4 replies to this topic

[Matthew Ace]

Hi PGI,

I have some suggestions that I hope the team may find interesting or useful enough to want to consider trying for some weapons. This post includes but is not limited to attempts to address some of the less-often used weapons (to increase their usability). Readers may discuss these as well then perhaps I can tweak it further.

Overview
- Increased usability for some under-performing weapons
- Introducing Through-Armor Critical
- Increased TTK via Heat Capacity adjustment
- Gauss Rifle rework

General
Consider complete removal of Heat Scale Penalty (Ghost Heat) in favour of lower Base Heat Capacity as an initial step to Heat System Revamp. There was a player that suggested reducing the Base Heat Capacity from 30 to 14 (Yes, 14. Not a typo).

LB-X Autocannons, Cluster rounds (Both factions):
1) Crit Damage Multiplier to 5x (up from 2x) to give them better critting ability.

The double-crit and triple-crit chance may need to be reduced and then added to single-crit chance to make up for it.

2) Each cluster has a damage multiplier of 10x versus UAV (anti-aircraft, sort of? )
This adds some utility for the LB-X autocannons (much more so for the smaller caliber, and out of desperation for larger caliber).

3) Through Armor Critical: The lower the armor is, the more likely it is for each LBX Clusters to bypass Armor and do damage to Structure direct. Crits apply as per normal for damaging internals. Only applicable to weapons fired.

4) Increase ammo to 200 damage/ton (normalising to IS AC10)

5) Optional bold change
- Greatly reduced cone of fire at maximum optimal range BUT
- Tie range to either targeting locked enemy OR fix the range at canon (TT) "Short" Range.
- Weapon Long Range (existing maximum optimal range)
- Suggested Reference Spread: Existing spread at 30% optimal range (i.e. The spread at all ranges will be similar to how the weapons currently behave against a target at 30% optimal range)
- Necessitate adding a training portion for weapons that has special mechanisms (this includes stuff like IS-LRM minimum range, Gauss charge-up and stuff).



Autocannon 2 / Ultra Autocannon 2
1) Through Armor Critical: The lower the armor % (out of allocated armor) is, the more likely it is for each round to do 50% damage to Armor and 50% damage to Structure direct. Crits apply as per normal.

2) Each round has a damage multiplier of 5x versus UAV (anti-aircraft, sort of? )
This adds some extra utility for Autocannon 2 and Ultra Autocannon. Not applicable when shot at targets out of optimal range.

3) Ammo increased to 200 damage per ton (normalising with IS AC10).



Gauss Rifle (NOTE: HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL - Do not proceed unless you are open to changes to Gauss Rifle)

Spoiler

Background of Change: Highly inspired by the desire to make Hollander or any other Main-gun-with-minimal-to-no-backup-armament Mechs useful, while at the same time, assuring that Carrying 2 or more Gauss will not be a cookie-cutter formula, and Clan Gauss having some fragility downside to make up for the reduced bulk and mass.

Mechanism
- Fire only 1 at any time
- When firing a Gauss Rifle, causes all other weapons (including other Gausses) besides Machine Guns, Class 2 Autocannon of all types and Flamers to start a cooldown cycle (IS-Gauss: 0.5 seconds / Clan-Gauss 0.75 seconds)
- Firing any other weapons other than Machine Guns, Class 2 Autocannon of all types and Flamers causes the same above cooldown cycle for any Gausses; when firing duration-based (e.g. Lasers) weapons, the cooldown cycle starts only after the weapon finishes firing.
- Consider removal of charge mechanism (I am fine with the charge-up at present, but this suggestion can work with replacing this mechanism as well)

Stats

• Damage increased from 15 to 18 or even 20 (more at "Recycle Time")
  
• Ammo reduced to 8 if damage increased to 20
  
• Recycle Time increased from current values (4.00 for live server, 5.50 for PTS) to:
  
  • 6 seconds if 18 damage, plus charge-up
    
  • 7 seconds if 20 damage, plus charge-up
    
  • Add 1 second to the Recycle Time if considering the removal of charge-up mechanism
• Weapon Explosion when destroyed
  
  • 20 for IS
    
  • 40 for Clan (keep in mind structures were doubled from TT in the first place and Clan mechs also has CASE everywhere)
• Health:
  
  • IS Gauss: 10
    
  • Clan Gauss: 5

Weapons with Through-Armor Crits properties will be dangerous to Gauss Rifle users.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 06 November 2015 - 09:49 PM.

[Dr Cara Carcass]

So you want the Gauss gone? And an über LBX because you cant aim that good?

Edited by Cara Carcass, 09 November 2015 - 12:27 PM.

[Matthew Ace]

Cara Carcass, on 09 November 2015 - 12:25 PM, said:

So you want the Gauss gone? And an über LBX because you cant aim that good?

I want the Gauss to be a better standalone weapon, but possesses somewhat less synergy in multiples or laser-vomit without making them irrelevant. Reducing the amount of damage anyone can place into a single pixel at any time is a necessary thing to raise TTK. If I wanted Gauss to be gone, I wouldn't have raised the damage, would I? To be honest, I was even considering raising the damage further and/or increasing the range further.

I want LBXs to be better because they are hardly used and less effective than solid-shot Autocannons even when used versus internals. Being an experienced player yourself, you should realise LBX is still less effective than pinpoint damage weapons even in their niche role of ripping out components and internals.

Lastly, maybe you should focus on debating what makes the idea good or bad (you know, break it down to why so-and-so), rather than implying an idea is bad because it is made by a player who gives you the impression he/she isn't very good at the game (TL;DR: Be constructive).

Edited by Matthew Ace, 09 November 2015 - 06:38 PM.

[Postumus]

The problem with trying to balance the LBX (or flamer or MG etc.) around critical damage is that critical damage is such a small part of the fight. Unless you can just about guaranteed take out anything in a stripped location, what you get is a weapon that is still useless until you strip armor.

If they seriously want to buff LBX, they need to increase the damage per pellet to something like 1.5. At least then it would be a decent brawling weapon, giving it comparable damage to SRMs but with better velocity, heat and spread, at the expense of weight.

The regular AC/10 should be next in line. The best thing for it would be a big velocity buff, and maybe a little range boost/heat reduction thrown in. AC/10 as it is doesn't have the velocity to take advantage of the range increase over an AC/10, fires too fast to be able to properly torso twist in a brawl, and is totally outclassed by the Gauss in every way for long range.

Finally, SRMs. The velocity increase planned is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough. SRMs also need more range, and someone needs to figure out what the hell is wrong with their hit detection.

[Matthew Ace]

Postumus, on 09 November 2015 - 07:51 PM, said:

The problem with trying to balance the LBX (or flamer or MG etc.) around critical damage is that critical damage is such a small part of the fight. Unless you can just about guaranteed take out anything in a stripped location, what you get is a weapon that is still useless until you strip armor.

If they seriously want to buff LBX, they need to increase the damage per pellet to something like 1.5. At least then it would be a decent brawling weapon, giving it comparable damage to SRMs but with better velocity, heat and spread, at the expense of weight.

The regular AC/10 should be next in line. The best thing for it would be a big velocity buff, and maybe a little range boost/heat reduction thrown in. AC/10 as it is doesn't have the velocity to take advantage of the range increase over an AC/10, fires too fast to be able to properly torso twist in a brawl, and is totally outclassed by the Gauss in every way for long range.

Finally, SRMs. The velocity increase planned is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough. SRMs also need more range, and someone needs to figure out what the hell is wrong with their hit detection.

LBX
The pros of a simple boost in damage is that it is simple to implement, and will indeed allow it to compete better against other weapons, at least at short range. But it will go against players' consensus of TTK being too low overall. (I myself have no issues with TTK on live server ATM, but am open to an increased TTK for head-on encounters). It would also make the weapon, like you say, sort of a distant ballistic variant to SRMs.

Others
- I can agree with a slight boost to AC10 range and velocity (540m/1100 sounds good).
- I also agree that SRMs need to be looked at, at least for hitreg before further adjustments.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 10 November 2015 - 05:56 AM.