517 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

'Cause they have greater range and fit better with PPCs (AC5s) especially since the AC20 nerf. AC2s for the dakka.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

Then why are AC5s an AC2s so popular Jobe?

Because they do their damage instantly, just like other ACs. It's why ALL the ACs are so popular.

2xAC/5 is 10 pin-point, instant damage at 1.5s intervals (or a steady stream of 5 pin-point, instant damage every 0.75 seconds).

And as to the current AC/2 being scarier than a burst-fire AC/20 - remember that the AC/20 would do four 5-damage hits in rapid succession (most of them likely hitting the same location), something the AC/2 can never do.

There really is no comparison.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Because they do their damage instantly, just like other ACs. It's why ALL the ACs are so popular.

2xAC/5 is 10 pin-point, instant damage at 1.5s intervals (or a steady stream of 5 pin-point, instant damage every 0.75 seconds).

And as to the current AC/2 being scarier than a burst-fire AC/20 - remember that the AC/20 would do four 5-damage hits in rapid succession (most of them likely hitting the same location), something the AC/2 can never do.

There really is no comparison.

AC2s and 5s are the future of AC20s you are suggesting so if 5 points is bad now how will it be ok for an AC20 to do 4x5 point bursts or 10x 2 point burst in less than 3 seconds???

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

AC2s and 5s are the future of AC20s you are suggesting so if 5 points is bad now how will it be ok for an AC20 to do 4x5 point bursts or 10x 2 point burst in less than 3 seconds???

Because you're comparing apples to oranges.

The AC/20 does 20 damage now; it will still do 20 damage as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 5 damage burst.
The AC/10 does 10 damage now; it will still do 10 damage as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 2.5 damage burst.
The AC/5 does 5 damage now; it will still do 5 damags as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 1.25 damage burst.
The AC/2 does 2 damage now; it will still do 2 damage as burst-fire only in a 4 x 0.5 damage burst.
(burst size only for illustration purposes)

So the current 5 instant-damage from the AC/5 is bad because it's too much for a 5-damage weapon to do in one spot; no other 5-damage weapon can do that.

The 5 instant-damage from the AC/20 is good because it's a 20-damage weapon that will spread its damage over four 5-damage shots.

Capisce?

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Because you're comparing apples to oranges.

The AC/20 does 20 damage now; it will still do 20 damage as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 5 damage burst.
The AC/10 does 10 damage now; it will still do 10 damage as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 2.5 damage burst.
The AC/5 does 5 damage now; it will still do 5 damags as burst-fire, only in a 4 x 1.25 damage burst.
The AC/2 does 2 damage now; it will still do 2 damage as burst-fire only in a 4 x 0.5 damage burst.
(burst size only for illustration purposes)

So the current 5 instant-damage from the AC/5 is bad because it's too much for a 5-damage weapon to do in one spot; no other 5-damage weapon can do that.

The 5 instant-damage from the AC/20 is good because it's a 20-damage weapon that will spread its damage over four 5-damage shots.

Capisce?

I know where you were going, I still hear the crying of players cause an AC20 is still hitting to hard... Fast... Peanut brittle! They(not you) are whining over anything that kills them and I won't have it. I am here to kill your toon. I want to do it my way not yours, Not Khobai's, not Roadbeer's. My way if this game is going to
"Allow for as many ways to be played as can be." then The front loaded damage players need to have their toys.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 April 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

actually it really wouldnt, it would just make players use lasers non stop and make ac useless.

Not really since autocannons would have way more range, way less heat, and ideally different ammo types. They still have major advantages over lasers.

Quote

then The front loaded damage players need to have their toys.

Im not really against front loaded damage. Im against precise aiming. I have zero problem with AC20s doing 20 damage to one location. What I have a problem with is being able to do that 20 damage consecutively to the same location. Battletech has random hit locations and doesnt allow you to predictably land shots in the same location over and over. Because MWO uses battletech armor ratios, it means MWO needs to put restrictions on precise aiming to retain some semblance of balance.

If MWO is going to allow precise aiming then one of two things needs to happen: damage needs to spread to emulate random hit locations OR armor values need to be significantly redistributed to protect torso sections better. You should not be able to kill an Atlas in less than 200-250 damage EVER. Because thats how difficult it is to kill an Atlas in battletech... excluding cheeseball clan tech.

Edited by Khobai, 03 April 2014 - 11:23 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

I know where you were going, I still hear the crying of players cause an AC20 is still hitting to hard... Fast... Peanut brittle! They(not you) are whining over anything that kills them and I won't have it. I am here to kill your toon. I want to do it my way not yours, Not Khobai's, not Roadbeer's. My way if this game is going to
"Allow for as many ways to be played as can be." then The front loaded damage players need to have their toys.

I know it, and I don't begrudge you this. If there was a way to let you have your front-loaded damage and still have weapons balanced, that would be what I'd be arguing for - but there isn't. At least not that I can see, and I've given this more than a cursory thought, as you know

But instant damage is just too much of an advantage; we will never have proper weapon balance unless it is removed. I know you believe this will make these weapons a bit more boring, but it can't be helped. For the good of the game, it needs to go.

And really, I think you wouldn't notice all that much difference between the current AC/20 and one that fires a 0.4-0-5 second burst of 4-5 projectiles. It would still be the biggest, baddest gun in the game. It will still be your Big Hammer.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

I know it, and I don't begrudge you this. If there was a way to let you have your front-loaded damage and still have weapons balanced, that would be what I'd be arguing for - but there isn't. At least not that I can see, and I've given this more than a cursory thought, as you know

But instant damage is just too much of an advantage; we will never have proper weapon balance unless it is removed. I know you believe this will make these weapons a bit more boring, but it can't be helped. For the good of the game, it needs to go.

And really, I think you wouldn't notice all that much difference between the current AC/20 and one that fires a 0.4-0-5 second burst of 4-5 projectiles. It would still be the biggest, baddest gun in the game. It will still be your Big Hammer.

I have use AC2s... I'd notice.

[Khobai]

Quote

But instant damage is just too much of an advantage; we will never have proper weapon balance unless it is removed.

This. You always claim you want FLD to stay in the game but you never propose how to balance them. FLD weapons are overpowered and need to be fixed one way or another. There are numerous solutions... including damage spreading, armor redistribution, significantly increased cooldowns on FLD weapons, etc... So how do we balance FLD weapons?

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

I have use AC2s... I'd notice.

2 damage at 0.5 second interval vs 20 damage in 0.5 seconds.

Burst-fire ACs wouldn't be anything like the current AC/2 (which is more like a slow continuous-fire weapon than the proposed burst-fire mechanic).

Don't think "boom-boom-boom-boom", think "braaap... braaap... braaap...".

[Cimarb]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

I think it is a matter of DpS Juan. One AC20 does 5.0DpS but two AC5 can throw 6.66DpS (...I do like that number!) and 2 AC2 throws 7.7 DpS. So the damage over time olks like the whole higher DpS vs us FLD players who like to smash faces and break mechs with heavy hitting weapons.

Part if the problem is we have four AC20 versions currently, so everyone is used to a very unbalanced set of weapons. Lower class autocannons should do proportionally less damage compared to higher class ones. An AC2 should do roughly a tenth of the damage an AC20 does, for instance.

Joseph Mallan, on 03 April 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

I hate less efficient volleys!
Then why are AC5s an AC2s so popular Jobe?

AC5s and AC2s are popular because they can be boated while still providing as much DPS as higher class autocannons. Normalize the whole family against each other, and they won't be as popular.

[Khobai]

Yep AC/2 would be 2 damage every 0.5 seconds.

A burst fired AC/20 would be four shots of 5 damage spaced 0.167 seconds apart with a 3.5s cooldown after each series of bursts.

So its like bam2.....bam2.....bam2....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2
vs
BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..............................................................BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..BAM5

[Cimarb]

Khobai, on 03 April 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Yep AC/2 would be 2 damage every 0.5 seconds.

A burst fired AC/20 would be four shots of 5 damage spaced 0.167 seconds apart with a 3.5s cooldown after each series of bursts.

So its like bam2.....bam2.....bam2....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2.....bam2
vs
BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..............................................................BAM5..BAM5..BAM5..BAM5

Kind of. See the link in my sig for how I think they should be normalized and how variants should work.

[East Indy]

Random idea #8, because this is the thread for it:

1. Add very short global cooldowns for autocannons and PPCs, delaying shots sequentially in a firing group or manual shots within cooldown duration -- long enough to disrupt pinpoint, short enough to never feel like an unfair delay.

2. When mixed in firing groups, largest caliber always fires first.

3. When autocannons shells hit a target within 0.5 seconds each other, autocannon cockpit shake is reduced by 50%.

4. Revert recent velocity changes to AC/10 and AC/20.

5. Remove heat scale penalities from autocannons and PPCs.

Weapon	Global Cooldown
AC/2	0.15 seconds
AC/5	0.20 seconds
AC/10	0.25 seconds
PPC	0.25 seconds
AC/20	0.50 seconds

*Shrug.*

[stjobe]

Cimarb, on 03 April 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Kind of. See the link in my sig for how I think they should be normalized and how variants should work.

Yeah, the AC/2 doing 19.25 times more damage than its BattleTech original really mucks things up.

The AC/5 does 6.66 times the BT damage.
The AC/10 does 4 times the BT damage.
The AC/20 does 2.5 times the BT damage.

Some other weapons for comparison:
SL: 3.33
ML: 2.5
LL: 2.65
PPC: 2.5
Gauss: 2.5

What justifies the ACs having
* Longest range increase from TT (3x vs energy weapons 2x and missiles 1x)
* Larger damage increases than any other weapons compared to their BT originals
* Instant-damage mechanic that no other weapons beside the PPCs and Gauss have

Is it any wonder they're the most popular weapon system?

Is it any wonder those of us wanting weapon balance are looking at the ACs for adjustment?

Edit: So I took the weapons data from smurfy and made a quick spreadsheet comparing the damage increase the weapons have gotten in MWO as compared to their BT originals. It makes for some interesting reading (and they also quite clearly answer Joe's earlier question "why are AC/2 and AC/5 so popular":

Edited by stjobe, 03 April 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[Roburn Bliss]

I think a nice simple way of nerfing AC weapons and buffing pulse lasers could be (Ignore the arrows):



AC weapon damage drops off faster, pulse lasers much slower. Normal lasers remain the same.

Can I have a cookie now

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

Yeah, the AC/2 doing 19.25 times more damage than its BattleTech original really mucks things up.

The AC/5 does 6.66 times the BT damage.
The AC/10 does 5 times the BT damage.
The AC/20 does 2.5 times the BT damage.

Some other weapons for comparison:
SL: 3.33
ML: 2.5
LL: 2.65
PPC: 2.5
Gauss: 2.5

What justifies the ACs having
* Longest range increase from TT (3x vs energy weapons 2x and missiles 1x)
* Larger damage increases than any other weapons compared to their BT originals
* Instant-damage mechanic that no other weapons beside the PPCs and Gauss have

Is it any wonder they're the most popular weapon system?

Is it any wonder those of us wanting weapon balance are looking at the ACs for adjustment?

Edit: So I took the weapons data from smurfy and made a quick spreadsheet comparing the damage increase the weapons have gotten in MWO as compared to their BT originals. It makes for some interesting reading (and they also quite clearly answer Joe's earlier question "why are AC/2 and AC/5 so popular":

Note the range differences between the autocannons and missiles, as well. In TT, the AC2 had a very, very slight advantage in range, but in MWO the AC5 reaches 1.7 TIMES as far as missiles, and the AC2 is well over TWICE the range as "long range" missiles. Of course they are going to be used disproportionally, with twice the range and almost 20x the damage they were initially designed to do.

[wanderer]

Let's also note that the LRM even got an extra 370m of reach and no damage dropoff either, though. Fair's fair.

[Cimarb]

wanderer, on 03 April 2014 - 12:40 PM, said:

Let's also note that the LRM even got an extra 370m of reach and no damage dropoff either, though. Fair's fair.

I would have zero problem with LRMs getting the range boost at the cost of missiles exploding "early" after a certain range to simulate the same damage drop off.

[Effectz]

When Paul is finished with this game there will be nothing left except to use sticks and rocks,and people will probably cry to nerf them too.