180 replies to this topic

[BFalcon]

Voss Korgan, on 28 June 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I could be wrong, but don't all the known variants have at least one decent energy weapon? Seems like a ballistic only mech will not be viable I these rules stand. Can't say I am pleased with this design choice.

If this helps, remember that you have a roughly 50/50 chance to hit the mech in the first place and then it's randomly assigned to a location - you'll be aiming for your chosen location, so will hopefully do the same damage, if not actually more.

Personally, I think I'd have gone with more scatter on the ammo-using weapons, but it's their game, let's see how this plays out. Worst case, we'll be building energy-boats with maybe one "heavy hitter" ammo-using weapon just to round things out.

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Strip off the lasers and add more ammo problem solved

i'm guessing that you prefer ammo-free loadouts, from your comments?

[Voss Korgan]

It's my game, I'm a founder after all!

[Phasics]

BFalcon, on 28 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

i'm guessing that you prefer ammo-free loadouts, from your comments?

Not really I'm already considering a JumpJet Ballistics mech so I can bounce around firing mid jump without overheat issues the a JJ boater would have.

Variety is the spice of life

[Blaze32]

I think if they double armor and not ammo it will make everyone go towards energy weapons because for the same space as a normal balistic or missle weapon you can have a lazer and a ton of heat sinks for same weight. If the double armor is to increase longitivity then they decrease the longitivity even more for the ammo dependent mechs.

If this is not clear let me show you what i mean if an atlas since it has double armor is going aroundit will quickly run out of ammo in a fight then what it will just be a wimpy 4 medium lazers which is a pritty big fail compaird to an awesome. This in turn will make everyone go the the awesome instead of the altas for longativity which if you think about it is just wrong, because that means that a heavy would be more tactically advantigious than an assalt and on that isnt an assalt mech supposed to be the "king of the battle field"?

This will lead to people only using only a few mechs or varients instead of it more equal across the board. And it would lead to no lrms or balistics being used (exept by people who can actually fit alot of ammo in, but then have to deal with the more likely exploasions becasue of it).


~~~~Overall~~~~~
Not trying to rage just stating my opinion and trying to back it up.

Potential ways to fix it...
~In my opinion they should double ammo amount but keep ROF and damage the same, if they want to increase battle length because this will healp them on that goal.
~Unless there is ammo reload on a map that you can reload you ammo in during the match then i guess im OK with it. This would shut alot of people up about this topic.

[Phasics]

Blaze32, on 28 June 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

If this is not clear let me show you what i mean if an atlas since it has double armor is going aroundit will quickly run out of ammo in a fight

How quickly ?

[Blaze32]

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

How quickly ?

fast enough that you will only be able to kill one mech (if at all) then you will just be 2 med lazers (because 2 are rear facing).

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Blaze32, on 28 June 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

If this is not clear let me show you what i mean if an atlas since it has double armor is going around it will quickly run out of ammo in a fight then what it will just be a wimpy four medium lasers which is a pretty big fail compared to an awesome. This in turn will make everyone go the the awesome instead of the altas for longevity which if you think about it is just wrong, because that means that a heavy would be more tactically advantageous than an assault and on that isnt an assault mech supposed to be the "king of the battle field"?

I could be wrong but isnt an Awesome an Assault?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Awesome

80 tons. Yeah its a light Assault but its still an assault

Rear facing are front facing here

Edited by 514yer, 28 June 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[Paullus Valcerus]

Cid, on 27 June 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

i guess they simply want the fights to last longer, so armor values got doubled.

unless ammo gets doubled as well we are probably going to see a lot of energy weapon stacking.

Yeah Ive noticed that it takes quite a bit to take down any mech, in previews MW tittles it was easy to kill other mechs

[Blaze32]

514yer, on 28 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

I could be wrong but isnt an Awesome an Assault?

My bad, oops
OK then let me think of anouther comparison... how about a catapult they have a better longitivity compaired to an atlas this is because they have 4 medium lazers all facing the same direction... The atlas has only 2 forward mounted medium lazers and 2 rear makeing the catapult better, and the catapult has jump jets to avoid the 2 rear facing medium lazers.

(if you can aim with them which im not quite clear on)

Edited by Blaze32, 28 June 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

you missed the part where rear mounted lasers fire forward here
and lasers are always on DOT fired
so you fire itll keep doing damage and heat as long as you keep the button down

Edited by 514yer, 28 June 2012 - 06:22 PM.

[Blaze32]

514yer, on 28 June 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

you missed the part where rear mounted lasers fire forward here
and lasers are always on DOT fired
so you fire itll keep doing damage and heat as long as you keep the button down

And i did not know about the rear firing also fireing forward this changes up my the stratigies
Ok then cant think of a mech that has more longuativity than the atlas... maybe the swayback hunchback?

Really they are constant, where did you here that i must of missed it...

Edited by Blaze32, 28 June 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

John Hartson, on 27 June 2012 - 05:10 AM, said:

Of course we can wait. ... But we are here to talk and speculate about the game, cause we can't wait for the game to be released. Your point makes talking about the game seem pointless, which it is not.

Talking about the game is not pointless, panicking about rumor is pointless.

[Squeak]

this is a pretty large concern for me since i run mainly heavy missle boats or light scouts with mix of missle and what i fil like at time
if say i drop a lrm 5 o my raven, and only get 10 shots out of it that not enough to even gurrentee another light will go down with armour doubled, and in the end if ballistic weapon run out of ammo before you can take out one or two mechs in one on one fights then ya there is no point to ammo and lasers will rule even with heat they can play cat and mouse

P.S. but lets be fair this is beta and hge changed can happen over night even at launch (hate you so much CO) so i wont go nuts about this one way or another till i see it live

Edited by Squeak, 28 June 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Blaze32]

Squeak, on 28 June 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

this is a pretty large concern for me since i run mainly heavy missle boats or light scouts with mix of missle and what i fil like at time
if say i drop a lrm 5 o my raven, and only get 10 shots out of it that not enough to even gurrentee another light will go down with armour doubled, and in the end if ballistic weapon run out of ammo before you can take out one or two mechs in one on one fights then ya there is no point to ammo and lasers will rule even with heat they can play cat and mouse

P.S. but lets be fair this is beta and hge changed can happen over night even at launch (hate you so much CO) so i wont go nuts about this one way or another till i see it live

Totally with you!!

[EDMW CSN]

Wait and see.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Blaze32, on 28 June 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

And i did not know about the rear firing also fireing forward this changes up my the stratigies
Ok then cant think of a mech that has more longuativity than the atlas... maybe the swayback hunchback?

Really they are constant, where did you here that i must of missed it...

They have a tendency to blow up too as the devs have said lol

[Jaxwen]

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

You know your post would make sense if the game had been released, it hasn't so it doesn't.

Beta's are the one time you can and should make the radical changes without getting crucified by the player base.

Trying big changes now is how you find the best way of doing things for a final release. It kills me how some of you are talking like we already have a 1.0v release and if anything is changed other things have to change as well to keep thing balanced it really beggars belief

Sweeping changes are what beta are for

But you know what its cool, you guys have no influence on the beta so I'm not worried

If you believe it is pointless to have this discussion, why are you trolling the posts of those that have an interest in the topic?

Joseph Mallan, on 28 June 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

Talking about the game is not pointless, panicking about rumor is pointless.

Who is "panicking"? This is a discussion.

Phasics, on 28 June 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

No it doesn't stand to any reason, because you have no idea if for the last 6 month of closed testing mechs have been finishing battles with plenty of ammo left over and that increasing armor acutal has little impact on the ammo because players were already in excess.

LMAO!
Maybe that's the case. Maybe it isn't. <laughs> Not knowing the answer to a question is the reason it is appropriate to submit the question.

[Jaxwen]

Squigles, on 28 June 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

When we say ammo weapons are being nerfed by this, what do we have to compare it to? The easiest comparison we can come up with is TT. So let's do a comparison.

TT: LRM's don't magically home in on the target, they're fired just like almost every other weapon in the game and need to roll a certain number to hit. Standard IS pilots have a gunnery score of 4. So let's go ahead and create a scenario.

Scenario: LRM boat vs a slow assault mech. Let's take a catapult-C1 vs an Atlas. Average number of missile hits per LRM 15 rack that hits is 9. We'll give ourselves a range modifier of +2 for medium range (TT IS LRM has only 1 hex where it gets a +0 range modifier, 7 hexes), we'll give ourselves a movement mod of +1 for backpeddling, and a +2 movement mod for the atlas running at us. So you're looking at needing 9's to hit.

9's to hit work out to about a 28% hit rate. So, looking at the C1, we have a pair of LRM 15's that do an average of 9 damage each when they hit, and hit about 28% of the time. This gives us an average per salvo damage of 5.04. That's an average of 20.16 damage delivered to target per ton of LRM ammo.

If we go ahead and give ourselves a favorable situation with a +0 movement mod for the missile boat, the hit rates go up to about 41%, giving us an average damage per ton of 29.52 per ton of LRM ammo.

What this means is, if you get at least 60 points of damage per ton from MWO LRM ammo, you are exceeding the optimistic damage profile of damage per ton of LRM's from TT even with the doubled armor. Watching the video's, achieving a 50% LRM hit rate with a missile lock on an atlas isn't going to be a stretch, in short, when you compare ammo using weapons to our TT comparison, there is no need for doubled ammo, because they already outperform their TT companions by 100% or better.

Yes these numbers also apply to pretty much every other ammo using weapon in TT, unless you start using utterly ludicrous comparisons like 2 mechs standing completely still at point blank range.

I didn't say "ammo is nerfed". I agreed with the OP that the question has merit and COULD be a concern.

For a 1v1 battle, I'm with you on your line of thought. Russ has repeatedly stressed team & role warfare. Would you please wargame your math for a 12v12 battle from the perspective of just 1 of those 24 mechs and tell me if a talented pilot with limited ammo supply who's teammates have fallen in battle is going to be effective against say the last 4 enemy mechs? We're all a bunch of geeks and I have my electronic and paper/pencil notepads written to no end also. How long into the battle against 12 mechs will 2-4 tons of ammo last on that OP's Catapult if providing fire support? That's 16 to 32 volleys by TT rules. Nothin in the MWO announcements/videos has suggested it is otherwise as of yet. Thanks.

[Jaxwen]

John Hartson, on 27 June 2012 - 11:38 PM, said:

After reading the last 5 pages I agree that aiming has a huge impact on the effectiveness of a ballistic weapon. Also we don't know how much damage each weapon inflicts.

... but what has been seen cannot be unseen and I think we all saw the leaked beta videos. The hunchback pilot there fired his AC/20 five times (which is half his ammo) at a Catapult and did not do serious damage to it (Every shot was a hit). An Atlas shoots at the same Catapult in close combat. Both the Atlas and the Hunchback have an AC/20 and they don't manage to destroy the Catapult.

How is a single Hunchback supposed to do that with its ten rounds of Ammo?

... to sum things up he gets killed by a Swayback in the end. (Another Variant of the Hunchback that exchanges the AC/20 for more Lasers)

Exactly! Thanks John. That is the whole point of this thread IMHO.

[Blaze32]

514yer, on 28 June 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:

They have a tendency to blow up too as the devs have said lol

the lazers blow up? really? where is this topic or vid? Give me a link please i'm curious now.

question about a different post...
is there rear facing weapons at all?

Edited by Blaze32, 28 June 2012 - 09:13 PM.