107 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

Yosharian, on 27 July 2015 - 06:18 AM, said:

And heat sinks raise the heat cap when they shouldn't.

really? So how can a Warhawk-Prime fire 3 ERPPCs in one turn without suffering heat penalties? If the heat cap is 30, surely it should go 50% over the cap and explode? OH WAIT, thats not how it works, is it? All of the heat is dissipated by the heatsinks at the end of the turn and never affects the mech. Sounds like the heat cap in this game is simulating that effect reasonably well actually.

[Joseph Mallan]

Widowmaker1981, on 28 July 2015 - 06:29 AM, said:

really? So how can a Warhawk-Prime fire 3 ERPPCs in one turn without suffering heat penalties? If the heat cap is 30, surely it should go 50% over the cap and explode? OH WAIT, thats not how it works, is it? All of the heat is dissipated by the heatsinks at the end of the turn and never affects the mech. Sounds like the heat cap in this game is simulating that effect reasonably well actually.

But its not. Cause the heat is gone within 5 seconds not a full 10.
I fire at you you fire at me
Damage effects (pilot rolls)
Heat phase.
10 seconds.

here its, I fire at you
wait 10 seconds for heat sinks to work.

It's not working as intended.

Warhawk fires 3 ERPPC 45 heat
In Heat phase 40 points are removed from 45 Warhawk is 5 on the scale. loses a bit of speed cause he is a little over heat. Fires again and is not 10 on the scale.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 July 2015 - 06:42 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

IronLichRich, on 27 July 2015 - 10:12 AM, said:

I don't see how energy weapons have been nerfed hard in MWO. They remain one of the most efficient ways to kill things and don't have to worry about ammo. Lasers probably need their cooldowns increased, but that can't happen until they fix heat because people will run more lasers to make up for increased cooldown.

That said, ballistic ammo is fine where it is. People aren't gping to use this to take the same amount of ammo and take more weapons instead.

They have this make believe land called TT that is literal and any body who questions the TT rules as core for this game is burned at the stake. The nerf is from table top rules (notice TT rules are separate from MWO). So it is really not a nerf, it is more like saying the earth was not created in 7 days.

[Roadkill]

Chuck YeaGurr, on 28 July 2015 - 07:46 AM, said:

The nerf is from table top rules (notice TT rules are separate from MWO). So it is really not a nerf

Since this thread is arguing that various things need to be changed based on how other things were changed from tabletop rules, it is very much a nerf in the context of this thread.

Lasers are not nearly as powerful in MWO as they are in TT. That just a simple fact.

[Livewyr]

Roadkill, on 28 July 2015 - 08:00 AM, said:

Since this thread is arguing that various things need to be changed based on how other things were changed from tabletop rules, it is very much a nerf in the context of this thread.

Lasers are not nearly as powerful in MWO as they are in TT. That just a simple fact.

Well, going by that logic, Autocannons got nerfed in the aim department as well.. (especially clans) Travel time was not a factor in TT, and neither was the spread of UAC pellets. (Also, the Gauss Rifle has been turned into Nitro Glycerin compared to TT.)

But, what is the point of this line of thought?

[Roadkill]

Livewyr, on 28 July 2015 - 02:26 PM, said:

But, what is the point of this line of thought?

That there is no need to further increase ammo for Ballistic weapons because the "ammo" for Energy weapons was nerfed in the conversion from TT while ammunition for Ballistic weapons has already been buffed in the conversion from TT.

[Livewyr]

Roadkill, on 28 July 2015 - 06:16 PM, said:

That there is no need to further increase ammo for Ballistic weapons because the "ammo" for Energy weapons was nerfed in the conversion from TT while ammunition for Ballistic weapons has already been buffed in the conversion from TT.

But they were both nerfed... Except Ballistics were nerfed extra due to having to chew through twice the armor, without compensated ammunition.

[Funkin Disher]

I'd go with one ton of ammo = 200 damage (in the case of the gauss you would have to round up or down).

Then make max range = 150% normal range instead of 200%, but that's a different quibble.

[Roadkill]

Livewyr, on 28 July 2015 - 06:28 PM, said:

But they were both nerfed... Except Ballistics were nerfed extra due to having to chew through twice the armor, without compensated ammunition.

No, Energy weapons also have to chew through twice the armor, and their "ammunition" was reduced in the translation from TT while Ballistic ammo was increased.

Relative to TT, Energy weapons are in much worse shape than Ballistics.

[Livewyr]

Roadkill, on 28 July 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

No, Energy weapons also have to chew through twice the armor, and their "ammunition" was reduced in the translation from TT while Ballistic ammo was increased.

Relative to TT, Energy weapons are in much worse shape than Ballistics.

I think you are confusing Ammunition (longevity) with Rate of Fire (DPS) It takes them twice as long to chew through the double armor in MWO, but they can do it indefinitely.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Funkin Disher, on 28 July 2015 - 07:58 PM, said:

I'd go with one ton of ammo = 200 damage (in the case of the gauss you would have to round up or down).

Yeah doing that is the basic idea, to see 200 damage per ton on ballistics.

So AC/2 is getting a 2.22x boost to ammo from its orignal 90
Gauss sees 1.67x boost from 120
MGs would be the one that still sees a decrease from its original of 400, but an increase of 40 from its current 160 damage per ton
And the rest of the Ballistics see a 2.0x boost from original damage per ton


And so Missiles are the next system that could see the 2.0x tweaks where
LRMS could get a 1.67x boost to 200 damage per ton or a 2.0x boost to 240
SRMs would stay at 200 damage currently, or could see a 1.2x boost for 240 damage per ton or go 2.0x for 400 damage per ton

[Roadkill]

Livewyr, on 28 July 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

I think you are confusing Ammunition (longevity) with Rate of Fire (DPS) It takes them twice as long to chew through the double armor in MWO, but they can do it indefinitely.

They can do it indefinitely in TT, too.

In order to create a balanced Mech, you have to add more heat sinks in MWO than you do in TT. That's the "ammunition" that I'm talking about. Extra tons that have to be paid in order to play the game effectively.

In order to be as effective as TT, both Ballistic and Energy weapons have to pay more tons. Ballistics because armor was doubled but their ammo wasn't. Energy because armor was doubled and their "ammo" - heat efficiency - was reduced.

In TT you need 4 DHS to completely neutralize the heat from a Large Laser. In MWO you need 14. You need 10 extra tons of "ammo" just to make a single Large Laser as effective as it is in TT.

You need a little over 5 extra DHS to do the same thing for an AC/10. (That's counting the extra heat sinks that you need for the AC/10, too.)

[Deathlike]

Livewyr, on 27 July 2015 - 06:16 AM, said:

In some cases, that would be a small increase.

Missiles LRMs are already 50+ percent ammo increased.
AC20 is 40% increased
Gauss is 25% Increased.

SRMs and SSRMs did not get an ammo count boost. I've been asking for an ammo boost there since forever, but I don't feel like caring for more ammo. It's just inconsistent here anyways.

[Rushmoar]

Ascaloth, on 27 July 2015 - 04:52 AM, said:

Moar ammo per ton = moar free tonnage for weapons = moar weapons = moar alpha = less time to kill.

If the problem is the laser, then solve the laser.

I'm going with this also. But, they could make the ac20 have 8 shots instead of 7 so a half ton of ac 20 would be 4 shots not 3.

[Joseph Mallan]

Rushmoar, on 29 July 2015 - 02:06 AM, said:

I'm going with this also. But, they could make the ac20 have 8 shots instead of 7 so a half ton of ac 20 would be 4 shots not 3.

They could always make it 6 shot per ton so there wouldn't be any rounding.

Mind you I am an AC20 fan.

[Wywern]

The funny thing is that people complain about dragons and dakkawhales etc. when talking about increasing ammo, when the low ammo amounts aren't stopping that now are they? A normal ballistic/missile build will have to sacrifice a massive amount of weight to put on weapons. That wouldn't be a problem if there were no mechs that couldn't get anything but ballistic and missile slots, but as it stands many variants of mechs are useless because they simply cannot mount any competitive weapon configurations with sensible amounts of ammo.

Maybe if they could reload ammo that would help. The big thing about ammo vs. lasers is that lasers have infinite damage potential and can easily reach the same dps as ammo using weapons. For example, 3 large lasers with infinite damage potential have a dps of 6.35. That's 2 heat sinks before they even go over the weight of an AC20 with a dps of 5, not to even mention ammo.

Now we are in a situation where an AC20 with 4 tons of ammo has a raw dps of 5 (5 sustained with 10 double heatsinks in engine) with a damage potential of 560 against a 3 large laser configuration with 6 double heatsinks, which has a raw dps of 6.35 (3.56 sustained) with a damage potential of 3204 in a normal 15 minute match. Sound fair? Of course the AC has a bigger sustained dps than lasers, as it should, but wait for it. (blahblah=Silly mistakes I didn't notice because of my own personal retardation. Setups actually weigh 18 vs. 21)

Both those weapon configurations weigh 20 tons. Which one would you choose? Oh, by the way the lasers actually have a higher burst damage, higher range and are hitscan. What is your choice?

Edited by Wywern, 03 August 2015 - 08:37 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I think you are confusing Ammunition (longevity) with Rate of Fire (DPS) It takes them twice as long to chew through the double armor in MWO, but they can do it indefinitely.

Wrong. It doesnt take twice as long. Because you can aim in MWO instead of having random hit locations like in tabletop. You actually need LESS ammo to breach armor in MWO compared to tabletop.

Allow me to demonstrate using a 100 ton mech as an example:

Tabletop:
Chance to hit center torso = 20% (random hit location, have to roll a 2 or 7 to hit center torso)
Average # of AC20 shots required to breach 60 armor CT with 20% hit location chance = 15 shots!
5 ammo/ton = 3 tons of AC20 ammo required

MWO:
Chance to hit center torso = 100% (because you can aim for it)
# of AC20 shots required to breach 120 armor CT = 6 shots
7 ammo/ton = 1 ton of AC20 ammo required

So you can see how greatly the ability to aim amplifies damage, and even double armor wasnt enough to balance it. They really shouldve tripled armor, that wouldve been closer to where armor needed to be to account for aiming.

Quote

SRMs and SSRMs did not get an ammo count boost. I've been asking for an ammo boost there since forever, but I don't feel like caring for more ammo. It's just inconsistent here anyways.

SRMs and SSRMs need major buffs

fix hit registration on SRMs/SSRMs
+50% ammo increase on SRMs/SSRMs to be consistent with other ammo increases
increase IS SRMs/SSRMs back to 2.5 damage because they weigh twice as much as Clan SRMs/SSRMs

Edited by Khobai, 01 August 2015 - 01:49 AM.

[Wywern]

Khobai, on 01 August 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

Wrong. It doesnt take twice as long. Because you can aim in MWO instead of having random hit locations like in tabletop. You actually need LESS ammo to breach armor in MWO compared to tabletop.

Allow me to demonstrate using a 100 ton mech as an example:

Tabletop:
Chance to hit center torso = 20% (random hit location, have to roll a 2 or 7 to hit center torso)
Average # of AC20 shots required to breach 60 armor CT with 20% hit location chance = 15 shots!
5 ammo/ton = 3 tons of AC20 ammo required

MWO:
Chance to hit center torso = 100% (because you can aim for it)
# of AC20 shots required to breach 120 armor CT = 6 shots
7 ammo/ton = 1 ton of AC20 ammo required

So you can see how greatly the ability to aim amplifies damage, and even double armor wasnt enough to balance it. They really shouldve tripled armor, that wouldve been closer to where armor needed to be to account for aiming.

That's pretty much wrong, because in MWO even though you can aim, your target can also take measures to stop you from hitting your intended target. Your point is invalid.

Edited by Wywern, 03 August 2015 - 08:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 01 August 2015 - 01:35 AM, said:

Wrong. It doesnt take twice as long. Because you can aim in MWO instead of having random hit locations like in tabletop. You actually need LESS ammo to breach armor in MWO compared to tabletop.

Allow me to demonstrate using a 100 ton mech as an example:

Tabletop:
Chance to hit center torso = 20% (random hit location, have to roll a 2 or 7 to hit center torso)
Average # of AC20 shots required to breach 60 armor CT with 20% hit location chance = 15 shots!
5 ammo/ton = 3 tons of AC20 ammo required

MWO:
Chance to hit center torso = 100% (because you can aim for it)
# of AC20 shots required to breach 120 armor CT = 6 shots
7 ammo/ton = 1 ton of AC20 ammo required

So you can see how greatly the ability to aim amplifies damage, and even double armor wasnt enough to balance it. They really shouldve tripled armor, that wouldve been closer to where armor needed to be to account for aiming.



SRMs and SSRMs need major buffs

fix hit registration on SRMs/SSRMs
+50% ammo increase on SRMs/SSRMs to be consistent with other ammo increases
increase IS SRMs/SSRMs back to 2.5 damage because they weigh twice as much as Clan SRMs/SSRMs

If a Mech lasts longer than 50 seconds of combat. It takes longer.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quote

Tabletop:
Chance to hit center torso = 20% (random hit location, have to roll a 2 or 7 to hit center torso)
Average # of AC20 shots required to breach 60 armor CT with 20% hit location chance = 15 shots!
5 ammo/ton = 3 tons of AC20 ammo required

1+6 = 7 1+4 = 5 3+6 = 9 4+5 = 9 1+6 = 7 5+4 = 9 5+3 = 8 4+1 = 5 4+4 = 8 1+2 = 3 5+3 = 8 1+1 = 2 (12) 6+4 = 10 5+4 = 9 2+4 = 6 6+6 = 12(HEAD SHOT!) 5+1 = 6 5+1 = 6 1+2 = 3 5+1 = 6

With as many repeats as I'm seeing using a random roller... That 100 tonner is wrecked pretty fast! Now how many AC20s am I firing per turn?

1+3 = 4 4+1 = 5 4+2 = 6 4+3 = 7 1+6 = 7 5+1 = 6 1+2 = 3 2+3 = 5 2+4 = 6 6+3 = 9 1+1 = 2(11 Rolls) 3+5 = 8 6+1 = 7 1+1 = 2 3+3 = 6 2+2 = 4 5+3 = 8 5+4 = 9 6+1 = 7(8 rolls) 5+5 = 10

As many as 19 turns if only 1 AC20 Thats 190 Seconds that's 3 minutes to kill 2 100 ton Mechs on TT. And that isn't counting if there are 2 AC20 or other weapons being fired.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 03 August 2015 - 09:16 AM.