180 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

Tycho von Gagern, on 09 April 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

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)?

The AC/2 is the single-most buffed weapon compared to it's TT original - by far. It does 19 times its TT damage, when the other weapons do about 2.5 - 3 times their TT damage.

In TT the AC/2 is a six-ton MG with way less ammo and (much, much) better range.

How about we meet half-way? E.g. a 3-shot burst for 2 damage over 0.3 seconds with a 0.7 second cooldown for 2 DPS? Twice that of the current MG and a bit more than half that of its current 3.85 DPS?

[3rdworld]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

The AC/2 is the single-most buffed weapon compared to it's TT original - by far. It does 19 times its TT damage, when the other weapons do about 2.5 - 3 times their TT damage.

Yet it is still a massive waste of tonnage.

When you are arguing for a new mechanic to balance something, then post how the AC/2 is too good, it makes me question whether you know what the word Balance means, or if you even play MWO.

Edited by 3rdworld, 09 April 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[Tombstoner]

3rdworld, on 09 April 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

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.

I'll run with that idea. If pin point damage is there nitch then PPC's and gause need to be altered to burst or hit scan. both are not viable. i do see autocannons as being the ammo based FLD and the PPC being the energy based FLD. except that what do you do about the Gauss. it means that auto cannons muct be converted to hitscan/burst fire and thus they become the ammo based version of the laser.

This game could be converted into a simple 2 factor layout.... FLD and hit scan damage vs. energy based and ammo based weapons.

auto cannons ammo based - burst fire/hit scan
gause ammo based - single shot FLD
PPC energy - single shot FLD
laser energy - hit scan
pulse laser energy - burst fire/hit scan

I would also go one step further and add new wespon types and call them lost tech
weapons like the ppc-2, ppc-5, ppc-20, gause -2, gause-5 and such.

[101011]

Ordellus, on 08 April 2014 - 08:33 PM, said:

-snip-

First, I would like to apologize for my hasty post. You made some strong points against it, and I realize now that I should have thought more before posting it.

101011, on 05 April 2014 - 02:57 PM, said:

Yes to the burst-fire idea, no to the missiles. The thing is, there is a physical explanation for why lasers/ballistics have increased extreme range. Laser slowly lose focus over distance, ballistics lose momentum. Missiles, however, do not rely on their momentum to deal damage, but a fixed payload. The only way, at least for me, to make the 2x work would be to have a x% chance that a missile loses track and explodes where x is a variable constantly adjusted for based off of a few criteria:

• Whether shooter still has lock on
  
• Distance
  
• If no lock on, then time since lock was lost

These would combine so that a number of missiles hit causing damage approximately equivalent to a laser fired at the same degree of extreme range, as opposed to simply making missiles do less damage which makes no sense.

In my original argument, I was explaining my beliefs as to why autocannons should do damage past maximum range whereas a missile will not, and not, as you understand, actual ranges of weaponry. I did not, however, claim that they should be able to shoot farther,as I then go on to suggest a way for 2x range to work. Neither did I argue that shells should travel forever.

Your point on the cannon firing in an arced trajectory instead of horizontal, while valid, misses my point. At 810 meters, an AC/20 shell does no damage. A shell of comparable size and velocity would still make some kind of impact at that point. Really, if we were to model these guns as in real life, autocannons would have a much longer range. This, of course, is one of the reasons why we don't.

Let's assume that pilots are able to compensate for bullet drop and aren't firing completely horizontal, shall we? The drop in game is very minor, and I personally only notice it when I am firing at a target upwards of 500 meters away. But, as you yourself pointed out, bullet drop has no bearing on shell damage and therefore has nothing to do with the original post.

Shell damage is linked with range, but through velocity. We both know that as soon as a shell leaves the barrel, it is acted upon by air resistance, slowing it down. The further the shell travels, the slower it is moving, and the less impact it will have upon the target. This explains the current in game x3 extended range mechanic.

Edited by 101011, 09 April 2014 - 01:23 PM.

[Mcgral18]

3rdworld, on 09 April 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

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.

Aside from low heat and higher DPS? Longer range?

It's more than just a little bit more damage, it fires over twice as fast. 1.5s to 4s.

And you said it yourself, spread damage is simply inferior to FLD. PGI can't fix convergence, so they should fix FLD. There is a reason it's so much more efficient.

[Khobai]

Quote

I mean if AC/5s spread damage like a MLs, why on earth would you ever use one?

1) three times longer max range
2) half the heat
3) two-and-a-half times more dps
4) still wouldnt spread damage as much as a laser
5) future possibility of different ammo types

Theres 5 reasons why you would still use an AC/5 over a ML even if the AC/5 spread damage.

Quote

And you said it yourself, spread damage is simply inferior to FLD. PGI can't fix convergence, so they should fix FLD. There is a reason it's so much more efficient.

This. FLD weapons are too good. That leaves us with two options: Nerf FLD or buff spread weapons. Buffing spread weapons would make mechs die even faster. So the obvious option is to nerf FLD.

Edited by Khobai, 09 April 2014 - 01:35 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

Khobai, on 09 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

This. FLD weapons are too good. That leaves us with two options: Nerf FLD or buff spread weapons. Buffing spread weapons would make mechs die even faster. So the obvious option is to nerf FLD.

I don't often agree with you, Khobai, but when I do, I quote it. PPCs, due to their heat, are self limiting. Heat penalties would enforce that fact even more. But, ACs don't sweat heat and penalties down the road, if we ever get them, would still do nothing. That would leave us with a situation where we just went to pure AC load outs and that is no different than what we have now.

People talk about convergence and it is a problem. But, it is much akin to the "Chicken vs The Egg". Which one is the real problem? Front loaded damage is necessary to finish people off quickly or to cause people to rethink their actions. It should, though, come with a down side that limits its use and we don't have that. Two AC5s might weigh 16 tons but that is still 10 damage every 1.5s without efficiencies. For the same weight, you're talking about a Gauss Rifle doing 15 every 4.75s or an AC20 doing 20 every 4s. There isn't an energy or missile weapon that can do the same thing without running into heat and/or spread issues and all of those weapons SPREAD damage.

[Felio]

Reducing ammo per ton would be a less aggravating and more elegant solution, IMO.

[wanderer]

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

Except, of course that which location is random, where in MWO it's quite simple to put it all center of mass with FLD weapons until robot donuts occur.

Quote

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!

Realizing, of course that said AC/2 or /5 would be in turn spreading IT'S damage as well.

Accurately being able to put all your guns into one spot broke the TT game (which is why a lot of weapons do NOT work with targeting computers). Why wouldn't being able to do the same thing NOT break MWO in turn and therefore be avoiding like the plague?

[Trauglodyte]

Reducing ammo needs to happen. You can't run one weapon type by TT rules, another by TT x1.5, and a third by made up rules (AMS and MGs). Furthermore, if stupid people want to waste ammo on low percentage shots and they either run out early or have to take extra ammo and die to ammo explosions (which also needs to be increased so as to make ammo based weapons a luxury and not an OP must), that is their fault. There isn't a mech in game that is 100% ammunition based so energy based backup weapons exist for a reason - build your mechs wisely.

Quote

Accurately being able to put all your guns into one spot broke the TT game (which is why a lot of weapons do NOT work with targeting computers). Why wouldn't being able to do the same thing NOT break MWO in turn and therefore be avoiding like the plague?

This is why I'm in favor of applying a modified "missile tubes" rule to ballistic slots. Some mech are iconic based on the weapon(s) they carry. The Hunchback 4G is one of them and is, point of fact, build around the AC20. It takes up so much of the mech that it was named because of the pod which holds it. It should, therefore, be unique in it's ability to utilize that weapon. On the other side, a Shadowhawk running an AC20 should NOT be as effective because it was never intended to carry it and, while it can after a rebuild, should be diminished in it's capacity to do so. The idea is to put an AC value on ballistic slots (see below) and then cause a burst fire effect should a larger AC be put in that place. For example, the Jagermech A comes stock with an AC2 in each arm. Upgrade to an AC5 and you'd fire two shots at 2.5 damage per. Put in an AC10 and you'd fire five shots at 2 damage per and AC20 would mean 10 shots over 1 second (firing every 0.1s like a MG) at the same 2 damage per shot. It emphasizes mechs that were build to carry specific weapons, adds flavor to the 'verse by adding in different AC types of the same level (different manufacturers produced ACs of the same time that operated differently from a single shot to a heavy burst), and prevents the proliferation of specific types of heavy ACs. The only down side of that is that it doesn't really do anything to FLD as the builds of choice today pair PPCs and AC5s/UAC5 and there are only a few mechs in game that carry a machine gun or AC2 stock.

AC "tubes":

2 - MG, AC2, Gauss Rifle (fires solid slug at high speed so "size doesn't matter")
5 - AC5
10 - AC10
20 - AC20

[Karl Streiger]

Trauglodyte, on 09 April 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Reducing ammo needs to happen. You can't run one weapon type by TT rules, another by TT x1.5, and a third by made up rules (AMS and MGs). Furthermore, if stupid people want to waste ammo on low percentage shots and they either run out early or have to take extra ammo and die to ammo explosions (which also needs to be increased so as to make ammo based weapons a luxury and not an OP must), that is their fault. There isn't a mech in game that is 100% ammunition based so energy based backup weapons exist for a reason - build your mechs wisely.



This is why I'm in favor of applying a modified "missile tubes" rule to ballistic slots. Some mech are iconic based on the weapon(s) they carry. The Hunchback 4G is one of them and is, point of fact, build around the AC20. It takes up so much of the mech that it was named because of the pod which holds it. It should, therefore, be unique in it's ability to utilize that weapon. On the other side, a Shadowhawk running an AC20 should NOT be as effective because it was never intended to carry it and, while it can after a rebuild, should be diminished in it's capacity to do so. The idea is to put an AC value on ballistic slots (see below) and then cause a burst fire effect should a larger AC be put in that place. For example, the Jagermech A comes stock with an AC2 in each arm. Upgrade to an AC5 and you'd fire two shots at 2.5 damage per. Put in an AC10 and you'd fire five shots at 2 damage per and AC20 would mean 10 shots over 1 second (firing every 0.1s like a MG) at the same 2 damage per shot. It emphasizes mechs that were build to carry specific weapons, adds flavor to the 'verse by adding in different AC types of the same level (different manufacturers produced ACs of the same time that operated differently from a single shot to a heavy burst), and prevents the proliferation of specific types of heavy ACs. The only down side of that is that it doesn't really do anything to FLD as the builds of choice today pair PPCs and AC5s/UAC5 and there are only a few mechs in game that carry a machine gun or AC2 stock.

The pair of AC 5s are mounted in locations of Gauss, AC 10 and AC 20 for the Highlander - you can use the same mechanic like for missiles.
First you "choose" the mother of all stock Mech weapon load: in case of the Highlander its a Gauss or AC 10
That means if you have the 733 - you automatically fire two shots of 10 dmg - there is no way arround it.
Want a AC 20 with a single shot - take the Victor.

Here the next weapon sizes could be Class 2s...so a pair of ACs in the Victor will fire 2 shots 1x7.5 (5+2.5) and 1x 2.5

And of course there is not a single reason why not to use the very principal for energy weapons too.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 09 April 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Except, of course that which location is random, where in MWO it's quite simple to put it all center of mass with FLD weapons until robot donuts occur.

Accurately being able to put all your guns into one spot broke the TT game (which is why a lot of weapons do NOT work with targeting computers). Why wouldn't being able to do the same thing NOT break MWO in turn and therefore be avoiding like the plague?

It is not always random though Wanderer. Targeting computers allow for called locations. To my memory only Pulse weapons were taken off the list of TCPU weapons. On TT (in the old rules) 2 UAC20s COULD put 80 damage in one location... An Atlas/Dire Wolf had 50-60 Armor on the front CT normally... The only complaint I remembered hearing was, "Dam, that was a good Mech!"

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 09 April 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

Yet it is still a massive waste of tonnage.

When you are arguing for a new mechanic to balance something, then post how the AC/2 is too good, it makes me question whether you know what the word Balance means, or if you even play MWO.

I may argue with Jobe over things, but questioning his concept of balance, Shame on you 3rd. The AC2 went from a simple pea shooter weapon on TT to a low caliber light weight AC20. It is what some people want the AC20 to become (No not you Jobe)!

[3rdworld]

Mcgral18, on 09 April 2014 - 01:25 PM, said:

Aside from low heat and higher DPS? Longer range?

It's more than just a little bit more damage, it fires over twice as fast. 1.5s to 4s.

And you said it yourself, spread damage is simply inferior to FLD. PGI can't fix convergence, so they should fix FLD. There is a reason it's so much more efficient.

I like to ignore 10 tons vs 1.

And that Rate of fire is next to the worst stat in the game. AC/5s are good because you are shooting them with your PPC CD, not standing out exposed firing them every 1.5 seconds.

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

I may argue with Jobe over things, but questioning his concept of balance, Shame on you 3rd. The AC2 went from a simple pea shooter weapon on TT to a low caliber light weight AC20. It is what some people want the AC20 to become (No not you Jobe)!

Anyone that can seriously make the argument that AC/2s are OP in the current state of MWO couldn't possibly understand what balance means. Wanting a game to be "TT the simulator" is one thing, but seriously trying to get AC/2s nerfed? They are the worst AC by a mile. 8 tons for a weapon that does 2 damage. 2.

Khobai, on 09 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

1) three times longer max range
2) half the heat
3) two-and-a-half times more dps
4) still wouldnt spread damage as much as a laser
5) future possibility of different ammo types

Theres 5 reasons why you would still use an AC/5 over a ML even if the AC/5 spread damage.

4 & 5 are conjecture. 3 is irrelevant (see pulse lasers & AC/2s).

1 & 2 are true, Though range is not easily arguable. The weapons being compared 1 is 9 tons lighter. Which can equal larger engine.

Edited by 3rdworld, 10 April 2014 - 04:32 AM.

[Thorqemada]

The AC2 has a super long range and a super fast firing rate (4 DPS) - better than the AC5.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 09 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

FLD weapons are too good. That leaves us with two options: Nerf FLD or buff spread weapons. Buffing spread weapons would make mechs die even faster. So the obvious option is to nerf FLD.

How is buffing weapon that no one use will increase TTK? And even if you want to do so you might just as well increase armor values without any forum rage.

Edited by kapusta11, 10 April 2014 - 05:11 AM.

[Ultimax]

Khobai, on 09 April 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

1) three times longer max range
2) half the heat
3) two-and-a-half times more dps
4) still wouldnt spread damage as much as a laser
5) future possibility of different ammo types

The nearest comparison to AC 5s is actually the Large Laser, not the Medium Laser (I know you weren't the one to bring the ML into the comparison).

This is by weight, which is really the better way to compare weapon systems imo - as weight is one of the primary limiting factors for what you can load on a build.



So 1 AC 5 + 2 Tons Ammo for 10 tons, vs. 2x LLAS for 10 tons with only the heatsinks that come in your engine.

Listing the pros of each config.

2x LLAS
1) Higher Maximum DPS
2) 18 point alpha vs. 5 point alpha (more than 3x the Alpha potential)
3) Hitscan
4) Time to overheat = 60s


1x AC 5 + 2 Tons Ammo
1) Superior Range (nearly 50%)
2) Superior Maximum Range (Nearly double)
3) FLD
4) Time to Overheat = never



1 AC 5 vs. 2x ER LLAS

1) The range gap closes (similar optimal range, both do the same damage to around 1050m, with the AC pulling ahead beyond that)
2) ERLLAS has Higher Maximum DPS
3) ER LLAS has 18 point alpha vs. 5 point alpha
4) Hitscan
5) Time to Overheat: 35s, so the AC 5 has supremely better sustainable fire



That's a much better, and a much closer comparison.


3x the Alpha potential (18) means that even if you only get the 2x LLAS onto your target location for 0.3s - you still did 5.4 damage (which is as much as the AC 5).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 05:37 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

Anyone that can seriously make the argument that AC/2s are OP in the current state of MWO couldn't possibly understand what balance means. Wanting a game to be "TT the simulator" is one thing, but seriously trying to get AC/2s nerfed? They are the worst AC by a mile. 8 tons for a weapon that does 2 damage. 2.

Lets look at this on (hypothetical)paper shall we.
AC2
6 tons
1 Crit
1 Heat (per shot)
720m range (2,100+ Max)
0.52 Cool down
3.85 DpS

AC20
14 tons
10 Crits
6 heat (per shot)
270 Range (810 Max)
4.0 Cool down
5.0 DpS

In 4 seconds an AC2 has fired 7.6 times (I will round down to 7), created 7 heat generated 14 points of probable damage and IS in the ballpark of DpS for the bigger stick. The AC2 IS OP compared to TT, is much to strong to be the light AC. AC2 could use a reduction to 1.75-1.5 per. I am not in favor of making things weaker mind you, but an AC2 is way way OP to what it has been for the bulk of 30 years... I am not against it being a better choice than back on TT, but right now it is to strong for its size as far as ballistics go.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 06:01 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

Lets look at this on (hypothetical)paper shall we.
AC2
6 tons
1 Crit
1 Heat (per shot)
720m range (2,100+ Max)
0.52 Cool down
3.85 DpS

AC20
14 tons
10 Crits
6 heat (per shot)
270 Range (810 Max)
4.0 Cool down
5.0 DpS

In 4 seconds an AC2 has fired 7.6 times (I will round down to 7), created 7 heat generated 14 points of probable damage and IS in the ballpark of DpS for the bigger stick. The AC2 IS OP compared to TT, is much to strong to be the light AC. AC2 could use a reduction to 1.75-1.5 per. I am not in favor of making things weaker mind you, but an AC2 is way way OP to what it has been for the bulk of 30 years... I am not against it being a better choice than back on TT, but right now it is to strong for its size as far as ballistics go.

All good points.

Although to be fair, it doesn't outpace the DPS of the AC 20 until you have 2 of them - once you consider the amount of ammo they are very close in weight.

With the AC 2 having higher DPS and the AC 20 having higher single shot burst.

That's obviously very different from what you describe is the case in TT, but that type of scale of DPS capability vs. Burst capability is fairly common mechanic in MMOs and is most likely what the devs were aiming for.

Once you add a third AC 2, then the burst potential actually becomes fairly close (18 damage in 1.56s) but is still lower than the AC 20, requires much more heat, and requires much more tonnage (somewhere around +8 or 9 extra tons after ammo)


With the AC2s massive range at 3x being the one glaring outlier that I agree should be curbed down to 2x.



Just for fun though, 3x AC 2s with 8 tons of ammo weighs 26 tons (10 free 2.0 DHS in engine).
2x ER LLAS and 6 external DHS weighs 16 tons.

2x ER LLAS weigh 10 tons less, and do 18 damage over 1s beam, have a time to overheat of 1:35s.
3x AC 2s do 18 damage over 1.56s and time to overheat 10s

So 2x ER LLAS have the advantage over 1s, and take longer to overheat while weighing 10 tons less.


Obviously they have different recycle times, and that's where the AC2s outpace them - so 10 full seconds of firing 3x AC2s will outstrip the 2x ER LLAS. However they still weigh an extra 10 tons.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[Mechteric]

Reducing ammo would only serve to hurt mechs that can only mount 1 of the perceived trouble weapons. Please keep in mind that for a Hunchback to be useful it's got to have around 4 or 5 tons of ammo. Medium mechs don't need to be nerfed.