46 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 21 August 2016 - 01:03 PM, said:

UACs do not add small amounts of draw.. they subtract instantly.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. They add small amounts the moment the fire, spreading the increase over time, UNLESS you're boating lots.

This is why we should have numbers in these discussions, not vague generalities.

Quote

So your conclusion is Shadowcats, Shadowhawks, griffins, and wolverines work well?

Certainly no worse than they do in Live.

I never claimed Energy Draw magically makes bad mechs good, it just doesn't make them worse.

Quote

Your examples are exclusively medium brawlers.... yes, those work.

but, that was the list you just gave me that didn't work?

Quote

What about Victors? BLR-1G? Highlanders? Kingcrabs? MAD-3R? WHM-6R?

Give me specific examples that work well now but won't under ED(with my changes above), that also aren't relying on huge alphas.

Quote

All of those are screwed under this system (tested those... in real matches.. not controlled lobbies). Unless they go only 1 weapon type of 30 alpha. Those can only live by shooting and torso twisting... no target just sits there so you can calculate your UAC5 alpha and see how many lasers you can shoot next.

How is it any different with one weapon type or three? You keep saying the, and I don't understand. I had no trouble on the PTS managing this boated or mixed; why is it hard for you?

Quote

Mobility and fire power have always been the two balancing factors countering eachother.
When you normalize damage output across the board, less mobile mechs become useless, unless they go UACs.. or stay far away.

ED doesn't limit damage output, just alpha output. Fire lasers first, mid burn/end of burn fire other group. Seriously dude, I don't understand why using more than one kind of weapon under ED is hard for you. Please explain it to me. How often do I need to ask?

Quote

Clan mechs in particular will be hit the hardest, because their weapons are designed to have more damage over time, Yet the energy draw punishes them instantly.

Yes, as it stands, ED is harder on Clan Mechs than IS mechs. As a filthy planner, I get this.

Without a doubt, Clan weapons will need a balance pass with ED.

Quote

Only ONE way to salvage this system, IMO. Separating ammo based weapons and energy weapons into their own "pool" with gauss belonging to both.
Then balance by further limiting the pool sizes.

Why is it ok to do 60 damage with ballistics and energy, but only 30 with ballistics and 30 with energy? Why is it that mixed builds should get a pass, given how many mechs don't have the ballistic+energy option?

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

Give me specific examples that work well now but won't under ED(with my changes above), that also aren't relying on huge alphas.

Take any AC20 build with more than 3 medium lasers. The gameplay is about quick unloading and twisting away. Right now, you can mix ACs and lasers well... they are not the same type, and they do damage differently, but in a quick brawl, being able to fire both your AC and your lasers defines the outcome.

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

ED doesn't limit damage output, just alpha output. Fire lasers first, mid burn/end of burn fire other group. Seriously dude, I don't understand why using more than one kind of weapon under ED is hard for you. Please explain it to me. How often do I need to ask?

Its not hard to manage fire with multiple weapons.
The problem is that while you are cycling through your weapons one by one. A mech with 30 alpha of 1 weapon unloads into your face, and twists for the next shot. In the meantime, you are unloading into his arm, until he faces you again to unload to your face one more time.

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

Why is it ok to do 60 damage with ballistics and energy, but only 30 with ballistics and 30 with energy? Why is it that mixed builds should get a pass, given how many mechs don't have the ballistic+energy option?

60?
See if you agree or not with this:
http://mwomercs.com/...g-mixed-builds/

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 21 August 2016 - 01:53 PM, said:

Take any AC20 build with more than 3 medium lasers. The gameplay is about quick unloading and twisting away. Right now, you can mix ACs and lasers well... they are not the same type, and they do damage differently, but in a quick brawl, being able to fire both your AC and your lasers defines the outcome.

Fire Lasers, then at the end of the beam fire AC20. Done and done.

With that said, an argument could be made that Lasers (and Clan UAC's) should charge energy per tick/shell instead of front loaded, as the damage isn't front loaded. I haven't put a lot of thought into this yet, though. That could be very interesting, with an AC20 spiking 20 draw, then the ML's drawing their 5draw per over the burn. A 1S burn of 4ML's would then effectively stop regeneration for 1S (as they're drawing 5E per second * 4 ML's = 20E, and we regen 20E/S). Thus, an alpha would essentially tap you out, and you wouldn't start regening energy until after the ML burn ended. Shorter burn lasers would thus draw energy faster for a shorter duration while long burn lasers would draw less, for longer.

Quote

Its not hard to manage fire with multiple weapons.
The problem is that while you are cycling through your weapons one by one. A mech with 30 alpha of 1 weapon unloads into your face, and twists for the next shot. In the meantime, you are unloading into his arm, until he faces you again to unload to your face one more time.

But you're not cycling one by one, and as is right now you're just firing one group then the other, so it's a half second wait. That's hardly oppressive, and as I said you could fire lasers, then mid burn fire the AC20.

Yes, this does mean that you'll have more face time in close combat, but that applies to boated builds as much as it does mixed builds. 50 damage from one type of lasers is not fundamentally different in this case from 50 damage from two types weapons. if you're alphaing the lasers, you're taking exactly the same penalty you'd be taking from alphaing 50 damage of two types of weapons.

Quote

60?
See if you agree or not with this:
http://mwomercs.com/...g-mixed-builds/

No. As things stand, ED is complex enough. Adding two separate but similar systems is really complicating things. At least with pure ED you're just swapping GH for GH2.0

Edited by Wintersdark, 21 August 2016 - 02:50 PM.

[Navid A1]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

No. As things stand, ED is complex enough. Adding two separate but similar systems is really complicating things. At least with pure ED you're just swapping GH for GH2.0

In fact it is simplifying ED by a great margin. its not 1 bar vs 2 bars.
This way you do the calculation in the mechlab... not during a fire fight... it is much simpler than the current ED.

Edited by Navid A1, 21 August 2016 - 03:35 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Navid A1, on 21 August 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

In fact it is simplifying ED by a great margin. its not 1 bar vs 2 bars.
This way you do the calculation in the mechlab... not during a fire fight... it is much simpler than the current ED.

See, I see being able to make the choices in a fight to be a feature of ED, one of it's best selling points, not a disadvantage. You don't need to think numbers or crunch math, because precision isn't important due to how ED works. But I like weighing, from moment to moment, firing vs. holding; efficiency vs. burst.

[Cy Mitchell]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

First, a disclaimer: I don't necessarily think these are the perfect values, but rather a little more extreme than we need. However, I think we'd be well served by pushing to this point to get a good 1:1 comparison with the current values which, while I personally like, there are very valid complaints that they're too lenient.

The suggested values below are a fair bit heavier and will noticably restrict fire past 30 damage except in brawling circumstances; see below:

1: Gauss costing to 1.5 or MAYBE even 2:1.

A much higher ED costing for Gauss; a 1.5 factor would cause a single Gauss rifle to consume 22.5 energy, or dual gauss 45 energy (and thus 15 heat generated). In many ways, this seems more reasonable: It allows Gauss to stay quickfire and low heat, but makes combining Gauss with other weapons extremely costly in terms of heat.


2: Overdraw to heat penalty of 1:1

This doubles existing heat penalties. Firing 5 LPL's takes you to 55 heat. It's currently 57 Heat on live with ghost heat, so this is fundamentally identical. However, it avoid the Ghost Heat issue where you fire 3 then 2 at 0.5s with zero penalty or 3 then 2 at 0.49999s for 22 heat penalty. It DOES allow tactical firing of 4 LPL's(as an example) with a hefty but reasonable 10 heat penalty.


3: LRM and SRM costing to 0.6

This allows 50 points of SRM's/LRM's for 30 energy draw - 3xSRM6 costing 21.6 energy, and LRM's can fire up to 50 tubes in a volley without penalty (that being 30 draw). This is the first pillar of Brawl Buffage, as SRM's are a key component of brawling.


4: LBX costing down to 0.75 from 0.85

Further increasing the value of LBX vs. PPFLD AC, and making mixed LBX/Laser builds more worthwhile. This is the second pillar of Brawl Buffage, while making LBX's more viable vs. regular AC's.


5: Medium, Medium Pulse, Small, Small Pulse, cERSL, cMPL, and cSPL lasers down to 0.85

Effectively increases the no-draw penalty to 7 from 6, for 35 without penalty, but allows these lasers to be fired combined with other weapons more effectively. This is the third pillar of "brawl buffing"


6: PPC's up to 1.1 draw/damage

This means 3xPPC takes a slight penalty firing, losing some heat efficiency (and unlike ghost heat, this also impacts 2PPC+Ballistic builds), but makes 4xPPC builds significantly more costly (particularly considering the 1:1 overdraw to heat ratio). As a result, 3xPPC costs 33 energy, and thus generates 3 extra heat if fired from a full bar. Firing 4 PPC's costs 44 Energy, or +14 heat over it's already hefty 38. Given low projectile speed and things like zero heat dual gauss, this is hardly unreasonable.

I agree with nearly all your recommendations. I think this would be a good place to start the second round of testing. 2.0 on the Gauss may be a little too much (I proposed a flat 20) but 1.5 could work. Other than that I would love to take your ideas for a spin and see how they work out. I definitely agree with the shorther range lasers and the missiles. Come on PGI let's test it!

[Wintersdark]

Rampage, on 21 August 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

I agree with nearly all your recommendations. I think this would be a good place to start the second round of testing. 2.0 on the Gauss may be a little too much (I proposed a flat 20) but 1.5 could work. Other than that I would love to take your ideas for a spin and see how they work out. I definitely agree with the shorther range lasers and the missiles. Come on PGI let's test it!

Yeah, as I said in the disclaimer, I think these numbers are if anything maybe too much. 2.0 GR is definitely harsh; I think 1.5 is a little easier. A flat 20 energy = 1.333~; the values are expressed as ratios in the Energy Draw writeup and I'm sticking to that, so 20 energy is kind of awkward to express. 1.5 though is a very reasonable Exploration Point, though I'd be fine testing 2.0

That's the joy of PTS builds, I actually prefer to test values that go a bit "too far" in each direction, so you can get a feel for where the error lies better. i think running PTS1 with very lenient numbers and PTS2 with fairly severe numbers would give people a very good feeling for how it scales, then we can find good "in between" numbers without having to get into arguments about "But if this was increased, it'd be better!" because we'd KNOW exactly what happens when things are more extreme in each direction.

[Chados]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

First, a disclaimer: I don't necessarily think these are the perfect values, but rather a little more extreme than we need. However, I think we'd be well served by pushing to this point to get a good 1:1 comparison with the current values which, while I personally like, there are very valid complaints that they're too lenient.

The suggested values below are a fair bit heavier and will noticably restrict fire past 30 damage except in brawling circumstances; see below:

1: Gauss costing to 1.5 or MAYBE even 2:1.

A much higher ED costing for Gauss; a 1.5 factor would cause a single Gauss rifle to consume 22.5 energy, or dual gauss 45 energy (and thus 15 heat generated). In many ways, this seems more reasonable: It allows Gauss to stay quickfire and low heat, but makes combining Gauss with other weapons extremely costly in terms of heat.


2: Overdraw to heat penalty of 1:1

This doubles existing heat penalties. Firing 5 LPL's takes you to 55 heat. It's currently 57 Heat on live with ghost heat, so this is fundamentally identical. However, it avoid the Ghost Heat issue where you fire 3 then 2 at 0.5s with zero penalty or 3 then 2 at 0.49999s for 22 heat penalty. It DOES allow tactical firing of 4 LPL's(as an example) with a hefty but reasonable 10 heat penalty.


3: LRM and SRM costing to 0.6

This allows 50 points of SRM's/LRM's for 30 energy draw - 3xSRM6 costing 21.6 energy, and LRM's can fire up to 50 tubes in a volley without penalty (that being 30 draw). This is the first pillar of Brawl Buffage, as SRM's are a key component of brawling.


4: LBX costing down to 0.75 from 0.85

Further increasing the value of LBX vs. PPFLD AC, and making mixed LBX/Laser builds more worthwhile. This is the second pillar of Brawl Buffage, while making LBX's more viable vs. regular AC's.


5: Medium, Medium Pulse, Small, Small Pulse, cERSL, cMPL, and cSPL lasers down to 0.85

Effectively increases the no-draw penalty to 7 from 6, for 35 without penalty, but allows these lasers to be fired combined with other weapons more effectively. This is the third pillar of "brawl buffing"


6: PPC's up to 1.1 draw/damage

This means 3xPPC takes a slight penalty firing, losing some heat efficiency (and unlike ghost heat, this also impacts 2PPC+Ballistic builds), but makes 4xPPC builds significantly more costly (particularly considering the 1:1 overdraw to heat ratio). As a result, 3xPPC costs 33 energy, and thus generates 3 extra heat if fired from a full bar. Firing 4 PPC's costs 44 Energy, or +14 heat over it's already hefty 38. Given low projectile speed and things like zero heat dual gauss, this is hardly unreasonable.

This. Do this, developers.

[Gentleman Reaper]

I LOVE the amount of thought that went into this, although bare in mind that with ED as a new balancing mechanic we can adjust the base stats of a few weapon to make them more useful outside of alphas.

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

The suggested values below are a fair bit heavier and will noticably restrict fire past 30 damage except in brawling circumstances; see below:

1: Gauss costing to 1.5 or MAYBE even 2:1.

A much higher ED costing for Gauss; a 1.5 factor would cause a single Gauss rifle to consume 22.5 energy, or dual gauss 45 energy (and thus 15 heat generated). In many ways, this seems more reasonable: It allows Gauss to stay quickfire and low heat, but makes combining Gauss with other weapons extremely costly in terms of heat.

Yes, like we've discussed in a different thread, this would be an excellent way to give a large heat penalty to gauss rifles going overdraw, while still keeping it a cool weapon during general use like in lore.

Quote

2: Overdraw to heat penalty of 1:1

This doubles existing heat penalties. Firing 5 LPL's takes you to 55 heat. It's currently 57 Heat on live with ghost heat, so this is fundamentally identical. However, it avoid the Ghost Heat issue where you fire 3 then 2 at 0.5s with zero penalty or 3 then 2 at 0.49999s for 22 heat penalty. It DOES allow tactical firing of 4 LPL's(as an example) with a hefty but reasonable 10 heat penalty.

This is a logical step for PTS2, so we can gauge how close it is to an exceptable heat penalty for alphas. Interested to see if this would end up being too much.

Quote

3: LRM and SRM costing to 0.6

This allows 50 points of SRM's/LRM's for 30 energy draw - 3xSRM6 costing 21.6 energy, and LRM's can fire up to 50 tubes in a volley without penalty (that being 30 draw). This is the first pillar of Brawl Buffage, as SRM's are a key component of brawling.

This makes sense for all the drawbacks that these weapons have. This would make SRMs useful for those looking for large, close-ranged alphas without getting penalized too severely.

Quote

4: LBX costing down to 0.75 from 0.85

Further increasing the value of LBX vs. PPFLD AC, and making mixed LBX/Laser builds more worthwhile. This is the second pillar of Brawl Buffage, while making LBX's more viable vs. regular AC's.

This also a logical outcome, although LBXs still need an overall buff to spread and/or damage per pellet. Russ has stated that this is being looked into, so it will likely happen within the next few patches.

Quote

5: Medium, Medium Pulse, Small, Small Pulse, cERSL, cMPL, and cSPL lasers down to 0.85

Effectively increases the no-draw penalty to 7 from 6, for 35 without penalty, but allows these lasers to be fired combined with other weapons more effectively. This is the third pillar of "brawl buffing"

This is where we get into my point from above. With draw values, we can adjust the stats on all the laser weapons so that they're a more meaningful choice in smaller amounts, without them becoming too powerful when alpha'd together:

SL &SPL:
These feel good for what they are right now, so simply having a large draw decrease would make these useful for maxing out alpha potential at close range, like SRMs. SL could maybe get a slight duration decrease.

ML & MPL:
These can get moderately reduced draw, along with lowering the duration and/or increasing the RoF.

LL & ERLL:
Draw gets a slight decrease, and also a good duration decrease. ERLL could generate a bit more heat to make LLs a more meaningful choice on hotter builds.

LPL:
Get a slight duration decrease, but overall the draw value is acceptable, allowing a 3LPL alpha without consequence.

Clan lasers:
These could get a decent duration decrease, although still being longer than IS lasers, in exchange for a decently higher draw/damage ratio over their IS counterparts. This makes clan lasers more effective for general use than they are now, while making them less efficient in alphas versus IS lasers to make up for their damage, range, size, and weight advantages.

Quote

6: PPC's up to 1.1 draw/damage

This means 3xPPC takes a slight penalty firing, losing some heat efficiency (and unlike ghost heat, this also impacts 2PPC+Ballistic builds), but makes 4xPPC builds significantly more costly (particularly considering the 1:1 overdraw to heat ratio). As a result, 3xPPC costs 33 energy, and thus generates 3 extra heat if fired from a full bar. Firing 4 PPC's costs 44 Energy, or +14 heat over it's already hefty 38. Given low projectile speed and things like zero heat dual gauss, this is hardly unreasonable.

I honestly think that the draw/damage should be higher than this, considering how powerful PPFLD is right now. PPCs should get significantly higher velocity, to better desync them with ACs when firing at moving targets, but get the charge mechanic that Gauss just lost so that they can't abuse fast chain-fires. Clan ERPPC gets its 15 damage, but gets a significant draw value to make it inadequate in alphas, as well as a longer charge-up time than its IS counterparts to make it more awkward in brawls.

Also surprised that you didn't mention ACs in here. With how powerful they are because of their high DPS, they should have a high draw value to make them poor weapons to alpha, which is their biggest issue right now in the PTS. AC2s should stay where it is, since its high rate of fire doesn't allow them to make fire and shield-turn viable. AC/5s and AC/10s get a large draw increase, while the AC/20's poor range and velocity makes its current draw number acceptable if not still low enough, allowing dual AC/20 alphas without too much penalty. Clan ACs get higher velocity to make up for the burst fire, although get slightly higher draw than the IS ACs.

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 22 August 2016 - 10:50 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Gentleman Reaper, on 22 August 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

I
I honestly think that the draw/damage should be higher than this, considering how powerful PPFLD is right now. PPCs should get significantly higher velocity, to better desync them with ACs when firing at moving targets, but get the charge mechanic that Gauss just lost so that they can't abuse fast chain-fires. Clan ERPPC gets its 15 damage, but gets a significant draw value to make it inadequate in alphas, as well as a longer charge-up time than its IS counterparts to make it more awkward in brawls.

Maybe, but there's already lots of reductions elsewhere. PPC's end up very much above a great many other weapons already.

Quote

Also surprised that you didn't mention ACs in here. With how powerful they are because of their high DPS, they should have a high draw value to make them poor weapons to alpha, which is their biggest issue right now in the PTS. AC2s should stay where it is, since its high rate of fire doesn't allow them to make fire and shield-turn viable. AC/5s and AC/10s get a large draw increase, while the AC/20's poor range and velocity makes its current draw number acceptable if not still low enough, allowing dual AC/20 alphas without too much penalty. Clan ACs get higher velocity to make up for the burst fire, although get slightly higher draw than the IS ACs.

You're missing stuff here. AC's don't have high DPS, and if anything the AC5 was severely over nerfed with pts1, as it sports the lowest DPS of any autocannon. It's so severely broken on the current build you'd be insane to upcost it. The AC2 is pretty bad as well, and on the other end the 10 and 20 both already have huge logistic costs (cannot be boated) and high up front draw costs.

Autocannon of all stripes are somewhat of a mess right now (in good ways and bad).

Clan ERPPC's need to be fixed too, I'd prefer 15 direct damage and 16.5 draw (15:15 with the same PPC 1.1 multiplier).

[Dr Cara Carcass]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Do the math, show a case study where this is a problem. Consider the situation of lights with 30pt laser alphas.

Lights are already underpowered overall, they dont need draw penalties as well. The Oxide for example is definitely not a beast as it stands. 4 srm4 is 32 damage, so it's largely unchanged vs. the PTS now and, for that matter, Live. The Oxide doesn't need to be nerfed more than it already is on live, particularly post rescale.

Did you read what you wrote? And did you play the PTS? Lights are super awesome in PtS atm.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Cara Carcass, on 22 August 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

Did you read what you wrote? And did you play the PTS? Lights are super awesome in PtS atm.

That's because 4v4s are very favorable for lights, 8v8s and 12v12s not so much. You must take the results of your 4v4 fights with a grain of salt.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 August 2016 - 12:20 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

That's because 4v4s are very favorable for lights, 8v8s and 12v12s not so much. You must take the results of your 4v4 fights with a grain of salt.

But that's all we have right now, so it's the only real representation we have at the moment. If/when PGI raises the player limit again, then we can test and debate its performance there.

Wintersdark, on 22 August 2016 - 12:00 PM, said:

Maybe, but there's already lots of reductions elsewhere. PPC's end up very much above a great many other weapons already.

Because it exploits the 30 draw limit, since its draw value is a division of 30, so you can pair it with either AC/5s or AC/10s. The clan ERPPC is actually worst than the IS ERPPC right now because of this, since it has 13.5 draw. A higher draw on it and the ACs would curb this exploit, and the charge would force it to have a more spaced-out chain-fire.

Quote

You're missing stuff here. AC's don't have high DPS, and if anything the AC5 was severely over nerfed with pts1, as it sports the lowest DPS of any autocannon. It's so severely broken on the current build you'd be insane to upcost it. The AC2 is pretty bad as well, and on the other end the 10 and 20 both already have huge logistic costs (cannot be boated) and high up front draw costs.

Autocannon of all stripes are somewhat of a mess right now (in good ways and bad).

Clan ERPPC's need to be fixed too, I'd prefer 15 direct damage and 16.5 draw (15:15 with the same PPC 1.1 multiplier).

They have a significantly higher DPS than the other weapons, which is what they should be balanced around. The AC/2 and AC/5 should get faster cooldowns, while the AC/10 and AC/20 are perfect, and the AC/5 and AC/10 should get higher draw values to reduce their efficiency in alphas, while the AC/2's low damage and the AC/20's high draw rate make them balanced in that regard.

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 22 August 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Cara Carcass, on 22 August 2016 - 12:13 PM, said:

Did you read what you wrote? And did you play the PTS? Lights are super awesome in PtS atm.

As Kalasa said above, lights have several advantages in 4v4. Much more open map to utilize their speed, fewer foes means it's easier to hit and fade safely, endurance matters less so less armour is not as much an issue.

I respect that 4v4 is incredibly fun, and that pts pops make 12v12 difficult, (to impossible) but it also makes the tests quite flawed as it's easy to draw incorrect conclusions.

Ballistics can look very good, for example, because ammo counts can be pared way back and extra armor/engine/sinks taken instead; slower brawlers are extremely vulnerable to mobile forces.

There's lots of effects; part of why 4v4 is so fun in fact. It plays a lot differently.

Sadly, a great many players and would be testers either have an agenda they seek to prove/disprove and will see results as suits them, or have an insufficient understanding of the underlying game systems to accurately apply what they see and experience to a 12v12 situation.

This isn't a character flaw or anything, a great many well meaning testers just don't have the mindset, knowledge and/or experience.

[Wintersdark]

Gentleman Reaper, on 22 August 2016 - 12:53 PM, said:

Because it exploits the 30 draw limit, since its draw value is a division of 30, so you can pair it with either AC/5s or AC/10s. The clan ERPPC is actually worst than the IS ERPPC right now because of this, since it has 13.5 draw. A higher draw on it and the ACs would curb this exploit, and the charge would force it to have a more spaced-out chain-fire.

Hence my PPC's having 1.1 draw. AC10's aren't boatable, 20's already have a huge draw. 5's and 2's could have higher draw but as both are currently at roughly 2dps as ammo weapons, both have also seen heat increases, that's not impressive for 6 and 8 ton weapons.

I do think they'd be better off being cooler and faster (that's the point of ballistics) and if that was done then yes, increased draw absolutely. It's a bunch of changes at once though, so I wanted to stay out of that hornets nest.

Quote

They have a significantly higher DPS than the other weapons, which is what they should be balanced around. The AC/2 and AC/5 should get faster cooldowns, while the AC/10 and AC/20 are perfect, and the AC/5 and AC/10 should get higher draw values to reduce their efficiency in alphas, while the AC/2's low damage and the AC/20's high draw rate make them balanced in that regard.

As it stands, they don't. But, yeah, if they were more DPSy then a higher cost would be great.

On the pts right now, the only thing salvaging the 2 and 5 is that you don't need much ammo for 4v4

[Gentleman Reaper]

Wintersdark, on 22 August 2016 - 01:07 PM, said:

AC10's aren't boatable.

They are on some heavier mechs, 3 AC/10s, or 2 AC/10s and a PPC is a strong PPFLD 30 damage alpha, and the increased draw value would also help curb 1 AC/10 2 PPC alphas as well, see where I'm going?

Quote

I do think they'd be better off being cooler and faster (that's the point of ballistics) and if that was done then yes, increased draw absolutely. It's a bunch of changes at once though, so I wanted to stay out of that hornets nest.

Fair enough ^^

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 22 August 2016 - 01:15 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gentleman Reaper, on 22 August 2016 - 01:14 PM, said:

They are on some heavier mechs, 3 AC/10s

There isn't a single mech outside the Ilya (which is too light to pull it off well) that can do 3 IS AC10s currently, which is a bit sad, I really wish they were 6 slots instead of 7.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 August 2016 - 01:21 PM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

There isn't a single mech outside the Ilya (which is too light to pull it off well) that can do 3 IS AC10s currently, which is a bit sad, I really wish they were 6 slots instead of 7.

Yea sorry, I forget that clan AC/10s aren't PPFLD

[Wintersdark]

Even just 2AC10+PPC is extremely tough for most heavier heavies and assaults, it's heavily ammo dependent and under my changes above still overdrawing, if only by a little.

Other than the Ilya(which can't really) nothing runs 3x10. AC10's are at least 14t and 9s each with two tons of ammo... And even with the ammo buff, that's lean. Also, the projectile speed difference helps desync the projectiles.

The reason I argue this is that AC10's are already a poor deal in many circumstances vs Gauss and AC20, being so close in size/logistic cost vs. lower damage and inconvenient cycle speed and range.

Gentleman Reaper, on 22 August 2016 - 01:38 PM, said:

Yea sorry, I forget that clan AC/10s aren't PPFLD

and that's why clan AC's shouldn't see a cost increase. They have way less opportunity cost than large IS AC's though; the difficulty pairing AC10's with anything of note cover them.

[AngrySpartan]

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

1: Gauss costing to 1.5 or MAYBE even 2:1.
A much higher ED costing for Gauss; a 1.5 factor would cause a single Gauss rifle to consume 22.5 energy, or dual gauss 45 energy (and thus 15 heat generated). In many ways, this seems more reasonable: It allows Gauss to stay quickfire and low heat, but makes combining Gauss with other weapons extremely costly in terms of heat.
...
6: PPC's up to 1.1 draw/damage
This means 3xPPC takes a slight penalty firing, losing some heat efficiency (and unlike ghost heat, this also impacts 2PPC+Ballistic builds), but makes 4xPPC builds significantly more costly (particularly considering the 1:1 overdraw to heat ratio). As a result, 3xPPC costs 33 energy, and thus generates 3 extra heat if fired from a full bar. Firing 4 PPC's costs 44 Energy, or +14 heat over it's already hefty 38. Given low projectile speed and things like zero heat dual gauss, this is hardly unreasonable.

Thanks for posting that Wintersdark. Almost exactly my thoughts, in fact I've posted similar suggestions some time ago, with slightly different values:
1.5X multipler for PPFLD weapons (CERPPC and UACs with some adjustments).
1X for lasers
05-0,75x to splash, depending of how much they spread damage.
That will bring balance almost to the same state we have on live servers, but with no loopholes anymore.

One idea you suggested here I can't forget:

Wintersdark, on 21 August 2016 - 02:48 PM, said:

With that said, an argument could be made that Lasers (and Clan UAC's) should charge energy per tick/shell instead of front loaded, as the damage isn't front loaded.

This looks very promising, maybe a natural way to balance hitscan weapons. Though than you can fire 3 (C)ERLLs almost constantly as your draw will be offset by regeneration through the burn time. Still looks very interesting.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 22 August 2016 - 02:26 PM.