517 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

Effectz, on 03 April 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

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.

You have a great point. PGI, stop trying to balance weapons and let the metahumpers dominate peacefully!

[Sprouticus]

Roburn Bliss, on 03 April 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

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

I like this a lot.

[Mister Blastman]

Out of all the posts in this thread I haven't seen anyone ask the question so I'll go ahead and do it:

"Instead of nerfing Autocannons, has anyone considered nerfing Paul instead?"

[Lyoto Machida]

Varent, on 21 March 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

burst fire would make them more like lasers. Not different.

WarHippy, on 21 March 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

How does making them like lasers make them different from the rest?

Low heat and ammo dependent...they aren't different from lasers? Unless you consider heatsinks "unlimited ammo" for energy weapons...

[ArchSight]

Cimarb, on 27 March 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

Low heat is a defining characteristic of ballistic weapons. Ghost heat needs to be removed from them completely, as it should not be a balancing tool.

Burst fire is not going to make autocannons into ultra versions, but it will break up the damage into more manageable "chunks". Whereas ultra ACs allow you to double the firing rate at the risk of jamming, burst-fire takes the existing damage and splits it into smaller portions.

Low heat is the reason why I can keep shooting damage at your mech without taking any lunchbreaks. I have to take a lunch break after shooting energy weapons. Which ghost heat is not the limiting factor all the time. It's the heat disipation rate of 1.7 for the double heat sinks and .4 for the standard heatsinks. The ballistics can shell out more damage over time than energy weapons. That's what's causing the imbalance.

Burst fire is not going to stop me from doing more damage with ACs to all of your mech than energy weapons.

Burst fire will make them into Ultra autocannons by making it artistically the same in function. It will be the same as witnessing a double shot of a UAC.

[Coralld]

Mister Blastman, on 03 April 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Out of all the posts in this thread I haven't seen anyone ask the question so I'll go ahead and do it:

"Instead of nerfing Autocannons, has anyone considered nerfing Paul instead?"

That will happen when we are able to divide by zero.

[Deathlike]

Coralld, on 03 April 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

That will happen when we are able to divide by zero.

Does that mean PGI will implode, or that Russ will put on teh Donald's hair for show?

[Mister Blastman]

Coralld, on 03 April 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

That will happen when we are able to divide by zero.

Paul might already be able to. Look at ghost heat... Thermodynamicswhat?

We're screwed.

[Deathlike]

Mister Blastman, on 03 April 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Paul might already be able to. Look at ghost heat... Thermodynamicswhat?

We're screwed.

Most of that heat is coming from the video cards that are overheating while in the mechlab.

[Mister Blastman]

Deathlike, on 03 April 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

Most of that heat is coming from the video cards that are overheating while in the mechlab.

I thought all the excess heat was coming from pilot's heads from all the frustration it causes?

:-|

[Mirkk Defwode]

Prezimonto, on 27 March 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I just wanted to expand on my earlier idea after thinking about it for a bit and lets do this graphically. It's just better that way.

Say the UAC weapons function like a mini-gun. Give it a 2 second spin up time, and a barrel cool down time of 5 total second for full cooldown. This is completely divorced from heat sinks as it's to balance the engagement windows of UAC's.

I would set it up so a UAC in a weapon group starts spinning with the first click, starts firing with the second click and shuts off with a third click and then starts cooling off. This works with the weapon grouping system in the game and doesn't involve multiple buttons to control the weapon, just it's own weapon group.
....

Not discounting the data or the idea. but fictionally anything that has a Rotary spin up like a Mini-gun in battletech is a Rotary Autocannon. We'll also see RAC2's and RAC5's roll around in the near future.

[Khobai]

Quote

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

yes and no.

The AC/2 is unusably bad in battletech. It needed a buff going into MWO.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cimarb, on 03 April 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:

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.

Missile ranges should span the entire map, but have an optimium range - after that they "malfunction" and collide in flight causing missiles to drop off decreasing their total damage value.

[stjobe]

Khobai, on 03 April 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

yes and no.

The AC/2 is unusably bad in battletech. It needed a buff going into MWO.

I disagree on the "unusable" part, but that's neither here nor there. What's bothering me is that it got an almost 20 times buff in damage when most other (non-AC) weapons hover around a 2.5 times damage buff.

Look at the spreadsheet I posted a page back - all the ACs except the AC/20 have gotten higher damage buffs than any other weapon. Combine that with the ballistics damage dealing method (instant damage) and the 3x range buff they also got compared to TT and you don't have to be a genius to understand why they are ruling the roost.

The AC/2 was way, way, WAY overbuffed. It has a higher DPS than the AC/5 - and that's just wrong.

Edit: The average damage buff is 3.71 times the TT damage. The average minus the AC/2 is 3.23, the average minus the ballistic weapons is 2.85.

The AC/2 got a 19.25 times buff, six times the average.

Edited by stjobe, 03 April 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[WarHippy]

Lyoto Machida, on 03 April 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

Low heat and ammo dependent...they aren't different from lasers? Unless you consider heatsinks "unlimited ammo" for energy weapons...

Varent and I both said it would make them more like laser not that it would make them lasers. Yes, they are different because of low heat and ammo, but that is true now and only part of what makes them different from lasers. The guy I quoted was saying that ACs need to have a unique feel so lets make them burst fire, which doesn't make them unique it just makes them more like lasers than they are now.

[Cimarb]

Khobai, on 03 April 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

yes and no.

The AC/2 is unusably bad in battletech. It needed a buff going into MWO.

The AC2 in TT was an extremely long range, and heavy, machine gun. Both could do 2 points of damage per 10 second turn. They were not "good" weapons, but they had a purpose and were balanced. MGs are balanced, AC2s are NOT.

[Prezimonto]

Mirkk Defwode, on 03 April 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Not discounting the data or the idea. but fictionally anything that has a Rotary spin up like a Mini-gun in battletech is a Rotary Autocannon. We'll also see RAC2's and RAC5's roll around in the near future.

Yea, I didn't know they're in the setting as their own thing (never followed the setting past the initial clan years). I started a Feature Suggestion thread with that post and that was the first thing to be pointed out. Not sure what to do with the idea other than wait or think up a different mechanic then.

[3rdworld]

Cimarb, on 03 April 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

The AC2 in TT was an extremely long range, and heavy, machine gun. Both could do 2 points of damage per 10 second turn. They were not "good" weapons, but they had a purpose and were balanced. MGs are balanced, AC2s are NOT.

Are you saying AC/2s are OP?

Edited by 3rdworld, 03 April 2014 - 02:48 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

The AC/2 was way, way, WAY overbuffed. It has a higher DPS than the AC/5 - and that's just wrong.

It has a higher DPS because it requires more skill to repeatedly hit with that weapon. It's a reward for good aim. You cannot balance these weapons in a vacuum like you're doing.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Prezimonto, on 03 April 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

Yea, I didn't know they're in the setting as their own thing (never followed the setting past the initial clan years). I started a Feature Suggestion thread with that post and that was the first thing to be pointed out. Not sure what to do with the idea other than wait or think up a different mechanic then.

Ballistics Bettering Lasers is a thread covering exactly that. Cimarb has done a fine job trying to direct people there, but some of the later discussions had deserve their own thread and a posting on mechanics and diversity. The biggest issues with the concepts and designs discussed are that they're require the entire weapons system and much of the equipment system to be overhauled.

It'd be a rather daunting task, and a lot for the community to absorb.

If done with varied versions within the classifications and not a hard number setting like an Class 20 Autocannon could do between say 17-24 damage depending on the version and the mechanics. But that 24 damage version would fire multiple shells, while that 17 damage one would be a single solid shell.

I did math on it in the thread and worked out variable versions that are balanced on a very basic level but exist in a range that could be acceptable to gameplay also allowing for everyone to see different gameplay styles or preferences come out in their designs.

This system would also be extremely complex. But it demonstrates there are a lot of ideas on how to implement and correct the current autocannons.