28 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 July 2015 - 03:45 AM, said:

Yeah the LB10X needs the same ammo increase the AC10 got. Just for consistency. Because LBX ammo doesnt weigh anymore than standard ammo. They should both get the same amount of ammo per ton.



Increasing ammo per ton is one of the ways PGI can make ballistic weapons weigh less. The AC10 for example was always outright inferior to the AC20... it weighs 2 tons less and does HALF the damage.

The AC10 really needed the ammo per ton increase. So does the AC2. So do SRMs/SSRMs since they never got the 50% ammo increase that all other ammo using weapons got in the first place.

Other ammo weapons are fine though. We dont need a blanket ammo increase. Just a selective ammo increase for certain weapons that need a bit of a buff.

AC 10 is I think Perfect. Now the new amount of Ammo I question I don't run out of ammo with an AC10 using 3 tons. AC2 (75 rounds per ton!!!) needs better trigger control not more ammo. This is spray and prey players wanting more ammo.

20 Turns 200 seconds 3 minutes of combat... 6 hours+ of dice rolling!

[Night Thastus]

I really WANT there to be a blanket ammo buff. In the lore, carrying 1 ton of reloads was pretty standard for most weapons. The reasoning is that back then, 'Mechs had half the health that we did, and had half the heat capacity. That made ballistics a really good option for low-heat (but high tonnage) firepower. With ammo at lore values, they lag behind since they need to fire 2x as much to get the same damage.

[Joseph Mallan]

Night Thastus, on 31 July 2015 - 04:29 AM, said:

I really WANT there to be a blanket ammo buff. In the lore, carrying 1 ton of reloads was pretty standard for most weapons. The reasoning is that back then, 'Mechs had half the health that we did, and had half the heat capacity. That made ballistics a really good option for low-heat (but high tonnage) firepower. With ammo at lore values, they lag behind since they need to fire 2x as much to get the same damage.

The reason back then(still is) was that One minute of sustain fire was considered devastating!

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

Its quite supprising that the LBX-10 didn't get a ammo increase and the AC/2, maybe PGI is just testing the effect of the change on gameplay given that AC10 is almost a viable weapon out of the bad crowd of 3 ballistics. Thing is though the issue with AC/10, AC/2, LB10-X is that they do not match up well with other weapons so i doubt more ammo will help much.

[Pariah Devalis]

Honestly, 25% more ammo per ton across the board would be enough for me. Why 25%? The gauss standard.

At minimum, if you want to actually be a significant threat, you need 25 shots from a gauss rifle. That translates to 375 damage from the gauss alone, and currently requires 2.5 tons of ammunition. It requires trigger discipline but I consider it my standard minimum. Likewise, two gauss benefit heavily from 5 tons of ammo (25 per gun) yet will usually run dry on 4 tons of ammo unless you are bringing plentiful secondary main guns like lplas or erppc. Even if you just rounded down the ammo per ton after a 25% increase, it would be worthwhile.

If all ballistics got the 25% additional ammo treatment, several stock underperformers would directly benefit, such as the SMN, MDD, and SHC. It has been a while so I am unsure which stock IS mechs would benefits, though they are more free due to current construction rules to find an extra ton in the couch someplace. Still, it would be a mild QOL change to ballistic IS mechs as well.

Having to devote one less ton of ammo here or there could help reduce the vomit, too. By sweetening the deal for ammo mildly, pilots might be willing to invest in a larger, singular gun as opposed to several smaller guns that trade no PPFLD for higher raw damage.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 31 July 2015 - 04:46 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

AC2 (75 rounds per ton!!!) needs better trigger control not more ammo. This is spray and prey players wanting more ammo.

No.The biggest problem with the AC/2 is that it weighs a ridiculous 6 tons. Giving it more ammo per ton is one way of reducing the tonnage of the AC/2 to something approaching reasonable. Because 6 tons isnt reasonable.

Quote

Thing is though the issue with AC/10, AC/2, LB10-X is that they do not match up well with other weapons so i doubt more ammo will help much.

More ammo alone wouldnt be enough to fix them. But if they gave the AC/2 more ammo per ton, significantly less heat, and they fixed the damage dropoff so the AC/5 no longer does better damage at long range than the AC/2, it would make the AC/2 more appealing. The AC/2 should outperform the AC/5 at long range and because of how damage dropoff works thats sadly not the case.

As for the LB10-X... the way to fix that is to make critical hits more meaningful. Right now critical hits dont matter because internal structure gets destroyed way too quickly. Increasing internal structure across the board would help make critical hits more meaningful. That would also buff machine guns too.

As for the AC/10 its actually not that bad with the ammo increase... Not all mechs can carry an AC/20 remember. So its not always fair to say the AC/20 is better. Because the AC/20 isnt an option for some mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 31 July 2015 - 06:11 AM.

[Sable]

I actually would be in favor of raised ammo per ton on a lot of weapons. Some stock mechs make more sense in certain cases. It would free up much needed space or tonnage in certain cases. I never liked how AC20s only got 7 rounds per ton. I think 15 rounds per ton should be the minimum. It would improve a lot of mechs with a mixed loadout being more appealing. You wouldn't need to carry 6 tons of ammo for one weapon, 2 or 3 would be enough.

Edited by Sable, 31 July 2015 - 08:03 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Khobai, on 31 July 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

No.The biggest problem with the AC/2 is that it weighs a ridiculous 6 tons. Giving it more ammo per ton is one way of reducing the tonnage of the AC/2 to something approaching reasonable. Because 6 tons isnt reasonable.



More ammo alone wouldnt be enough to fix them. But if they gave the AC/2 more ammo per ton, significantly less heat, and they fixed the damage dropoff so the AC/5 no longer does better damage at long range than the AC/2, it would make the AC/2 more appealing. The AC/2 should outperform the AC/5 at long range and because of how damage dropoff works thats sadly not the case.

As for the LB10-X... the way to fix that is to make critical hits more meaningful. Right now critical hits dont matter because internal structure gets destroyed way too quickly. Increasing internal structure across the board would help make critical hits more meaningful. That would also buff machine guns too.

As for the AC/10 its actually not that bad with the ammo increase... Not all mechs can carry an AC/20 remember. So its not always fair to say the AC/20 is better. Because the AC/20 isnt an option for some mechs.

Come on the AC2 has been 6 tons for longer than most STEAM players have been alive. 75 rounds of ammo per ton is more than enough.

[Khobai]

Quote

Come on the AC2 has been 6 tons for longer than most STEAM players have been alive.

And the AC2 has been absolutely useless in every game where its weighed 6 tons. Coincidence? No.

Quote

75 rounds of ammo per ton is more than enough

Nope. For two reasons:

1) the AC2 spreads damage around A LOT more than other autocannons. That means a good portion of its shots effectively get wasted. So logically it should get more damage per ton of ammo than other autocannons.

2) the AC2 weighs too damn much. 6 tons is ridiculous. And more ammo per ton helps take the sting out of that 6 ton cost.

Increase the ammo per ton, reduce the heat, and fix the max range/damage dropoff so the AC/2 outperforms the AC/5 at long range and the AC/2 might sometimes be worth considering as an alternative to the AC/5.

Edited by Khobai, 31 July 2015 - 10:23 AM.