517 replies to this topic

[Galenit]

Khobai, on 30 March 2014 - 08:06 PM, said:

Precise aiming absolutely is the problem.

100 ton front armor on centertorso vs 1 ppc / AC 10

mwo:
10 shoots armor gone

tt:
8 random hitlocations, more likely that you hit center or sidetorsos
You need around 60 shoots ...

To compensate aiming for one weapon, we would need 6x armor and internals in relation to tt.

-------------------------------------

Now lets do it with 2 ppcs:

MWO:
5 salvos (beause we have aiming and pinpoint damage without convergence.)

TT:
Around 40-50 salvos (iam not in the mood to do the math. Its just guessing.) They will hit mostly 2 different random hit locations out of 8.

To compensate aiming 2 weapons in one salvo you would need 9 x armor and internals in relation to tt.


The problem increases with every weapon you fire in one salvo ...

-----------------------------------

It also leads to a problem with all not spreading ammo based weapons.

pinpointdamage/randomhitlocatios*doublearmor
=
1/8x2=0,25

You need around 75% less ammo to do the same damage to one location with a ballistic pinpoint weapon in mwo.
MWO gives you 1,5x tt ammo.
This is meaning you have around 6x more ammo then in tt with them.


! This is no opinion, its just simplified pseudomath that not includes accuravy of player and other factors !

Edited by Galenit, 31 March 2014 - 01:33 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

@ Galenit Using Rick Raisley's Random roller:
7,3,3,12,7,7,11,8,7,8,4,7,4,6,9,4,8,7,5,8=6 rolls out of 20


8,6,4,7,2,8,7,4,8,8,5,3,7,7,5,5,8,4,7,5=5 rolls out of 20

That's 11 out of 40 or a bit over 27% of the rolls being CT.

Now on TT I would only have roughly 50% our armor So the first 20 rolls would have finished the CT.

[Karl Streiger]

OFFTOPIC:
Average number of shots to break an Atlas with TT armor values and a 10 point damage weapon is 41 - its the same with a better devensiv modificator to break a max armored 70t. With increasing defensiv modificator and reducing armor - the number of necessary shots (not hits) is increased (a 35t Jenner with a def mod of +3 need average of 67 shots with a PPC and all ranges to get killed)

When you transfer - the MWO PPC into TT (7ton targeting computer guided PPC with 20 dmg) you need 14 shots to kill a Atlas (roughly 25% of the expected number)
Its all statistic - thats the one reason why a simple increase of armor won't work - it destroys some balance (a Locust that eat a AC 20 into the torso and run away vs the simpleness to hit a Locust with a AC 20.

ONTOPIC:
I really wish we can get a drastically reduction of ammunition load.... hell i had 300shots on my Ilya (with 3 AC5)... and i did waste 80% of them.... that shouldn't be possible.... the maximum ammount of ammunition per weapons should be reduced to 2tons. Still 180shots -> but I'm forced to aim better (what isn't necessary with enough ammunition - simple hold the trigger and walk the fire over your enemy - the more hits the more damage the more Cbills - not very good principal...but it works)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 31 March 2014 - 04:14 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

AC-2, AC-10, AC-20 are all just about where they need to be IMO.

I'm willing to bet that most of the complaints still come from the AC-5 and UAC-5 Boats such as Ilya-M, and JagerMechs.
And people who use 2 AC-5 or UAC-5 in combination with PPC's to do the meta.

I would go as far as saying Gauss is also in need of something, but Heat would be good enough there as well.

If they were really serious about nerfing AC's, they'd start with dialing back heat on the Lasers a little.
Far as I'm concerned its not a huge issue with AC's being hugely overpowered as much as it is Beam weapons running way too hot in their comparisons.

Also, Single AC weapons are far from a problem, its boating 2-3 AC-5's or UAC5's or in the case of the JAG-DD loading up to 5 AC-2's, you'll never cool it, but in that short time that you're pissing lead, you're dealing some insane damage pinpoint accurate over vast distances.

I tried a 5x AC-2 build on my Jag once, and I was legging people or chopping off arms from 800 meters within about 1.5 seconds, thats a shitload of damage in such a short period of time. Granted I could only fire about 5-6 shots per cannon before I was near shutdown, but it didn't matter much because the damage was already dealt and I had plently of time to walk away to cool down.

Dial heat up a little bit on AC's, Dial back heat a fair ammount on Beam weapons, and you have a pretty simple solution.

There is also the issue of range, Honestly AC's should never lose as much damage over that range, since they use HEAT or HEDP ammo that explodes on contact according to the books.

Where AC's tend to do the most damage is 300 meters and under, anything over 400 and beyond takes a significant ammount of skill to land consistent damage, especially on any moving target.

Convergence could be the key, but not in the way you think.

If aiming at targets that are in short range(10-200m) had slower convergence, so that it is more of a shotgun effect within that range, it could balance things out considerably.

Let convergence be range based, and the farther away a target is, the quicker convergence comes together.

Its about Time on target, and up close these AC's do significant damage with high precision almost instantly because of their high speeds.

If AC's kept their precision ONLY for medium to long range (300-1000m+) it could make a significant impact.

It would need to be unique to each AC as far as how each one behaves as they've all got their own range bracket.

Its the little things that would help, what we don't need is a huge global nerf on the entire AC lineup.

Also, changing Ammo counts per ton isn't going to be the magical nerf that you think it will, besides I've been told over and over that Sarna and TT #'s will never get changed for tonnages or slot counts.

Good players will always be able to put damage "on target", less ammo just makes them need to be more efficient, or get up closer in which case nothing has really changed.

The only way to effectively balance these weapons is how they behave, ala heat, accuracy, range, the soft changables.

Perhaps setting up AC's to use Explosive Ammo instead of Pinpoint AP slugs is a better solution, make 50-70% of their damage hit on target, remainder is splash on nearest armor spots, Get rid of the Pinpoint accuracy, might require a range buff though, AC-2 would need to remain as is for damage.

Edited by Mister D, 31 March 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Mister D, on 31 March 2014 - 04:28 AM, said:

Good players will always be able to put damage "on target", less ammo just makes them need to be more efficient, or get up closer in which case nothing has really changed.

But they can't do it that often. When you only have a third of you current ammunition - it means you only deal 33% of current damage - maybe more - because you aim better - any how the suppressing fire is removed...

Mister D, on 31 March 2014 - 04:28 AM, said:

Perhaps setting up AC's to use Explosive Ammo instead of Pinpoint AP slugs is a better solution, make 50-70% of their damage hit on target, remainder is splash on nearest armor spots, Get rid of the Pinpoint accuracy, might require a range buff though, AC-2 would need to remain as is for damage.

explosive and splash damage will have indeed some merit...

[Cimarb]

FupDup, on 30 March 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

My favorite convergence solution is this one right here: http://mwomercs.com/...oats-and-clans/

Basically, you can still aim your shots as normal, but if you fire too many weapons you overload your mech's targeting computer and your shots would deviate from the center of your reticule (the amount of deviation would depend upon how much you overload your targeting comp). So, you have the choice to either fire your weapons individually/in small groups for maximum precision (and higher difficulty/risk), OR you could fire everything all at once for a huge burst that doesn't pinpoint into a single hitbox (spreads over multiple panels).

When you do lose convergence, your mech's weapons would simply fire parallel to their mounting locations and perhaps gain their own individual reticules to aim with. You could still get them to hit where you want them to, but it would require much more time and skill to pull off than if you hadn't lost convergence in the first place.

Adds a nice element of risk-versus-reward and keeps the game skill based (no randomness involved with it).

A convergence based system like that, even if you ignore the HSR issues it would cause (and PGI stating outright that it won't happen because of that), is that when it comes down to it, the system is just Ghost Heat in convergence mode. How would you limit the 2xPPC+Gauss/AC20/AC10 meta with convergence? You can't. That is why you have to look at those builds and find a good solution to them first. Burst-fire ACs and some sort of beam/arc version of the PPC does that, as well as giving them some great flavor.

Techorse, on 30 March 2014 - 09:33 PM, said:

I like the idea of reducing the pinpoint effect of PPC's and AC's.

But how do we do that without making weapons bland is beyond me.

The PPC with a beam duration might simply become an "Extra-Large Laser", for example.

Oh well, maybe having a huge electrical beam might actually be nice.

Take a look at http://www.mwomercs....the-right-way/. That has several ways we could make PPCs function in a unique way while still bringing their damage delivery in line with the other weapon systems (i.e. balanced).

Khobai, on 30 March 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Well heres what Id do:

-Make PPCs do arcing damage (6 damage to the location they hit and 4 damage divided among adjacent locations)
-Give PPCs a HUD/targeting disruption effect to make them unique compared to lasers.
-Change PPC minimum range back to a gradual damage dropoff rather than an immediate damage dropoff to zero.
-Reduce PPC and ERPPC heat (and remove ghost heat all together)

-Make Autocannons fire in bursts to break up the damage into smaller chunks.
-Give Autocannons different ammo types to make them unique compared to lasers.
-Reduce ballistic range from x3 to x2.5
-Increase AC5 heat to 1.5 and decrease AC2 heat to 0.67

I agree with all of that, and my suggestions are in my signature (ACs) and the above quote (PPCs).

Karl Streiger, on 31 March 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

But they can't do it that often. When you only have a third of you current ammunition - it means you only deal 33% of current damage - maybe more - because you aim better - any how the suppressing fire is removed...

explosive and splash damage will have indeed some merit...

You are dealing 33% of your damage POTENTIAL over the course of the entire fight, but that damage could still all be done within the first minute of the match. It fixes nothing during the time you have ammo. Instead, making the ACs burst-fire, with existing ammo numbers and removing Ghost Heat, will spread the damage out in general, reward skilled pilots on both sides of the barrel and still keep them differentiated from hitscan lasers.

[stjobe]

We can beat around the bush for another 14 pages, but the answer will still be staring you in the face when we're done:

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.

Pin-point accuracy isn't going to change.
Convergence isn't going to change.
The only thing left to change is the instant damage application of the ACs and PPCs.

It's an easy enough fix, it won't "break" any weapons, it will still allow you to put all your damage in one location if you're good enough and the conditions are favourable, it will mean flavour can be added with weapon variants (burst size/burst speed/projectile damage), and it will, in fact, severely reduce (if not eliminate completely) the problem of pin-point, perfect convergence, instant-damage weapons.

Why is anyone still arguing against it?

Edited by stjobe, 31 March 2014 - 07:06 AM.

[FupDup]

Cimarb, on 31 March 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

A convergence based system like that, even if you ignore the HSR issues it would cause (and PGI stating outright that it won't happen because of that), is that when it comes down to it, the system is just Ghost Heat in convergence mode. How would you limit the 2xPPC+Gauss/AC20/AC10 meta with convergence? You can't. That is why you have to look at those builds and find a good solution to them first. Burst-fire ACs and some sort of beam/arc version of the PPC does that, as well as giving them some great flavor.

Note that I'm not specifically taking a stance for or against altered PPC/AC mechanics, it's just that I think duct-tape superweapons are a larger issue than one individual weapon that does frontloaded damage. I honestly feel like some of the "FLD" weapons are actually kind of underwhelming when you only carry one of them, such as the AC/5. I actually used to have a single AC/5 on my Shadow Hawk 2H while I was grinding it, but I couldn't stand how anemic it felt and I had to downgrade my LL to an ML to replace the AC with an AC/10.


Anyways, for the PPC/Gauss/AC builds, Homeless Bill's idea addresses them just fine. Firing that many weapons simultaneously would go over the mech's targeting computer load, which would immediately cause those fired shots to deviate from the center of the reticule -- they would hit multiple locations rather than just one. Since those are fairly powerful weapons, the degree of deviation would probably be a bit high (really far over the TCU's max limit).

Yes, this means that you can't squeeze off one free alpha that hits a single panel before losing convergence -- the loss of convergence happens a split second before the weapons are fired. It's a built-in safety mechanism that prevents you from getting a "free pinpoint alpha." If you want all of that ordinance to hit a single panel, you'd have to split them up into multiple groups (i.e. fire 2 PPCs, wait a moment, then fire your Gauss/ACs) and aim them individually. This would be higher risk because of exposure time and aiming difficulty, but you'd have the higher reward of getting your shots to land where you'd want them to.


PGI's choice to go with HSR in favor of any kind of convergence system was probably not the best idea. A really really bad idea, most likely. They could/should have just done client-side hit detection and use anti-cheat software to find haxors. The also means that there would be no more times when you thought you hit but the server said "lolno" to you.

Edited by FupDup, 31 March 2014 - 07:09 AM.

[Sinthrow]

Why are AC's out preforming anything else?
better range
better fire rate (more substainable DPS)
lower heat (in a elaborate heat system)

For me the easiest way to do a quick adjustment would be to lower the max to 2x range to match other weapons
nerf the fire rate some small amount or add ghost heat to all AC's so they suffer the same as energy weapons
I do not want Ghost heat added just saying that is the easy fix.
I would much prefer them to redo the heat system but that is just me.

What I would like to see is reduced range and rate of fire. If hit detection improves. (srm please) I think it might be a good idea to slow down the game a touch. DPS maybe a little high, and I would like the games to last a little longer.

[Cyborne Elemental]

So what you're saying, is to make all AC into Assault rifles, just 1 damage shells firing multiple times that line up with their AC #?

Isn't this what Beam weapons (lasers) do already?

IMO it would only make sense with the U-AC variants, if UAC fired in such a manner like UAC-5 firing 1 dmg shells 5 times rapidly, or UAC-10 firing 10 shells rapidly for a total of 10dmg would work awesome.

However, Cannons ARE Cannons, not assault rifles, Cannons.

Edited by Mister D, 31 March 2014 - 09:21 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Voivode, on 21 March 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

I like your ammo location idea, that's an interesting concept and really doesn't "nerf" the autocannons, it just makes their inherent vulnerability a larger consideration. Also, it will cause a huge uptick in C.A.S.E. use, which is always a bonus since that item is so prevalent in BT and hardly used in MWO.

stuff

Ammo location = Bad idea...

It does not "nerf" the AC themselves per say, but will totally frak up Ballistic builds that have their Ballistics all in a "Single Torso" section.

What happens to the CTF-1X and 2X for players who drive with XL engines and would then be forced to also carry ALL their ammo in those same sections?

Try to build one, with Case, same ammo load as usual and not have to give up the option of selecting an XL Engine?

Other chassis would face the same issue just in different areas. Space for heavy Ballistics weapons is already at a premium. Forcing Ammo into a "sectional only" requirement would kill most "good" ballistic carriers dead.

Edited by Almond Brown, 31 March 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Pygar]

I think if anything, a range nerf, especially for falloff range would put projectiles about right. Slight ROF nerf on some of them might help too.

I don't like the "burst fire" idea at all... all the other weapons out there already do this too much, pinpoint damage is the one thing projectiles really have going for them....and ammo nerf will really just lead to people tweaking thier builds to carry more ammo.

Or there's the other option, the one that would help balance both projectiles and LRMs at the same time: Quit letting people Min/Max the hell out of thier builds by further restricting what type and size of weapons people can carry.

Edited by Pygar, 31 March 2014 - 10:34 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

All the autocannons work fine IMO. Just need a greater speed disparity between the projectiles of the PPC and AC/5.

[Galenit]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 March 2014 - 03:53 AM, said:

@ Galenit Using Rick Raisley's Random roller:
7,3,3,12,7,7,11,8,7,8,4,7,4,6,9,4,8,7,5,8=6 rolls out of 20


8,6,4,7,2,8,7,4,8,8,5,3,7,7,5,5,8,4,7,5=5 rolls out of 20

That's 11 out of 40 or a bit over 27% of the rolls being CT.

Now on TT I would only have roughly 50% our armor So the first 20 rolls would have finished the CT.

I let armor out of it, expect in the ammo part.

It was about the shoots needed to remove 100 armor, in one location you need 10 hits.
If you want you can say, how many rolls (shoots) do you need to hit 10 times the same target.

10 shoots in mwo.
Your example has 34 shoots to do the same.

Still 3,4 times as much then we need ...

If you want armor in the comparsion, you have to put the heat and movementpenaltys in it too.

Pygar, on 31 March 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

I don't like the "burst fire" idea at all... all the other weapons out there already do this too much, pinpoint damage is the one thing projectiles really have going for them....and ammo nerf will really just lead to people tweaking thier builds to carry more ammo.

AC 5 ammo, 30 shoots a ton, 4 tons for 120 shoots

With 1x tt ammo, this would be 6 tons.

If they want to take that much ammo, they have to tweak their builds, 1 ton of armor, jumpjets, cooling or engine is the price for every 2 tons of ammo if you want to hold your shotcount.

Together with reduced weaponrange this will lead to conserving shoots, waiting for optimal range, taking backupweapons, because you will run dry at some times or be a snail with paperarmor
If you survive the first storm, you can be sure, that your enemy (and you) will not have that much ammo left, what will change tactics, ..

It will give the game a new dynamic, in the moment ammo is not a real drawback, you can take enough to nearly never run dry and spray and pray at long ranges with still decend damage thanks to double falloff range for ballistics.

As written former, i would like to have the acs as pinpoint burst damage weapons (not burst fire!),
but they should have more drawbacks and the range must be tweaked to 2x to even the overall weaponranges.

Reducing ammo (i would test between 1/2 and 1x tt ammo) and making ammo more likely to explode (25-50%) and reducing range to 2x is a away to let the acs have their power but not be stronger then other weapons.

I dont like the idea to make more weapons function the same way.
A game needs choises and duration we have with lasers and pulselasers.
Make ppcs ae and real emp and it will be still more fun.
Then fix srms and we can see how it plays out.

Edited by Galenit, 31 March 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Now on TT I would only have roughly 50% our armor So the first 20 rolls would have finished the CT

Weapons still have to roll to hit in Battletech. You roll to hit then roll the hit location. 100% of your weapons dont hit in Battletech like they do in MWO. You probably have to roll at least 8-9 to hit so a good 60% of your shots are missing.

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 31 March 2014 - 07:05 AM, said:

We can beat around the bush for another 14 pages, but the answer will still be staring you in the face when we're done:

Pin-point accuracy isn't going to change.
Convergence isn't going to change.
The only thing left to change is the instant damage application of the ACs and PPCs.

It's an easy enough fix, it won't "break" any weapons, it will still allow you to put all your damage in one location if you're good enough and the conditions are favourable, it will mean flavour can be added with weapon variants (burst size/burst speed/projectile damage), and it will, in fact, severely reduce (if not eliminate completely) the problem of pin-point, perfect convergence, instant-damage weapons.

Why is anyone still arguing against it?

They are arguing because they want to keep their unbalanced weapons and prefer the current meta...

Mister D, on 31 March 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

So what you're saying, is to make all AC into Assault rifles, just 1 damage shells firing multiple times that line up with their AC #?

Isn't this what Beam weapons (lasers) do already?

IMO it would only make sense with the U-AC variants, if UAC fired in such a manner like UAC-5 firing 1 dmg shells 5 times rapidly, or UAC-10 firing 10 shells rapidly for a total of 10dmg would work awesome.

However, Cannons ARE Cannons, not assault rifles, Cannons.

These aren't "cannons" like you find on a pirate ship, but are also not rifles. Autocannons "have an automatic firing mode, similar to that of a machine gun" and "have have a higher rate of fire than artillery... Often approaching, or, in the case of the Gatling Guns, even surpassing the firing rate of a machine gun." To expand on that, and this is all from Wikipedia with tons of citations, "the typical rate of fire for modern autocannon ranges from 90 to 1,800 rounds per minute. Systems with multiple barrels such as Gatling Guns can have rates of fire of more than several thousand rounds per minute. The fastest of these is the GSh-6-23, which has a rate of fire of over 10,000 rounds per minute."

Let's just take the slowest gun, at 90 round a per minute. That is 1.5 rounds per second (90/60=1.5) and is just slightly slower than our AC2 at 1.92 rounds per second. The faster end of that RoF range would be 1,800 rounds per minute, or 30 rounds per second. So, the fastest autocannon in the game is just barely faster than the SLOWEST autocannon in real life. The fastest autocannon in real life would have a cooldown of 0.03 seconds in MWO.

Edit: after reading some more, I found a nice, slow cannon to compare to the MWO AC20. Firing 10 155mm rounds per minute, that would put it at a 6-second cooldown, just a tad slower than the AC20 and roughly the same size as some calibers quoted in canonical references. It is the Advanced Gun System (AGS) found on the Zumwalt-class destroyer, which has a displacement of 14,564 tons and STILL requires ballast tanks to lower itself deeper into the water to prevent capsizing when they are fired... I realize this is a science-fiction game where fusion reactors are used to power lasers, but the whole "single slug" autocannon is kind of a silly interpretation even under those conditions.

Rifles, on the other hand, are traditionally single shot per trigger or burst-fire, shoulder fired weapons. While the term "burst-fire" fits better with the idea of a rifle, an autocannon can be handled the same way. It just depends on what happens when you pull the trigger. Burst is one trigger = multiple bullets a single time, no matter how long you hold it, while continuous is one trigger = one bullet, but doesn't end until you let up the trigger.

Regardless of the terminology used, burst-fire does NOT equal lasers, since lasers are hitscan and you have no way to tell what part of the beam is going to do damage where, because you can't see the "pulses", and is highly visible from firer to target. A burst-fire autocannon, on the other hand, has visible rounds and impacts, but cannot be seen very easily except for the initial muzzle flash and ending impact.

Edited by Cimarb, 31 March 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 31 March 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

burst-fire does NOT equal lasers

Would be funny if the lasers became the "fire and turn" weapon though wouldn't it.

[Cimarb]

Shar Wolf, on 31 March 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Would be funny if the lasers became the "fire and turn" weapon though wouldn't it.

You mean doing instant FLD? It would be funny to see how quick people called it OP, but sadly they would be correct...

[stjobe]

I'm starting to feel like a broken record...

• Convergence will not change.
  Any solutions that contains changes to conversion are non-starters.
  
• Pin-point accuracy will not change.
  Any solutions containing changes to accuracy are also non-starters.
  
• Reducing range is not a solution.
  While it would be a good thing, it won't do a thing to stop the pin-point perfect convergence instant damage, nor will it lower TTK. So while it isn't a solution in and of itself, it should probably be done anyway.
  
• Reducing ammo does nothing.
  It will just nerf ACs without doing a thing to stop the pin-point perfect convergence instant damage, or lower TTK. It's not a solution.
  
• Recoil, Target Computer Loading, jump jet-like movement shake and all the other proposed solutions are all way more complicated, convoluted, and harder to see the implications of than the one that's been explained over and over and over again: Burst-fire ACs.

This is the problem that needs fixing:

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

The problem with how ACs and PPCs work in the current system is that they [...] 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

Unless your proposed solution fixes that, it is not a solution at all.

Burst-fire does fix that problem, and has a lot of other benefits like lower TTK, weapon variants, easier balancing, and so on and so forth.

It is what MWO needs.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cimarb, on 31 March 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

You mean doing instant FLD? It would be funny to see how quick people called it OP, but sadly they would be correct...

No - I mean Autocannons being given burst fire.... but taking longer to take their shots than a laser does - making lasers the go-to weapon for twisting, while both having a DoT effect.

IE: Large Laser does it's damage over a full second - what if it took the AC/10 (similar damage total) 1.5 seconds (or longer!) to throw out enough shells to cause that 10 damage?

Note: I do not expect that to ever happen (because that would throw the AC into "worthless" faster than the 120 speed did to missiles)- but it was a fun mental image, and I thought I would share it.
Edited Note: though I suppose there is probably ways to make that balanced... I wouldn't be the one to think of it.

stjobe, on 31 March 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Burst-fire does fix that problem, and has a lot of other benefits like lower TTK, weapon variants, easier balancing, and so on and so forth.

It is what MWO needs.

Or at least what we currently think it needs - which is not necessarily the same thing.
I am still hoping for burst fire to the AC though - even if only a 0.15 second burst.

Edited by Shar Wolf, 31 March 2014 - 02:56 PM.