180 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

101011, on 08 April 2014 - 04:35 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....tall_120_mm_gun There is the modern equivalent of an AC/20

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, but that one I have to correct. That is no AC/20 - in fact it's neither AC nor 20.

Why it's not an "AC": Firing rate is too low. It fires a maximum of 10 shells per minute while the slowest-firing AC in BT lore fire at 18 shells per minute (the three-round burst of e.g. the Marauder AC/5) - and the fastest at 600 shells per minute.

Why it's not a "20": Throw weight. The AC/20 delivers 200 kg of ammo down-range every 10 seconds, the modern tank gun about 10-20 kg.

What it is, is the precursor of the Rifle family of weapons, which were the precursor to the Autocannon family of weapons. If you really must insist on giving the modern MBT main guns an "AC classification", they would be somewhere around AC/1 - AC/3.

[Joseph Mallan]

Is the Cauldron Born's AC firing rate recorded anywhere? I thought I read here it is a slow RoF...

Also... about that.

Quote

The Ultra AC/20 is the largest bore Ultra-class autocannon. Like all Ultra autocannons, it is capable of twice the rate of fire of a standard autocannon, doubling its heat output and, potentially, its damage. Only the brand new Clan HAG 40 can match the sheer damage output of the Ultra AC/20, though even that cannot place 20 points of damage squarely in one place. The only weapons that are capable of delivering more damage to one location are the Heavy Gauss Rifle and the experimental Improved Heavy Gauss.

Rapid firing 20 damage to one location...

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2014 - 05:54 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

Is the Cauldron Born's AC firing rate recorded anywhere? I thought I read here it is a slow RoF...

Not to my knowledge.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

Rapid firing 20 damage to one location...

Yes, using TT rules - in which all direct-fire weapons are FLD because you wanted to play a game, not roll 200 dice for a 100-round AC burst...

MWO doesn't need to follow the TT rules simplification; our computers can easily take care of tracking 3-5 round bursts for us.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

Not to my knowledge.


Yes, using TT rules - in which all direct-fire weapons are FLD because you wanted to play a game, not roll 200 dice for a 100-round AC burst...

MWO doesn't need to follow the TT rules simplification; our computers can easily take care of tracking 3-5 round bursts for us.

it is following the same TT Fluff text you are trying to use to validate burst fire. TT game mechanics has all damage from lasers and Ballistics going to one location.

Here we have three ways of dealing damage. Front loaded, DoT & Sand Blast. If we are getting to much damage in a single hit, reduce the over all damage per slug! It would suck, but it would suck less than an AC20 firing damage like a AC2 or AC5!

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

it is following the same TT Fluff text you are trying to use to validate burst fire.

Sarna is not necessarily canon, but even if it was, that sentence doesn't state anything but that the HAG40 can't do 20 damage to one "place" (not hit location). It cannot do that since it fires 40 1-point slugs, which IIRC are allocated in 5-point groups like LRMs.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

TT game mechanics has all damage from lasers and Ballistics going to one location.

Agreed.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Here we have three ways of dealing damage. Front loaded, DoT & Sand Blast. If we are getting to much damage in a single hit, reduce the over all damage per slug! It would suck, but it would suck less than an AC20 firing damage like a AC2 or AC5!

Nobody's asking for the AC/20 to do damage like the AC/2 or AC/5, I've told you enough times even a stubborn mule like you should have understood that by now

And what actually sucks is that ACs and PPCs are inherently unbalanced due to their damage-dealing mechanic, instant convergence, and pin-point accuracy.

Since PGI can't do anything about instant convergence, and won't do anything about pin-point accuracy, the only thing left to alter to balance the ACs and PPCs is their damage-dealing mechanic - i.e. to make them not FLD. Burst-fire is a very simple way of accomplishing this.

Also, did you know that your Atlas AC/20 is a burst-fire gun according to lore? What you're clinging to is a board-game mechanic that utterly breaks the armour system of this game, and you're doing so in the face of facts, in the face of reason, and in the face of game balance.

If I didn't know better I'd say you wanted them to remain as they are because you want the edge they give due to their FLD.

As it is, I'll just have to ascribe it to you being stubborn as a mule and not really understanding what's at stake.

[Trauglodyte]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

I love when you two squabble. It's like two Civil War vets sitting on a porch talking about which side of the Mason Dixon line was right.

[Joseph Mallan]

Trauglodyte, on 09 April 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

I love when you two squabble. It's like two Civil War vets sitting on a porch talking about which side of the Mason Dixon line was right.

I think I was at least Born during that squabble. Jobe... I think is a bit young to have been there!

[Prezimonto]

Give all ammo 1hp and a 100% explosion chance. Everyone will minimize ammo then.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

Sarna is not necessarily canon, but even if it was, that sentence doesn't state anything but that the HAG40 can't do 20 damage to one "place" (not hit location). It cannot do that since it fires 40 1-point slugs, which IIRC are allocated in 5-point groups like LRMs.


Agreed.


Nobody's asking for the AC/20 to do damage like the AC/2 or AC/5, I've told you enough times even a stubborn mule like you should have understood that by now

And what actually sucks is that ACs and PPCs are inherently unbalanced due to their damage-dealing mechanic, instant convergence, and pin-point accuracy.

Since PGI can't do anything about instant convergence, and won't do anything about pin-point accuracy, the only thing left to alter to balance the ACs and PPCs is their damage-dealing mechanic - i.e. to make them not FLD. Burst-fire is a very simple way of accomplishing this.

Also, did you know that your Atlas AC/20 is a burst-fire gun according to lore? What you're clinging to is a board-game mechanic that utterly breaks the armour system of this game, and you're doing so in the face of facts, in the face of reason, and in the face of game balance.

If I didn't know better I'd say you wanted them to remain as they are because you want the edge they give due to their FLD.

As it is, I'll just have to ascribe it to you being stubborn as a mule and not really understanding what's at stake.

If you are asking for an AC20 to do its 20 damage in 4-10 round bursts instead of a single shell, then you are asking for it to be like an AC2 or AC5. Neither weapon I like.

Prezimonto, on 09 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

Give all ammo 1hp and a 100% explosion chance. Everyone will minimize ammo then.

I love faulty generalizations.

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

I love faulty generalizations.

It's true.

But do consider it also affects carriers of large amounts of LRM ammo.

It's not that everyone will minimize ammo. More than CASE becomes attractive, crit seeking weapons become useful for hunting ammo dependent mechs, and legs are tasty tins of explosive pickled fish to want to pry open.

It's not that it will keep AC and LRM boats from existing (and 1hp/100% explosion chance might be a bit harsh) more that mechs that rely on ammo have no real fear of ammo exploding, which SHOULD be a draw back to those weapon systems. If ammo often exploded when destroyed and was easier to destroy many players could consider carefully whether to pack that second AC or 3 or 4th LRM instead and the ammo to support them... or should they go for less dangerous weapons like lasers and heat sinks.

Edited by Prezimonto, 09 April 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

You know what stopped me from loading CASE? Removing R&R. No repercussions for doing dumb things in a thinking mans game.

Also:
on TT all our weapons have 1 HP and all ammo blows up if it gets hit just once. I miss that!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 09 April 2014 - 11:05 AM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

I think I was at least Born during that squabble. Jobe... I think is a bit young to have been there!

Possibly

You're not that much older than me though, Joe - I was born before Apollo 11 launched.

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 10:53 AM, said:

If you are asking for an AC20 to do its 20 damage in 4-10 round bursts instead of a single shell, then you are asking for it to be like an AC2 or AC5. Neither weapon I like.

But I'm NOT asking for that; never have. For all the times we've been over this, I'm amazed you STILL haven't picked up on this rather simple fact.

I AM asking for it do do its 20 damage in a very rapid X-round burst of X time Y damage; X * Y totalling 20, and "very rapid" being 0.5 seconds or less. For example a 0.4-second burst of 4 times 5 damage.

Current AC/2 and AC/5 have a steady rhythm: shot-cooldown-shot-cooldown. In the case of the AC/2 it's shot - 0.5s - shot - 0.5s - shot, in the case of the AC/5 it's shot - 1.5s - shot - 1.5s - shot.

Burst fire would be shot-shot-shot-shot - cooldown - shot-shot-shot-shot - cooldown; e.g. shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 2.5s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot.

or graphically: (* is a round, - is 0.5 seconds cooldown)

AC/2: * - * - * - *
AC/5: * - - - * - - - * - - - *
Burst-fire AC/20: **** - - - - - ***** - - - - - *****

Get it?

Edited by stjobe, 09 April 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 11:05 AM, said:

Possibly

You're not that much older than me though, Joe - I was born before Apollo 11 launched.


But I'm NOT asking for that; never have. For all the times we've been over this, I'm amazed you STILL haven't picked up on this rather simple fact.

I AM asking for it do do its 20 damage in a very rapid X-round burst of X time Y damage; X * Y totalling 20, and "very rapid" being 0.5 seconds or less. For example a 0.4-second burst of 4 times 5 damage.

Current AC/2 and AC/5 have a steady rhythm: shot-cooldown-shot-cooldown. In the case of the AC/2 it's shot - 0.5s - shot - 0.5s - shot, in the case of the AC/5 it's shot - 1.5s - shot - 1.5s - shot.

Burst fire would be shot-shot-shot-shot - cooldown - shot-shot-shot-shot - cooldown; e.g. shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 2.5s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot - 0.1s - shot.

or graphically: (* is a round, - is 0.5 seconds cooldown)

AC/2: * - * - * - *
AC/5: * - - - * - - - * - - - *
Burst-fire AC/20: **** - - - - - ***** - - - - - *****
(* is a round, - is 0.5 seconds cooldown)

Get it?

I get it... I don't agree with it. Its a great sounding proposal... That I'd rather never see cause it's not My way of playing/fighting. So I will continue to remind PGI that not everyone wants weaker weapons and enemies that live longer.

I was 3 when 11 made its voyage!

[Prezimonto]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

You know what stopped me from loading CASE? Removing R&R. No repercussions for doing dumb things in a thinking mans game.

Also:
on TT all our weapons have 1 HP and all ammo blows up if it gets hit just once. I miss that!

Well: RnR, preponderance of XL-engines (where a destroyed side torso means death anyway), and a really low chance of ammo explosion all mean CASE is essentially useless.

I still want an RnR game mode. One where your decisions about mech loadout affect your for 4 matchs or so.
Pick an mech, launch into game mode, it locks your mech and equipment for 4 matchs. You can't repair and rearm.

Each match has extra side supply depots that If you don't get resupply points within the match, any position/item of your mech that's destroyed or used has a chance to start about 15% worse than base in the next match. Standar gear might only have a 20% chance to start low, but all upgrades would have an 80% chance to start damaged, as they're rare and expensive to resupply while on campaign.

These affects stack 15% per match per position: armor values, internal hp, engine speed, heat dissipation, ammo/ton, ect... You can pay to hire a drop ship to pull you out of your contract, but then your mech goes on a long ish (several hour) cool down at least. You mech gets tracked for it's play in the series, and ideally is matched each time against mechs that are equally far into the series. If you complete the series you earn a contract completion bonus that's fairly hefty.

RnR with real teeth, that affects everyone who plays the game mode roughly equally.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sounds like a good place to start at. play it for a few days/weeks see where it needs tweaked. I'd test that out happily!

[PeekaBoo I C Ju]

Big Grimm, on 04 April 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

I know there have been many suggestion on how to balance ballistic weapons, but I have not seen this idea. (if it has been suggested then sorry)

What if you can only carry a maximum of 2 tons per ballistic weapon. Then balance how much shots per ton each type of weapon can have.

You still could have the unique feel of ballistics but would need to carry back up lasers as you would run out of ammo fast!

totally disagree, the base tonnage of the smallest AC is the same tonnage as the largest Laser, plus it takes ammo to keep it going....your logic is seriously flawed and it would kill diversity...if 1 of my weapons is incapable of making it through a match, i will simply stop using it entirely...same thing i did with gaus and all my gaus mech...deleted them all...about 300+ hours lost due to nerfs....to be quite honest...it is whiners like you and the people at PGI who listen to hapless whines that make me glad star citizen is coming out...true storry

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 April 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

not everyone wants weaker weapons and enemies that live longer.

Burst-fire ACs aren't "weaker" than current ACs - a burst-fire AC/20 still does 20 damage per trigger pull - they just have the possibility of spreading their damage like every other weapon in the game.

And PGI are very much on board with the notion that enemies should live longer - they have stated several times that they think the TTK is too low - so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one (too ).

[Navy Sixes]

stjobe, on 05 April 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

We want to balance autocannons, not nerf them into oblivion.

The only change they need is to make them spread their damage like every other weapon, i.e. make them burst-fire. If you feel frisky you could drop their range to 2x as well (and increase missiles to 2x while you're at it), and then we're pretty well set.

So, what happens to the AC2? It becomes a six-ton MG with way less ammo/ton and a better range (but not too much better because 2x)? I fear that everyone who wants PP will just strip off their ballistics and pack on PPCs. Everyone who wants a ballistic nerf now will want an energy nerf then.

No to burst fire. Reduce the range and leave it be.

[Mordin Ashe]

There already is a cap on ammo. There is very tangible line between Mech that is filled with ammo and a firecracker.

Limiting ammo could be reliable balancing factor for Clans, but ifor IS tech I would leave it as is.

[3rdworld]

I don't think pinpoint damage from ACs is an issue.

I just think that should be their shtick.

PPCs I think it is an issue. They are so far an above all other energy weapons it isn't even funny. And them doing pinpoint damage allows you to synergize with ACs far too well.

I mean if AC/5s spread damage like a MLs, why on earth would you ever use one? See Pulse Laser vs Regular Laser, as to why being heavier and slightly spreading damage less, is no where near good enough.

Edited by 3rdworld, 09 April 2014 - 11:39 AM.