180 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 06:28 AM, said:

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.

I wouldn't want the AC2 to out pace an AC20 by itself Ultumatum...

I don't follow the 18 damage in 1.56 seconds being equal or balanced against 20 damage once every 4 seconds???

[Almond Brown]

Techorse, on 04 April 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Putting limits on customization freedom like that tends to get Mechwarrior players angry.

A better way is to impose a psychological "cap" on the ammo count by making the chance of ammo exploding when critted out much more likely.

Allowing for free form customization apparently makes some MechWarrior players angry. Just saying.

Hoffenstein, on 04 April 2014 - 09:44 PM, said:

Only if you cap heatsinks at 2 per energy weapon too.

Acceptable. Caveat! Energy weapons Heat values reset to match current Ballistic weapon values. Agreed?

kapusta11, on 05 April 2014 - 10:38 AM, said:

What's wrong with ballistic weapons in the first place?

They kill other players and many don't like that.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Allowing for free form customization apparently makes some MechWarrior players angry. Just saying.



Acceptable. Caveat! Energy weapons Heat values reset to match current Ballistic weapon values. Agreed?

This is MechWarrior...

someone's always going to be angry.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 06:46 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 10 April 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

I wouldn't want the AC2 to out pace an AC20 by itself Ultumatum...

I don't follow the 18 damage in 1.56 seconds being equal or balanced against 20 damage once every 4 seconds???

18 damage in 1.56s requires 3 AC 2s, not 1.

1 AC 2 does not outpace the AC 20.

That's about 26 tons of load vs. 17 tons of load. (Factoring 8 tons of ammo for the AC 2s and 3 tons for the AC 20 - you could run with 6 tons for the AC 2s, but you'll probably gas out early - and it's still 24 tons vs. 17)


The AC 20 is 20 damage every 4s, but in 1s it does 20 damage.

So it all lands in one spot, you can torso twist away after you fire it.

The AC 2 needs to remain on target, you can't torso twist without losing damage.


The 3 AC s also overheat in 10s, the AC 20 overheats in 2 minutes and 17s - just comparing the base with 10 DHS in the engine


So that's 9 extra tons, and 5.77 Heat/s vs. 1.5 Heat/s.


The cost is heat and tonnage.(More than 3.5 x the heat generation).




So you can re-balance 3x AC 2s to do less DPS but then you would also need to reduce their tonnage and heat.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 06:50 AM.

[Almond Brown]

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.

Are we adjusting costs or will a AC10 still be 400K? Tough on the incoming new players.

The "Grind" whine would be near unbearable.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ok. I get it.
In one second an AC20 can also do 0 damage where the 3xAC2 will do some damage as it is streaming damage more than an AC20.

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

Are we adjusting costs or will a AC10 still be 400K? Tough on the incoming new players.

The "Grind" whine would be near unbearable.

I can afford an AC10 in two hours of play I average 60K a match 8 matches in 2 hours... AC10.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 10 April 2014 - 07:01 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Errinovar, on 05 April 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

Horrible idea that will make AC worthless. AC already pay a weight tax and live under a damage over time potential limitation in exchange for lower heat per shot. Seriously if you limit the tonnage to 2 max per AC you would have to increase the ammo per ton dramatically, particularly in cases like the AC 20 where as it stands, shooting with 100% accuracy, 2 tons gives a 280 damage cap for that weapon which takes up 16 tons and 12 critical slots with ammo. For 14 tons and 6 critical slots you could add 2 ppcs and have no damage cap.

Well actually all weapons have damage caps built right in. Ballistics just have a further draw back if you run out.

Death or the 15 minute timer are both hard Caps.

[CharlieChap]

Alterations to ammunition weight and quantity are an important tool in the dev's arsenal when it comes to balance and we should hope that they consider them closely.

Like many of MWO's mechanism's, the original values (weight & quantity) appear to come from the TT (tabletop game),

IN TT each ton of ammunition contains a number of 'clips' of ammunition , NOT shots.
Each clip is enough to fire an AC for one TT 10s turn. It represents all of the shots that gun fires during that turn.

In MWO the weights and clip quantities have been ported closely initially, then altered and may or may not correlate because the units are different, It is not 'clips' in MWO but shots and the time period is no longer a constant 10s 'turn' because all of the Ac's have different cooldown periods or reload rates.

It appears that the developers are taking certain TT data as 'sacred', although the base mechanic that underpins the relevant mechanism has changed.

I don't think TT is 'sacred' however if you intend to get the same kind of numeric results as tabletop with a RTS system that tracks different units, the numbers really have to change somewhere.
Ammunition like DPS from certain weapons in MWO, appears to be another example of something that has been taken literally from the TT without fully considering and factoring in the differences of the MWO Realtime System.... 'yet' anyway.

[Dawnstealer]

Techorse, on 04 April 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Putting limits on customization freedom like that tends to get Mechwarrior players angry.

A better way is to impose a psychological "cap" on the ammo count by making the chance of ammo exploding when critted out much more likely.

Or not allow any ammo in the legs. That was a rare thing in BT; it's common in MWO. If people have to store the ammo right next to their engine or in their arms, they're going to have to invest in CASEs or go with less armor.

[Almond Brown]

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

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.

To be honest, nothing crazy wrong except the fact that Energy weapons, you know that other 3rd of all weapons available, are not up to par currently.

Simply reduce the BURN time of all the Energy weapons by 50% and things would be OK. One should not fear an AC5 past 800m as it is effectively an AC2.5. Same is true for the other Long range units, aka the AC2.

Why should the LL be gimped for DPS when compared to its Ballistic counter part the AC10?

Edited by Almond Brown, 10 April 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Techorse, on 04 April 2014 - 08:45 PM, said:

Putting limits on customization freedom like that tends to get Mechwarrior players angry.

A better way is to impose a psychological "cap" on the ammo count by making the chance of ammo exploding when critted out much more likely.

The bottom line is that ammo explosion rate isnt high enough. There is zero downsides to ballistics weapons other than tonnage.

[Almond Brown]

Trauglodyte, on 07 April 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

Without increasing the chance to get an ammo explosion, this doesn't do much.

On the contrary, SRMs and LRMs are still restricted to TT values. ACs got both a much unneeded range buff and an ammunition increase. It is so bad that people just fire at anything they want when they want cause they know that they've got the ammo to do it. Combined with a lack of ammo explosions, there is nothing preventing people from putting ammo all over the place without CASE. This is yet another area of the game where the mean parent figure is lacking. Who cares that you'd be limited in firing your ACs - that is the point.

And that is exactly why reducing the max range would be a bad thing without an ammo decrease included. The 3X range provides that window, for those who just don't care, to waste some of what should be very precious ammo, on shots that likely do little at the ranges they are expended at.

Reduce the range and the energy user still has to expose themselves for extended periods (comparable to the Ballistic point click and hide user) but now the Ballistic user will just not "waste" shots as the new range, unless set to fall off out to zero at 900m (AC10) will be more like point blank.

A sure sign of too much ammo is when you hear players wasting it in the Drop zone. That always make me frown but I just assume they never run out in actual combat...

[Ultimax]

Almond Brown, on 10 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

Why should the LL be gimped for DPS when compared to its Ballistic counter part the AC10?

The LL is not the counterpart to the AC 10.

The AC 10 costs 12 tons + AMMO

The LLAS costs 5 tons.

2x LLAS with 10+4 Heatsinks (10 Engine & 4 External) weighs the same as 1x AC 10 and 2 Tons of Ammo.

2x LLAS 10+4 Heatsinks does more DPS, higher Alpha but is less less sustainable (3 minutes & 10s to overheat).

2x LLAS has an alpha potential of 18 vs. the Alpha potential of an AC 10 which is 10.



1x AC 10 with 2 Tons of ammo gets you 30 shots, or 300 damage potential. Make it count.
2x LLAS never runs out of ammo, feel free to spray and pray as needed.



When you stop comparing weapons by the initial damage they deal (alpha) and begin comparing them by their tonnage - they are actually better balanced then most players seem to realize.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 08:05 AM.

[Almond Brown]

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

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

Make it 4HP and C.A.S.E. reduces that % chance to 25 and a deal is struck. )

[Almond Brown]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

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 ).

Perhaps PGI can get all forward thinking and create a new Ballistic weapon called the AC15. That would be the same as that AC20 that misses with 1 of its 4 x 5 points slugs.. lol

[Joseph Mallan]

Heck I'd be happy with 1HP 100% volatile an CASE... What can I say its what I am used to.

[Khobai]

Quote

Heck I'd be happy with 1HP 100% volatile an CASE... What can I say its what I am used to.

Its also why no one uses ballistics (except for gauss) in custom battletech, because theyre AWFUL.

Gauss, PPC, and Medium Lasers dominate custom battletech (if you exclude clan tech, because clan tech was just overpowered)

Going back to an unbalanced system that makes autocannons worthless again is the last thing we want to do. we dont need 100% ammo explosions. 10% RNG instant death is bad enough as is.

The best way to fix autocannons is just to add a mechanism that makes them spread damage. Thats not only consistent with fluff but it also normalizes autocannons with missiles and lasers.

Edited by Khobai, 10 April 2014 - 08:30 AM.

[Almond Brown]

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

Reducing ammo needs to happen.

stuff

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.

more stuff

Not being argumentative Traug but what your saying amounts to "change the game to my liking" and then telling everyone else to "build wisely".

That never works, as not everyone may like it the "other" way.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 09 April 2014 - 11:27 AM, said:

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 ).

Weaker to you doesn't define weaker to me. A Burst fire MIGHT do 20 damage or it Might do 15,10 or 5. Not my idea of how I want to fight. I want the all or nothing BFG of a Mike Tyson punch... Heck i took Wing Chun Do classes so I COULD disable people in a single punch. I like Two handed swords(in real life) cause if I have to swing one, it Will crush through what it hits... That is my way of fighting AND pretending to fight. I preferred the 203 to the SAW and both over the M16. I prefer killing quickly over dragging it out. Efficiency in fighting... its why I have NEVER complained about dying to fast, I appreciate that power.

And I am not concerned with the DEVs opinion of what is and isn't to long a TTK. That is a personal opinion and will vary from player to player. That does not mean I don't respect it, its an opinion... just like mine.

[Fut]

Daggett, on 07 April 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

However although it's P2W i'm okay with it as long as it stays the only money sink preferring paying players because the influence is small enough to not deny me from having fun.

But add RnR and free players would have no way to run expensive builds AND use consumables without stagnating their progress while payers can have everything. And how can this not be total P2W when payers can afford more things which will increase their winning chances?

God dammit. People need to stop trying to force the idea that MWO is P2W.
Hell, even in your own comment you mix up the meaning of P2W. Unless these paying-players are buying things that I don't even know about in game...

Sure people who pay $$ can afford things quicker than those who don't, but that's all - everything is still available to the F2P group.