45 replies to this topic

[Barantor]

So I was sitting at my favorite thinking spot the other day and was wondering how I would go about balancing some of the ballistic builds that seem to dominate. With the TTK down pretty low, ammo seems to be a secondary thought to some folks builds.

With the ammo being the deciding factor, I was browsing sarna and noticed that a lot of mechs have ammo feed issues when techs tried to move the position of the bins compared to the cannon.

My proposal to get ballistics in line with some of the energy would be to have a jamming aspect involved if the ammo is placed too far from the cannon it is feeding. (this could work on LRMs too)

Most times when I have anything that uses ammo and it isn't a light I put the ammo in the legs, yet all the old lore builds have the ammo in the torsos.

My thought is that you have a small jamming chance if the ammo for the weapon is farther away from the weapon using it than just one section. So if a mech had ACs in the arms, it would need to put the ammo in that arm, or the side torso next to that arm in order to not have a jam chance. If it was put in the head, that sides leg, or the CT it would have a small chance, if it was put in the opposite torso or leg a moderate chance and if it was in the other arm then a fairly high chance of jam.

Again, this would work with all ammo based weaponry, from ACs, gauss, missiles or even AMS.

Does it add a random element some folks might not like? Yeah, but I think it also adds depth to builds and honestly just makes a lot of sense while bringing energy up a bit and not just a secondary weapon system.

I realize a lot of you won't like it, but it's just an idea after all.

[DasSibby]

I love my ballistic mechs, and this is an interesting idea...

I don't know how practical it would be to put it into the game, but I do like the idea. It'd help with the risk/reward bit of equipping AC's.

[Blakkstar]

Ballistics are currently the most balanced weapon type. PGI should concentrate on fixing the real problems with weapon balance, not creating new ones. Dual Gauss is really the only ballistic "problem" and it is only available on a handful of mechs.

By the way: easy fix for Dual Gauss...double charge time when more than one Gauss charges simultaneously to represent strain on the engine and capacitors. Slows down ROF and makes getting off a quality shot more difficult, without the need for RNG or major reworks of the entire aiming system.

[Barantor]

Blakkstar, on 03 November 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Ballistics are currently the most balanced weapon type. PGI should concentrate on fixing the real problems with weapon balance, not creating new ones. Dual Gauss is really the only ballistic "problem" and it is only available on a handful of mechs.

By the way: easy fix for Dual Gauss...double charge time when more than one Gauss charges simultaneously to represent strain on the engine and capacitors. Slows down ROF and makes getting off a quality shot more difficult, without the need for RNG or major reworks of the entire aiming system.

Yeah I've often thought that energy capacity would be the way to balance dual gauss.

As far as 'most balanced' I disagree, mostly because there is very little worry about ever running out of ammo in the current game. You might run out of LRMs if you really lay it on, but running out of autocannon ammo seems to only happen if the ammo itself gets blown out.

[Darzok]

I have to say in my view the AC's are fine and well balanced Gauss might still need a little tweak but the AC weapons are fine.

The AC's are fine there fairly big and heavy and then need ammo and you still build heat meaning you still need more than stock heatsinks to run it well.

The Dual Gauss is questionable balance wise but i am not sure its OP.

[Barantor]

Darzok, on 03 November 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

I have to say in my view the AC's are fine and well balanced Gauss might still need a little tweak but the AC weapons are fine.

The AC's are fine there fairly big and heavy and then need ammo and you still build heat meaning you still need more than stock heatsinks to run it well.

The Dual Gauss is questionable balance wise but i am not sure its OP.

My problem is that the energy weapons are underwhelming by comparison and I feel that if you buff them much more then there isn't a reason to take ballistics. By bringing the ballistics down a bit, you even out the field rather than just advancing everything.

Pulse lasers are getting a buff though, so we will see how that works out.

[kapusta11]

You do realize that 50 damage laser alphas are the meta? Leave FLD weapons alone, they are nerfed enough already.

Edited by kapusta11, 03 November 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Mechteric]

How about instead of jamming, just increase the reload time by some amount between shots if the ammo is not adjacent.

[Kiryuin Ragyo]

[Vassago Rain]

How about 'no?'

[Ultimax]

Ballistics are fine. They are balanced by:

> Their larger tonnage investment.
> Their larger critical slot investment.
> Their ammo reliance.
> The higher skill requirement for hitting targets, especially moving targets vs. "lock on" type missiles, and hitscan lasers.


And before the derp brigade gets on yet another parade about Gauss - Gauss has low DPS for the tonnage investment.

Every other ballistic weapon has higher DPS per ton than Gauss does.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 03 November 2014 - 10:06 AM.

[Barantor]

Ultimatum X, on 03 November 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

Ballistics are fine. They are balanced by:

> Their larger tonnage investment.
> Their larger critical slot investment.
> Their ammo reliance.
> The higher skill requirement for hitting targets, especially moving targets vs. "lock on" type missiles, and hitscan lasers.


And before the derp brigade gets on yet another parade about Gauss - Gauss has low DPS for the tonnage investment.

Every other ballistic weapon has higher DPS per ton than Gauss does.

Tonnage investment is meh, still see lots of them so that is kinda a wash since I can just say "energy need more sinks" and be done. Critical same old argument.

Ammo reliance - ammo per ton isn't really an issue as most of the time you don't run out?

Another same old argument - small maps means hardly anyone is sniping except with gauss so not really much there unless you are hitting lights. Hitscan spreads damage.

Gauss isn't really a problem imo, the cycle up timer for it kinda put it to the side from where it was.

These are all old arguments though so not really anything new in that post?



Indeed, I suggest something I haven't seen talked about before and everyone brings out the same lame arguments.

[Ultimax]

Barantor, on 03 November 2014 - 10:15 AM, said:

Indeed, I suggest something I haven't seen talked about before and everyone brings out the same lame arguments.

You brought up nerfing ballistics, which has been discussed to death and you used "the same lame reasons" for why you think they need to be nerfed.

It's lame in and of itself, and as another poster said it's as if you have not noticed that the current meta is huge laser alphas.


Ballistics are good weapons, they are fine as they are and don't need jamming.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 03 November 2014 - 10:32 AM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

mass UAC5 DW is not balanced.

Edited by shad0w4life, 03 November 2014 - 10:36 AM.

[Kiryuin Ragyo]

shad0w4life, on 03 November 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

mass UAC5 DW is not balanced.

6xArrow IV Mad Dog is not balanced.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Blakkstar, on 03 November 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Ballistics are currently the most balanced weapon type.

Maths or it didn't happen.

[Xythius]

shad0w4life, on 03 November 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

mass UAC5 DW is not balanced.

Oh noez! A 30pt alpha that isn't frontload or pinpoint! Whatever will we do..?

Seriously, as much as this build is maligned, you'd think it was single-handedly rofl-stomping entire teams. News flash - it's not. It's nothing more than a gimmick build whose ONLY merit is a constant stream of projectiles that explode & shakes the cockpit. It's low damage, that can be spread by a competent opponent & has a higher chance of missing the farther away you are from your target - since they aren't hitscan, the ability to correct your aim 'on the fly' is a bit more difficult. I will never understand how anyone 'fears' this build.

Ballistics are fine as is, imo, if anything, clan ballistics are somewhat underpowered in comparison to their IS counterparts. And to that, my reply would be to turn IS AC's into burst fire as well. Solved.

~Xythius

[Joseph Mallan]

shad0w4life, on 03 November 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

mass UAC5 DW is not balanced.

Thats the unbalance right there.

[Alexander MacTaggart]

Joseph Mallan, on 03 November 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

Thats the unbalance right there.

Don't mass shame.

[Barantor]

Ultimatum X, on 03 November 2014 - 10:32 AM, said:

You brought up nerfing ballistics, which has been discussed to death and you used "the same lame reasons" for why you think they need to be nerfed.

It's lame in and of itself, and as another poster said it's as if you have not noticed that the current meta is huge laser alphas.


Ballistics are good weapons, they are fine as they are and don't need jamming.

Actually never said anything about nerfing, that was brought up later. Mine was more of an atheistic change that makes builds a bit more risky with ammo. Some ballistic builds are a little top heavy as far as risk vs reward, this is more to help address that some.

Said it would apply to missile based weapons too.

Everyone says they are fine, yet so many folks saying they aren't. Depends on who you are going up against I guess.

Clan ACs burst which might balance it out a bit too, but that has been suggested since before beta as well and here we are lol.

When it is safer to put a ton of ammo under the pilot seat than anywhere else, it is just odd isn't it?