180 replies to this topic

[Mordin Ashe]

Or they could give us ghost shakes, similar to ghost heat. Firing too many weapons in alpha or simultaneously would twist the torso a bit. It may be the easiest thing to implement, from all that was mentioned.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mordin Ashe, on 11 April 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

Or they could give us ghost shakes, similar to ghost heat. Firing too many weapons in alpha or simultaneously would twist the torso a bit. It may be the easiest thing to implement, from all that was mentioned.

That wouldn't be ghost shakes... that would just be recoil!

[Khobai]

Quote

Also using character creation tables I can have a 1/2 Clan Gunner in under 15 minutes

which also isnt balanced. again... bad tabletop mechanics dont belong in mwo.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 11 April 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

which also isnt balanced. again... bad tabletop mechanics dont belong in mwo.

Really? Being able to roll up a another character just as good as the dead one has no place in a game where I die match after match after match and come back in the exact same pristine Mech... With a paycheck on top of it? Sounds like those Mechanics were perfected here... I don't even have to pretend I roll a new character!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 11 April 2014 - 05:19 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Khobai, on 11 April 2014 - 05:08 AM, said:

which also isnt balanced. again... bad tabletop mechanics dont belong in mwo.

Oh - we have the bad tabletop mechanics in mwo... but not the good ones.

(I have done it - i was able to create with all those "bad" tabletop mechanics a Mech that is able to fight a single player campaign like those in Mechwarrior 2 or 3)
When i was finished my TimberWolf had a BV of 16.000 and was able to core a Hellbringer at long range with aimed shots and targeting computer - all i did need was the roll of a 5....

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Yeah but since the only penalty for ammo explosion is that match is over for me... Whats the need for it???

Well if that is the CASE, (pun) maybe have a try in a STD engine.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:43 AM, said:

Well if that is the CASE, (pun) maybe have a try in a STD engine.

Where's the fun in that!?

Nice pun!

[Almond Brown]

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

Not everything can be fair.

We are discussing damage mechanics, the economic cost in cbills for weapons and mechs should probably remain out of it.

Especially as if you are selective you can aquire a lot of gear, XL engines and even stock DHS upgrades on some select chassis.

Also, a new player in a trial mech needs spend nothing, needs not even perform well and when they are done they will probably have around 8 to 10 million in cbills from their Cadet bonus to spend.

Spend them wisely.

The AC 10 being on the heat penalty group list is somewhat irrelevant at the moment.

Considering there are only a very small number of mechs that can even realistically get 2 onto one single build.

Besides, you are deflecting.

Damage output compared to tonnage, ton for ton, 2x LLAS or 2x ER LLAS compare favorably to 1 AC 10.

I'm willing to listen, but I've laid out the math to support my statement - you'll need to do so as well if you think you can refute it.

3 minutes and 10s to overheat is a very, very long time.

How often do you just get to sit there for 3 straight minutes endlessly firing on people with no pause?

That damage is sustainable for periods of 3 minutes at a time.

IMO it is completely acceptable that you can fire the LLAS for:

> 3 full minutes
> With a higher alpha
> Do more DPS
> Hitscan weapon with no projectile speed

So which part of that do you not think is fair for 2x LLAS vs. 1x AC 10?

It looks extremely good for those LLs imo. That's why they are one of the weapons I like to use.

I am uncertain where you get that 3 minutes. I have to assume that by whatever method, it takes into account Map selection, the addition of other weapons, or the fact that one does actually have to stand still and have a stationary target to maximize that Alpha. That is a very rare occurrence, but a good shot, carrying an AC10 is utilizing the perfect "drive by weapon".

Again, your Maths may tell you one thing, but field experience tells that tale differently. I can only assume you don't run many erLL or LL full builds... besides, a straight 2 LL build might be nice on a Light (for the few chassis which could deal with them) but in the upper weights, it would be considered a very poor load-out indeed.

As noted, ammo is not a concern currently, other than weight and space. Both of which are in abundance on the heavier Chassis that do carry AC10 preferred.

That would be an interesting 1v1 actually. 2 chassis, the same, one with 2 LL's (DHS's to max) the other with 1 AC10 and as much ammo as they can pack.

What does your Maths tell you about who would WIN?

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 11 April 2014 - 04:55 AM, said:

Difference is in TT that 0/2 pilot can die. And when he dies you have to start over with a 3/4 pilot. The point being theres a certain degree of risk that accompanies the increase in power level. But in MWO there is no risk, which means that level of power shouldn't be obtainable. You shouldn't be able to unload all your weapons into a single location on a mech, there needs to be some kindve damage spreading mechanism put into place.

Turn off the ability to Alpha Fire a Group of weapons. Instant .5s spread.

[wanderer]

Karl Streiger, on 11 April 2014 - 05:17 AM, said:

Oh - we have the bad tabletop mechanics in mwo... but not the good ones.

(I have done it - i was able to create with all those "bad" tabletop mechanics a Mech that is able to fight a single player campaign like those in Mechwarrior 2 or 3)
When i was finished my TimberWolf had a BV of 16.000 and was able to core a Hellbringer at long range with aimed shots and targeting computer - all i did need was the roll of a 5....

By comparison, a stock one is about 2700 BV, indicating exactly how much past the average you have to push things to get those superaccurate shooty death stars.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 11 April 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

By comparison, a stock one is about 2700 BV, indicating exactly how much past the average you have to push things to get those superaccurate shooty death stars.

Actually he did something completely wrong. I faced a player with 5 Stone Rhinos a Total of 15 Gauss and 1P/1G under 10,000 BV

[Ultimax]

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

I am uncertain where you get that 3 minutes. I have to assume that by whatever method, it takes into account Map selection,

Hi Almond,

That calculation is the maximum DPS (you never stop firing) of the weapon. I pulled it straight from Smurfy's weaponlab, which compares the Heat per second vs. the dissipation rate and assumes you never stop firing the laser.

For example, if you turn the sliding scale on the 2xLLAS in Smurfy's to "90%" (you pull the trigger 90% of the time when the recycle of the weapon is finished) instead of 100% - your max DPS becomes 3.81 and you can do that for 53 minutes without overheating.


If you do take pauses, torso twist, hide behind cover, etc. The "sustained" DPS (without overheating) is 3.68, compared to the AC 10s 4 DPS.


It doesn't take into account map selection.

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

the addition of other weapons, or the fact that one does actually have to stand still and have a stationary target to maximize that Alpha. That is a very rare occurrence, but a good shot, carrying an AC10 is utilizing the perfect "drive by weapon".

I'm sorry I'm not sure what you mean by the addition of other weapons. Can you please clarify?

Yes, one has to stand still to maximize the alpha. It's still 80% stronger than the AC 10s alpha.

Do you think it's unreasonable to stand still for 0.5s to do 9 damage compared to the AC 10's, 10 damage?

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

Again, your Maths may tell you one thing, but field experience tells that tale differently.

My maths are really just to illustrate a single point.

That many players (not necessarily you) tend to erroneously compare specific lasers to specific AC weapons.

They often compare the MLAS to an AC 5, because they have the same alpha potential.

That's not how weapons should be compared (not entirely), weapon comparisons absolutely must compare tonnage.


The reason why I keep posting this, is because there are all manner of AC nerf proposals, and so far almost none of them even recognize this fact!

Tell me, if ACs become "burst weapons" where you need to "stand still and have a stationary target to maximize that Alpha" and they also have a projectile AND they weigh nearly 2x as much - do you actually think that's balanced?


I'm not saying they are perfect compared vs. one another, I'm illustrating that any discussion that proposes a nerf but does not consider tonnage is a proposal that has failed to take everything into consideration.

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

I can only assume you don't run many erLL or LL full builds... besides, a straight 2 LL build might be nice on a Light (for the few chassis which could deal with them) but in the upper weights, it would be considered a very poor load-out indeed.

I don't run "full LL" builds, I also don't run full AC builds.

I choose mechs that have a mix of ballistic & energy, and occasionally missile hardpoints - because I prefer a mix of weapons to cover different situations, backup, etc.

I don't run any Energy only builds, because I do agree with you and others that the Ghost Heat System and DHS 1.4 changes, etc, unfairly punish full Energy builds and the mechs that can only use Energy hardpoints.

Almond Brown, on 11 April 2014 - 06:58 AM, said:

That would be an interesting 1v1 actually. 2 chassis, the same, one with 2 LL's (DHS's to max) the other with 1 AC10 and as much ammo as they can pack.

That would be interesting!

I might try something like this:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...28b0c15bedc4819

[Joseph Mallan]

The only thing I disagree with is your concept of tonnage. And only due to how our game's damage is delivered. A Medium laser can do 5 damage for 1 ton, BUT it does its damage over time. An LRM5 can do 5(7?) damage but the missiles will spread and not put it pin point you pay a mass premium for the better range. AC5 Front Loads the damage. Reaches the furthest, runs the coolest but weighs the most. You get premium return for that weight.

Or is that what you are saying?

[wanderer]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 April 2014 - 07:56 AM, said:

Actually he did something completely wrong. I faced a player with 5 Stone Rhinos a Total of 15 Gauss and 1P/1G under 10,000 BV

So did he. A stock Stone Rhino is roughly 3000 BV, meaning 5 is about 15,000 BV with regular-ranked pilots, improving the pilots from 5/4 to 1/1 should have shot that up to astronomical levels.

Math fail has occured.

[Bobzilla]

They just need to raise the heat a bit for AC's or lower for energy. Energy weapons are only good for a high burst and a cooling off period, while ac's are good for a high burst, and keeping on bursting. Given the already higher DPS of ac's, they out dps and sustain better. It should be either/or not both. This doesn't even take into consideration of range or pinpoint. If heat was different, or internal HS were different, the weight difference would matter, but currently it does not play a factor.

If you think ballistics are 'fine', wait until the dakka omnis come out.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 11 April 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

So did he. A stock Stone Rhino is roughly 3000 BV, meaning 5 is about 15,000 BV with regular-ranked pilots, improving the pilots from 5/4 to 1/1 should have shot that up to astronomical levels.

Math fail has occured.

Added 10 MGs and NO ammo or something similar to screw with the math... Its been close to 15 years ago now...

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 11 April 2014 - 08:16 AM, said:

The only thing I disagree with is your concept of tonnage. And only due to how our game's damage is delivered. A Medium laser can do 5 damage for 1 ton, BUT it does its damage over time. An LRM5 can do 5(7?) damage but the missiles will spread and not put it pin point you pay a mass premium for the better range. AC5 Front Loads the damage. Reaches the furthest, runs the coolest but weighs the most. You get premium return for that weight.

Or is that what you are saying?

I believe we're saying similar things.

My main gripe is when people say things like:

"An AC 10 is completely superior to a LLAS!"


Well, yes. Of course it is.

One AC 10 needs to be superior, it costs 12 tons vs. the 5 tons of one LLAS.
It takes up more than 3x as many slots. (Relevant when you have 1 arm with 3 ballistic hardpoints vs. 1 arm with 3 energy hardpoints).


"You get premium return for that weight."

Exactly.


Which brings us to:

Ghost Heat
Heat Cap
Dissipation Rates



My other gripe is the proposal to change ACs to spread more, without considering projectile vs. hitscan.

Hitscan is a completely superior mechanic, the only thing that keeps it reasonable is that it is not FLD - but I'll save this for the other thread.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 11 April 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[Ordellus]

3rdworld, on 10 April 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

They are the worst AC by a mile. 8 tons for a weapon that does 2 damage. 2.

It's funny when people ignore all the benefits of a weapon simply to try and make a point.

True they only do 2 damage, but they do it every (what half a second?). Stretch that out over an AC20 firing time and you get....16 damage (I think AC20 shoots every 4 second?).

Wow that's really close.... except it's like a third of the weight.

Oh it's has 3 times the range you say....

Well, when they're are actually compared in an intelligent manner.... it does 75% of the damage for 30(ish)% of the weight at 300% the range....wonder what happens when you have two of them...

Wouldn't exactly call that "OMGTerribadFTHISGAME"

The only benefit to getting the bigger AC is that you spend less time using skill to aim, and more time cowering behind a rock waiting for the weapon cool down timer.

Edited by Ordellus, 11 April 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[cSand]

Ordellus, on 11 April 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

It's funny when people ignore all the benefits of a weapon simply to try and make a point.

True they only do 2 damage, but they do it every (what half a second?). Stretch that out over an AC20 firing time and you get....16 damage (I think AC20 shoots every 4 second?).

Wow that's really close.... except it's like a third of the weight.

Oh it's has 3 times the range you say....

Well, when they're are actually compared in an intelligent manner.... it does 75% of the damage for 30(ish)% of the weight at 300% the range....wonder what happens when you have two of them...

Wouldn't exactly call that "OMGTerribadFTHISGAME"

The only benefit to getting the bigger AC is that you spend less time using skill to aim, and more time cowering behind a rock waiting for the weapon cool down timer.

I love my 3 AC2 on my Dragon 5N. People see the Dragon and go "NICE easy target. Just a Dragon gonna pwn this fool"

5 seconds later they are freaking out trying to run away

Edited by cSand, 11 April 2014 - 09:09 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Ordellus, on 11 April 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

It's funny when people ignore all the benefits of a weapon simply to try and make a point.

True they only do 2 damage, but they do it every (what half a second?). Stretch that out over an AC20 firing time and you get....16 damage (I think AC20 shoots every 4 second?).

Wow that's really close.... except it's like a third of the weight.

Oh it's has 3 times the range you say....

Well, when they're are actually compared in an intelligent manner.... it does 75% of the damage for 30(ish)% of the weight at 300% the range....wonder what happens when you have two of them...

Wouldn't exactly call that "OMGTerribadFTHISGAME"

The only benefit to getting the bigger AC is that you spend less time using skill to aim, and more time cowering behind a rock waiting for the weapon cool down timer.

This is exactly why ballistics are better than energy weapons,

'less time using skilll to aim and more time cowering behind a rock waiting for the weapon cool down timer'

Also waiting for your mech to cool down (unless you used the difference in slots/ton on heatsinks), also with less range.


It would make sense if 4 ML's balanced out with an AC20 (20 dmg alpha every 4 seconds for both with effective range of 270m). And it appears that 4 ML's weigh less, but with heat, to get the same sustained DPS out of them, you'd have to add 14 external DHS to the ML's.

With skill taken out of the equation to look solely at weapon balance, the ac20 weighs less for the exact same performance (well actually just 10 internal DHS leave extra dissapation with the ac20 for more weapons).

AC's are not heavier than energy weapons to get the same performance out of them.