9 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Its a very simple principle - and some of you already know this principle - but imho the ship missed the harbor by several miles.

If i have 28tons of equipment - i should expect that 28 tons of equipment is equal to 28tons of a complete different equipment.

Or to make it visual:
If your Mech has 28tons of short range equipment this Mechs should kill a enemy Mech with 28tons of long range equipment at short range -
simple right? Mech A - has to close the distance to kill target B - even when weapons is the same.
But on the other hand Mech B should be able to cause crippling damage to target A before it is able to approach.

If Mech B is not able to stop target A - or his weapons are less useful - we have a incredible Short Range Brawl Meta, on the other hand if the long range weapons of Mech B are to powerful we have a long range meta - we had both several times.

If you have a equipment that is great at any range - you still have a long range Meta - remember the first Gauss Cat - 2 Gauss Rifles - you don't need more.


Its important to have a look at special examples and still keep the bigger picture:

Some examples:
3 AC 5s + ammunition - with 1,8 HPS = heat neutral Mech with 10 DHS for 0 ton
example:ILYA MUROMETS
vs
2 Large Laser + 1 AC 10 + ammunition + 15 DHS for 5tons
ILYA MUROMETS

I think the second version while not "real" heat neutral - is as close as possible, of course the first wont overheat at all.

I know that both Mechs no viable builds - mostly the second one - but its a perfect example for not working weight balance
lets figure it out:

• Maximum DPS 9.03 vs 8.24 dmg/s
  
• Effective Range 620 vs 450 m
  
• PinPoint Dmg: 15 vs 10
  
• Alpha 15 vs 28

That doesn't look good right? The pure ballistic build can dish out more damage at range but the simple idea behind weight balance is that long range weapons can't deal damage as fast as shorter ranged weapons. OK the Alpha is with the second build - but hardly twice the alpha isn't a good value for 30% less range and reduced pinpoint


Look for your self - MWO is full of examples. Of course you have also the other way around:

1 AC 2 + 2tons of ammo vs 6 MLAS + 12 DHS
FS9-H
vs
FS9-H

OK its obvious that the second Fire Starter this time can't survive endless firing - so instead of 'naked' DPS this time i want to use sustained DPS at Elite Perk:

• sustained DPS: 2.78 vs 3.08 dmg/s
  
• Effective Range: 720m vs 270m
  
• Pinpoint - 2 vs Non (Spots)
  
• Alpha 2 vs 30

OK this time - the values look acceptable at the first glance - more range for less DPS.
But the problem this time - i used sustained DPS - how often will that happen? No - those Mechs rush in - place a 6 MLAS beam into your Mech and fall back too cool down - the ability to stop them - is considering the punny alpha - not given.

As you can see we have a ton or balance problems that get more force when you consider additional problem thanks to pinpoint, boating, not limited ammunition and the heat system that allows to front load damage.

---

This post is just a statement - i don't have a final fixing conclusion.
The best thing like an idea is a rule set:
more range = more alpha + less DPS -> less range = less alpha + more DPS

Why? Simple to attack a brawler that rush your position you don't have a huge Window of Engagement - means you have to hit the target hard enough that it is costly to move in the open - but not hard enough to deny this option - because when the short range Mech closes it should rip the long range mech into pieces.

In this case a medium range build like the above mentioned Catapract - can take the damage dealt by the tripple Medium AC - and when he reaches 450m he can deal damage faster - fast enough to close the "gap".

[Mercules]

Nope!


Reasons....


Mostly because there are other balance factors at work(or at least should be) such as ammo and heat and damage. If you don't like getting what we called, "Ranged" then either don't drive something slow or have something for every range.

[CDLord HHGD]

Most of my mechs have a mixed loadout for just this very reason. Do I get a lot of 1k+ damage 8+kill matches? Nope. Am I ever caught without a tool to deal with an issue? Nope.

[Karl Streiger]

Mercules, on 24 November 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

Mostly because there are other balance factors at work(or at least should be) such as ammo and heat and damage. If you don't like getting what we called, "Ranged" then either don't drive something slow or have something for every range.

as you said - those balancing factors don't work. For example 1 1/2 years ago the choice between 5 Large Laser or 3 AC 5s wasn't a choice at all. simple put 5 Large Laser on your Mech 16-17 DHS - and turn your foe within two salvos into molten slack. Its still possible to fire 5 Large Laser without triggering heat scale - but you don't have time for defensive movement.

So heat doesn't work because of the curious heat system that only works well for SHS.

Ammunition doesn't work either because - ammunition storage is a question of your "building" skill - it doesn't affect combat but for a clever foe that - knows about ammunition distribution and use his luck to cause an ammunition explosion (its better to core the target that hope for the randomness of critical rolls)

So - ok i have to say i do use Mechs with a mixed loadout - 4 weapons groups is mostly the minimum, 5-6 is the average.
Most of my builds are build arround medium range combat - and i prefer the AC 10 + ERPPC + Short Range Weapons for most of my Mechs, while i don't have issues most of the time - the "challenge" remains.

A pure short range Mech - can out gun me at short range - while a long range mech - may still be able to "outgun" my Mech even when I'm able to close the gap.
Happens because of the "low" but "adequate" performance of the AC 10 - considering its weight (for 3tons more i get a Gauss - turning my Mech into a more effective long range Mech - without reducing much of my short range ability.

[The Boz]

Karl Streiger, on 24 November 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

i prefer the AC 10

Well there's your problem! The AC10 is the ******* stepchild of the AC line, beaten in uselessness only by the AC2. Switch to AC5s for ranged sustained work, or AC20 for brawling strikes.

[Karl Streiger]

The Boz, on 24 November 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

Well there's your problem! The AC10 is the ******* stepchild of the AC line, beaten in uselessness only by the AC2. Switch to AC5s for ranged sustained work, or AC20 for brawling strikes.

OK maybe there is some foul taste now - i don't want to change the game because my AC 10 doesn't work.
I usually prefer AC 20 and AC 5 - but the AC 10 still has a good feel because its doesn't fire hypervelocity rounds as the AC 5 and AC 2.

Anyhow - as you can see: the AC 10 is not worth the weight right? Take 2tons and if you have the room sacrifice range - for a working weapon - or take the 4ton lighter AC 5 with additional toys for your Mech.


Oh i have to add this topic is not about the AC 10 - its about weight - if you have
1 LRM 10, 1 SRM 6, 1 Large Laser and 2 Small Laser plus 12 SHS and you face a Mech that has 2 AC 2s and 4 MLAS the fight should still be close - but we know that the Wyvern won't have a chance fighting a Black Jack - not in MWO.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 24 November 2014 - 05:55 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Karl Streiger, on 24 November 2014 - 05:42 AM, said:

as you said - those balancing factors don't work. For example 1 1/2 years ago the choice between 5 Large Laser or 3 AC 5s wasn't a choice at all. simple put 5 Large Laser on your Mech 16-17 DHS - and turn your foe within two salvos into molten slack. Its still possible to fire 5 Large Laser without triggering heat scale - but you don't have time for defensive movement.

So heat doesn't work because of the curious heat system that only works well for SHS.

Ammunition doesn't work either because - ammunition storage is a question of your "building" skill - it doesn't affect combat but for a clever foe that - knows about ammunition distribution and use his luck to cause an ammunition explosion (its better to core the target that hope for the randomness of critical rolls)

So - ok i have to say i do use Mechs with a mixed loadout - 4 weapons groups is mostly the minimum, 5-6 is the average.
Most of my builds are build arround medium range combat - and i prefer the AC 10 + ERPPC + Short Range Weapons for most of my Mechs, while i don't have issues most of the time - the "challenge" remains.

A pure short range Mech - can out gun me at short range - while a long range mech - may still be able to "outgun" my Mech even when I'm able to close the gap.
Happens because of the "low" but "adequate" performance of the AC 10 - considering its weight (for 3tons more i get a Gauss - turning my Mech into a more effective long range Mech - without reducing much of my short range ability.

Ammunition is a balancing factor. You focus on it's explosive nature, but that's secondary. The primary difference is in number of shots available. Those AC5's, for example, are massively heavy, require MANY slots, and require more tons and slots to keep them loaded and firing.

Large Lasers, on the other hand, will continue firing throughout the match. Our heat system is heavily flawed, but there's no need to make your large lasers heat neutral. The AC5's MUST have ammo, but the 2 LL's will fire for one full minute before overheating is a concern, with just the stock 10 DHS. Two ISLL's cost 10 tons and 4 slots16 , and output 4.25DPS.

2 AC5's output 6 DPS - more than the 2 LL's - are basically heat neutral, but they also:
weigh in at 16 tons and 8 slots.... but wait! You need ammo too. You'll burn ammo at a rate (ignoring quirks/modules) of 25 seconds per ton. Higher DPS, more heat availability, but at the high cost of mech space, restricting what else you can load alongside it. You've got more heatcap available, but far less room, and you have a hard cap on endurance: If you run out of ammo, those AC5's are worthless.


Ultimately, in MWO (and in Battletech) x many tons cannot always equal a different loadout at a comparable number of tons. Even if you include slots, they simply cannot be equal.

Why?

Because different weapons systems work better in combination with others (for example, generally speaking lasers+ballistics are better than lasers or ballistics) High weight/low heat+low weight/high heat. Also, because the current situation heavily modifies the value of a given weapon system. You talk about range - in theory, a short range loadout should outperform a long range loadout when at short range, but there are many more factors. Ammo limitations. Cycle time. Time on Target requirements. Heat. Spread. Projectile travel time. Charge time.

[Wintersdark]

Karl Streiger, on 24 November 2014 - 05:51 AM, said:

Oh i have to add this topic is not about the AC 10 - its about weight - if you have
1 LRM 10, 1 SRM 6, 1 Large Laser and 2 Small Laser plus 12 SHS and you face a Mech that has 2 AC 2s and 4 MLAS the fight should still be close - but we know that the Wyvern won't have a chance fighting a Black Jack - not in MWO.

Ignoring the AC10 - it's sort of a red-headed stepchild, really:

First, how weapons perform in battletech cannot possibly mirror how they perform in MWO. The situations you encounter in one are totally unlike the conditions you encounter in the other. MWO, being a "sim-like" game, functions completely differently.

As I said above, you'll never be able to have a situation where two different mechs with an exactly equal amount of available tonnage are actually evenly matched all the time. There are simply too many variables that alter the balance.

So many design issues with both, in regards to MWO. 2 CASE units waste 1 ton on a 45t mech in the Wyvern, and the Blackjack only bringing a single ton of AC2 ammo for 2 AC2's means those 13 tons last 27s, before leaving the Blackjack a sorry-assed 4ML medium.

MWO is just a different game.

[Brody319]

Missile systems are already under equiped. LRM 20s suffer from large amounts of ghost heat, and area also a few tonnage heavier and lighter than if you had the same number of smaller missiles.

You argument kinda falls apart because this game has space physics. AC20s should go farther, faster, and with more force than an AC2. You have a massive projectile that requires a ton of initial energy to fire. The more massive an object is, the more force is needed to change its direction or velocity. So AC2s would be shorter range, compared to the AC20 since it has less mass that needs to be effected. however in this game it seems to be the opposite, The less mass something has, the faster and longer it travels.

[Karl Streiger]

Brody319, on 24 November 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

You argument kinda falls apart because this game has space physics. AC20s should go farther, faster, and with more force than an AC2. You have a massive projectile that requires a ton of initial energy to fire. The more massive an object is, the more force is needed to change its direction or velocity. So AC2s would be shorter range, compared to the AC20 since it has less mass that needs to be effected. however in this game it seems to be the opposite, The less mass something has, the faster and longer it travels.

That is a question of interpretation - look at some Ultra 20 representations - you have a smaller caliber for a higher rate of fire. so the weight of the AC 20 is 90% the reciever and feed system - not so much the bore ore the propellant.

Wintersdark, on 24 November 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

First, how weapons perform in battletech cannot possibly mirror how they perform in MWO. The situations you encounter in one are totally unlike the conditions you encounter in the other. MWO, being a "sim-like" game, functions completely differently.

That is something i don't understand so far.
Why?
I expect a Light AC (called AC2) to be a small caliber weapon with ultra precision - great for dealing some damage at fast moving targets - at superb range.
Given MWO - the AC 2s range was perfect with its tripple range - but the current "short range" is a complete break. The only problem was the rate of fire.
So brainstorming:
If i should make a interpretation of a Light Autocannon - i would suggest two:

• bigger round with increased speed and range - but the rifle reloads like a breach load....1 shot long reload time
  
• full automatic rounds with high rate of fire - for example 0.2 dmg every 0.25seconds - (Dot Weapon)

In both cases i would keep the speed and the range.
Shorter range = higher rate of fire - for less propellant but more explosives

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 November 2014 - 12:34 AM.