70 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

On top of double armor values, almost all mechs have some crazy amount of structure and armor quirks.

the current ammo per ton value was not enough for the double armor... let alone massive quirks.

Ammo needs to be increased by around 50%

These are my suggestions:

• AC2s increase ammo to 100 shots per ton
  
• AC5s increase to 40 shots per ton
  
• AC10s are ok
  
• AC20s increase to 10 shots per ton

• Gauss increase to 12 shots per ton

• LRMs increase to 280 missiles per ton

• SRMs are fine

These changes will have minimal to no effect on ammo-based boats but will make the hardpoint-starved mechs combat effective through a match with so much armor to chew through.

That is the balance we need.

The AC10 is the perfect example of how the ammo count should be.... and it is not breaking the game

Edited by Navid A1, 22 June 2016 - 07:46 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Navid A1, on 21 June 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

• SRMs are fine

Sadface, the only weapon still stuck at TT ammo values you suggest to be the only one stuck below a 50% increase.

[Lehmund]

Navid A1, on 21 June 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

On top of double armor values, almost all mechs have some crazy amount of structure and armor quirks.

the current ammo per ton value was not enough for the double armor... let alone massive quirks.

Ammo needs to be increased by around 50%

These are my suggestions:

• AC2s increase ammo to 100 shots per ton
  
• AC5s increase to 40 shots per tons
  
• AC10s are ok
  
• AC20s increase to 10 shots per ton

• Gauss increase to 12 shots per ton

• LRMs increase to 280 missiles per ton

• SRMs are fine

Makes sense to me.
Though I'm not a tabletop fan so can't tell if the ammo amounts have already been increased or are the same as tabletop values.

[zephoidb]

I agree. With the advent of the kodiak, i have been running my CTF 4x with quad AC5s again. Just beat them at long-mid range. The problem is that between the structure quirks and the number of assaults, i'm running out of ammo all the time. Even when i have 8-9 tons of ammo.

[Navid A1]

Lehmund, on 21 June 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

Makes sense to me.
Though I'm not a tabletop fan so can't tell if the ammo amounts have already been increased or are the same as tabletop values.

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.

[Strum Wealh]

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 add 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.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 21 June 2016 - 02:25 PM.

[El Bandito]

I have been advocating more ammo against all these + structure/armor quirks for a long time.

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.

Hey, I'd be content with the ammo count now if there were no health quirks. But they are there, so ammo boost is needed. Not to mention that before we played 8v8, but now the game is 12v12, making ammo based mech that much harder to carry the game before ammo runs out.

More ammo per ton is way overdue. All ACs should be normalized to 200 damage per ton of ammo, as OP says.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 June 2016 - 07:52 AM.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 June 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

Sadface, the only weapon still stuck at TT ammo values you suggest to be the only one stuck below a 50% increase.

Granted SRMs had very efficient damage per ton of ammo in TT and thus didn't need buffing in mwo.

[Darian DelFord]

You will have to excuse me but my Jenner D F and K disagree with your assertion of your title.

Edited by Darian DelFord, 21 June 2016 - 07:57 AM.

[Variant1]

ac2's maybe as for the rest i would say no. there is enough ammo to kill 2 or more mechs with. By increasing ammo per ton it makes dual ac20 way too effective and gauss at the same time it also would trivialize ammo running out.

[Strum Wealh]

El Bandito, on 21 June 2016 - 07:48 AM, said:

Hey, I'd be content with the ammo count now if there were no health quirks. But they are there, so ammo boost is needed. Not to mention that before we played 8v8, but now the game is 12v12, making ammo based mech that much harder to carry the game before ammo runs out.

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.

[Bishop Steiner]

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.

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.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 21 June 2016 - 09:41 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

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

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 just mount ballistic weapons

FTFY.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 June 2016 - 09:41 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 June 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

FTFY.

Without quirks and buffed ammo, would they though?

Super heavy and ammo restricted?. I think it'd would prove less the cure all than you think. But I could be wrong.

[El Bandito]

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.

Mech base armor is already doubled in MWO to offset that.

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

'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.

The compromise is already there. Ballistics and IS LRMs in particular are heavy and bulky enough to force trade offs.

[DAYLEET]

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!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 June 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

Without quirks and buffed ammo, would they though?

Super heavy and ammo restricted?. I think it'd would prove less the cure all than you think. But I could be wrong.

If we are talking about nerfing energy weapon heat values to the point where they consider mounting other things, it would. If we had HSR during closed beta, and Gauss was as nerfed as it is today, it probably would've been dakka boats for days.

[BigBenn]

Nah. I think the ammo/ton is about perfect.

Just remove the charge up from the gauss.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 June 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

If we are talking about nerfing energy weapon heat values to the point where they consider mounting other things, it would. If we had HSR during closed beta, and Gauss was as nerfed as it is today, it probably would've been dakka boats for days.

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

[Hotthedd]

Sure, armor has been doubled, and there are structure quirks everywhere, BUT that was not due to there being so much ammo/ton, it was because with the ease of placing multiple shots on one torso with one click, mechs were being destroyed too quickly.
Leave the ammo where it is. If you want more ammo, sacrifice somewhere else.