58 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

I might have ways to make Rifles, Mortars and Binary Laser Cannon usefull while keeping the TT stats that PGI wants to keep close to.
There are those who say to go down a simpler path to balance Rifles.
I did some thinking about what they said and sincerely tried their suggestions and it was not really successfull.
If you believe me just hop over the spoilerbutton here.
If you do not believe me please open the spoilerbutton to see the results inside.

Spoiler

Alex Morgaine and Pjwned reaaallly wants rifles to balance rifles through these steps if i understood them right.
- Removing the damage penalty to armor.
- Making Rifles have 1.5x times longer cooldown that AC's.
- Maybe adjust velocity.
- Lots of drop off beyond optimal range.

Alex Morgaine, on 02 September 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

Tbf considering the lower ammo count, and lack of ( like they can ever code it) ammo swapping ability, As well as wonky ranges compared to classic autocannons I'd say the rifles as single shell, long[er] cooldown weapon system could work with the tt listed damageand heat, with or without damage reduction from tt. Personally I'd drop the reduction just to make them worthwhile, but with say 1.5 x the ac5 cooldown on all 3 rifle sizes, maybe 3-5 seconds on the long end for heavy minimum. Oh and no more then x2 max range period, or something to make drop off severe enough to not let people make pot shots at extreme ranges like a light ac10 or heavy 5. Kind of make it like a brawling weapon group.

Pjwned, on 02 September 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

No...I do want rifles and such, I just don't want them to have a crappy damage penalty and then have some extra nonsense effect to compensate for the damage penalty when the easiest, simplest, and best solution would be to just not make them have a damage penalty.

Like I said just remove the damage penalty against mechs, give them a decent rate of fire & ammo per ton, and bam we have some solid options for more ballistic weapons; sounds good to me.

I'm worried about 2 major things and 1 minor thing when removing that penalty you two suggest and changing cooldowns.

1 lack of variety
Instead of occupying a role of it's own the Rifle becomes so similar to an AC that it might as well be an AC.
Let's say we get Light AC's too just to have that covered.
I'll add the same cooldown to light AC's as standard AC's and convert TT range into MWO's standards.
......................Damage......Heat.........Range......Weight........Crit slots.......Cooldown
Light AC2............2...............1............540..............4.................1................0.72sec
Light AC5............5...............1..............450............5..................2................1.66sec

Standard AC stats......................................................................Ammo
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
AC2.......2.............1......720m......6tons......1 slot.........2000..........75..............0.72secs
AC5........5............2......620m..... 8tons......4 slots.......1150..........30................1.66secs
AC10.....10...........4......450m......12tons....7 slots........950..........20................2.5secs
AC20......20..........6........270m....14tons....10 slots.....650............7................4 secs

Now look at Rifles with 1.5 x firerate of AC's like Alex suggested and no armor penalty. Heavy rifle has 1.5x AC10 cooldown.
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........????.........36.............1.08 secs
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......????........18...............2.5 secs
Heavy.....9.............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots.......????..........12............3.75 secs

Massive thing to worry about down below in worry number 2.

2 This would lead to the Rifle boats and possibly lower TTK.

Rifles would be light compared to the amount of damage they cause.
It falls completly apart when the Heavy Rifle is compared to the AC10.
Ironicly the AC2 is somehow the weapon that survives the rifles best because of how drasticly different it is to the Light Rifle.

These Rifles without armor penalty would actually lead to the decline of the normal AC5. Why?
Medium Rifle advantages - 3 tons lighter, 2 crit slots less and 1 damage more.
AC5 advantage - 0.84secs faster cooldown, 170m longer range.

Heavy Rifle versus AC10.
Heavy rifle advantages - 90m more range, 4 tons lighter, 4 crit slots smaller.
AC10 advantages - 1 more damage, 1.25secs shorter cooldown.

Those 4 tons and 4 crit slots versus 1 damage more versus 1.25 secs faster cooldown difference between the AC10 and Heavy Rifle would end up with the AC10's immediate decline.

And instead of Dual AC20 King Crab we would get 4x Heavy Rifle King Crab.
4 less damage but double the range and 0.25 secs faster cooldown than dual AC20.
A 4x UAC5 King crab would have higher DPS i think but with jamming chances.

3 the minor thing.
It's far in the future but i would worry about the Light AC's role in this.
They seem like they would be a boring addition to our arsenal with such a relationship between AC's and Rifles.

I nearly humored you guys for a moment.
Then i thought "Rifles balanced like that would be so boring. Not worth the trouble and i go to work in 15 minutes."
Even if we perfect the relations between AC's by adjusting velocity, cooldown and armor penalty i will become very bored.
Players would be even more encouraged to peek out from the same piece of cover over and over again with just lowering Rifle firerate in comparison to AC's.
That's the road to PB MWO. PeekaBo MechWarrior Online.

Those are the results i got from Alex and Pjwned's suggestions. Maybe much longer cooldown would help the AC5 and AC10 keep their rifle opponents at bay but that would lead to more PeekaBo gaming style as i mentioned above.

Please choose which ability each weapon should have to take them beyond their weak TT stats.
Chosing an ability and making suggestions on alterations on the cooldown, velocity, crit chances and such is very important since PGI would rather not touch the TT stats.

What are the TT stats? They are Damage, Heat, Weight, Crit Slots and Range.
They have been touched in MWO's current weapons but PGI are somewhat reluctant to do so.
So i use the cards i have been dealt and move on with only that.

It's inevitable for this to become a textwall because i'm handling 3 types of weapons with multiple solutions to each at the same time after all.
And 2 of these weapon types has multiple sizes. So i politely ask that you give me a break here. Please

Keep in mind that ALL the numbers below are examples and can be changed anytime.

Rifles

Rifles have no changes to damage, heat, range, weight, crit slots.
They have lower velocity and slower firerate than AC's just like in the lore.
-2.5 damage against armor. We can survive a 0.5 damage penalty change right?

They would naturally need to have their ammunition doubled just like AC's.
Since the lighter rifles have shorter range they have lower velocities.
Possible velocities and ammo per tonn on rifles below.


Rifle TT/my idea stats for your convinence...............................Ammo per.......Example
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........500?.........36..............2.25 secs?
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......650?........18...............3.5 secs?
Heavy.....9............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots........800?..........12.............6 or 5 secs????

Rifles would need a certain ability to gain their niche role in comparison to AC's.
These abilities only work when a rifle shell hits an unarmored section of the target.
Please choose an ability from the ones explained below.

1) 2 or 3 times more structure damage. I think rifles need at least that much to keep them valuable in comparison to AC's with this ability.

2) Higher critical chance against internal components such as heatsinks, weapons, ammo, etc.
Because it's just a single shell there is a need for higher than an MG bullets chances at criting something.
The bigger the shell the higher the chances it will crit something.
1- **% stands for the chance to crit 1 component. 2- **% for 2 comps and 3- **% for 3 comps.

Light shell.....1- 50%...2- 33%.....3- 12%
Medium shell....1- 60%....2- 40%.....3- 18%
Heavy shell.....1- 80%....2- 60%......3- 33%
How much extra damage from criting something? 400%?
400% would make it really nasty to get hit by a heavy shell.

3) Imagine that when a rifle shell explodes it tosses out a lot of shrapnel.
Each shrapnel piece behaves exactly like an MG bullet.

As you know 1 MG bullet does 0.08 damage but does 1.08 (1350%) damage to any component it critically hits.
MG bullets have these chances to crit 1,2 or 3 components unless things have changed drasticly.
1 - 39%....2- 22%....3- 6%

it takes 37.5 bullets to do 3 damage against armor.
So let's say that a light shell gives us 38 pieces of shrapnel.
Medium shell 76 shrapnel and heavy shell 114 shrapnel.
Can someone do the math on this one so we can understand if it is waaaay too powerfull or not?

If it's too powerfull a splash damage might have to be concidered so that it will hit more armored sections of the target and thus squander some of it's damage potential.
Or lower the amount of shrapnel pieces.

4) Let's say that with each increase in shell size it gets another chance at criting and that it has these chances at criting with each chance.
1- **% stands for the chance to crit 1 component. 2- **% for 2 comps and 3- **% for 3 comps.
Rifle crit chance table. 1- 60%.... 2- 30%..... 3-15%
The light rifle gets to roll once on this table, but the Medium gets 2 chances and the heavy 3 chances.
This way it's easier for the developers to balance all the rifles at once with ability 4).

5) Higher damage but with splashdamage in the same way the cERPPC does it.
Davison suggested these numbers.
Light Rifle - 6/2.
Medium Rifle - 9/3
Heavy Rifle - 12/4


Mortars

I think mortars should be concidered as ballistic weapons.
TT mortars were unaffected by AMS so my mortars are the same.
Ammunition wise mortars in the TT had the same amount of salvoes per tonn as LRM's but less damage per salvo.
That balance between mortars and LRM's will stay the same in my idea.

Mortar TT/my idea stats for your convinience. TT LRM had 630meter range but was increased to 1000meters in MWO.
Mortars could have their range increased to 1000 meters too.
But i don't think it's necessary since i think they should be more effective than LRM's at 400-500 meters range.

As you can see below the LRM's are superior in damage per salvo so Mortars could have a higher firerate to make up for it.
I'll suggest a firerate below. Remember they are only examples.

..................mortar...................Clan/IS........Clan/ IS.........Mortar........Mortar
................Damage......Heat......Weight........Crit slots....Cooldown....Velocity
Mortar/1........2...............1..........1 / 2................1............1.5 secs........?
Mortar/2........4...............2.........2.5 / 5............1 / 2.........2 secs.........Help
Mortar/4........8...............5.........3.5 / 7............2 / 3.........3 secs......Please help
Mortar/8........16..............10.......5 / 10.............3 / 5.........4 secs......I beg of you. Help!!!


I think all the different versions and sizes of the mortar i talk about below should have higher velocity than LRM's.
Mortars should be inferior to LRM's at ranges around +600 meters but better once ranges go below 500 meters.
But how high a velocity does the mortars need to do that? I haven't got the faintest clue.
All i know is that making it higher than AC's and Rifles would sound very silly.

The clan Mortars have big advantages in both weight and crit slot numbers.
How should that be balanced? Cooler sound for IS mortars makes up for it? I got no idea.
It's in the same spot as clan versus IS MG's only worse. What do i do?

Should Mortar shells be semi-guided or non-guided?
Non-guided means it wouldn't need a target lock to fire.
But semi-guided shells must have a lock on time but i suggest a shorter lock on time in comparison to LRM's to make the Mortar more capable at the ranges it does best at.

Mortars could also have a much higher altitude when firing indirectly. That makes them able to shoot over obstacles LRM's would just crash into.
All mortars could launch single shells instead of a shower of them. Meaning a Mortar/8 sends a single shell doing 16 damage to a single body section of the target.
This could be an ability or something that is just the way the mortars work.

I wish i had more ideas for mortars. Take an ability from Rifles if you think that would work.

A) Mortars could have better damage against unarmored internal structure. But how much better?
50% better than LRM's? I ain't got a clue here either. Please help.

Ran out of ideas. But i know i got some more in my noggin. Just need to shake them loose.


Binary Laser Cannon aka Blazer

As usual no changes to TT stats. Included LL, ER LL and LPL stats for quick comparison.

................Damage...Heat....Range.....tonns....crit slots....Burn time.....Cooldown
Blazer.........12..........16......450m..........9...........4.................?.................?
LL................9............7.......450m..........5...........2...............1s...............3.25s
ER LL..........9............8........675m.........5...........2...............1.25s..........3.25s
LPL.............11...........7.......365m..........7...........2...............0.67s..........3.25s

So in comparison to a the other large lasers it's twice as hot, heavy, twice as big, range is in the middle.
It's obvious it's inferior to all of them when you look at how little extra damage it got for having twice as much heat.
So it needs an edge to make it worth it.

Blazer could either have a very short burntime or multiple smaller advantages.
Since it's a rare weapon we might have to concider only being able to fire one at the time with a timedelay before you can fire another Blazer.

Here are several alternatives. Remember they are examples only.

1) Very short burntime as it's only advantage. Make it feel like an extremely hot version of the AC10.
0.25 or 0.15 secs burntime perhaps. Any longer and the LPL stays as the better candidate.

2) ca 1s burntime + advantage.
Causes heat in the target. 6 or 8 heat caused throughout the burntime perhaps?

3) ca 1s burntime + advantage.
Has limited ability to get critical hits on internal component when armor is below...20 perhaps?
How big a chance to crit and how much damage to component on critical hit?
I haven't got a clue.

4) ca 1s burntime + advantage. . Improved damage against unarmored internal structure.
2 or 3 times as much?


For those of you that think it would be unfair for IS to get Rifles and Blazers.
Clan has Streak 4/6 , UAC2/10/20, LBX 2/5/20 and Clan would also gain Mortars.
Enuff said.

The reason i'm not suggesting MRM, RAC or something else is because i do not have ideas for them.
Besides Rifles, Mortars and Binary Laser Cannons are within the current MWO timeline.
I want MRM's too...badly. But they do not need such extensive out of the box thinking about balancing.
Rifles, mortars and Blazers need real help to go beyond their TT stats.

I put this thread here instead of feature suggestions because i believe it should be concidered as soon as possible.
Please help me adjust the numbers and figure out new alternative abilities for these weapons.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 03 September 2016 - 07:35 AM.

[Davison]

Uhm... I don't think I'd favor either rifles or mortars, to be honest. The former are basically just self-loading versions of today's tank guns, and are absolutely ARCHAIC compared to even 3025 era autocannon. It's a weaker version of an existing weapon. If you really want new ballistics, why not RAC's, the full range of LBX and Ultra autos, or just add in special autocannon munitions?

Mortars really would be just a no-lock alternative to LRM's. I'd personally rather have the full range of Streak racks added, MRM's, rockets and NLRM launchers. ATM's for the Clans too.

The Blazer I can get behind, as it would have a direct, easily seen use in MWO. Perhaps Heavy Lasers for the Clans while we're at it.

Mostly, I just don't see a niche for the rifle. It was included as an obsolete weapon system to fill out lore in earlier eras. Mortars are weapons that would have utility use, but would likely just end up as a second tier LRMternative. Blazers, at least, could be useful in their own right, but the rest just doesn't grab me.

[Spleenslitta]

Davison. I suggest you look inside the white buttons with the word "show" on them. Then you choose an ability.
Mortars could be semi-guided.

[Davison]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 11:39 AM, said:

Davison. I suggest you look inside the white buttons with the word "show" on them. Then you choose an ability.
Mortars could be semi-guided.

I did. I did not list a choice because the options presented did not appeal to me my friend. I don't feel the weapons, or the suggested implementation thereof, would be worthwhile as opposed to other options.

[Spleenslitta]

Do you have any suggestions for new abilities or adjustments to the ability stats?

Edited by Spleenslitta, 01 September 2016 - 11:45 AM.

[Mystere]

Frankly, I'd rather have more consumables that should affect game play more than new weapons ever could. I would like to have:

• smoke/chaff rounds - for cover, for blinding the enemy
  
• airbursts - increased chance of damage on upper half of mech
  
• mines/cluster bombs - increased chance of damage on lower have of mech, area denial
  
• sticky incendiaries - massive heat induced on enemy
  
• EMP bursts - for temporarily knocking out electronics

[Gentleman Reaper]

Mystere, on 01 September 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

Frankly, I'd rather have more consumables that should affect game play more than new weapons ever could. I would like to have:

• smoke/chaff rounds - for cover, for blinding the enemy
  
• airbursts - increased chance of damage on upper half of mech
  
• mines/cluster bombs - increased chance of damage on lower have of mech, area denial
  
• sticky incendiaries - massive heat induced on enemy
  
• EMP bursts - for temporarily knocking out electronics

Frankly, I'd prefer if consumables were modules that gave you limited uses to an item every match, rather than this stupid system of repaying for them every time.

[Spleenslitta]

I just thought of something when i saw Mystere's comment. We all know how PGI is having problems with the ammo code.
But if they ever solve it the Mortars would be prime candidates for launching smoke for cover. That's something to chew on.

[Davison]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 11:44 AM, said:

Do you have any suggestions for new abilities or adjustments to the ability stats?

Not for these particular weapons, no. I honestly think you could get the rifle and mortar abilities listed by implementing the existing special munitions for autocannon and LRM's. Again though, the blazer stands pretty much as is. Maybe make it attractive with a short beam duration as opposed to a pair of large lasers, since the damage would be lower than said pair.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Davison, on 01 September 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

Not for these particular weapons, no. I honestly think you could get the rifle and mortar abilities listed by implementing the existing special munitions for autocannon and LRM's. Again though, the blazer stands pretty much as is. Maybe make it attractive with a short beam duration as opposed to a pair of large lasers, since the damage would be lower than said pair.

Damage should be increased as well, since the LL and LPL have more damage than in TT, and the clan LPL damage outstrips it completely. I think 15 damage would be fair, as it's quite a bit heavier than LPL and PPCs and it's not PPFLD like the latter.

[Spleenslitta]

Davison, on 01 September 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

Not for these particular weapons, no. I honestly think you could get the rifle and mortar abilities listed by implementing the existing special munitions for autocannon and LRM's.

Unffortunatly there is that problem PGI has with the ammo code. As long as that problem is there mortars won't be launching smoke rounds and AC, LRM, SRM won't get any special ammo.
You see....back in the day they had a guy work on the ammunition code and he screwed up. Each weapon is only able to have a single type of ammo.
Multiple suggestions have been thrown PGI's way by the community but they have not really responded to them.

Davison, on 01 September 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

Again though, the blazer stands pretty much as is. Maybe make it attractive with a short beam duration as opposed to a pair of large lasers, since the damage would be lower than said pair.

So you want ability number 1) for the Blazer. Any suggestion for burntime?
I suggest 0.15 secs burntime to make the Blazer into what feels like an extremely hot AC12.

Gentleman Reaper, on 01 September 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

Damage should be increased as well, since the LL and LPL have more damage than in TT, and the clan LPL damage outstrips it completely. I think 15 damage would be fair, as it's quite a bit heavier than LPL and PPCs and it's not PPFLD like the latter.

Unfortunatly you know how PGI works...they want to stay near the TT stats if they can.

[Davison]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

Unffortunatly there is that problem PGI has with the ammo code. As long as that problem is there mortars won't be launching smoke rounds and AC, LRM, SRM won't get any special ammo.
You see....back in the day they had a guy work on the ammunition code and he screwed up. Each weapon is only able to have a single type of ammo.
Multiple suggestions have been thrown PGI's way by the community but they have not really responded to them.

So you want ability number 1) for the Blazer. Any suggestion for burntime?
I suggest 0.15 secs burntime to make the Blazer into what feels like an extremely hot AC12.


Unfortunatly you know how PGI works...they want to stay near the TT stats if they can.

Oh, I know about the ridiculousness that is the ammo code, and each time I hear they can't fix it, my screen gets a supremely skeptical sidelong look. That is what keeps a LOT of possible content off the table in terms of armaments.

That said, yes, I'm for an extremely short (.12 to .2) beam duration on the Blazer so that the damage is worthwhile for the weight without the need to buff the weapon to obscene levels otherwise. A pair of lasers do more damage, but the Blazer puts more of that damage where you want it.

[Spleenslitta]

I know many of you want RAC, MRM and who knows what else. But Rifles, Mortars and Blazers have such weak stats in comparison to those weapons.
And since PGI wants to stay within TT stats as much as possible these weapons needs out of the box thinking.....
Do you think Paul can train his imagination into good enough shape to make these weapons work?

Highly doubt that's even remotely possible through a miracle and a meadow full of four leaf clovers.

[Spleenslitta]

I will remove the spoilerbuttons to make the thread easier to read but if any of you are intimidated by the textwall that suddenly appears in the original post.....Blame Davison.
I asked him if i should remove them in a PM.

Oh yeah...i just looked at the RAC2 and i realised that it weighs 8 tonns + ammo. That makes me even more determined to make PGI put Rifles and Mortars into MWO.
I mean...look at the Locust 1V. It could actually carry a Light Rifle with 2.5 tonns of ammo + a single ML with an XL190 engine.

That could actually make quite a difference in the later parts of a match when internals are exposed and those devastating critical abilities i suggested comes into play.
In short it gives Light mechs more options in the ballistic category.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 12:42 PM, said:

I will remove the spoilerbuttons to make the thread easier to read but if any of you are intimidated by the textwall that suddenly appears in the original post.....Blame Davison.
I asked him if i should remove them in a PM.

Oh yeah...i just looked at the RAC2 and i realised that it weighs 8 tonns + ammo. That makes me even more determined to make PGI put Rifles and Mortars into MWO.
I mean...look at the Locust 1V. It could actually carry a Light Rifle with 2.5 tonns of ammo + a single ML with an XL190 engine.

That could actually make quite a difference in the later parts of a match when internals are exposed and those devastating critical abilities i suggested comes into play.
In short it gives Light mechs more options in the ballistic category.

I still don't know about using obsolete tech. Although there are some future weapons that would give lights more choice, namely the Light PPC, Heavy Machinegun, Magshot, and the Light AC2.

[Spleenslitta]

Gentleman Reaper, on 01 September 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

I still don't know about using obsolete tech. Although there are some future weapons that would give lights more choice, namely the Light PPC, Heavy Machinegun, Magshot, and the Light AC2.

Let me just say it to make it perfectly clear. I'm not ticked off that you oppose my ideas. Just wanted that said since text ain't the best form of communication.
Onwards.

Mortars and rifles may be obsolete. I may want MRM's and light AC's so badly i can taste it.
But Rifles could have a niche completly on their own with only MG's and possibly heavy MG's as their competitors.
Critical hit damage when armor is removed. But unlike MG/HMG they can hurt a target at longer ranges and there is only a need for a single shell to do catastrophic to medium damage depending on shell size.

Mortars could launch shells over reaaally tall obstacles in indirect fire at targets 300 to 500 meters away where the LRM's would crash.
And if they are semi-guided they can still have much shorter lock on times and the immunity to AMS is a big plus too.

Binary Laser Cannon....that name alone is enough reason to get it.

[The Zohan]

Long story short: no new weapons needed. What we really need is less stupid...lets call it “ideas“.

[ACWILD]

TL:DR

[Spleenslitta]

The Zohan, on 01 September 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Long story short: no new weapons needed. What we really need is less stupid...lets call it “ideas“.

No new weapons? Ummm...there have been plenty of requests for new weapons such as MRM, RAC, HMG, Inferno SRM, Magshot, Light/heavy Gauss rifles, Light AC's, Heavy lasers and....am i forgetting something?
Oh yeah....Binary Laser Cannon has been pretty popular too.

But if you can get better ideas - PGI wants to stay close to the TT stats you know.
How would you balance these weapons without touching the TT stats? I eagerly await your answer.

Centurion72, on 01 September 2016 - 01:15 PM, said:

TL:DR

I'm sorry but it's not possible to explain how to balance all 3 weapons with just a few sentences.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 01 September 2016 - 01:20 PM.

[Battlemaster56]

All I want for Christmas is IS versions of er lasers, uacs, and streaks. Then everything else be added later on.