122 replies to this topic

[INKBALL]

I know, that have been discussed 20times or more,

But i'm tired of seing pure laserboats. So, since we have 100% extra armor compared to tabletop, which mean 50% more HPs overall, could we get 50% extra ammo per ton ? Lrm could get viable (would they ?), but ac build and mixed build could get viable...

Please support.

[kesmai]

NO
shoot better

[FupDup]

kesmai, on 21 March 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

NO
shoot better

It's not about aim or marksmanship or any of those other romantic ideals.

Ammo per ton is about one thing and one thing only.

Tonnage.

To repeat that in big bold letters in the serious font...

Tonnage.


More ammo per ton means that we don't need to equip as much ammo to receive the same result. Less ammo to carry means that missiles and ballistics will indirectly be "lighter" as a result, since ammo is a factor in the total weight costs of these weapons. Ballistics in particular benefit the most, since they're by far the heaviest weapon family in the game.

Lights, mediums, and certain derpy heavies or assaults (e.g. Thor, Gargoyle) benefit the most from this because they can sometimes have a hard time finding enough weight to use for ammo-based loadouts, unless they want to make disproportionately huge sacrifices like a tiny engine (which comes with a lot of other weaknesses itself...).


TL;DR: More ammo per ton has a similar effect as reducing the base tonnage of ammo-based weapons. One of the biggest advantages that lasers have is that their tonnage required is vastly, vastly lower than ballistics or LRMs for similar results (SRMs are relatively close though).

Edited by FupDup, 21 March 2016 - 11:51 AM.

[kesmai]

and i say this is not needed. not even a half pressing problem.

[Mechteric]

Sorry but all of your arguments against it are incorrect. The math is clear on this one, double armor should mean double ammo.


Here's why, for those that aren't good at math:

* not every shot hits
* ammo weapons do not instantly hit the target like lasers (more skill required to land all shots)
* weapon without ammo already weigh a LOT, like seriously a lot more
* community warfare exasterbates these ammo issues due to respawns

[kesmai]

well whatever.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

My splat mechs would greatly appreciate the free tonnage (especially light splat mechs) since SRMs are one of the few still stuck at TT values.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2016 - 11:51 AM, said:

My splat mechs would greatly appreciate the free tonnage (especially light splat mechs) since SRMs are one of the few still stuck at TT values.

SRMs are actually one of the more ammo-efficient weapons even with their TT values, funny how that turns out... I would focus on ACs and Lurms, especially since SRMs overall better across the board.

[Cybrid 0x0t2md2w]

in reality if you double armor you should buff ammo reserves by at least 50% if it's not closer to double. Shooting better wont matter diddly if the meta revolves around infinite ammo precise laser beam duration burn. But all weapons outside of lasers should get some form of buff anyway. Lasers are boring.

[Felbombling]

More ammo per ton would mean more tonnage for secondary weapons and equipment. I'm all for it and have been since Closed Beta.

[Navid A1]

I support this completely.

Aside from double armor values in MWO, Low ammo per ton encourages laser vomit.
It has nothing to do with accuracy.
More ammo per ton can lead to better balanced builds.

[Alistair Winter]

kesmai, on 21 March 2016 - 11:26 AM, said:

NO
shoot better

There's really nothing less constructive for a balance discussion than the "deal with it" crowd. No offense. Maybe you've got some good arguments that I'm not aware of, but the "deal with it" argument is so counter-productive, it's hard to express.

CERPPCs are too hot."Manage heat better"
Commandos are too weak. "Play better."
Single heat sinks are useless. "Smurfy better."
Dragon 1N quirks are too good. "Torso twist better."
ECM is too powerful. "Scout better".

Yeah, it sounds cool, makes you sound like a real pr0 l33t c0mp pl4yer, but it just doesn't lead to anything constructive.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 21 March 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

I would focus on ACs and Lurms, especially since SRMs overall better across the board.

I'd say that is only because the others tend to be more ranged but lack velocity to be useful at their ranges.

[Roadkill]

FupDup, on 21 March 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

TL;DR: More ammo per ton has a similar effect as reducing the base tonnage of ammo-based weapons. One of the biggest advantages that lasers have is that their tonnage required is vastly, vastly lower than ballistics or LRMs for similar results (SRMs are relatively close though).

The "ammo" for energy weapons is heat sinks. Energy weapons have been nerfed 3x compared to ammo-based weapons:

1. Rate of fire was increased by ~2.5x between TT and MWO. Yes, ROF applies to ballistics as well, but their heat is largely meaningless so it isn't a nerf for them.

2. Heat dissipation was nerfed (engine-external DHS only bleed 1.4 heat, not 2.0). Again this doesn't nerf ballistics because heat isn't a concern for them, but it's a pretty huge nerf to lasers.

3. Laser heat was increased pretty much across the board compared to TT.

Meanwhile on the ballistics side...

1. Armor was doubled. But this affects energy weapons just as much as ballistics, so you can't claim this as a ballistics nerf.

2. Ammo was doubled (or in some cases, more than doubled). This is a big buff for ballistics compared to energy weapons. Unless you want to advocate for DHS bleeding 4.0 heat?

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 21 March 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:

It's not about aim or marksmanship or any of those other romantic ideals.

Ammo per ton is about one thing and one thing only.

Tonnage.

To repeat that in big bold letters in the serious font...

Tonnage.


More ammo per ton means that we don't need to equip as much ammo to receive the same result. Less ammo to carry means that missiles and ballistics will indirectly be "lighter" as a result, since ammo is a factor in the total weight costs of these weapons. Ballistics in particular benefit the most, since they're by far the heaviest weapon family in the game.

Lights, mediums, and certain derpy heavies or assaults (e.g. Thor, Gargoyle) benefit the most from this because they can sometimes have a hard time finding enough weight to use for ammo-based loadouts, unless they want to make disproportionately huge sacrifices like a tiny engine (which comes with a lot of other weaknesses itself...).


TL;DR: More ammo per ton has a similar effect as reducing the base tonnage of ammo-based weapons. One of the biggest advantages that lasers have is that their tonnage required is vastly, vastly lower than ballistics or LRMs for similar results (SRMs are relatively close though).

And?

All it does is encourage more minmax. Ammo per ton is sufficient in almost all weapons.

I hear people cry about it being not enough in CW, to which I say BS.

CapperDeluxe, on 21 March 2016 - 11:40 AM, said:

Sorry but all of your arguments against it are incorrect. The math is clear on this one, double armor should mean double ammo.


Here's why, for those that aren't good at math:

* not every shot hits
* ammo weapons do not instantly hit the target like lasers (more skill required to land all shots)
* weapon without ammo already weigh a LOT, like seriously a lot more
* community warfare exasterbates these ammo issues due to respawns

And I disagree because not only is the simple act of hitting your target MASSIVELY easier than in TT (where a GOOD pilot was on average, 50/50 on any given shot, and often a lot worse) but because it's 10x easier to hit a specific location, and for a target to be focused fire.

You want your perfect TT "doubling" going on, then we need better aiming mechanics to better emulate TT aiming, also.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Roadkill, on 21 March 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

The "ammo" for energy weapons is heat sinks. Energy weapons have been nerfed 3x compared to ammo-based weapons:

THe one problem with your comparison, energy weapons come with 10 tons worth of "ammo" built-in to every mech which is the reason why many tonnage restricted mechs go with energy weapons.

[FupDup]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 March 2016 - 12:03 PM, said:

And?

All it does is encourage more minmax. Ammo per ton is sufficient in almost all weapons.

I hear people cry about it being not enough in CW, to which I say BS.

Minmax is almost impossible to eliminate from this game or any game. The one and only way to get rid of it is to literally assign random mechs to each player every match. Even if players could manually pick stock mechs, there would be minmax because people could just select the best stock mechs.

Minmax in and of itself isn't the enemy here, because at its core it's just the process of finding out what works the best.

What can be done about minmax is not elimination, but rather changing what the end destination of the process is. In this case, the goal is to make the minmax a little more favorable in regards to ballistics and other ammo-hungry weapons than it is now.

...Or we can just stick to lasers, if you prefer that.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 21 March 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

Minmax is almost impossible to eliminate from this game or any game. The one and only way to get rid of it is to literally assign random mechs to each player every match. Even if players could manually pick stock mechs, there would be minmax because people could just select the best stock mechs.

Minmax in and of itself isn't the enemy here, because at its core it's just the process of finding out what works the best.

What can be done about minmax is not elimination, but rather changing what the end destination of the process is. In this case, the goal is to make the minmax a little more favorable in regards to ballistics and other ammo-hungry weapons than it is now.

...Or we can just stick to lasers, if you prefer that.

all I see more ammo per ton doing is increasing DHS and or laser counts anyhow, as Ballistics are only used as compñliments to lasers. So people will just strip a ton or two of ammo for DHS for another or better laser. End result? Not more ballistics use, but increased/improved Laser Vomit.

One is naive to think otherwise.

Almost all my CW Mechs are Ballistics based. Don't see me crying for more ammo.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 March 2016 - 12:11 PM.

[Roadkill]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 March 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

THe one problem with your comparison, energy weapons come with 10 tons worth of "ammo" built-in to every mech which is the reason why many tonnage restricted mechs go with energy weapons.

That's not a problem with my comparison, that's actually a 4th nerf to energy weapons.

In TT, all engines come with 10 internal heat sinks. In MWO, only 250+ rated engines have 10 internal heat sinks... the rest have to be added externally and so are only DHS 1.4 instead of DHS 2.0.

[Bishop Steiner]

Roadkill, on 21 March 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

That's not a problem with my comparison, that's actually a 4th nerf to energy weapons.

In TT, all engines come with 10 internal heat sinks. In MWO, only 250+ rated engines have 10 internal heat sinks... the rest have to be added externally and so are only DHS 1.4 instead of DHS 2.0.

Actually, they don't.

You have one internal HS for every 25 rating, rounded down. so a 200 rated engine has 8 internal HS. All mechs in TT have 10 "free" HS from the weight perspective, but you have to assign loose heat sinks to critical spaces still, if your engine is sub 250.