180 replies to this topic

[SparkSovereign]

I feel it should be pointed out that if ammo-using weapons have been comparatively nerfed by ratio of capacity to armor, you might also want to notice that lasers are short beams instead of instant shots. That's a "nerf" compared to what they normally are, requiring you to keep a steady bead on the target, which should be tricky to do on lighter mechs. They said that was intentional in order to distinguish lasers from other direct-fire weapons in one of the Q&As.

Combining that with the double armor vs not-doubled ammo, I think they actually just nerfed weapons across the board. I like the idea of the slower, more deliberate battles we've seen in footage (official or otherwise).

In other news, lolz Clan mech design. Running out of ammo is canon, surely they'll enjoy feeling canonical

[Phasics]

SparkSovereign, on 27 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Combining that with the double armor vs not-doubled ammo, I think they actually just nerfed weapons across the board. I like the idea of the slower, more deliberate battles we've seen in footage (official or otherwise).

Almost as if the devs are trying to "balance" the game or worse still trying to make the game "fun" to play

[Voss Korgan]

If you don't double the ammo, ballistic weapons will be seriously hindered. So your Centurian now for example would only still have 20 shots for its AC for the whole match, but it needs to shoot through twice as much armor. Why wouldn't anyone just take the PPC? Sure it creates more heat, but it also never runs out of ammo and can inflict an infinite amount of damage per match. Just seems broken to me, not doubling the ammo.

[Grimarch]

Well Phasics seems right longer games by a bit seem better, else everyone plays Assault mechs and its a slug fest. Do we know if they have Artemis IV?

[Fugu]

I'd really like to know if there will be a way to re-stock ammo in a match. I mean, you have bases, right?

[Kanatta Jing]

Why double the Ammo to compensate for doubling the armor, when you doubled the armor to compensate for doubling the accuracy?

[Voss Korgan]

Grimarch, on 27 June 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Well Phasics seems right longer games by a bit seem better, else everyone plays Assault mechs and its a slug fest. Do we know if they have Artemis IV?

So we have longer matches AND less ammo? Seems logical...

[Vyviel]

If you dont double the armor of the wussy little mechs like the Hunchback how do you think they can stand toe to toe with the assaults without getting alpha striked into next week? Thats why they have double armor.

I bet the Awesome and Atlas etc dont have double armor.

[Kanatta Jing]

Vyviel, on 27 June 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

If you dont double the armor of the wussy little mechs like the Hunchback how do you think they can stand toe to toe with the assaults without getting alpha striked into next week? Thats why they have double armor.

I bet the Awesome and Atlas etc dont have double armor.

Nah, pretty sure the Atlas will need about 41 points of damage to the center back to kill it.

[Phasics]

Grimarch, on 27 June 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Well Phasics seems right longer games by a bit seem better, else everyone plays Assault mechs and its a slug fest. Do we know if they have Artemis IV?

Lolwut ?

I've spent the last 5 pages saying that we don't have the info to be discussing this

We have no numbers on current weapon damage (no TT numbers are meaningless the devs may have discarded them ages ago)
We have no info on how splash dmg works
We have no info on how AC damage may split across facings

Like I said maybe AC20's are acutally doing 23.9dmg per shot, maybe its 17 maybe its 34 makes a pretty massive difference to a conversations about ammo.

[Vyviel]

Anyway see this thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...-twice-as-long/

[Phasics]

Vyviel, on 27 June 2012 - 03:30 PM, said:

Anyway see this thread:

http://mwomercs.com/...-twice-as-long/

The only post you should read in that thread is the last one and it goes a little something like this

Bryan Ekman said:

I'm most definitely not interested in engaging in a war over BT vs MW, or people's personal interpretation of the TT rules. As it stands several comments on this page alone make me wonder if they have even played the TT game, as almost everything is simulated using random dice: missile, hit locations, etc etc.

Since this thread is degrading into a pointless carousel of personal opinions that have no bearing on the game itself, I'm electing to use my moderation abilities and locking this thread.

I have made a statement as to how MWO is being developed. You can like it or not, disagree or agree. That is absolutely your right. Arguing endlessly over it with no possible positive outcome is pointless.

[Squigles]

I love the "If you don't have doubled ammo, ballistics will be seriously nerfed compared to table top" crowd. Lets look at a few basic facts.

In table top, 2 regular IS pilots taking a leisurely stroll at point blank range firing at each other needed 6's to hit. This almost never happened, you were regularly looking at 8's to hit, maybe 7's, at close range.

So, let's see here, that equates to about 41% hit rates on 8's, if you're not pulling around an 80% hit rate on close range shots against relatively slow units (8's to hit from tabletop were figured with 3/5 or 4/6 mechs running at close range) on a mechwarrior video game, you need to get to work on your aim.

The end result of this? Given doubled armor and identical ammo load outs, you should cause roughly the exact same amount of functional damage in MWO as you would in table top due to the general increase in accuracy you get moving to a skill based system instead of a dice based one, it just means you have to hit them more, yielding longer fights, as intended. This even holds true for LRM's, although their damage is spread out, they're still going to miss far more often in a tabletop setting compared to a mechwarrior video game.

[AlaskanAssassin]

you guys are killing me i mean its fine to speculate a bit but to freak out and say its unbalanced is the reason why there is a nda.

Speculate and think about things but as many have said we dont have enough info to make an accurate judgement

[Amerante]

I wrote a post while 2 other post have been made, and when i posted it showed up double. so i deleted my original post and as it turns out there was only one post afterall. ...

So i said (In short):
Doubling the armor makes sense to me.

And as Squigles said: in TT your shots miss more often and even if they hit, it is unlikely to hit the same location, while in MWO probably you will hammering the exact same location with your weapons. In TT if the assault have 2 gauss + 2PPC firing at the enemy, it may miss, hit some section and thats all for that round. But if you could chose all weapons to hit the same location (without double armor points) it will very likely ruin the day of the pilot. (and because of aiming you will do that basicly in MWO)
Ty Squigles for examples and to sum it up.

Edited by Amerante, 27 June 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[Sensor Malfunction]

Kanatta Jing, on 27 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Why double the Ammo to compensate for doubling the armor, when you doubled the armor to compensate for doubling the accuracy?

Because they're different things. Accuracy is a component of damage per second. The more shots you connect with the more damage you can inflict. Armor was doubled so that the higher damage (from higher accuracy) wouldn't result in laughably fast kills.

Ammo on the other hand has nothing to do with how fast you make kills. It determines how long your weapon will keep working. Doubling the ammo doesn't make an AC/20 more deadly to the target being fired on, it just makes it less of a liability to carry one because you can get twice as much total damage out of it over the course of the battle.

Honestly I don't see many people using huge honking ballistic weapons in this game when lasers are both easier to use and have unlimited fight time. The whole point of ammo based weapons is to offer more power for less reliability, but if that "less reliability" is taken to such an extreme that you can only get 1 kill out of a 14 ton weapon before it's out of ammo and have to face down half a dozen other targets using only your pea shooters, then it's kind of not worth having one.

[Woska]

I like the double armour, it slows down the combat a bit so you have time to respond to events. But from a balance stand point, the ammo has to be doubled as well, or you've reduced the usefulness of the ammo dependent weapons by 50%.

[Raeven]

Sierra19, on 27 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Like was stated earlier, in the TT game things like AC's spread their damage all over the mech, in this game, you can aim, so that 20 points from the AC20 are going to go to the same spot. 20 points to the same spot ANYWHERE on ANY mech will either severely damage it, cripple it, or destroy it, so giving extra armor is a way to balance that all out. And for those wanting to kit out their mechs with just lasers, you are going to have hardpoint and weight restrictions to deal with, plus that niggling issue of heat management.

You've never played the TT game, have you?

[Woodstock]

Ammo dependant mechs should get more ammo if PGI has increased the amour values.

the only argument I have heard to say this shouldn't happen is that in BT TT hits were random and a LOT harder. In MWO you will be more accurate and therefore ammo will be more effective per pull of the trigger

[Raeven]

Voss Korgan, on 27 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Perfect solution is double ammo and half ammo explosion damage.

Shouldn't matter. Ammo explosion is a 'Mech killing event in nearly all cases. It's no less a serious threat with double ammo and double armor.