117 replies to this topic

[KamikazeRat]

So, its actually kind of funny that a stock build will never work in this game. What is good in TT isn't good in MWO, and vice versa

The main thing that comes to mind, other than HS, is ammo capacity.

many TT builds have 1-2 tons of ammo and thats it. and it ussually lasts the match.

1-2 tons of ammo in MWO and you're out of ammo.

any new mech i get, i have to break apart, add DHS, add endo, and sometimes even strip off/downgrade weapons to take more ammo onto the field so i don't run out. i know the ammo is more than TT values in most cases, but im not sure if its enough to get us through a 15 minute fight, let alone what it looks like dropship mode will bring us in terms of duration of fire.

and i know there is going to be several "thats how it is, deal with it" and "part of the game is learning to conserve ammo" and "l2pnoob" comments...

I think the main culprit however is the doubled armor values, total damage/ton of ammo didnt double with it. so the total volume of ammo consumed had to double to down all the enemy mechs. unless something is tweaked, i think you're going to see alot of energy builds or people burping out ammo until dry and then ejecting, with 1 energy build as their final stand

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 October 2014 - 09:11 AM.

[Mcgral18]

You can also aim at what you shoot, so your ammo is much more efficient than TT.


Most have already been buffed by about 150%, on top of being more efficient.

[KamikazeRat]

Mcgral18, on 12 October 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

You can also aim at what you shoot, so your ammo is much more efficient than TT.


Most have already been buffed by about 150%, on top of being more efficient.

yes, but it still feels like it is nowhere near enough. example: hunchback, stock has 2 tons of ammo. 14 shots in MWO, thats 56 seconds of fire. so if every shot connects, you've done 280 damage and you are out ammo about a minute after you started firing.

LRMs are also very hard to feed, catapults have 2lrm15 and 2tons of ammo, 360missles, 30tubes for 12 shots, at 4.25 cooldown that is 51 seconds of LRMing.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 October 2014 - 09:22 AM.

[FupDup]

Weapons in MWO definitely need more ammo than TT most of the time, but on the flipside energy weapons tend to need a lot more heatsinks. It's "fair" in a way (although not quite ideal).

[KamikazeRat]

FupDup, on 12 October 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

Weapons in MWO definitely need more ammo than TT most of the time, but on the flipside energy weapons tend to need a lot more heatsinks. It's "fair" in a way (although not quite ideal).

yes well the necessity of DHS on everything has been well noted, so i chose to focus on ammo, a problem i noted, especially on several clan builds with a single LRM launcher and a two tons of ammo for it. and then a main ballistic gun with 1 ton of reload, so two minutes into fighting and you're down to "back-up weapon" mode, unless you completely overhaul the build, and with clans you can't strap on endo or reduce engine to make up more tonnage, you're forced to downgrade weapons to fit more ammo. (summoner prime)

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 October 2014 - 09:28 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Mcgral18, on 12 October 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

You can also aim at what you shoot, so your ammo is much more efficient than TT.


Most have already been buffed by about 150%, on top of being more efficient.

yup.

For ballistics, ammo limits, already higher than TT, are balancing the fact that its 100% in your control if and where you hit.

I don't think anyone thinks the game would be improved by more lrm ammo per ton... And SRM's already have extremely high damage per ton numbers.


The real reasons stock builds don't work:
Totally different and incompatible heat system.
Weapon convergence and pinpoint aiming
Armor system designed for random aim
Most stock builds are using older tech - adding Endosteel for example gives most builds several free tons for weaponry/armor. Stock builds are generally a full tech level behind.

[Cygone]

Ammo/Ton is a balance feature and it totally fine for almost every weapon in game, /close thread

[Satan n stuff]

KamikazeRat, on 12 October 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

yes, but it still feels like it is nowhere near enough. example: hunchback, stock has 2 tons of ammo. 14 shots in MWO, thats 56 seconds of fire. so if every shot connects, you've done 280 damage and you are out ammo about a minute after you started firing.

I've killed multiple mechs with that, don't underestimate what 14 AC/20 shots can do.

[KamikazeRat]

Satan n stuff, on 12 October 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

I've killed multiple mechs with that, don't underestimate what 14 AC/20 shots can do.

oh i know, im a hunchie jock, i just would rather have 28 shots, so i endo and dhs to save the weight, also not to underestimate what 3ml will do when the AC20 goes quiet.

it hasn't really bothered me until recently, when i started looking at CW builds and wondering, how much ammo i will need, will i be forced to punch-out because im out of ammo, with little damage on the mech itself. just to drop with a fresh ammo.

so i began wondering if this was something that bothered anyone else in the slightest bit, idk. maybe i'm alone in this, i will just keep stacking on ammo until i feel like i won't run out half-way through.

Edited by KamikazeRat, 12 October 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Thorqemada]

OMG - do not double ammo per ton - do not bloody do that - its is pretty easy to customize any Mech in a way the ammo count is big enough for a whole match and that ammo depending Mechs run out of ammo at the end of a match when they do not take their shots with some "wisdom" is the nature of the beast and should stay so!

The only thing is they should increase all ammo counts up to the next even number so that there is no loss when using 0.5 ton ammo mobules and normalize the other ammo that they not be at a disadvantage:
AC20 = 8
AC10 = 16
AC5 = 32
AC2 = 90 (bcs AC5 is 2,5 times AC2 damagewise - each ton of ammo has now the same damage potential and can be split without loss into 0.5t modules).

Edited by Thorqemada, 12 October 2014 - 10:51 AM.

[Felio]

Actually, given the state of ballistics kind of reigning king and having done so for a long time, I was recently thinking ammo per ton could use a nerf.

[KamikazeRat]

eh, i was just thinking about the many things that make stock builds suck so much,

Heat management with SHS
AND
low ammunition counts on stock mechs

i just hate having to spend 2m cbills plus just to "normalize" a chassis, even if i keep the same spirit of the build, it always requires a full rework...and that kinda...sucks...

the heat issue on stock mechs is on the forums quite frequently, change the heat cap, change this, change that, no one mentions ammo count as something that sucks on stock mechs. some more than others, but about every ammuntion based chassis takes 2x-3x the stock loadout to make it through the match without really having to second guess your shots.

[Wolfways]

I've been complaining about the ammo/ton for a long time, but nobody cares.

I only play "stock weapon mechs". For IS i add Endo/DHS/ammo but keep the stock weapons. For clan mechs i just play stock because clan got screwed for customization as they already have fixed Endo/Ferro, etc. so the only thing you can do with them is remove weapons

Even though AC's have better efficiency due to aiming, spread damage weapons like LRM's are very inefficient...but mention any LRM buff on the forums and people start having panic attacks

[Y E O N N E]

Thorqemada, on 12 October 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

AC5 = 32
AC2 = 90 (bcs AC5 is 2,5 times AC2 damagewise - each ton of ammo has now the same damage potential and can be split without loss into 0.5t modules).

AC/2 ammo already has the same damage potential per-ton. All of them do, except the AC/20. Each ton gives you 150 damage potential. AC/20 ammo provides 140 damage per ton.

Also, to level AC/2 with AC/5, it would be 85 rounds instead of 90. Thems the breaks, there's always going to be one gun with an odd number of rounds or with a different damage potential per ton of ammo.

[Darian DelFord]

If anything is to to be done to AC ammo, it is put it BACK to TT values. That is a big problem in this game. AC's with PPFLD is really king right now. While their low heat makes them easily boatable. Granted their Weight and Ammo requirements is suppose to balance them out, it does not do a good job. I continuously see folks finish matches wih high scores and a freak ton of ammo left. Reduce them back to their table top values, then you will see an increase in the TTK and less boating as they will need back up weapons. This will especially lengthen alot of the matches I think. It is really amazing how much ammo some of these builds bring.

[FupDup]

Darian DelFord, on 12 October 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

If anything is to to be done to AC ammo, it is put it BACK to TT values. That is a big problem in this game. AC's with PPFLD is really king right now. While their low heat makes them easily boatable. Granted their Weight and Ammo requirements is suppose to balance them out, it does not do a good job. I continuously see folks finish matches wih high scores and a freak ton of ammo left. Reduce them back to their table top values, then you will see an increase in the TTK and less boating as they will need back up weapons. This will especially lengthen alot of the matches I think. It is really amazing how much ammo some of these builds bring.

Or, your plan would backfire and make AC carriers simply remove all of their backup weapons in favor of having enough ammo to last a reasonable length of time.

And, Autocannons aren't even the "boogeyman" anymore (if they ever were). ACs were/are only meta when combined with PPCs to form a 30+ point alpha strike. ACs alone are usually viable, but not OP.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 12 October 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

Or, your plan would backfire and make AC carriers simply remove all of their backup weapons in favor of having enough ammo to last a reasonable length of time.

And, Autocannons aren't even the "boogeyman" anymore (if they ever were). ACs were/are only meta when combined with PPCs to form a 30+ point alpha strike. ACs alone are usually viable, but not OP.

This. AC's where never kings. Nobody screamed and fled from the 2AC5 2AC2 Jag, or the 4AC5 CTF. They're not bad builds, not bad weapons, but they have never been overpowered.

The PPC+AC combo really shined, because it allowed the highest pinpoint damage per ton ratio at manageable heat: The PPC's bringing (comparatively) low-ton, high damage hits, with the high-ton, high damage AC's supplementing with a manageable combined heat. AC's are too heavy to boat sufficiently, and PPC's are too hot. Together, though...

[Darian DelFord]

FupDup, on 12 October 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

Or, your plan would backfire and make AC carriers simply remove all of their backup weapons in favor of having enough ammo to last a reasonable length of time.

And, Autocannons aren't even the "boogeyman" anymore (if they ever were). ACs were/are only meta when combined with PPCs to form a 30+ point alpha strike. ACs alone are usually viable, but not OP.

If they wish to do that, its their choice and always has been. The PPC+AC meta while not as prevalent as it once was still can be a lethal combination. Convergence and PPFLD is what makes AC's Guass and PPC's so damn deadly.

[Cerlin]

God, please, no. More ammo just means even less need to conserve or plan.

[Glythe]

Cygone, on 12 October 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

Ammo/Ton is a balance feature and it totally fine for almost every weapon in game, /close thread

That's really funny considering that is what they said when the game had 8 people per team. Missile tonnage is fine but most of the ballistic counts are BS considering we got double armor but not double ammo.

On that note we asked till we were blue in the face and then asked some more. We beat that horse until it was so dead and it could be beat no more. And we still did not get it.

GG was close.


Still not going to forgive them for it either.