79 replies to this topic

[Jman5]

I know a lot of people have been taking a giant dump on the latest AC/2 balance changes, but I'll take the contrarian point of view and argue that it's a great change for the game as a whole.

Does it make sense to have the AC/2 max range under the AC/5? Not really. Having one or two autocannons with 2x range while the rest have 3x range is unintuitive. However, I'm hoping that this is just the test case to gather performance metrics before a greater change to all autocannons.

So what does a mechwarrior game look like where autocannons have 2x range versus 3x range?

1. An indirect buff to Brawling Builds

By cutting autocannon range down by 1/3 and significantly increasing damage drop off you shrink the average combat ranges dramatically. Now instead of taking damage from 2 km away, you're taking the same amount of fire at much closer ranges. This makes it easier to close the gap for brawlers and get into range to hard counter PPC jump snipers (sub 90m).

2. Increase Time to Kill by decreasing overall damage.

People don't really think about this much, but a huge amount of autocannon damage is done past their optimal ranges. However, because the damage drops off linearly at 3 times the optimal range, it is a very very slight transition. Energy weapons on the other hand have a 2x max range so the damage drop off is much more severe.



Despite the fact that both Medium lasers and AC/20 have identical optimum range, the medium laser drops off incredibly quickly zeroing out at 540 meters. The AC/20 keeps going strong all the way out to 810 meters. You see similar effects with other comparable weapons.

By making damage drop off faster you encourage people to fight more in their optimum range. It will also have the effect of making those ultra long range shots hurt less as you close the gap.

3. Makes lasers and other energy weapons more desirable.

In my opinion lasers are some of the most balanced weapons in the game. Their damage over time beam make them a challenge to use properly. Moving at 100+ KPH it can be quite difficult to get the entire beam to not only connect with the target, but hit the same component. If you don't believe me, record a game as a light and then rewatch the fights in slow motion. You'll probably see your lasers bouncing all over the target spreading damage inefficiently. Their heat requirements also really force players to balance their heat carefully.

4. This kills the poptart

Ok kill is a strong word, but it noticeably weakens their ability to dish out damage and makes their weaknesses more easily exploitable.

Let's take a classic two AC/5 + two PPC Victor Dragon Slayer.

Currently it's damage per alpha looks a little something like this:

• 0-90 meters: 10 damage
  
• 91 - 540 meters (optimal range): 30 damage
  
• 810 meters (PPCs half damage): ~ 19 damage
  
• 1080 meters (PPCs zero out): ~ 6 damage
  
• 1160 meters (AC/5 half damage): 5 damage
  
• 1700 meters (AC/5 zero out): 0 damage

Now let's create a hypothetical scenario where AC/5s zero out at 1240 meters instead of 1700 meters.

• 0 - 90 meters: 10 damage
  
• 91 - 540 meters (optimal range): 30 damage
  
• 810 meters (PPC's half damage): ~ 17 damage
  
• 1080 meters (PPC zero out): ~ 3 damage
  
• 1240 meters (ac/5 zero out): 0 damage

A couple damage difference may not sounds like much, but if you're shooting 100 ac/5s (not uncommon for a good jump sniper) you're talking 100-200 potential damage taken out of the game per mech. And the AC/5 isn't even a true triple range autocannon. The differences in other autocannons receiving a 2x range would be even more stark.

5. Balance concern about the ER Large Laser emerges

Unfortunately balance is never done in vacuum. Nerfing one thing indirectly buffs another and vice versa. Making autocannons less capable at long range makes the ER Large Laser stand out more. Lowering the heat requirements of the weapon while increasing the heat requirement of the ER PPC has made the ER LL a fearsome alternative to jump sniping. If PGI goes through with nerfing the range of autocannons, they are going to need to look at how this weapon is performing as well. Otherwise it could be a go-to choice for too many builds.

Edited by Jman5, 22 April 2014 - 12:08 PM.

[Deathlike]

I will just say JHunch is that (dual) ERLL sniper builds are fine... heat over time will stop its effectiveness plus it's not as easy to get accurate shots over range (see AC2) although it would be "easier" than the AC2 if the target doesn't know any better...

[Dracol]

Well thought out analysis. I can not find anything at the moment that would go against your conclusions.

The possibility the ac/2 range cap is a test case for reducing the ranges for other AC's does seem a little far fetched though. Reason being that the Dev's stated the decrease was intended to offset the DPS 3 that AC/2 and AC/5s have in common.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

I've always thought that they needed to cut the range back on all AC's.

I just think it was stupid as hell that they did it to the AC/2 without the rest. And based on PGI's MO...it means they are going to declare the war on AC's done and not touch them again for 6 months.

[Daekar]

Yes, please finish what you started and bring the rest of the ACs in line. As it is, ACs are the obvious OBVIOUS choice as a primary weapon. No minimum range, no heat to speak of, FLD, and effective in the entire range envelope of normal combat. They can keep three of those, but the last has got to go.

As an avid AC/20 user, I'll be sorry to see the days of lobbing that arcing shell far past 270 for the kill come to an end, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't change.

I will say that the Gauss should keep 3x range, if only because the charge time and resulting DPS hit nerfed it HARD.

Edited by Daekar, 17 April 2014 - 12:15 PM.

[Jack Avery]

Max range reduction would also help balance out within the AC family itself (looking at you AC/10 vs AC/20). As for the ERLL, you could try increasing its heat by .5 or 1, that would be fair.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 17 April 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

I know a lot of people have been taking a giant dump on the latest AC/2 balance changes, but I'll take the contrarian point of view and argue that it's a great change for the game as a whole.

Does it make sense to have the AC/2 max range under the AC/5? Not really. Having one or two autocannons with 2x range while the rest have 3x range is unintuitive. However, I'm hoping that this is just the test case to gather performance metrics before a greater change to all autocannons.

So what does a mechwarrior game look like where autocannons have 2x range versus 3x range?

1. An indirect buff to Brawling Builds

By cutting autocannon range down by 1/3 and significantly increasing damage drop off you shrink the average combat ranges dramatically. Now instead of taking damage from 2 km away, you're taking the same amount of fire at much closer ranges. This makes it easier to close the gap for brawlers and get into range to hard counter PPC jump snipers (sub 90m).

2. Increase Time to Kill by decreasing overall damage.

People don't really think about this much, but a huge amount of autocannon damage is done past their optimal ranges. However, because the damage drops off linearly at 3 times the optimal range, it is a very very slight transition. Energy weapons on the other hand have a 2x max range so the damage drop off is much more severe.



Despite the fact that both Medium lasers and AC/20 have identical optimum range, the medium laser drops off incredibly quickly zeroing out at 540 meters. The AC/20 keeps going strong all the way out to 810 meters. You see similar effects with other comparable weapons.

By making damage drop off faster you encourage people to fight more in their optimum range. It will also have the effect of making those ultra long range shots hurt less as you close the gap.

3. Makes lasers and other energy weapons more desirable.

In my opinion lasers are some of the most balanced weapons in the game. Their damage over time beam make them a challenge to use properly. Moving at 100+ KPH it can be quite difficult to get the entire beam to not only connect with the target, but hit the same component. If you don't believe me, record a game as a light and then rewatch the fights in slow motion. You'll probably see your lasers bouncing all over the target spreading damage inefficiently. Their heat requirements also really force players to balance their heat carefully.

4. This kills the poptart

Ok kill is a strong word, but it noticeably weakens their ability to dish out damage and makes their weaknesses more easily exploitable.

Let's take a classic two AC/5 + two PPC Victor Dragon Slayer.

Currently it's damage per alpha looks a little something like this:

• 0-90 meters: 10 damage
  
• 91 - 540 meters (optimal range): 30 damage
  
• 810 meters (PPCs half damage): ~ 19 damage
  
• 1080 meters (PPCs zero out): ~ 6 damage
  
• 1160 meters (AC/5 half damage): 5 damage
  
• 1700 meters (AC/5 zero out): 0 damage

Now let's create a hypothetical scenario where AC/5s zero out at 1240 meters instead of 1700 meters.

• 0 - 90 meters: 10 damage
  
• 91 - 540 meters (optimal range): 30 damage
  
• 810 meters (PPC's half damage): ~ 17 damage
  
• 1080 meters (PPC zero out): ~ 3 damage
  
• 1240 meters (ac/5 zero out): 0 damage

A couple damage difference may not sounds like much, but if you're shooting 100 ac/5s (not uncommon for a good jump sniper) you're talking 100-200 potential damage taken out of the game per mech. And the AC/5 isn't even a true triple range autocannon. The differences in other autocannons receiving a 2x range would be even more stark.




5. Balance concern about the ER Large Laser emerges

Unfortunately balance is never done in vacuum. Nerfing one thing indirectly buffs another and vice versa. Making autocannons less capable at long range makes the ER Large Laser stand out more. Lowering the heat requirements of the weapon while increasing the heat requirement of the ER PPC has made it a fearsome alternative to jump sniping. If PGI goes through with nerfing the range of autocannons, they are going to need to look at how this weapon is performing as well. Otherwise it could be a go-to choice for too many builds.

I....actually find myself agreeing.
(Especially since things like ER PPC were support to reach out farther than AC10s and 5s and Gauss in the first place)

We need more analysis like this.

Daekar, on 17 April 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Yes, please finish what you started and bring the rest of the ACs in line. As it is, ACs are the obvious OBVIOUS choice as a primary weapon. No minimum range, no heat to speak of, FLD, and effective in the entire range envelope of normal combat. They can keep three of those, but the last has got to go.

As an avid AC/20 user, I'll be sorry to see the days of lobbing that arcing shell far past 270 for the kill come to an end, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't change.

I will say that the Gauss should keep 3x range, if only because the charge time and resulting DPS hit nerfed it HARD.

fix the range, and maybe the charge mechanic is less "essential"?

[DONTOR]

I know realism doesnt exactly fit into this game, but it hurts me that all of these cannons are firing at pathetic ranges, that would make modern wepon systems laugh. Im not against 2X range for ACs its just sad that the range is so short in general (for all weapons)

[Bishop Steiner]

DONTOR, on 17 April 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

I know realism doesnt exactly fit into this game, but it hurts me that all of these cannons are firing at pathetic ranges, that would make modern wepon systems laugh. Im not against 2X range for ACs its just sad that the range is so short in general (for all weapons)

true, but let's face it, if we had "modern" milsim weapons, ALL matches would be long range sniper matches. More realistic, but we are playing stompy space robots.... where does realism come in? I like the get in the face and brawl mindset of the old TT game.

[Lord Perversor]

While i agree Ac should be threated with 2x range top and specific range for each weapon this change will need further tinkering.

AC/2 = 740-1480 - range for 2-1 points of dmg
(U)AC/5 = 600 -1200 range for 5-2'5 points of dmg

But it seems like a good starting point.

[o0Marduk0o]

Can anyone remember why they extended the range in the first place? Must be during closed beta.

[AgroAlba]

Great analysis. I think it's an idea definitely worth exploring!

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Nikolai Lubkiewicz, on 17 April 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Pretty good analysis and interesting suggestions.
Like with all gameplay balance changes, it's going to take a bit of time to see if the hard numbers match up with the theory, but we feel pretty confident in the changes made so far.

Show it to Paul, good job by the way, do this often.

[Deathlike]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 17 April 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

Show it to Paul, good job by the way, do this often.

Wait, don't include "consider nerfing ERLRGs", because, then I'm gonna have to blame JHunch.

If I read the word "normalize" next to ER Large Laser, that Hunchback will have to die.

Edited by Deathlike, 17 April 2014 - 03:04 PM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

I'm with Daeker on this. Nerf all of the autocannons to only do x2 range instead of x3, but leave the Gauss Rifle alone as the sniper weapon, x3 range, with it's charge mechanic intact.

The AC-2 needs to be the long range gun, but only slightly longer ranged than the LRM missiles. Going 2000 meters was silly, and as others have pointed out an AC-20 shouldn't out damage an AC-10 at the range of 540 meters.

[Jman5]

Deathlike, on 17 April 2014 - 03:04 PM, said:

Wait, don't include "consider nerfing ERLRGs", because, then I'm gonna have to blame JHunch.

If I read the word "normalize", that Hunchback will have to die.

If it's any consolation I use the ER LL on many of my builds so a heat increase would burn me (pun, get it?!) as much as anyone else.

[Screech]

Not sure why the change to AC2 is considered great, you kind of glanced over that part. Currently the AC2 no longer has a place in the game, where before it had a small niche. If this is the start of some nerf of all AC weapons is the end when you need to start nerfing PPCs again? I would rather see a buff to brawling weapons then circling the drain till they become viable.

[Koniving]

DONTOR, on 17 April 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

I know realism doesnt exactly fit into this game, but it hurts me that all of these cannons are firing at pathetic ranges, that would make modern wepon systems laugh. Im not against 2X range for ACs its just sad that the range is so short in general (for all weapons)

The ranges set in tabletop and by extension here are not actually meant to represent a single bullet and bullet drop.

It's to represent a burst-fire or automatic weapon churning tank-cannon-sized shots out in a series while resisting recoil. That, at that range (270 for example for AC/20s) could not maintain all shots on target and would waste ammunition into the air. In Battletech, either all your AC shots had to hit the same bodypart or there wasn't a point in firing.

As an example, the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 10 shot AC/20 described as a "rapid burst" from a 10 shot cassette [magazine]. The recoil from this is immense, jerking the gun toward the sky and is quite overpowering. (TRO 3026; 150mm. Note, could not find a 150mm weapon but I found a 155mm weapon. Yes I know that's a howitzer).

Lets put it this way, the AC/20s in MWO are essentially BT's 203mm "UAC/20." It's exclusively on the Cauldron Born (TRO 3026). A mech as long as the Stalker, as wide as a Dragon, yet as short as a Jenner with legs as thick as MWO's Catapult's. If you were to put this on an Atlas, it would have to put a leg behind itself and brace itself to fire, otherwise the Atlas would topple over.

So, that said, if you were to put that on either end of a Jager and have it fire, that dual AC/20 Jager sporting twin 203mm single shot = 20 damage AC/20s should by all rights result in the following: Immediately falling backwards. The pilot, not seat-belted, smashing his head open against the interior after falling from his seat. Assuming he didn't hit the transplast windshield during the fall because it'd be quite sudden. Then again that's why they wear hardened neuro-helms. As for the Jager, it'd take some massive damage on the fall, the arms would probably be loosened and just to run it again it'd need some massive repairs. Keep in mind a Jager isn't even supposed to have more armor than it has structure.

This video is rather old. However, it represents an example of how the autocannons should have been according to the books. Keep in mind when I made the video it was before I studied into it. I just really liked someone's idea. But then I discovered that in every single book I've picked up since then... every autocannon. Every. Single. Autocannon works that way.



It should be noted that the Chemjet Gun -- the Inner Sphere's largest AC/20 mounted on a mech or tank (185mm) deals 5 damage per shot, with a 4 shot 'slow burst'. Not entirely sure how slow a 'burst' can be... Anyway, I'm noting that because at the time I got my shot counts from the person's modified UI 1.5 photoshop image for choosing AC/20 variants. I've since gone and read up on them and came across some accurate ones on that list, and some inaccurate ones that I've noted.

TL;DR. The Battletech autocannons aren't entirely unrealistic. Their range is based on tight shot groupings with heavy recoil on automatic and burst firing tank cannons.

(Psst. One of the largest AC/5s I've found is the GM Whirlwind/5. 120mm. 3 shots = 5 damage. 120mm is also the same caliber as this. Also note: 3 shots didn't just equal 5 damage but also only 1 unit of heat. This is why Jagermechs were able to shoot down aerotech fighters -- massive rapid fire -- and yet according to lore be perfectly heat neutral even firing both AC/2s and both AC/5s with 10 SHS. Mechs didn't dedicate all that weight for 'power', they dedicated that weight for heat neutrality despite the inferior nature of autocannons and conventional ballistic weaponry.)

If it says anything.. the MG is 20 to 25mm for mechs. The AC/2 is 30mm to 80mm. (Here's a 40mm single shot; watch the recoil when he does rapid fire). Both do 2 damage in 10 seconds in Battletech, although there's a boatload of ways for them to fire. Each "ammo" is a use per turn or a "cassette." Think box of ammunition or magazine.

Here's an example: The Blackjack BJ-1's GM Whirlwind/L is a 30mm weapon (Threads of Ambition; 32mm in Binding Force but both describe 10 shots). It requires 10 shots to do 2 damage, and as such each 30mm round is doing 0.2 damage. This is supposed to be in a 10 second time slot which can work out like this -- it fires 1 shot every half-second, and in 5 seconds it has expended the cassette. The next 5 seconds is feeding that next magazine of tabletop's 45 cassettes per ton through the mech and into the arm's cannon, securing the cassette, loading the first round, and letting the pilot know it's ready to go. You saw how much recoil that 40mm does. Try to picture handling firing two of them at once, while maintaining your own sense of balance, in a mech that bounces, hobbles, etc. Thus the 720mm 'max range' for handling the recoil with all shots dead on target makes a lot more sense.

The ranges in MWO are, well... lets put it this way. The autocannons never should have been single shot. But then again the heat threshold should never have risen above 30 either.

Edited by Koniving, 17 April 2014 - 03:38 PM.

[Hans Von Lohman]

Koniving, on 17 April 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

The ranges set in tabletop and by extension here are not actually meant to represent a single bullet and bullet drop.

It's to represent a burst-fire or automatic weapon.....

<wall of text cut out>

Sorry, but the Autocannons of BattleTech don't need to change that radically. I think it is fine to keep it simple.

Also, there will eventually be more types of autocannons that do shoot rapid fire thing like Rotary Autocannons and Hyper Assault Gauss rifle.

I would NOT change the current autocannons to be giant machineguns for the reason that it leaves it open for the other types of guns later on.

[Bishop Steiner]

Screech, on 17 April 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

Not sure why the change to AC2 is considered great, you kind of glanced over that part. Currently the AC2 no longer has a place in the game, where before it had a small niche. If this is the start of some nerf of all AC weapons is the end when you need to start nerfing PPCs again? I would rather see a buff to brawling weapons then circling the drain till they become viable.

kind of how you glanced over the whole point of his post, as essentially saying, by itself, if only the AC2 gets the nerf, it is BAD, but it really should be a first step in the general direction ballistics need to go for the sake of balance, period.

He even added graphy things and pretty pictures.