70 replies to this topic

[Michael Abt]

DAYLEET, on 21 June 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

No, finding a balance between ammo tonnage and other stuff is good as is. It forces you to aim better or make calls whether to shoot or hold for a better shot. Adding more ammo is just saying it's fine to spam and play solo. 3 Tons of AC20's is only 21 shells BUT that's 420 damage!

Unfortunately that logic has two big flaws: not every shot is a hit, and you barely use all shots per match. At least i don't, and my 4G(F) just happens to run with 3t ammo.

There was a thread the other week when someone asked for weapon statistics for analysis. The cumulated average hitrate for AC20 was around 66% iirc, and for 3t ammo that translates into ~277 damage. (Didn't send my statistics because i fired half as many AC20 rounds like the combined players who contributed.) Even my reasonable hit rate only translates into ~327 damage. It still assumes that i am able to use all 3t which is rarely the case.

Those numbers become important when it comes to matchpoints though. In order to break even on a loss you "only" need 300 damage to maintain your PSR. It becomes a problem if you run a highly specialized, ammo-dependend mech with little tonnage to play with, and those are usually lights and mediums.

Edited by Michael Abt, 24 June 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[Navid A1]

TexAce, on 24 June 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:

All I hear is "Uh I cant put an AC20 on my shadowcat". Well put an AC10.

"Uh I cant boat 4 AC5s on my Phract". Well put 3 ACs.

If a mech is not designed to work with a specific weapon and still be reliable, dont force it to be.

You want 2 AC10s on a Summoner? Live with the consequences. Or Put in 2 UAC5s.

That is the whole point.
- A shadowcat comes with a gauss rifle stock. it is supposed to have a big gun. Allowing 20%-30% more ammo on ballistics suddenly makes it possible to see shadowcats with something other than 2 LPLs

- A phract with 4 AC5s... Lets pretend this build on this mech is a common build (its not... chance of seeing a living dinosaur is highr than seeing this on the battlefield these days)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b33eb410cc952ab
tell me how 30% extra ammo can make this build better? it already has max engine... and it rarely run out of ammo before the match ends

- Now i know you are just smashing keyboard instead of writing any meaningful things... AC10s are OK in terms of ammo (they alredy have 30% more)... and you won't be able to put 2 on a summoner without consequences.

TexAce, on 24 June 2016 - 05:57 AM, said:

All I know for me is that all my AC builds would profit immensly from an ammo buff, even becoming too strong, because my builds are already built REASONABLE to begin with.

You are just talking based on biased imagination.
Show an example where 200 damage per ton ammo allows you to pack another AC on an AC boat with enough shots... Or a case that gives you any kind of advantage!
talk with numbers.
I know it can't be done.

[Idealsuspect]

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!

It does if instead take 5 tonns of ammo ( 100 or 75 rounds ) you take 4 tonns of ammo + one medium laser xD or one heatsink.

Well i am not agaisnt or for this idea in both case i will exploit it but well... it's PGI why people still give them advices they don't care or can't implement the right way.

[Trauglodyte]

Strum Wealh, on 21 June 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

Personally, I would be fine with the structure/armor quirks existing to offset the combination of the ability to reliably and consistently focus damage output (versus the general inability to do so effectively & consistently in BT) and the "FIRE EVERYTHING, EVERY TIME, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE!" mentality of the playerbase-at-large.
Though, I would prefer to see those quirks be reduced in degree across the board (e.g., no 'Mech, of any class or tonnage, having more than a combined, say, 10% structure/armor bonus on any section - "10% structure + 0% armor", "0% structure + 10% armor", "5% structure + 5% armor", "2.5% structure + 4.5% armor" (doesn't have to be equal to 10%, just can't exceed 10%), "25% structure + -15% armor" or "-10% structure + 20% armor" (the net difference is still a 10% overall bonus, and allows for some interesting variations in durability/survivability), etc).

Even then - and even now - a boost to rounds per ton is still not needed, for the reasons previously listed.

Moreover, the same reasoning applies to the energy weapons as well - IMO, PGI should bump the per-salvo heat generation back up to the original BT values, so that players who can't handle the heat would have to either trade weapons (or armor, or speed, or ammunition for other weapons) for Heat Sinks (trading firepower for heat management), or downsize their weapons (again, trading firepower for heat management), or alter their firing behavior (e.g. something other than alpha-striking at the rate of the slowest weapon recycle), or some combination of these.

'Mech design should be a balancing act of multiple elements & an exercise in compromises; in order for a player to improve one or more aspects of any 'Mech through MechLab modification, one should have to pay the price with one or more other aspects of that 'Mech.

I like this quote. The one issue that I have with it, and I'm a staunch heat management person, is the fact that, in TT, lore mechs always took more weapons than armor or heat sinks. I can't think of one mech from 2875 to 3058 that had full armor. And, you always read descriptions where a variant dropped some weapons for additional heat sinks. So, as you can see, Battletech was built upon the notion of killing the enemy first and worrying about heat, ammo, and armor later.

As I said, though, I'm big on getting heat penalties into the game and an even bigger backer of making the use of Override actually apply damage, per second, to the head location internals. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and stop using so many damned hot weapons.

[xXBagheeraXx]

Not really. I have no issues with ammo on most my builds because I actually pack it on. Most peole i see are running around with builds having 3 or 4 auto cannons and...3 tons of ammo? Yeah NO...8+ tons. If you dont go ballistics and pack on some ammo for longevity you deserve to run dry.

[Navid A1]

xXBagheeraXx, on 24 June 2016 - 06:42 PM, said:

Not really. I have no issues with ammo on most my builds because I actually pack it on. Most peole i see are running around with builds having 3 or 4 auto cannons and...3 tons of ammo? Yeah NO...8+ tons. If you dont go ballistics and pack on some ammo for longevity you deserve to run dry.

This guys gets it.

30% more ammo is not gonna make 3 to 4 tons of ammo work for your quad ballistic boat... you'll need 8+ tons of ammo anyway.

Yet it WILL help hardpoint starved mechs with their single ballistic main weapon approach.

[Hotthedd]

Navid A1, on 23 June 2016 - 08:45 PM, said:

To help the hard-point starved mechs such as summoners and shadowcats.

it was NEVER about boats... it is NOT going to affect boats in ANY WAY.

Yet it will make a night/day difference on low-hardpoint mechs which are currently extinct.

More ammo does not help a mech have more or better hardpoints (or are you talking about critical spaces?).

It doesn't have to be about boats, my point is that you MUST take boats into account when making radical changes that have effects beyond your intentions.

How does having more ammo per ton help with a low mounted hardpoint?

Let's face it, you are asking for a buff for YOUR preferred playstyle, not asking for an improvement to the game, overall.

[Navid A1]

Hotthedd, on 27 June 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

More ammo does not help a mech have more or better hardpoints (or are you talking about critical spaces?).

It doesn't have to be about boats, my point is that you MUST take boats into account when making radical changes that have effects beyond your intentions.

How does having more ammo per ton help with a low mounted hardpoint?

Let's face it, you are asking for a buff for YOUR preferred playstyle, not asking for an improvement to the game, overall.

I have many playstyles. So, if asking for diversity of builds on under-performing mechs is considered MY playstyle... then yes.

The thing that you fail to understand is that the effect is the other way around. Its the blanket nerfs that is done because of the boats that causes 90% of the mechs in the game to be outright outclassed.

Changing something as simple as 30% more ammo does not increase the effective damage output on boats.
You want to prevent boats from f*ckig everything?... make more penalties for boating the same weapon... DO NOT BLANKET NERF.

And before you tell me about improving the game why don't you go and put a couple more LPLs on your wub machine.... that'll "Improve" the game!
All my builds are anti-meta... that is how i see the game would improve. Diversity of builds.

[Bishop Steiner]

Navid A1, on 27 June 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

I have many playstyles. So, if asking for diversity of builds on under-performing mechs is considered MY playstyle... then yes.

The thing that you fail to understand is that the effect is the other way around. Its the blanket nerfs that is done because of the boats that causes 90% of the mechs in the game to be outright outclassed.

Changing something as simple as 30% more ammo does not increase the effective damage output on boats.
You want to prevent boats from f*ckig everything?... make more penalties for boating the same weapon... DO NOT BLANKET NERF.

And before you tell me about improving the game why don't you go and put a couple more LPLs on your wub machine.... that'll "Improve" the game!
All my builds are anti-meta... that is how i see the game would improve. Diversity of builds.

I'd rather we fix the ezmode aiming system and sterile heat system, and remove the need for all these buffs.... And probably doubled armor period.

But I'm a dreamer like that.

[Queen of England]

Trauglodyte, on 24 June 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

I like this quote. The one issue that I have with it, and I'm a staunch heat management person, is the fact that, in TT, lore mechs always took more weapons than armor or heat sinks. I can't think of one mech from 2875 to 3058 that had full armor. And, you always read descriptions where a variant dropped some weapons for additional heat sinks. So, as you can see, Battletech was built upon the notion of killing the enemy first and worrying about heat, ammo, and armor later.

Plenty of 'mechs mount maximum armor. For example, there are 10 assault 'mechs in TRO3025, and of those, the Atlas, Awesome, and Highlander all have max armor.

[Hotthedd]

Navid A1, on 27 June 2016 - 08:03 PM, said:

I have many playstyles. So, if asking for diversity of builds on under-performing mechs is considered MY playstyle... then yes.

The thing that you fail to understand is that the effect is the other way around. Its the blanket nerfs that is done because of the boats that causes 90% of the mechs in the game to be outright outclassed.

Changing something as simple as 30% more ammo does not increase the effective damage output on boats.
You want to prevent boats from f*ckig everything?... make more penalties for boating the same weapon... DO NOT BLANKET NERF.

And before you tell me about improving the game why don't you go and put a couple more LPLs on your wub machine.... that'll "Improve" the game!
All my builds are anti-meta... that is how i see the game would improve. Diversity of builds.

You are not asking for diversity of builds, you are asking for a buff to ACs. Unfortunately, in this game a buff to a weapon becomes a mega-buff to boats. You choose to ignore this reality.

The reason boats are so prevalent is because, due to perfect precision even with group fire, boating a weapon is the most effective way to kill things. As long as MW:O has perfect precision, this will be case. It is the sole constant in the "meta".

ACs have PPFLD. That fact alone makes them worth taking. When you add in perfect convergence and precision, and the fact that they have the lowest heat output of all weapon classes, they are already competitive. Their drawbacks are tonnage and ammo dependence. You are proposing to remove the only downsides of the weapons.

The only way I would support more ammo/ton would be if all ACs were burst fire. THAT would be an acceptable trade-off.

In short, you are asking for power creep, and that is never a good idea.