70 replies to this topic

[NightFlight]

This post is basically for those mechs running 4 AC 5's or some combo heavier on the ballistic side because lets face it, kinetic is king. Yea, lets make this game less tactical and more stupid friendly.

Maybe drop an AC 5 for a laser or two and add some more ammo for the other 3? You like all those guns? Drop some armor for ammo. Maybe a smaller engine to lose some weight.

Or maybe stop spamming mountain sides with gauss and AC's as your leaving the drop zone inbound on an invasion?

Come on guys/girls, there is only a finite amount of space on a mech.

Learn to pack it wisely...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 June 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Not what I'm saying. Or Strum. Not talking energy nerfs in a vacuum.

Even if the ammo requirement was increased in that sort of environment, it wouldn't change the fact DPS would be very powerful in that environment.

[Spleenslitta]

Strum Wealh, on 21 June 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

In contrast to the thread title and OP's argument, rounds per ton do not need to be increased.

Part of the game is that 'Mech design should be a balancing act of multiple elements - speed vs durability vs damage output vs battlefield longevity vs other factors.

If one wants to increase battlefield longevity, one should need to establish a compromise, trading a degree of one or more of the other factors to do it.
That is, if you want/need more ammo, add more tonnage in ammo to the 'Mech at the cost of a smaller engine (speed), a XL engine and/or less armor (durability), or fewer weapons (damage output), or fewer equipment items (HS, BAP, ECM, etc), or some combination of those.

Petitioning PGI to simply adding more rounds per ton of ammunition, to the point that such compromise does not have to be made, only serves to dilute the design aspect of the game.

Good point Hotthedd.

There are some weapons that might need more ammo per tonn but in general i think this part is far more important.
Besides.....if ammo per tonn increased then there would be slightly shorter TTK since players would have more tonnage/crit slots available for brute firepower.
Then the game would stop being so interresting since it's become even more of a one click one kill shooter than it allready is.
MWO was supposed to be a "thinking players game" as the devs stated waaaaaay back but it's become more of a brute firepower overcomes everything in most cases kinda game.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 June 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Even if the ammo requirement was increased in that sort of environment, it wouldn't change the fact DPS would be very powerful in that environment.

Downloaded. Unless one devoted huge tonnage to ammo, that dps advantage would be very short lived. Once ammo runs low, studio does that dps, once ammo runs out, then what?

I'd much prefer to take this and test if out in PTS than theory craft though, as all of us are likely debating from some degree of bias

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Spleenslitta, on 21 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

MWO was supposed to be a "thinking players game" as the devs stated waaaaaay back but it's become more of a brute firepower overcomes everything in most cases kinda game.

MWO has always been about firepower, don't delude yourself into thinking it was ever anything but. The thinking portion is because positioning matters a lot and is still the thing most players struggle with.

Bishop Steiner, on 21 June 2016 - 09:58 AM, said:

I'd much prefer to take this and test if out in PTS than theory craft though, as all of us are likely debating from some degree of bias

It would be interesting just because it would be different, but I very much doubt it would be as deep as the current meta is, as flawed as it may potentially be.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 June 2016 - 10:00 AM.

[Navid A1]

Strum Wealh, on 21 June 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

In contrast to the thread title and OP's argument, rounds per ton do not need to be increased.

Part of the game is that 'Mech design should be a balancing act of multiple elements - speed vs durability vs damage output vs battlefield longevity vs other factors.

If one wants to increase battlefield longevity, one should need to establish a compromise, trading a degree of one or more of the other factors to do it.
That is, if you want/need more ammo, add more tonnage in ammo to the 'Mech at the cost of a smaller engine (speed), a XL engine and/or less armor (durability), or fewer weapons (damage output), or fewer equipment items (HS, BAP, ECM, etc), or some combination of those.

Petitioning PGI to simply adding more rounds per ton of ammunition, to the point that such compromise does not have to be made, only serves to dilute the design aspect of the game.

More armor and structure, massive durability quirks and garbage ammo based weapons already made this game a laser show.
More ammo per ton does not takes away the balance in this game... it BRINGS BACK that balance that was taken from it.
remember these words next time when you choose a LPL over an AC5 or AC10.

Did 50% more ammo on AC10 broke the game?... no ... it encouraged the use of the weapon... that is balance!

NightFlight, on 21 June 2016 - 09:48 AM, said:

This post is basically for those mechs running 4 AC 5's or some combo heavier on the ballistic side because lets face it, kinetic is king. Yea, lets make this game less tactical and more stupid friendly.

Maybe drop an AC 5 for a laser or two and add some more ammo for the other 3? You like all those guns? Drop some armor for ammo. Maybe a smaller engine to lose some weight.

Or maybe stop spamming mountain sides with gauss and AC's as your leaving the drop zone inbound on an invasion?

Come on guys/girls, there is only a finite amount of space on a mech.

Learn to pack it wisely...

I don't think you could have been more wrong on any matter.

I never tried that specific boat, but since you mentioned it...
2 tons less or more in nothing If I'm running a 4xAC5 build. I've already made the sacrifice by equipping 32 tons of ballistics and there is a good chance i have enough ammo to chew through a lot of targets.

Let me tell you that ammo is of no concern if you choose to "spam" a mountain-side. You will never run out... because you are not in the fight.

You sound like those players who cry for nerfs to whatever kills you. 2 tons more or less ammo will not make difference in your survival If you are killed that easily by that mean ballistic boat. it makes zero difference if the ballistic boat has 300 rounds of AC5s or 400... its gonna kill you no matter what.
I other words... try to get good.... that is your problem... not the ballistic boat's.

More ammo does not affect ballistic or missile boats. Yet it does affect mechs with a single weapon system.

Take a summoner for example with only 22 pod space max. with limited hardpoints, big guns are the way to go, yet if you equip a UAC20 on it you will need 5 tons of ammo for it to be able to have any meaningful effect on the field... that is 17 tons for a single weapon that spreads its damage all over the place.
That is the reason why you see mechs boating as much energy weapons as possible.

So i ask again... did 50% more ammo on AC10 broke the game?.. or did it promote using the weapon instead of boating crap ton of lasers?

Spleenslitta, on 21 June 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

Good point Hotthedd.

There are some weapons that might need more ammo per tonn but in general i think this part is far more important.
Besides.....if ammo per tonn increased then there would be slightly shorter TTK since players would have more tonnage/crit slots available for brute firepower.
Then the game would stop being so interresting since it's become even more of a one click one kill shooter than it allready is.
MWO was supposed to be a "thinking players game" as the devs stated waaaaaay back but it's become more of a brute firepower overcomes everything in most cases kinda game.

Can you explain how TTK is affected if I have 100 rounds vs 75 rounds?... its not like i can pump my damage faster or something.
And what kind of brute firepower i can put on my mech with that 1 ton-1crit i freed up.

Please answer!

Edited by Navid A1, 21 June 2016 - 01:12 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Navid A1, on 21 June 2016 - 01:06 PM, said:

Can you explain how TTK is affected if I have 100 rounds vs 75 rounds?... its not like i can pump my damage faster or something.
And what kind of brute firepower i can put on my mech with that 1 ton-1crit i freed up.

Please answer!

TTK goes up because to carry the same amount of ammo that someone currently equips, they can do it in less space with less tonnage.
That frees their build up for more heat sinks (increasing sustainable damage), or more weapons, both of which can lower TTK. It isn't about more overall ammo, it is about the ammo they have being much more efficient.

[Requiemking]

Honestly, I feel that all ballistic weapons should be evened out at 200 damage per ton of ammo. I mean, whats the point of taking an AC20, who's only saving grace is it's high damage, over an AC10, which is superior in every other way.

[Dogstar]

I like playing ballistic builds for Quick Play and regularly run out of ammo, despite packing double what most people would think of as a reasonable amount

and I'm not missing all the time either!

Although 50% might be too much, I'd be happy with 20%

Edited by Dogstar, 22 June 2016 - 05:44 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

• ammunition per ton doesn't have to increase
  
• the total amount of ammunition you can put into a Mech have to be limited
  
• the reload times for non-ammunition based weapons have to increase

Result: huge frontloaded damage for Mechs whose primary weapon is a ballistic / missile weapon.

as an example during one of those few games I did in MWLL I ran my Uller G into a Bushwacker... while I had 25t less my primary weapon a UAC10 was to shot fast enough to overwhelm the Bushwacker - and finally caused the pilot to eject.

But in the end, I hadn't any ammunition left. only 2 Small Heavy Lasers remainig I was no danger to no one.
I really miss this behaviour in MWO, primary because of the forgiving heat system and the unlimited ammunition capacity

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 June 2016 - 05:47 AM.

[Lykaon]

Navid A1, on 21 June 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

The ammo per ton we have now (except for AC10s and SRMs) are 150% more than TT value.
The mech base armor and base structure values are 200% compared to TT values

And some mechs have so much structure quirks, sometimes it goes up to 250% in armor and structure.

It's not even close to 150% more than table top.

100% more would double base TT value + half the base TT value again. So a ton of Gauss ammo would be 8 (TT value) + 8 more for 16 + 4 more for a total of 20 shots per ton.

Unless you meant it was a 50% increase? just worded it oddly?

[Navid A1]

Lykaon, on 22 June 2016 - 05:56 AM, said:

It's not even close to 150% more than table top.

100% more would double base TT value + half the base TT value again. So a ton of Gauss ammo would be 8 (TT value) + 8 more for 16 + 4 more for a total of 20 shots per ton.

Unless you meant it was a 50% increase? just worded it oddly?

correct... i meant 50% increase.

I think it should be 100% to be ok.

[L3mming2]

even if armor was doubled again there are ppl that would still say no to ammo raise it has nothing to do with the ingame reaity, they want TTK to get lower so anny buff to anny kind of weapon is bad in there opinion even wille its perfetly reasanable and nessesary for inter weapon ballance, learn to aime is inportant for every weapon system, it douse not make youre ammo last longer, you will still spend it in the same time in combat... i bring between 9 and 11 t of ammo on my balistic mechs and it still runs out somthimes in quik play maches (in fp its even way worse) the original ammo count was ballanced for QP maches 8 vs 8 without structure quirks, it would only be logical that it would be adjusted for those changes..

ps geting 2 more free tons on a daka assault will not change much, being able to finich a mach on a balistic medium however.. that would open the gate for more diverse builds..

[Jaeger Gonzo]

All ammo should get same buff as AC10/lbx10, 2x BT TT ammo, so it is not 100% or 50% to the current, but just 25%.

AC10-AC5 balance should not be made by ammo counts, but by introduction of logarithmic min range for AC5 that should have from the start.

[Raso]

Strum Wealh, on 21 June 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

In contrast to the thread title and OP's argument, rounds per ton do not need to be increased.

Part of the game is that 'Mech design should be a balancing act of multiple elements - speed vs durability vs damage output vs battlefield longevity vs other factors.

I want MWO to be like the game you just described. I really do. Instead it's a game where people max out one extreme with little in the way of sacrifice. Why go ballistic and energy when focusing on one or the other is almost always better. Why mix weapons for different ranges and situations when multiple weapons will work at virtually all ranges under all scenarios.

There's so little give and take in MWO's mech design. It's all about maxing out a few, select weapon systems which are universally viable under nearly all circumstances while ignoring the rest.

[Navid A1]

Hotthedd, on 22 June 2016 - 05:13 AM, said:

TTK goes up because to carry the same amount of ammo that someone currently equips, they can do it in less space with less tonnage.
That frees their build up for more heat sinks (increasing sustainable damage), or more weapons, both of which can lower TTK. It isn't about more overall ammo, it is about the ammo they have being much more efficient.

You are missing something. You are only considering boats. a single ton of more free space are not gonna change the damage output of boats. it will go towards speed.
An AC boat is dangerous because of its Autocanon high DPS... not because of an extra medium laser.
Ammo increase will help hardpoint starved mechs to be able to stay combat effective through a match.


Tell me... is the current AC10 ammo count breaking the game?... i guess not.
Why not treat the AC2 /5 and 20 the same way?

Also...

What if i told you that a single double heat sink have absolutely zero difference on your mech performance in terms of damage output... Specially if we are talking about a ammo-based weapon boat.

That has always been a problem in this game. People who only look at numbers, and people who look at numbers and can predict what effect a change will have.

A ballistic boat for example will not be firing all its weapons for 40 seconds straight... it will be in bursts of 5-6 seconds and your extra heat sink analogy goes right out of the window. That is the difference.

You may just grab your calculator and conclude that an extra heat sink increases the SUSTAINED DPS by 2%, but you need to understand that the burst max DPS of the mech does not change... and it is the max DPS that matters in TTK

[Lily from animove]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 June 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Amen.

Willing to bet, that worth immersive and reactive aiming mechanics, and a meaningful heat scale, we wouldn't even need doubled armor.

amazing thought right?. That TT values might actually have worked had they tried to actually emulate TT combat mechanics. Pretty funny since similar aiming mechanics are in pretty much every other shooter out there.

And yet three people who insist on pushing MWO into fitting into the same generic box as every other shooter.... But are so against the aiming mechanics those vanilla shooters use.

yes thats the thing, heat to 30, that way people may stop boating Ballistics and mix them with some with some E to squeeze out damage of the heat yet not run fully ammo dependned. And 30 heat would prevent overboating Energy wepaons.

No need for some weird energy system.

Navid A1, on 22 June 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

You are missing something. You are only considering boats. a single ton of more free space are not gonna change the damage output of boats. it will go towards speed.
An AC boat is dangerous because of its Autocanon high DPS... not because of an extra medium laser.
Ammo increase will help hardpoint starved mechs to be able to stay combat effective through a match.


Tell me... is the current AC10 ammo count breaking the game?... i guess not.
Why not treat the AC2 /5 and 20 the same way?

Also...

What if i told you that a single double heat sink have absolutely zero difference on your mech performance in terms of damage output... Specially if we are talking about a ammo-based weapon boat.

That has always been a problem in this game. People who only look at numbers, and people who look at numbers and can predict what effect a change will have.

A ballistic boat for example will not be firing all its weapons for 40 seconds straight... it will be in bursts of 5-6 seconds and your extra heat sink analogy goes right out of the window. That is the difference.

You may just grab your calculator and conclude that an extra heat sink increases the SUSTAINED DPS by 2%, but you need to understand that the burst max DPS of the mech does not change... and it is the max DPS that matters in TTK

because ac 10 is the worst placed B-gun dps, and dps/ton and dmg/heat wise between the UAC 5, Ac 15 and Ac 20. thats why. More ammo offsets and increases the the bad damage/tonnage

Edited by Lily from animove, 22 June 2016 - 07:51 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Navid A1, on 22 June 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

You are missing something. You are only considering boats. a single ton of more free space are not gonna change the damage output of boats. it will go towards speed.
An AC boat is dangerous because of its Autocanon high DPS... not because of an extra medium laser.
Ammo increase will help hardpoint starved mechs to be able to stay combat effective through a match.

You are correct that I did not factor the ability to take a larger engine into account, but that supports my point! Yes, I am basing my argument more on boats than single weapons because that is what we get in MW:O. PGI has habitually made the mistake of attempting to balance on the premise of a single weapon, but in MW:O multiple weapons of the same type will ALWAYS be the most efficient way to kill enemies due to instant convergence.
An A/C boat is dangerous because of its high DPS (and PPFLD). It is more dangerous if it also has a backup weapon (or more speed, or better dissipation, etc.)

Navid A1, on 22 June 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

Tell me... is the current AC10 ammo count breaking the game?... i guess not.
Why not treat the AC2 /5 and 20 the same way?

Is is breaking the game? No. Is the AC/10-UAC/10 the current FOTM because of the ammo increase? Yep. What do you think will happen if that power creep were applied to ALL ACs?

Navid A1, on 22 June 2016 - 07:41 AM, said:

Also...

What if i told you that a single double heat sink have absolutely zero difference on your mech performance in terms of damage output... Specially if we are talking about a ammo-based weapon boat.

That has always been a problem in this game. People who only look at numbers, and people who look at numbers and can predict what effect a change will have.

A ballistic boat for example will not be firing all its weapons for 40 seconds straight... it will be in bursts of 5-6 seconds and your extra heat sink analogy goes right out of the window. That is the difference.

You may just grab your calculator and conclude that an extra heat sink increases the SUSTAINED DPS by 2%, but you need to understand that the burst max DPS of the mech does not change... and it is the max DPS that matters in TTK

If an extra DHS is unnecessary, then the bonus weight/crit savings will go to something else that is more effective. You are asking for a buff to a weapons system that, quite frankly does not need it. The dakka builds are already very strong and very popular.
If an extra DHS won't make a difference, or possibly a faster engine or more armor or an extra backup weapon is negligible, or the extra ammo is not a big deal, then WHY are you asking for it in the first place?

[Moldur]

We should quadruple structure and armor quirks, then increase ammo marginally. This way, everyone will be happy.

Everyone will get insane damage and rise in PSR, and nobody will even have to die.

[Khobai]

no one should die easily. armor technology surpasses weapons technology in the battletech universe. thats why mechs live so long in tabletop, and weapons can only chip away at armor, rather than penetrating through it. TTK should definitely be higher in MWO to make it feel more like a mech sim/fps hybrid game rather than call of duty with mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 22 June 2016 - 09:28 AM.