52 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

cdlord, on 22 December 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

This is where you lost me.....

Perhaps a compromise is in order because I follow the logic the OP is using. How about 270 LRMs for 1 crit and 2 tons? 150% LRMs for 200% space. Seems a fair trade.....

I don't particularly see that as a fair trade personally, that's a lot of ammo to just give up to save 1 crit slot.

If the answer was to give ammo packs that have less ammo than they should despite weighing 2 tons then it would need to be more efficient than that, like 300, 315, or 330 missiles for 2 tons and 1 crit slot; wasting half a ton worth of ammo is not a very good trade.

[Alek Ituin]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 12:13 AM, said:

I don't particularly see that as a fair trade personally, that's a lot of ammo to just give up to save 1 crit slot.

If the answer was to give ammo packs that have less ammo than they should despite weighing 2 tons then it would need to be more efficient than that, like 300, 315, or 330 missiles for 2 tons and 1 crit slot; wasting half a ton worth of ammo is not a very good trade.

Sorry, but saving on one aspect should cause you to lose out in another.

You save a crit slot, you lose tonnage and ammunition count. Otherwise "compact bins", or whatever you want to call them, would become the obviously superior choice to standard bins.

[totgeboren]

Nope, nopenopenope.

I often use LRM boats, and I think the most I have ever used on any build was 10 tons of ammo. I never used it all up. 6 tones is usually enough in my medium LRM boats, maybe up to 8 tons in my heavy boats. That's well over 1000 pts of damage you have in ammo. Unless you are just spamming your lrms into the hillsides, you should have the game well and truly won if you have done over 1000 pts of damage.

[Rhaythe]

Pjwned, on 21 December 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

As suggested in parentheses in the title, it could just be a 1.5 ton ammo pack with 270 missiles if there are concerns about a 2 ton ammo pack being too good, but the point is to give LRM mechs a little bit of relief and a 1.5 ton ammo pack would still help.

Late to the discussion, but this line made me laugh. Relief? I've seen missile-boat builds with 3000k plus missiles. They don't need relief. They need better builds.

As far as the original idea goes, another "Hell no" vote for me.

[Pjwned]

A little bit late to get back to this topic, but anyways...

Alek Ituin, on 23 December 2014 - 02:19 AM, said:

Sorry, but saving on one aspect should cause you to lose out in another.

You save a crit slot, you lose tonnage and ammunition count. Otherwise "compact bins", or whatever you want to call them, would become the obviously superior choice to standard bins.

If you had the option of a 2 ton ammo pack with only 270 missiles, I wonder how often you would use it; I think it's safe to say the answer would be "almost never."

The point is to have an option that's superior to a 1 ton ammo pack and a 0.5 ton ammo pack in most cases, while not directly buffing the amount of ammo per ton.

Rhaythe, on 23 December 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Late to the discussion, but this line made me laugh. Relief? I've seen missile-boat builds with 3000k plus missiles. They don't need relief. They need better builds.

As far as the original idea goes, another "Hell no" vote for me.

It would be of more benefit to smaller LRM mechs while not really making much difference for the ones that have a ridiculous amount of LRM tubes and ammo.

[Alek Ituin]

Pjwned, on 26 December 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

If you had the option of a 2 ton ammo pack with only 270 missiles, I wonder how often you would use it; I think it's safe to say the answer would be "almost never."

The point is to have an option that's superior to a 1 ton ammo pack and a 0.5 ton ammo pack in most cases, while not directly buffing the amount of ammo per ton.

A lot, actually. Most of my builds are tonnage efficient, but run out of crit slots. Having 1.5 tons of ammo for only 1 slot would be amazing honestly.

But more to the point, attitudes like yours are the reason games end up with major balance issues. "We NEED a superior option to XYZ!" is the most ignorant thing a person can say in regards to game balance. Very little should be a straight upgrade or superior in every way. Having 1.5 tons of missiles in 1 crit slot for 2 tons total weight is a very good trade off.

Your silly little thought process of "Need superior option" would just lead to everybody using compact bins. It;s like SHS vs DHS, or Endo vs Ferro. DHS and Endo are superior in every way to their counterparts, and look how often they get used... in contrast, SHS and Ferro are rarely used by anyone.


Sidegrades should be the order of the day, end of story. You gain an advantage in one area, and lose out in another. Want 1.5 tons of ammo for 1.5 tons? Then use the 1 ton bin and a 0.5 ton bin.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 26 December 2014 - 02:01 PM.

[Pjwned]

Alek Ituin, on 26 December 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

A lot, actually. Most of my builds are tonnage efficient, but run out of crit slots. Having 1.5 tons of ammo for only 1 slot would be amazing honestly.

And how efficient would those builds be if you wasted multiple tons for compact ammo packs?

Quote

But more to the point, attitudes like yours are the reason games end up with major balance issues. "We NEED a superior option to XYZ!" is the most ignorant thing a person can say in regards to game balance. Very little should be a straight upgrade or superior in every way. Having 1.5 tons of missiles in 1 crit slot for 2 tons total weight is a very good trade off.

I stated what I think is a problem for some mechs and why it's a problem and I gave a solution, I don't see how that sort of thinking would lead to "major balance issues."

Quote

Your silly little thought process of "Need superior option" would just lead to everybody using compact bins. It;s like SHS vs DHS, or Endo vs Ferro. DHS and Endo are superior in every way to their counterparts, and look how often they get used... in contrast, SHS and Ferro are rarely used by anyone.

I agree that upgrades (especially DHS) are handled rather poorly, but the difference is that smaller LRM ammo packs would still see some actual use, unlike something like SHS and Standard Structure.

Quote

Sidegrades should be the order of the day, end of story. You gain an advantage in one area, and lose out in another. Want 1.5 tons of ammo for 1.5 tons? Then use the 1 ton bin and a 0.5 ton bin.

I would be fine with a sidegrade where you lose out on some ammo efficiency, but losing half a ton to save 1 crit slot is pushing it from the definition of a sidegrade into a downgrade.

Edited by Pjwned, 26 December 2014 - 03:16 PM.

[IronLichRich]

Are you in a superheavy mech? If not, a ton of ammo takes 1 crit space

[Ace Selin]

OP as someone who does use LRMs quite a bit, mostly due to having to use my lower end laptop to play this game of late, and tracking with any other wepon is horrendous with the jerky game movement, i completely disagree with you. LRM ammo can be packed in quite plentifull in any resonable LRM build. If you need more ammo, reduce / remove something to allow for that ammo. Allready being able to pack in 1500 LRMS into a medium or 2500 LRMS into an assualt mech is a lot of damage that can be applied. On that thought maybe use your LRMS correctly, within eyesight so as not to waste the ammo you have and that will be sufficient.

[Scratx]

RAM, on 21 December 2014 - 05:24 PM, said:

Double armour should equate to double ammo...


RAM
ELH

TT ammo counts also take into consideration that shots are given random hit locations, while in MWO you can focus damage very well.


(funnily enough, I had a MegaMek match earlier where my battlemaster hit a Bushwacker, IIRC, with an ERPPC and 2 Medium Lasers on the CT in the same round... RNG is funny. )

[Alek Ituin]

Pjwned, on 26 December 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

And how efficient would those builds be if you wasted multiple tons for compact ammo packs?

I stated what I think is a problem for some mechs and why it's a problem and I gave a solution, I don't see how that sort of thinking would lead to "major balance issues."

I agree that upgrades (especially DHS) are handled rather poorly, but the difference is that smaller LRM ammo packs would still see some actual use, unlike something like SHS and Standard Structure.

I would be fine with a sidegrade where you lose out on some ammo efficiency, but losing half a ton to save 1 crit slot is pushing it from the definition of a sidegrade into a downgrade.

1. - Still efficient, as I don't use LRM's as a primary weapon. The only time I pack LRM's is in Assaults with tonnage to spare, as a closing weapon to try and keep the enemies head(s) down. Or if I've got both tonnage left over and I a little something extra. Both times would make compact bins a great idea, even losing 0.5 tons per bin. Most of my builds (IS or Clan) run out of space first anyway.

2. - Really? You can't wrap your head around the fact that a 2 ton 1 CS compact ammo bin with a full 2 tons of ammunition is OP? You're really not getting that?

3. - See #2, and standard bins would see less use than SHS. There's no point in using a system that wastes slots if the other option is more efficient.

4. - With 1.5 tons of ammo in a 2 ton bin, you're only losing 25%. You gain an extra CS though, which is worth its weight in Californium 252 for LRM builds.

Edited by Alek Ituin, 27 December 2014 - 06:52 AM.

[Lightfoot]

It's pretty balanced now. You are forced to decide if you want that extra medium laser or the extra ton of ammo that would keep you from running out. If the team has good LRM defense then they might just force most missiles to be wasted, if not the LRM mech has enough to do the job. 180 per ton/slot also prevents some obscenely large missile boats that are currently blocked by ammo consumption rates. This is vital to balancing.

LRMs are a nice challenge right now. To make them work well you need to study their many quirks. And no I am not posting here what those quirks are, but trust me LRMs have much to reveal that is not in the description. Basically though it falls to equipment like Artemis and optimization and knowing when and how to get a high-damage salvo in. LRMs are definitely a skill to learn, but one that new players can field as well.

[Pjwned]

Alek Ituin, on 27 December 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

1. - Still efficient, as I don't use LRM's as a primary weapon. The only time I pack LRM's is in Assaults with tonnage to spare, as a closing weapon to try and keep the enemies head(s) down. Or if I've got both tonnage left over and I a little something extra. Both times would make compact bins a great idea, even losing 0.5 tons per bin. Most of my builds (IS or Clan) run out of space first anyway.

I still question the value of a 2 ton ammo pack with only 270 missiles in a build like that, but I suppose if you need a relatively minimal amount of LRM ammo then the loss would not be very high.

Quote

2. - Really? You can't wrap your head around the fact that a 2 ton 1 CS compact ammo bin with a full 2 tons of ammunition is OP? You're really not getting that?

I did readily concede that a 1.5 ton ammo pack for 1 crit slot would be good enough.

Quote

3. - See #2, and standard bins would see less use than SHS. There's no point in using a system that wastes slots if the other option is more efficient.

Let's look at an example then.

Say you want 3.5 tons of LRM ammo for 15 tubes, you put in 2 compact ammo packs (at 1.5 tons for 270 missiles) and 1 half ton ammo pack, or say you want 4 tons of ammo so you put in 2 compact ammo packs and 1 standard ammo pack. Even if we did get 2 ton ammo packs with 360 missiles, it would still be a similar situation.

Would compact ammo packs replace standard ammo packs as the primary ammo containers? Yes, and that's not unintended.
Would compact ammo packs completely replace standard ammo packs and make them see less use than standard heat sinks? No, and to say otherwise is wrong.

Quote

4. - With 1.5 tons of ammo in a 2 ton bin, you're only losing 25%. You gain an extra CS though, which is worth its weight in Californium 252 for LRM builds.

That's not a small amount of ammo to lose for what little you gain, and the tonnage loss would only get worse as you put more of those ammo packs in.

Edited by Pjwned, 27 December 2014 - 09:05 AM.