517 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Though I don't hold your view on making ACs rapid fire I do agree that perfect convergence is a really bad thing.Guess I have seen to many rounds down range to find our convergence being anything like skill at all.

[East Indy]

So, with Karl offering the developer's perspective on burst (even though it's unofficial, it's very helpfully analytical and critical), what remains? There's recoil, there's firing delay. Both essentially use existing, proven design in the game. What else?

[stjobe]

East Indy, on 14 April 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

So, with Karl offering the developer's perspective on burst (even though it's unofficial, it's very helpfully analytical and critical), what remains? There's recoil, there's firing delay. Both essentially use existing, proven design in the game. What else?

1. They can't do anything about perfect convergence due to HSR.
2. They won't do anything about pin-point accuracy, for reasons unknown.
3. They can't do anything about FLD (as Karl's post suggests).

That leaves us with... Nothing.

Pin-point perfect convergence FLD alpha is here to stay, and there's nothing we (or more importantly PGI) can do about it.

It's enough to break one's heart.

Edited by stjobe, 14 April 2014 - 07:11 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

stjobe, on 14 April 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

1. They can't do anything about perfect convergence due to HSR.
2. They won't do anything about pin-point accuracy, for reasons unknown.
3. They can't do anything about FLD (as Karl's post suggests).

That leaves us with... Nothing.

Pin-point perfect convergence FLD alpha is here to stay, and there's nothing we (or more importantly PGI) can do about it.

It's enough to break one's heart.

There is one thing.....
they can gave all weapons a lock on....and firing them at the "hitboxes" that is used by the Streak

[Joseph Mallan]

Then maybe they need some people that CAN do something about those issues or Replace what is stopping them from gettin it done.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 14 April 2014 - 07:14 AM.

[East Indy]

Hmm -- I don't know if a design rep has ever directly answered the question (another reason why Karl's presence is so refreshing).

Squeaky wheels got SRMs attention. Even if the answer isn't the one we have our hearts set on, maybe some polite insistence can get us a little clarity (especially with Ultra AC/20s right around the corner).

[Strum Wealh]

kapusta11, on 13 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm yet to see some numbers concerning burst fire, that's what you and your proposals lack, as well as any ability to foresee the consequences.

You want to turn ACs into a laser with different visuals and kill that little weapon diversity that we have now, that's ok but what will you do with Gauss, changing it is against the lore and common sense? What will you do with ECM Ravens with 2xERLL that can easily avoid burst fire, lrms, streaks, have range advantage and if not can easily acquire it? What will you do with burst fire AC2, lets assume it fires a volley of projectile with infinite speed that deals 2 damage over 0.5 sec meaning that it can shoot non stop for 4 spreaded damage per second, for 8 (with ammo) tons. You do realise it sounds like garbage even compared to laser weapons?

One idea for burst-fire numbers was already put forward, in this very thread.

Strum Wealh, on 05 April 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

Mirkk Defwode, on 04 April 2014 - 09:02 AM, said:

stjobe, on 03 April 2014 - 09:16 PM, said:

I disagree. It's half a day's work.

To get the current weapons converted to have a very small burst fire setup it'd take about a half day including cursory tests to ensure they work properly.

If we wanted to expand on the weapons and add manufacturer variance it'd probably take a good month to properly created, implement, and test internally before pushing out to the general public.

Strum Wealh, on 24 March 2014 - 02:21 PM, said:

Already got you covered!

Strum Wealh, on 20 March 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

IMO, the way it "should be done" would result in both the "braaap" and "boom-boom-boom" variations being available.

The typical BT autocannon fires between three (3) and ten (10) shells per burst.
Assuming all ACs within a given class (e.g. "Class 20 Autocannon" includes each of the AC/20, LB 20-X, UAC/20, and so on) had the same burst duration, the fire effect becomes a function of the number of shells per burst.

For example, the 185mm ChemJet Gun (mounted on the Demolisher tank) fires a four-round burst, while the 150mm Crusher SH Cannon (mounted on the Hetzer combat vehicle) fires a ten-round burst; if the burst duration for all class 20 ACs were set to, say, 0.70 seconds (slightly longer than the burst duration of the Pulse Lasers), the ChemJet would fire four 5-damage shells spaced at at 0.175s intervals for 0.70 seconds while the Crusher would fire ten 2-damage shells spaced at 0.070s intervals for 0.70 seconds.
Likewise, the 120mm GM Whirlwind AC/5 (mounted on the MAD-3R Marauder) would fires a three-shell burst, and would fire three 1.667-damage shells spaced at 0.167s intervals for 0.50 seconds, while a hypothetical 10-shell-burst AC/5 would fire ten 0.50-damage shells spaced at 0.050s intervals for 0.50 seconds.

Such burst-fire ACs would then be subject to spread as a function of distance, such that all of the individual shells would fall within some defined radius at the weapon's optimal range (e.g. an AC/5 would have a "95% Radius" (R95) of 1 meter at a range of 620 meters, while an AC/20 would have a R95 of 1 meter at a range of 270 meters).

This would also have the advantage of allowing PGI to introduce variations/models within the AC family, such that there would be a meaningful difference - and a meaningful choice - between taking a ChemJet AC/20 and a Crusher AC/20.

Personally, I would have used the following values:

• AC/2: 0.40 second burst duration, 1.25 second cooldown (2.00 damage per burst, 1.60 DPS, and 0.80 HPS)
  
• AC/5: 0.50 second burst duration, 2.75 second cooldown (5.00 damage per burst, 1.82 DPS, and 0.36 HPS)
  
• AC/10: 0.60 second burst duration, 3.75 second cooldown (10.00 damage per burst, 2.67 DPS, and 0.80 HPS)
  
• AC/20: 0.70 second burst duration, 5.50 second cooldown (20.00 damage per burst, 3.63 DPS, and 1.27 HPS)

Each AC family (AC/2, AC/5, AC/10, and AC/20) would then have different models with different shell-per-burst counts.
For example:

• a "Chemjet 185mm Gun" AC/20 (used on the Demolisher tank) would fire a four-shell burst over a 0.70-second burst duration (or, one shell every 0.18 seconds @ 5.00 damage per shell), and would fire a new burst every 5.50 seconds
  
• a "Crusher Super Heavy Cannon" AC/20 (used on the Hetzer combat vehicle) would fire a ten-shell burst over a 0.70-second burst duration (or, one shell every 0.07 seconds @ 2.00 damage per shell), and would fire a new burst every 5.50 seconds
  
• a "Kali Yama Big Bore" AC/20 (used on the HBK-5M Hunchback) would fire a six-shell burst over a 0.70-second burst duration (or, one shell every 0.12 seconds @ 3.33 damage per shell), and would fire a new burst every 5.50 seconds

And so on and so forth.

Additionally, proper implementation of burst-fire would not "turn ACs into lasers".
Consider: the LB 10-X currently spawns a number of independent projectiles, as does each missile launcher. Clearly, MWO can handle "double-shotty" builds (twin LB-Xs, for 20 independent projectiles every ~2.5 seconds) and missile boats that would fit in just fine in Macross (e.g. "LRM-90" and "SRM-36" builds).
Moreover, sequential spawning of projectiles has already been done; the missile tube effect prior to the implementation of dynamic geometry meant that, for example, an Atlas' LRM-20 launcher spawned two sets of 10 missiles one-after-another, and mounting any LRM or SRM launcher in a hardpoint originally used for a Narc beacon system meant that the projectiles would spawn one after another from a single point.
As such, there should be no reason why a burst-fire mechanic for ACs is, or should be, inherently tied to the trace-fire mechanic used for lasers and MGs.

[Khobai]

Quote

Each AC family (AC/2, AC/5, AC/10, and AC/20) would then have different models with different shell-per-burst counts.
For example:

no thanks. they cant even balance four autocannons. and you want to variants of those four? haha.

[kapusta11]

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

One idea for burst-fire numbers was already put forward, in this very thread.

Well at least stjobe kept the dps values the same in his proposal (leaving the fact that dps drop off from AC20 down to AC2 is not linear if you take into account weight, but whatever) you're trying to give both spread and dps reduction to ACs making it not worth the weight.

Again, let's assume we've turned PPCs into splash damage weapon as well, what are you going to do with:

• Gauss
  
• Lights shooting ERLL from afar, you'll have a really hard time (harder than they do) hitting them with projectile based burst fire weapon.

Edited by kapusta11, 14 April 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Cimarb]

kapusta11, on 13 April 2014 - 10:54 PM, said:

I'm yet to see some numbers concerning burst fire, that's what you and your proposals lack, as well as any ability to foresee the consequences.

You want to turn ACs into a laser with different visuals and kill that little weapon diversity that we have now, that's ok but what will you do with Gauss, changing it is against the lore and common sense? What will you do with ECM Ravens with 2xERLL that can easily avoid burst fire, lrms, streaks, have range advantage and if not can easily acquire it? What will you do with burst fire AC2, lets assume it fires a volley of projectile with infinite speed that deals 2 damage over 0.5 sec meaning that it can shoot non stop for 4 spreaded damage per second, for 8 (with ammo) tons. You do realise it sounds like garbage even compared to laser weapons?

Aside from the numbers StJobe and Strum just provided, you can also see the link in my signature for more.

We don't want to turn ACs into lasers, and I don't believe I have saw a single person ever say that. We want to spread the damage out like autocannons are meant to based upon lore and real life examples. Gauss is fine where it is, and needs no further changes. ECM Ravens are only an issue because of ECM, not LLs. AC2s could be handled like long range MGs, which they actually are, but I would rather they be handled the way they currently are, but with less damage per projectile (or longer cooldown like they are getting).

Joseph Mallan, on 14 April 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

I agree, that should be in Balance not Off Topic. Would there be an issue with drop off and other issues Karl Mentioned? It sounds kinda damning to rapid fire ACs?

I am going to continue pushing for it, don't fear. If AC2s can fire every 0.52 seconds, there is little reason that the rest can't do the same.

[Joseph Mallan]

Cimarb, on 14 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Aside from the numbers StJobe and Strum just provided, you can also see the link in my signature for more.

We don't want to turn ACs into lasers, and I don't believe I have saw a single person ever say that. We want to spread the damage out like autocannons are meant to based upon lore and real life examples. Gauss is fine where it is, and needs no further changes. ECM Ravens are only an issue because of ECM, not LLs. AC2s could be handled like long range MGs, which they actually are, but I would rather they be handled the way they currently are, but with less damage per projectile (or longer cooldown like they are getting).


I am going to continue pushing for it, don't fear. If AC2s can fire every 0.52 seconds, there is little reason that the rest can't do the same.

Or at least have that option. I don't want a fast firing AC20. Gimme Slow thumping heavy weapons and I will have my fun.

[kapusta11]

Cimarb, on 14 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

Aside from the numbers StJobe and Strum just provided, you can also see the link in my signature for more.

We don't want to turn ACs into lasers, and I don't believe I have saw a single person ever say that. We want to spread the damage out like autocannons are meant to based upon lore and real life examples. Gauss is fine where it is, and needs no further changes. ECM Ravens are only an issue because of ECM, not LLs. AC2s could be handled like long range MGs, which they actually are, but I would rather they be handled the way they currently are, but with less damage per projectile (or longer cooldown like they are getting).

• You do realise that hitscan is way better that projectile based burst fire? ERLL equiped light's strength is speed, they can fight at ranges where avoiding both lrm and burst fire is not a problem.
  
• You do realise that twin Gauss will become new meta?
  
• Do you believe that 2xAC2 is better than single AC20? Go in the game right now and see for yourself. ACs ARE balanced agains each other. AC2s are spread damage weapon and require you to be exposed that's why it has increased damage effectivenes to compensate its inherent drawbacks. Laser weapons don't have that that's why they suck, you can't even put more than 2 of them without being penalized. Do you think someone will put 6 ton weapon (+2 ammo) that deals 0.2 damage every half a second? Why would I put "normalized" 16 damage, short range AC20 instead of Gauss?

Edited by kapusta11, 14 April 2014 - 12:17 PM.

[Cimarb]

kapusta11, on 14 April 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

• You do realise that hitscan is way better that projectile based burst fire? ERLL equiped light's strength is speed, they can fight at ranges where avoiding both lrm and burst fire is not a problem.
  
• You do realise that twin Gauss will become new meta?
  
• Do you believe that 2xAC2 is better than single AC20? Go in the game right now and see for yourself. ACs ARE balanced agains each other. AC2s are spread damage weapon and require you to be exposed that's why it has increased damage effectivenes to compensate its inherent drawbacks. Laser weapons don't have that that's why they suck, you can't even put more than 2 of them without being penalized. Do you think someone will put 6 ton weapon (+2 ammo) that deals 0.2 damage every half a second? Why would I put "normalized" 16 damage, short range AC20 instead of Gauss?

Twin Gauss is as much of a meta now as it will be - people either love the charge mechanic or hate it.

Hitscan IS better, I agree, but projectiles are how ACs should be done.

Two AC2s, when used correctly, can easily beat an opponent with just an AC20. All you have to do is keep out of range of it. It's the same reason a Raven with 2 ERLLs can easily beat a dumb Atlas almost every time, or an ECM Spider can beat 4-5 enemy mechs that didn't remember to equip TAG. Play smarter, not harder.

[kapusta11]

Cimarb, on 14 April 2014 - 12:30 PM, said:

Twin Gauss is as much of a meta now as it will be - people either love the charge mechanic or hate it.

Hitscan IS better, I agree, but projectiles are how ACs should be done.

Two AC2s, when used correctly, can easily beat an opponent with just an AC20. All you have to do is keep out of range of it. It's the same reason a Raven with 2 ERLLs can easily beat a dumb Atlas almost every time, or an ECM Spider can beat 4-5 enemy mechs that didn't remember to equip TAG. Play smarter, not harder.

Your goal is to turn ACs into a burst fire weapon because of terribad pinpoint FLD yet you have nothing against Gauss? Okay))

The key words were "projectile" AND "burst", hitting something with a volley of projectiles followed one after another is much more harder than with hitscan lasers, now if you take into account that both spread their damage but one weight a lot less, you've got the picture.

At the current state of the game "when used correctly" both have even chances, this is called balanced, 2xAC2 that deal 0.2 damage per shot each have 0 chances against 16 damage AC20.

Edited by kapusta11, 14 April 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Cimarb, on 14 April 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

We don't want to turn ACs into lasers, and I don't believe I have saw a single person ever say that. We want to spread the damage out like autocannons are meant to based upon lore and real life examples.

Moreover, there are BT gameplay rules that also support the notion of (nearly) all ACs as burst-fire weapons - specifically, the rules on page 100 of Tactical Operations for walking the fire from a single burst across multiple targets.

Quote

Multiple Targets: Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another. An LB-X autocannon firing a cluster shot and Ultra and Rotary autocannons firing at multiple targets are a special case.

No matter what type of autocannon is being used, both targets must be in adjacent hexes and within range of the weapon. Determine the to-hit number for both targets and make separate to-hit rolls against each target, using the higher (more difficult) of the to-hit numbers and adding a +1 modifier for firing at multiple targets with a single shot. Note that this is not the secondary target modifier; that modifier does not apply to this type of attack unless multiple targets also are being attacked in the same phase. If the to-hit roll succeeds, the target is struck by a single hit that inflicts damage equal to half the normal damage done by the weapon (rounded down).

The more basic rules found in Total Warfare can be seen as simply assuming that all of the shells in a burst land in the same general area.
For example, if each of the shells in the Marauder's three-shell burst hits the thigh, lower leg (calf/shin), and middle of the foot, the shot "hit the leg". Likewise, having each of the shells in a Demolisher's four-shell burst hit the upper arm, elbow joint, lower arm, and hand is considered to have the entire burst "hit the arm".

Joseph Mallan, on 14 April 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

I don't want a fast firing AC20. Gimme Slow thumping heavy weapons and I will have my fun.

As noted in TacOps "Multiple Targets" rules, that is addressed by UACs and RACs.

Quote

For Ultra and Rotary autocannons, make a single to-hit roll against the highest to-hit number plus 1. Then determine whether the designated number of shots fired hit a target. If only one shot hit, it will strike one of the targets - determined at random - with a single shot that does full damage. If two, four or six shots hit, one, two or three shots will strike each target at full damage. If three or five shots hit, one or two shots will strike each target; randomly determine where the other shot lands.

This description would seem implies that UACs & RACs commonly (unlike Standard ACs) fire single shells per unit of ammo.

In contrast, LB-X cluster rounds are fired as single shotshells while LB-X standard/slug rounds are fired as bursts (that can be walked across multiple targets) like Standard ACs (and the later Light ACs & HVACs).

[Cimarb]

kapusta11, on 14 April 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Your goal is to turn ACs into a burst fire weapon because of terribad pinpoint FLD yet you have nothing against Gauss? Okay))

The key words were "projectile" AND "burst", hitting something with a volley of projectiles followed one after another is much more harder than with hitscan lasers, now if you take into account that both spread their damage but one weight a lot less, you've got the picture.

At the current state of the game "when used correctly" both have even chances, this is called balanced, 2xAC2 that deal 0.2 damage per shot each have 0 chances against 16 damage AC20.

I am willing to compromise some things to get balance, which a lot of people just don't understand - go figure. I have no problem with ONE SINGLE weapon having 15-points of front loaded damage (FLD), especially since lore actually supports it in this case. I also don't have a problem with, say, a particular version of the AC20 that retains most or even all of its FLD as long as it is balanced in a significant way, such as with an extra long cooldown, jam mechanic, charge like the gauss (or spin up time), etc. I don't want to eliminate a persons preferred playstyle (looking at you, Mr. Joseph), but I do want to bring the vast majority of the FLD down a notch or five to balance it with the rest of the damage delivery methods.

Also, whether ACs were hitscan, trace, or really, really fast projectiles doesn't matter all that much. Hitscan is instantaneous, but only does damage at certain times during the beam. If the AC is really fast projectiles, it still only does damage at certain times (upon shell impact). For instance, a large laser is a 1 second beam that does 10 damage (1 damage every 0.1 second). If an AC10 was set up the same way, with 2000 m/s projectiles, it could be a 0.5 second burst that does 2 damage every 0.1 second, or a 1 second burst that does 1 damage every 0.1 second, or a 0.3 second burst that does 3.33 damage every 0.1 second, etc.

[Coralld]

Cimarb, on 14 April 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

I am willing to compromise some things to get balance, which a lot of people just don't understand - go figure. I have no problem with ONE SINGLE weapon having 15-points of front loaded damage (FLD), especially since lore actually supports it in this case. I also don't have a problem with, say, a particular version of the AC20 that retains most or even all of its FLD as long as it is balanced in a significant way, such as with an extra long cooldown, jam mechanic, charge like the gauss (or spin up time), etc. I don't want to eliminate a persons preferred playstyle (looking at you, Mr. Joseph), but I do want to bring the vast majority of the FLD down a notch or five to balance it with the rest of the damage delivery methods.

Also, whether ACs were hitscan, trace, or really, really fast projectiles doesn't matter all that much. Hitscan is instantaneous, but only does damage at certain times during the beam. If the AC is really fast projectiles, it still only does damage at certain times (upon shell impact). For instance, a large laser is a 1 second beam that does 10 damage (1 damage every 0.1 second). If an AC10 was set up the same way, with 2000 m/s projectiles, it could be a 0.5 second burst that does 2 damage every 0.1 second, or a 1 second burst that does 1 damage every 0.1 second, or a 0.3 second burst that does 3.33 damage every 0.1 second, etc.

^ This right here has so much win.

[nimdabew]

stjobe, on 13 April 2014 - 09:14 PM, said:

What the ever-loving hell is that thread doing in "off-topic discussions"? It might just be the single most informative thread I've ever seen on these forums, and it's tucked away in off-topic?

These mods are on drugs. They must be on drugs.

What I saw in that thread was mod player interaction and our ideas actually getting an ear bent. I don't see much of that and more of a high chair, seperatest type of interaction between the game designers and the players. I would be a lot more supportive of the PGI staff if they had more interactions like that. Right now, every new patch I am wondering what they are going to be doing next.