats.xml that looks like this:

<Weapon id="1020" name="AutoCannon10">
<Loc nameTag="@AC10" descTag="@AC10_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\AutoCannon10.dds"/>
<WeaponStats Health="10" slots="7" type="Ballistic" projectileclass="bullet" numFiring="1" damage="10" heatdamage="0" impulse="0.06" heat="3.0" cooldown="2.5" ammoType="AC10Ammo" ammoPerShot="1" minRange="0" longRange="450" maxRange="1350" tons="12" duration="0.0" lifetime="10.0" speed="950" volleydelay="0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" maxDepth="10.0"/>
<EffectList>
<Effect name="Projectile" asset="objects/weapons/autocannon_shell.cgf" scale="1.0" mass="10"/>
<Effect name="ProjectileMaterial" asset="mat_ac10"/>
<Effect name="Muzzle" asset="mech_weapons.autocannon_10.muzzle_flash"/>
<Effect name="MuzzleFP" asset="mech_weapons.autocannon_10.muzzle_flash_fp"/>
<Effect name="Sound:Fire" asset="sounds/weapons:cannon:ac10_fire" float="0.0"/>
<Effect name="Sound:PostFire" asset="sounds/weapons:cannon:ac10_tail" float="0.0"/>
<Effect name="Sound:Reload" asset="sounds/weapons:cannon:ac10_reload" float="1.5"/>
<Effect name="DamageBrush" asset="Textures\\decals\\damage_brushes\\ac_20.tif"/>
<Effect name="DamageBrushType" asset="direct" float="32" float2="32"/>
</EffectList>
<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_AutoCannon_Destroyed"/>
</Weapon>

The interesting part is in the WeaponStats tag:

<WeaponStats Health="10" slots="7" type="Ballistic" projectileclass="bullet" numFiring="1" damage="10" heatdamage="0" impulse="0.06" heat="3.0" cooldown="2.5" ammoType="AC10Ammo" ammoPerShot="1" minRange="0" longRange="450" maxRange="1350" tons="12" duration="0.0" lifetime="10.0" speed="950" volleydelay="0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" maxDepth="10.0"/>

This tag defines, among other things, the damage, heat, cooldown, and duration of any beam.

To make ACs into burst-fire weapons, two new attributes would need to be added to this tag: burstsize and burstspeed. These would define how many rounds per burst the weapon has, and how fast the weapon fires the burst.

(or they could repurpose two of the tags not used for ACs, like numFiring for burstsize and duration for burstspeed)

For our hypothetical burst-fire AC/10, the WeaponStats tag might look like this:

<WeaponStats Health="10" slots="7" type="Ballistic" projectileclass="bullet" numFiring="1" damage="2.5" heatdamage="0" impulse="0.06" heat="3.0" cooldown="2.1" ammoType="AC10Ammo" ammoPerShot="1" minRange="0" longRange="450" maxRange="1350" tons="12" duration="0.0" burstsize="4" burstspeed="0.1" lifetime="10.0" speed="950" volleydelay="0" gravity="0,0,-9.8" maxDepth="10.0"/>

This would make the AC/10 fire a four-round burst, four projectiles of 2.5 damage each, at 0.1-second intervals (so 0.4 seconds for the whole burst) before going on cooldown for 2.1 seconds (making it have the same DPS as before).

The firing code would then need to be modified to fire the weapon burstsize number of times at burstspeed interval before going on cooldown, instead of just firing once (this is the part that actually would need some programmer time), and that's it.

That's the whole change needed to make ACs burst-fire.

[wanderer]

Missiles past max effective range drop off- to zero.

That is, they self-destruct. There is no range past "effective"- or if LRMs had similar reach to even energy weapons,they'd tap out at 2000m.

People whiffle constantly on the problem- and it is one, singular problem - and that is that a weapon that deals it's full damage to a single point is broken in MWO unless given something that severely alters it's ability to do so. Gauss have a charge mechanism that vastly shrink it's "firing windows". Honestly, AC's should be pumping out short bursts (with a "caliber" system for hardpoints, that could even be varied around a .4 duration, 4 shell "standard" burst) of shells, PPCs either getting a bit more cooldown or "splash/arc" damage spread.

[Joseph Mallan]

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:

StJobe is an awesome guy. But we already can see how rapid fire AC20s would work. The AC2 is a rapid fire AC20 for about 1/2 the weight. And a mess of Excess heat from firing so fast.

I disagree Wanderer the issue is convergence. If I had 4 AC20 and they all hit different locations there would be much less complaining. IF PGI cannot get a fix for this out of the present system or programmers, then they needed a better system from the start or better programmers.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 27 March 2014 - 07:29 AM.

[VXJaeger]

If this ultimately stupid nerfing fever continues, in the end we end up throwing sticks and stones to eachother.
And then even rocks would be nerfed to styrofoam mades so that none get hurt.

[Joseph Mallan]

VXJaeger, on 27 March 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

If this ultimately stupid nerfing fever continues, in the end we end up throwing sticks and stones to eachother.
And then even rocks would be nerfed to styrofoam mades so that none get hurt.

Or we'll log in. hit launch... and win.

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 March 2014 - 07:25 AM, said:

StJobe is an awesome guy. But we already can see how rapid fire AC20s would work. The AC2 is a rapid fire AC20 for about 1/2 the weight. And a mess of Excess heat from firing so fast.

I disagree Wanderer the issue is convergence. If I had 4 AC20 and they all hit different locations there would be much less complaining. IF PGI cannot get a fix for this out of the present system or programmers, then they needed a better system from the start or better programmers.

We know how that ONE version would work, and the fact that a "current-gen" AC2 is actually an AC20 version sadly shows how badly autocannons need adjusted!

You know I am in favor of keeping some versions of autocannons front-loaded, but as wanderer said, it should come with a balancing factor of some sort, such as longer reload times, jamming issues, recoil, or something. All of these could be done in the manufacturer approach I have spammed every chance I get (see my signature).

Also, if you had four AC20s on one mech, I don't care if they have horrible convergence or not, people are going to complain, lol. It would be like getting hit with an AC5 firing AC20 shells - you just have to chainfire it!

VXJaeger, on 27 March 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

If this ultimately stupid nerfing fever continues, in the end we end up throwing sticks and stones to eachother.
And then even rocks would be nerfed to styrofoam mades so that none get hurt.

They just buffed LRMs to bring them in line, and I think it was a great change as you finally saw people using them regularly, instead of as a gimmick weapon. Now if we bring autocannons in line and can get some technical solutions for the SRM issue, I really think the weapon balance will be top notch. Lasers are essentially in the middle here, so they should be the benchmark - good enough to use regularly, but not better than everything else.

[VXJaeger]

Weapons will never be "in balance". There's always some n00b ******* who gets killed by weaponsystem he doesn't like, and same nerf-screaming starts all over again.

[jper4]

cutting the range down to 2x would be the most important change to me.

of lesser importance the ac20 should not be outdamaging the ac10 in the ac10's primary range as others have said. maybe slight decreases to the ac2 and ac5 ammo/ton, ac10 and 20 are fine. also a bit more of a height drop to acs when firing beyond their normal range so if you aim that AC2 at someone's head at max range it hits them in the feet.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 27 March 2014 - 07:39 AM, said:

You know I am in favor of keeping some versions of autocannons front-loaded, but as wanderer said, it should come with a balancing factor of some sort, such as longer reload times, jamming issues, recoil, or something. All of these could be done in the manufacturer approach I have spammed every chance I get (see my signature).

Also, if you had four AC20s on one mech, I don't care if they have horrible convergence or not, people are going to complain, lol. It would be like getting hit with an AC5 firing AC20 shells - you just have to chainfire it!

I agree and could likely still use my Hammer of the Gods front loaded ACs... Back in the early TRO3025 The Centurion or the Clint had jamming issues in the fluff text. and he Hunchback from the Foxteeth (IIRC) Had issues with it falling on its butt due to recoil! I am willing to work with folks so as to keep BFGs in the game.

[Coralld]

@VXJaeger

ACs never really got a balance over hall. The only thing that ACs got hit with nerf wise is Ghost Heat and a slight bump in heat but that only really effected AC2s but AC2s are still very nasty.

Oh, and the AC20 had its projectile speed lowered somewhat and UAC5 had its jam rate go up slightly and made it so the UAC fired at the same rate as the AC5 when not using its double tap ability.

And despite all that they are still superior to most weapons.

The fact is Lasers are balanced for the most part, Pulses could use a buff to be sure. LRMs are now useful as are Streaks, SRMs need the bug that's making them underperform to be resolved. Now its the FLD dealers turn. However Gauss is fine where it is for now.

[TygerLily]

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

• Reduce maximum range from 3x to 2x
  
• Reduce projectile speeds
  
• Increase Cooldown (lower rate of fire)
  
• Burst fire (beam-like damage)
  
• Reduce Ammo per ton
  
• Increase critical slots by 1
  
• Recoil (based on impulse)
  
• Ammo location requirements (ammo has to be in same component or adjacent component)
  
• Convergence (based on weapon tonnage)
  
• Increase drop-off rate of autocannon rounds (from Coralld)

Range/Projectile Speed/Cooldown/Critspace
I think range, proj speed, crit space and rate of fire are generally good. I do think the AC/10 could use a tweak: maybe, range from 450 to 520 and a speed to 1,000.

Reduce Ammo Per Ton
If rounds per ton went down a little bit I wouldn't be sad.

Burst Fire
Whoever suggested (Trogladyte, I think) that AC slots have a set "calibur" like LRMs have a "tube count" is genius. The LRM thing always seems strangely strict while other things (like an engin for a 25 ton mech taking up the same space as an engine moving a 100 ton mech) were fluid. Suspension of disbelief is no problem for me but this calibur would really add a cool dimension to autocannons.

Examples: A mech has an AC/2 slot.
- You put in an AC/5 and it does a "two round burst" of 2.5 damage per round at a range of 620 meters...
- Or an AC/20 would do you get a three-round-burst of 6.6 damage at 270 meters...
- Or an LB10X does a two round burst of 5 damage, shotgun style...

It might also offer new dimensions between similar variants of a mech...for example, some mechs are basically the same except one has 3 ballistic slots in the arm, one has 2 slots. Well, if the 3 slotted variant was tagged with the AC/2 calibur, you could potentially buff the AC out put by mouting AC/5s but it still maintains the role that AC/2 filled (lots of lead downrange) but at a shorter range. I can't stress how much I love this idea!

EDIT: I didn't think about UACs but maybe in addition to their burst-fire/jam mechanic they also have the benefit of not being affected by the slot calibur. And maybe Artemis should do the same for LRMs vs tube count...

Recoil
I'm not opposed to this but I dont' want a ton of it like I'm a person firing a .50 cal. I think someone suggested 60 to 80 percent of the screenshake you recieve when being hit...but that's way too much IMO. Just a tiny bit based on calibur...IE AC/2s are easier to keep on target than 5's, which are easier than 10, etc. Gauss should remain the same as it already has a crazy firing mechanism and it's hold-steady would further emphasize it as a sniper weapon.

Convergance
I don't think the nature of convergance will ever change for this game...and I think I'm fine with that. If they made torso weapons fire straight ahead from where the were mounted while arm weapons converged...I think I'd be all in for that. But that's probably a loaded suggestion that many wouldn't like...not really for this thread.

PS, I'm glad people are being constructive with this thread!

Edited by TygerLily, 27 March 2014 - 08:00 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

IF PGI cannot get a fix for this out of the present system or programmers, then they needed a better system from the start or better programmers

As I've said before- they can't fix convergence, and a "fix" that cannot be implemented is no fix at all.

We need changes that fall within PGI's level of competence. Altering convergence is none of those. Burst fire, on the other hand is the equivalent of "reskinning" existing weapons. If they can manage to butcher Clan weapons and "module" other ones, this IS within their abilities.

Should only take three patches and half the year if they get started yesterday.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 27 March 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

As I've said before- they can't fix convergence, and a "fix" that cannot be implemented is no fix at all.

We need changes that fall within PGI's level of competence. Altering convergence is none of those. Burst fire, on the other hand is the equivalent of "reskinning" existing weapons. If they can manage to butcher Clan weapons and "module" other ones, this IS within their abilities.

Should only take three patches and half the year if they get started yesterday.

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

[Astrocanis]

Trauglodyte, on 21 March 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Flavor, buddy, flavor. Plus, if ACs are going to shake you when you get hit, they should damn well shake you when you fire. What it does is desync them from everything else. Light ACs (2s and 5s) were build for long range fire. 10s were build for mid-range and the 20 at short. You shouldn't be alpha striking ACs with other weapons. They already don't synergize with anything else when you're trying to lead a target, except for PPCs (mistake).

If I'm not making any sense, I'm sorry. Lack of sleep, lack of food (fasting atm), and I've got the caffeine shakes from the Excedrin that I took for my headache.

That makes the assumption that in 3050 they have never invented recoil damping.

The problem with the question posed is that it's an invitation to overnerf ballistics. We have the same people saying the LRM buff was poorly calculated when adding NARC improvements saying that we should essentially nerf ballistics to an unusable state. For illustration look at "must have peed in your cheerios".

My take will be deeply unpopular: do very, very small changes to ballistic weapons. Not anything sweeping. Sweeping pisses people, including me, off.

[LORD TSARKON]

There will be no BURST FIRE AUTOCANNONS....

Paul just stated that major weapon tuning will not happen.. they are happy with the current State of weapon Balancing..

but he did say Autocannons will be "adjusted"...

Look at simpler things to adjust..

Added Heat..

Reduced Range

Reduced Speed

Reduced Ammo


One or some or ALL of those things ARE going to happen... within the next month.....

To radically change an entire weapon system to burst fire is beyond what PGI could probably do right now with Launch module and Clans and Community Warfare coming.... The 3 people they have on these jobs are already complaining of no breaks and vacation..

Think of the people first

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 21 March 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Flavor, buddy, flavor. Plus, if ACs are going to shake you when you get hit, they should damn well shake you when you fire. What it does is desync them from everything else. Light ACs (2s and 5s) were build for long range fire. 10s were build for mid-range and the 20 at short. You shouldn't be alpha striking ACs with other weapons. They already don't synergize with anything else when you're trying to lead a target, except for PPCs (mistake).

If I'm not making any sense, I'm sorry. Lack of sleep, lack of food (fasting atm), and I've got the caffeine shakes from the Excedrin that I took for my headache.

30 years of Alpha Striking says you are wrong sir.

LORD TSARKON, on 27 March 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

There will be no BURST FIRE AUTOCANNONS....

Paul just stated that major weapon tuning will not happen.. they are happy with the current State of weapon Balancing..

but he did say Autocannons will be "adjusted"...

Look at simpler things to adjust..

Added Heat..

Reduced Range

Reduced Speed

Reduced Ammo


One or some or ALL of those things ARE going to happen... within the next month.....

To radically change an entire weapon system to burst fire is beyond what PGI could probably do right now with Launch module and Clans and Community Warfare coming.... The 3 people they have on these jobs are already complaining of no breaks and vacation..

Think of the people first

Links or it wasn't said!

[wanderer]

Quote

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

Until PGI no longer produces "minimally viable product", they will hold the license, and thus, "They cannot" is the relevant term.

Quote

but he did say Autocannons will be "adjusted"...

And if it's tweaking AC's like they have everything else, the changes will be functionally useless.

Edited by wanderer, 27 March 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Prezimonto]

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

1- Reducing maximum range from 3x to 2.5x
1a - Recalculate extreme range so that the next larger AC doesn't outperform the one above (ie, the AC20 shouldn't out damage the AC10 at range, so on and so forth).

2- Drop AC5 velocity down to around 1200 and AC2 velocity down to 1500-1600; Gauss Rifle stays the same

3- Increase the cool down on the smaller ACs. The AC20 at 4dps is fine. The others should scale lower like Sm and Md Lasers vs Lrg Lasers and the smaller SRM/LRM launchers vs the 6 and 20.

4- Ammo needs to be dropped to TT levels. It would go a long way to preventing people from going ape shit with their ACs like they're MGs (they're not)

5- Recoil is needed to be equal to or near (60-75%) of the screen shake caused by the same ACs

6- AC2s, AC5s, and AC10s should be added to the PPC and Lrg Laser ghost heat tables

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).

I think I love you. All fine additions and #7 is inspired. It preserves single shot AC's in the game, but only for a select subset of mech variants designed to carry them. Everyone else get's something similar, but a little bit worse.

One thing I'd like to see added: a large increase in the explosion rate of ammunition. This would be a curb to LRM boats as well as AC's.

Edited by Prezimonto, 27 March 2014 - 08:21 AM.

[VXJaeger]

@Coralld: whatever, we europens still kick your 'murican asses no matter you do to weapons. You already have ping- and latency advantages compared to 150+ ping with crappy hit registeration and somewhat voodooish HSR, we will blast you to pieces.