180 replies to this topic

[Jolly Llama]

Bad idea. The same would then have to apply to missles. The logical community whine that comes next would be to limit heatsinks.

Learn to shoot while you move.

[Matthew Ace]

It would already be a bad idea by default due to certain stock builds already having more than 2t ammo per weapon (E.G. Cyclops having 4t AC20 ammo, Victor having 3t AC20 ammo).

Cap max range to 2x, and bring up the likelihood of ammo explosion.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 05 April 2014 - 05:27 PM.

[SgtSlaughter1989]

the real issue here is that PGI neutered energy weapons and double heat sinks.

LRMs and Autocannons have a clear bias compared to the tabletop.

I think PGI should intensify energy weapons and align them with the tabletop rules

[Tincan Nightmare]

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just increase there cooldown rates? If you slow the rate of fire for AC's, you increase the time it takes to kill mechs, and allows the other weapon classes a chance to compete. Give AC2's a cooldown of 1.25, AC5's a cooldown of 2.25, AC10's a cooldown of 3.25, and AC20's a cooldown of 4.25.

[Mystere]

Tincan Nightmare, on 05 April 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to just increase there cooldown rates? If you slow the rate of fire for AC's, you increase the time it takes to kill mechs, and allows the other weapon classes a chance to compete. Give AC2's a cooldown of 1.25, AC5's a cooldown of 2.25, AC10's a cooldown of 3.25, and AC20's a cooldown of 4.25.

At this point in time, I think that boat has already sailed. Such a change will just result in the forums looking like this:



Buffing lasers and missiles is a better alternative.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Mystere, on 05 April 2014 - 07:48 PM, said:

At this point in time, I think that boat has already sailed. Such a change will just result in the forums looking like this:



Buffing lasers and missiles is a better alternative.

Lol, yah but we will probably get that anyway if they do something like change AC's over to a burst fire weapon (if that how they 'fix' it). If anything a change in something like rate of fire may be easier than chaning how the weapon works as a whole. Regardless, the mushroom cloud is still gonna rise .

[kapusta11]

Again, what exactly is wrong with ballistics?

4xAC5 - niche build with major drawbacks - slow clunky (no JJ) heavy mech with xl engine and low ammo count. If the need be CAN be fixed with hardpoint size restrictions.
3xAC10 - same as above
Twin AC20 - same as above
Twin Gauss - same as above

Or you think individual weapons in quantities of 1 or 2 are OP as well? Then I guess, mediums with ballistic hardpoints can disagree with you.

Edited by kapusta11, 05 April 2014 - 11:22 PM.

[R Razor]

kapusta11, on 05 April 2014 - 11:20 PM, said:

Again, what exactly is wrong with ballistics?

4xAC5 - niche build with major drawbacks - slow clunky (no JJ) heavy mech with xl engine and low ammo count. If the need be CAN be fixed with hardpoint size restrictions.
3xAC10 - same as above
Twin AC20 - same as above
Twin Gauss - same as above

You must not play a lot........

4 AC5 Phracts that run 60kph and carry 60 shots per AC5 are commonplace builds that can and do wreak havoc on the field.

Twin Gauss Jag / Pult / Phract also create major damage, score multiple kills and generally perform well in capable hands on the field.

AC40 Jag.....nuff said

Agree with the 3 AC10, don't see many of them and that's probably because other ballistics far outperform the AC10.

[kapusta11]

I've played enough to know what I'm talking about, if you and the others can't exploit mech's weakneses (both chassis specific and gained due to heavy loadout) it's your damn fault.

[Mcgral18]

kapusta11, on 06 April 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

I've played enough to know what I'm talking about, if you and the others can't exploit mech's weakneses (both chassis specific and gained due to heavy loadout) it's your damn fault.

The best counter to the heavy FLD ballistic loadouts? Jumping loadouts with 25-40 FLD. FLD is inherently superior to spread damage and CoF damage, since you can aim exactly where you want it and apply all that damage instantly.

The fact we have instantaneous perfectly pinpoint convergence makes it that much worse, since your 2PPC+2AC5 become in essence an AC30.

Although PGIs damage interpretation was also horribly off, with most weapons doing 3 times their rated damage against 2x armor. Same goes for heat, but dissipation is 1.0, or nerfed for DHS.

So, if a weapon is considerably better than any of its counterparts, and exploits an armor system when compared to it's other competitors, it can be considered imbalanced.

Edited by Mcgral18, 06 April 2014 - 05:14 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

Mcgral18, on 06 April 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

2PPC+2AC5 become in essence an AC40.

10 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 40?

This damned new math makes my old head hurt.

[Mcgral18]

OneEyed Jack, on 06 April 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

10 + 10 + 5 + 5 = 40?

This damned new math makes my old head hurt.

...it's the morning.

Maths is hard. I'll go edit that.

Dual gauss+PPC gives AC40.

Edited by Mcgral18, 06 April 2014 - 05:14 AM.

[MechWarrior849305]

Balancing ballistics is easy - just don't allow putting ammo into legs and head. So it could be critted much, much, MUCH easily. Also, reducing ammo health. That's all. Even if you can install case into side torso, you can't do the same to arms

[East Indy]

kapusta11, on 06 April 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

I've played enough to know what I'm talking about

R Razor's exactly right that "popular" and "drawback" don't mix in this game. What's a Jagermech or Catapult sacrificing — renowned speed and maneuverability? They're fire-support weapons platforms. Cataphracts have the weight and the hardpoints. All of those builds simply exemplify the given chassis' general role with the maximum payoff.

---

OP: just going with the concept, a per-'Mech limit would be necessary, since the bigger the boat, the more likely there are only two tons (or fewer) of ammunition per gun. Four or five tons would be sufficient to change build psychology; and as pointed out earlier, the same restriction would need to be applied to LRMs, as well.

Edit: If not implied, that still doesn't solve the real problem with autocannons (or any other weapon) which is that they can be multiplied for pinpoint damage, yada yada, and it's been going on in MWO for so long players have gotten used to it.

Important here is that perfect convergence affects both dakka and poptarting, while ammo limits really only punish sustained fire. The range limit idea that keeps popping up actually encourages boating to make up for the loss in damage. No, the key is to reward multiple weapons with more fire; just not all at the same exact place.

Edited by East Indy, 06 April 2014 - 05:58 AM.

[Monkeystador]

Forget about it. Ballistics are balanced for 12v12 gamplay.
Instead, nerf the convergence speed so that for long range shots balistics and ppcs need 500ms longer to aim for the same spot. I.e. nerf convergence speed of all long range weapons that fire like ballistics. Half a sec more time need is enough for the first try.
High speed convergence could be the staple of lasers.

Edited by Monkeystador, 06 April 2014 - 09:22 PM.

[Hammerhai]

Ok ...

One point it seems was missed is that Clan Tech is on the way. With things like a Clan UAC20, in order to keep Time to Kill reasonable I humbly submit ALL ballistics need to be nerfed in damage output one way or another to make room for these.

I am guessing the general advantage of AC s is a basic design decision from way back when and will not easily be changed. Pinpoint frontload is possibly deemed important to keep people feeling they their skill in aiming makes a difference. Just guessing here.

That leaves a lot less levers for PGI to pull to nerf the damage, bringing up Lasers might well reduce Time to kill in an undesirable way. I have been a laser fan since way back when, so yes. I would LIKE to see lasers do better, but ... And lets not forget the Clan lasers need to be fitted in as well. Which even makes (slight) nerfs to lasers possible.

At a guess the easiest ways to nerf are Rate of Fire and Heat/Range tweaks which we should expect as likely. Limiting Ammo is not going to happen. IMHO

And @Monkeystador, Ballistics are not balanced for 12 vs 12, they are used in 12 vs 12 because they are unbalanced. Big difference.

[Turist0AT]

Where is my slap glove?! I need it really badly right now.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 05 April 2014 - 02:40 PM, said:

Cue non-premium types using energy weapons exclusively. When we had R&R, LRMs were literally throwing C-bills at your targets. I used to just run my old Founder's Cat with lasers and a cheap standard engine, because money.

I made a profit every match throwing C-Bills at the target back in those days....

[Daggett]

Mystere, on 05 April 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

A better suggestion is to bring back rearm and repair and at full 100% rates. In that way, missiles too are covered. It will also help nudge people in using more energy weapons.

All it does is to nudge people without premium or hero mechs to use more energy weapons.

It's bad enough that using consumables currently hampers your net income greatly (with the exception of a perfect UAV or strike maybe). I would bet that premium players use them way more often than non-premium users. Personally i don't use consumables because they are too expensive and i rather buy new mechs for my money.

So by adding another cost-factor like RnR you would create a huge gap between premium and non-premium users.

In a F2P game it's a bad idea to balance an item's power by economy because it always leads to P2W when real money allows you to use all those OP weapons without a real ingame-drawback compared to free-players.

In a fair game all items need to be balanced by their effect on the battlefield, not by their price tag.

Edited by Daggett, 07 April 2014 - 04:36 AM.

[Mystere]

Daggett, on 07 April 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

All it does is to nudge people without premium or hero mechs to use more energy weapons.

It's bad enough that using consumables currently hampers your net income greatly (with the exception of a perfect UAV or strike maybe). I would bet that premium players use them way more often than non-premium users. Personally i don't use consumables because they are too expensive and i rather buy new mechs for my money.

So by adding another cost-factor like RnR you would create a huge gap between premium and non-premium users.

In a F2P game it's a bad idea to balance an item's power by economy because it always leads to P2W when real money allows you to use all those OP weapons without a real ingame-drawback compared to free-players.

In a fair game all items need to be balanced by their effect on the battlefield, not by their price tag.

I only PUG, have not used premium time for a while, and run around in a light packing both artillery, air strikes. And still, I make a c-bill profit on the long term. As such, I don't think the freeloaders ... ahem ... I mean ... the people playing for free should have much of a problem.

Also, I think you are incorrectly using the term "pay to win", especially because everything is c-bill based.

Finally, we are playing a game set in a future dystopian universe constantly waging brutal war using giant waking machines of death. Fairness is one of the last things on my mind.