58 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

i would pay real money for a periphery tech pack. a pay 2 play differently pack which could be used in low tech battles on the outer edges of the inner sphere. rifles, mortars, and rocket launchers oh my.

this would be followed up by a solaris weapons pack (bombast, and others). fun colorful weapons that spectators love to see. 3060s pack. fast forward and give us a taste of the future. and so on.

and you might have tech filters on custom games. that way you can do future battles and have pirate wars and the like. or we can just buy mechpacks and keep to the same old boring mwo.

[The Zohan]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

No. I won't stop and you do not have the authority to stop me. It's that simple.
Oh yeah...i do not know what ad naseam means. I could send a bunch of curse words in norwegian your way that you wouldn't be able to make sense of to return the favor.

Trust me that Google translate will not help at all if i did decided to toss vulgar profanity your way.
Italians may have a near endless stream of profanity when they get all ticked off but norwegians are much more ....obscene and perverted.

But you're not worth it. So say whatever you want but i won't stop.

The norwegian educational system is not as good as ppl claim it is, I get that now my little uneducated friend. "Ad nauseam" is latin, not an insult (LOLU) and means a specific point is discussed up to a point where any more arguments are redundant. Note that "redundant" is not an insult. I just mention that cause you seem to get confused by words you dont know.
I may be wrong on the lostech front, mainly cause my BT TT days are 15+ years in the past and I freely admit that. Still, theres reasons why these things aint used anymore (both in lore and TT). Again: not a viable idea, and stupid high quirks like you propose will not do anything but induce more powercreep. Stupid idea is stupid, like I said. Now go complain to that mod you got to change my initial comment, kiddo.

[Spleenslitta]

Everyone should look at all these potential new weapons and equipment.

- MRM - RAC - Inferno SRM's - Light/heavy Gauss rifles - Rifles - Mortars - Binary Laser Cannon - Heavy Lasers - Light AC's - ATM's - Bombast laser - ER Pulse lasers - HMG - MG Arrays - Snub PPC - Hyper Gauss Rifle - Heavy PPC -
- Light LBX AC - X Pulse Laser - Laser AMS.

The list goes on and on. Everyone might want to concider this - If we do not discuss how to balance new weapons and equipment we will truly be giving Paul and Russ completly free reins.

I don't know about you guys but i'm sincerely trying to make a difference here by attempting to balance weapons that many think of as inferior.
What is wrong with that? Do you feel threatened by that? Am i being violent somehow?
I ask those questions because you oppose my ideas like i have done something wrong to you on a personal level.

Pjwned, on 01 September 2016 - 10:47 PM, said:

Rifles with a damage penalty would just be bad, and they don't need weird, nonsensical extra effects like shrapnel damage or whatever. Just remove the damage penalty, give them a decent rate of fire & respectable ammo per ton, bam you're done.

But you forget that PGI wishes to stay close to the lore as much as they can.
That low firerate, low velocity and penalty to penetrate armor is how the Rifles got replaced with AC's in the first place.
Damage, heat, weight, crit slots, range and other lore and TT related matters- Those are the things that PGI wants to stick to as much as they want.

Sure they can decrease an LPL's heat by a 1.5 points or double ammo since they doubled armor anyhow.
But look at how many changes that would be necessary to make rifles capable of competing with AC's?
It would make rifles completly unrecognisable. They would just become different versions of AC's.

But increasing Rifles chances to critically hit unarmored internal components and boosting the crit damage multiplier is to change two stats that was never in the TT lore.
Cooldown, critical hit chances, crit damage multipliers, burntime. These stats could be changed without PGI stepping on any toes.

As for those weird, nonsensical extra effects like shrapnel damage ....Well there was a very plain alternative to that.
Number 2) was just an increase in chances to critically hit something with no other fancy things.
You could have just changed the critical chance numbers and how much extra damage when it crits till they fit your opinion. And you would have been done.

All weapons in MWO has a chance to criticaly hit an unarmored internal component you know.
This was no different other than a higher than normal chance just like MG and LBX has a higher chance to criticaly hit something.
Completly normal with no fuzz whatsoever.

Blazer had a bunch of normal nonmagical ways to balance it too in the original post.
Number 1) was an adjustment to the burntime which i will assume you know what is since you have been on these forums for years Pjwned.

Number 2) was similar to a flamers ability to cause heat in whatever it hits. Nothing magical or new about it except for a difference in how much heat it causes.
Number 3) was a new mechanic to penetrate and have a chance of critically hitting internal components whenever armor is low.
A new mechanic and i don't think there is anything magical about it. It's not capable of transforming an Atlas into a squealing goblin baby after all.
That would be magic.
Number 4) was a plain increase in damage to internal structure that is unprotected by armor. That is a very plain thing too.

I fail to see these magical abilities you describe. All i see is an honest and sincere attempt by me to actually do something.

Wolf Ender, on 01 September 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of introducing outdated, inferior weapons that are imbalanced and outclassed by the current crop of weapons and then giving them magical abilities to make them on par with the current weapon list.

Those magical abilities are no more magical than a flamers ability to cause heat in it's target.
Or the MG or LBX's higher chances of critically hitting unarmored components.

Wolf Ender, on 01 September 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

It's a pandoras box that backfires every time and they will probably screw it up and make them OP or disrupt what fragile minuscule balance there currently is.

I understand that concern which is why i want to talk about how to balance the Rifles, Mortars and Binary Laser Cannon here with the community.
Imagine if Paul actually made these weapons on his own and the community had never properly discussed it.
If we do not discuss about how to balance these weapons before Paul does everything on his own we will only have ourselves to blame when he makes them a failure.

If we properly discuss things and he still makes these weapons into total failures we can point at our debate thread and say -
Paul. Why did you not at least look at how we attempted to balance those weapons instead of just rolling dice on such important matters?

Wolf Ender, on 01 September 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

We still have:
- tiny maps
- too few game modes
- broken mechanics like ghost heat or energy draw
- LRMs too good or too bad depending on who you ask
- totally dead faction warfare
- horrible UI ... we need UI 3.0
- other various balance issues and things people ***** about (yeah i know you will never make everyone happy)

I would put all those things well above the list of priorities.

Good job for thinking outside the box though. I just think this isn't the right time or direction IMHO.

- tiny maps - Yup. I want bigger maps too and preferably bigger maps with sensible cover rather than half the map filled with water or just a nearly featureless tundra landscape with slight dips and hills.
Look at the Polar Highlands map for example. It may be big but there are only slight differences from in the different areas of the map.
A big map filled with cover is what i want.

- too few game modes - I want Solaris free for all mode so badly i can taste it. Understandable.

- broken mechanics like ghost heat or energy draw - I think they are patchwork solutions too. Quite frankly i barelly notice the difference between GH and ED when it comes to how much firepower i can wield.
But then again i almost never use anything heavier than 45 tons. Point is that both GH and ED are equally boring to me.

- LRMs too good or too bad depending on who you ask - Don't bother trying LRM's anymore. I've given up on them.

- totally dead faction warfare - I gave up on Faction Warfare way back when it was introduced as Community Warfare.
The maps are boring and full of bottlenecks.

I agree on all that. But here are four very valid points of mine.
1 - Making a new model for a weapon does not slow down PGI's ability to make new maps because map designers do not make mech and weapon models.
Alex Iglesias makes mechs and probably weapons too and the guys who make maps do not use the same program Alex does.
Would Alex be slowed down when making new weapons? A little but not much.
Look at the AC's...they are not exactly the most complex things Alex has to make. They are barrels with a few details.

Alex could make the models for Rifles much quicker than AC's i think. They are supposed to be outdated weapons so they can look rather plain without a problem.
Then he uses the same textures, colors, radius of the barrel width used on the AC's and voila.

We cannot see a difference between an LPL and an SL when we look at our mechs. Both weapons have lenses of the same size and shape.
So i doubt the Binary Laser Cannon needs anything much fancier than a larger lens and being mounted in the same spots as the PPC's.
Done.

2 - Let's say the guys making new gamemodes and the ones making new weapons are the same people.
How long would it take to make the stats for a new weapon?
They take the code for the AC5 for example and remove the damage, heat, range, velocity, weight, crit slots, crit chance, crit damage multiplier, cooldown, etc and replace it with the stats from the rifle.
Done.

3 - If these new weapons delayed the release of ED i would be gratefull.

4 - FW maps and buckets has nothing to do with new weapons. Developers working on weapons and FW has nothing to do with each other.
It would be like asking a carpenter to do the ballet gracefully or forcing a sumo wrestler to be a pianist. Completly different jobs.

As for the compliment on me thinking well outside the box. Thank you.
Even if it is not the right time now well then i will just say that there is nothing wrong with being prepared far in advance.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 02 September 2016 - 10:07 AM.

[FlyingSpaghettiMonster]

Spleenslitta,

I am all for all three of these new weapons!

For Rifles, I suggest totally ditching the damage penalty to armor. The damage penalty is such a negative that a huge positive would be necessary to make the weapon competitive, and that would make it over powered in the situations where it was useful at all. Also, streakish weapons like that arn't fun for anyone. The user feels shafted when they empty all their ammo, but don't do much damage because of armor. And the targets will loudly complain about being obliterated the second they loose armor. Situational bonuses give good flavor, but a weapon must be GENERALLY viable. So no armor damage penalty.

With that out, what can we add to Rifles? They should be no better or worse than autocannons, but distinctly different; and ideally, complementary. Higher critical chance is a step in the right direction, but nothing insane, just the standard MG or LBX level of bonus. If extra plusses are needed, add in explosive damage (as previously suggested). Maybe 20% of the total shell damage is applied to the adjacent two locations. This makes rifles uniquely distinct from ACs that put all the damage in one spot, and also produces damage distributions that are consistently spread, (as apposed to clan burst fire ACs where the projectiles can all hit the same space, or hit 4 different locations). I like the idea of Rifles having lower velocity than ACs. This has the potential to create synergistic pairings between ACs and Rifles. If an AC20 and a light rifle have similar velocities, one can use the more plentiful light rifle ammo for spotting, and correct your aim before firing the AC20.

Mortars: How about locked AND dumbfire, just like LRMs? You can't have differing lock times, so chuck that idea. I'm not suggesting that mortar rounds seek or be guided. When dumb fired, they hit the point you aimed at. When fired with lock, they hit the expected intercept point of the target. As in, where the target will be if they stay on the same course and speed. Since targets rarely run in a straight line, Mortars would need a blast radius to be useful. Hey, just like an artillery strike consumable that's already coded! Also, Spleenslitta, your idea of Mortars being ballistic weapons is terrible, please reconsider. Ballistic weapons have lots of variety as is. AC 2/5/10/20 are all distinct flavors. Missiles only have short range and love range flavors. I really want MRMs, but the Mortar would be an appreciated addition to the missile family. If you don't want them to be shot down by AMS, just give the missiles themselves more health, like the narc beacon.

As to Blazers, great ideas all around! I'd never considered a super short duration, but that would be great. It would produce a damage distribution half way between the all or nothing PPCs PinPoint, and the concentrated spread of the LPL. I think short duration should be the signature of the blazer (.50 seconds?), With target heat or bonus adjacent damage added on as necessary.

Thanks for the invigorating ideas everyone!

[TheArisen]

Wolf Ender, on 01 September 2016 - 11:03 PM, said:

I don't like the idea of introducing outdated, inferior weapons that are imbalanced and outclassed by the current crop of weapons and then giving them magical abilities to make them on par with the current weapon list. It's a pandoras box that backfires every time and they will probably screw it up and make them OP or disrupt what fragile minuscule balance there currently is.

Also..when they DO get around to adding new weapons, they should add things that actually exist on mainstream mechs. I couldn't find any mech variants that actually exist in lore that include the Light, Medium or Heavy rifle except the arbiter a 35 ton light mech... really that's not enough. Too obscure. At least binary lasers and RAC's actually appeared on more than one actual canonical mechs.

It's already bad enough that the game is so imbalanced we have to give mechs a laundry list of quirks just to get people to use them...but then those quirks break game balance too. They still haven't figured out a way to balance clan vs IS and fix certain uber-god-mode and uber-bad-never-used mechs without waving the magic quirk wand around. That's not a good long term solution. We have enough balance issues already

I would like to see them focus on getting the game sorted out before worrying about introducing more old weapons or new stuff.

Like really PGI please FINISH the game.

We still have:
- tiny maps
- too few game modes
- broken mechanics like ghost heat or energy draw
- LRMs too good or too bad depending on who you ask
- totally dead faction warfare
- horrible UI ... we need UI 3.0
- other various balance issues and things people ***** about (yeah i know you will never make everyone happy)

I would put all those things well above the list of priorities.

Good job for thinking outside the box though. I just think this isn't the right time or direction IMHO.

We actually have several large maps & generally your listed issues aren't whats talked about as the main issues. but thats off topic.

For the Binary laser, it needs less heat imo. The heavy weight combined with needing tons of heat sinks isn't very desirable. Perhaps a reduced heat combined with a shortish burn time would make it good & usable

Rifles: extra crit chance seems good to me, it'd have to be quite high due to the low fire rate though.

Mortars: I see these as a utility weapon, smoke rounds, flares, etc. Of course anti mech munitions would be needed but it'd take a bit of work to make them useable because the in-game mechanics don't support athe way it'd work very well.

[Spleenslitta]

@FlyingSpaghettiMonster and TheArisen.

It kinda applies to both of you since i explain why i want these weapons to stand apart from the crowd.

The first thing i thought when i saw your name was how hard it would be to come up with a nickname to shorten it down Spaghetti.
Then i gave up on being a smartarse.

Second thing i thought was that although you too want to drop the armor penalty you did say in a constructive way.
The thing i like about giving rifles better than normal damage of any form when armor is removed is that the rifles would become less ammo hungry.
Anyone who knows about it will conserve their ammo for when it can really count so there is no need for more than 2 tonns of ammo for them.
Light rifles might make do with just 1 tonn. Don't need to boat rifles either since it's better to have more weapons to carve through armor and keep the rifle as the finisher.

But yes. There would be those that would complain about dying suddenly because of an unarmored bodypart on their mech being hit by a rifle shell.
But i think making rifles become too much like AC's deny us of one major thing. More diversity in our armory.

Mortars: I can see the point about putting the mortars into the missile family because i was teethering on the same thought myself.
It was nearly down to the toss of a coin.
As for mortars being unaffected by AMS - That's something that was part of the lore.
Here is a link - http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Mech_Mortar

i wanted the LRM's and mortars to be very different weapons. The goal was once again for having more variety in our arsenal.
LRM's for longrange +600 meters., ease of use and that slightly superior damage per salvo.
Mortars for being better at shorter range below 500 meters., better firerate and faster targeting/aim.
Mortar possibly better at hitting things behind tall cover except if the target is right behind a tall building.

Binary Laser Cannon - Yeah...i just like that overly powerfull sounding name.
My worry with giving the Blazer a 0.5 sec burntime is that the IS LPL has a 0.67 sec burntime.
The LPL weighs 2 tonns less, takes up 2 crit slots less and only produces 7 heat for 11 damage while Blazer has 16 heat for 12 damage.
But if the Blazer had the ability to cause heat in the target with a 0.5 sec burntime that sounds fair to me.
What do you mean by adjacent damage though Spaghetti? I don't understand.

In short i want more variety to our weapons by adjusting more than the base stats.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 02 September 2016 - 11:36 AM.

[Pjwned]

Spleenslitta, on 02 September 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

But you forget that PGI wishes to stay close to the lore as much as they can.

No they don't, they've deviated from lore countless times on a lot of different things.

Quote

That low firerate, low velocity and penalty to penetrate armor is how the Rifles got replaced with AC's in the first place.

Where does it say low fire rate and low velocity?

Quote

Damage, heat, weight, crit slots, range and other lore and TT related matters- Those are the things that PGI wants to stick to as much as they want.

The only thing I suggested modifying (removing) was the damage penalty because rifles would be trash otherwise.

[Spleenslitta]

@Pjnwed

If we totally ignored PGI's preferances. How would you balance the Rifles, Mortars and Blazers?
Let me guess...by not having them in the first place right? Do as you wish and have whatever opinion you want.
It's a free world.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 02 September 2016 - 12:16 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Tbf considering the lower ammo count, and lack of ( like they can ever code it) ammo swapping ability, As well as wonky ranges compared to classic autocannons I'd say the rifles as single shell, long[er] cooldown weapon system could work with the tt listed damageand heat, with or without damage reduction from tt. Personally I'd drop the reduction just to make them worthwhile, but with say 1.5 x the ac5 cooldown on all 3 rifle sizes, maybe 3-5 seconds on the long end for heavy minimum. Oh and no more then x2 max range period, or something to make drop off severe enough to not let people make pot shots at extreme ranges like a light ac10 or heavy 5. Kind of make it like a brawling weapon group.

Edited by Alex Morgaine, 02 September 2016 - 12:58 PM.

[Pjwned]

Spleenslitta, on 02 September 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

@Pjnwed

If we totally ignored PGI's preferances. How would you balance the Rifles, Mortars and Blazers?
Let me guess...by not having them in the first place right? Do as you wish and have whatever opinion you want.
It's a free world.

No...I do want rifles and such, I just don't want them to have a crappy damage penalty and then have some extra nonsense effect to compensate for the damage penalty when the easiest, simplest, and best solution would be to just not make them have a damage penalty.

Like I said just remove the damage penalty against mechs, give them a decent rate of fire & ammo per ton, and bam we have some solid options for more ballistic weapons; sounds good to me.

[Spleenslitta]

Alex Morgaine, on 02 September 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

Tbf considering the lower ammo count, and lack of ( like they can ever code it) ammo swapping ability, As well as wonky ranges compared to classic autocannons I'd say the rifles as single shell, long[er] cooldown weapon system could work with the tt listed damageand heat, with or without damage reduction from tt. Personally I'd drop the reduction just to make them worthwhile, but with say 1.5 x the ac5 cooldown on all 3 rifle sizes, maybe 3-5 seconds on the long end for heavy minimum. Oh and no more then x2 max range period, or something to make drop off severe enough to not let people make pot shots at extreme ranges like a light ac10 or heavy 5. Kind of make it like a brawling weapon group.

Pjwned, on 02 September 2016 - 07:23 PM, said:

No...I do want rifles and such, I just don't want them to have a crappy damage penalty and then have some extra nonsense effect to compensate for the damage penalty when the easiest, simplest, and best solution would be to just not make them have a damage penalty.

Like I said just remove the damage penalty against mechs, give them a decent rate of fire & ammo per ton, and bam we have some solid options for more ballistic weapons; sounds good to me.

I'm worried about 2 major things and 1 minor thing when removing that penalty you two suggest along with changing cooldowns.

1 lack of variety
Instead of occupying a role of it's own the Rifle becomes so similar to an AC that it might as well be an AC.
Let's say we get Light AC's too just to have that covered.
I'll add the same cooldown to light AC's as standard AC's and convert TT range into MWO's standards.
......................Damage......Heat.........Range......Weight........Crit slots.......Cooldown
Light AC2............2...............1............540..............4.................1................0.72sec
Light AC5............5...............1..............450............5..................2................1.66sec

Standard AC stats......................................................................Ammo
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
AC2.......2.............1......720m......6tons......1 slot.........2000..........75..............0.72secs
AC5........5............2......620m..... 8tons......4 slots.......1150..........30................1.66secs
AC10.....10...........4......450m......12tons....7 slots........950..........20................2.5secs
AC20......20..........6........270m....14tons....10 slots.....650............7................4 secs

Now look at Rifles with 1.5 x firerate of AC's like Alex suggested and no armor penalty. Heavy rifle has 1.5x AC10 cooldown.
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........????.........36.............1.08 secs
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......????........18...............2.5 secs
Heavy.....9.............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots.......????..........12............3.75 secs

Massive thing to worry about down below in worry number 2.

2 This would lead to the Rifle boats and possibly lower TTK.

Rifles would be light compared to the amount of damage they cause.
It falls completly apart when the Heavy Rifle is compared to the AC10.
Ironicly the AC2 is somehow the weapon that survives the rifles best because of how drasticly different it is to the Light Rifle.

These Rifles without armor penalty would actually lead to the decline of the normal AC5. Why?
Medium Rifle advantages - 3 tons lighter, 2 crit slots less and 1 damage more.
AC5 advantage - 0.84secs faster cooldown, 170m longer range.

Heavy Rifle versus AC10.
Heavy rifle advantages - 90m more range, 4 tons lighter, 4 crit slots smaller.
AC10 advantages - 1 more damage, 1.25secs shorter cooldown.

Those 4 tons and 4 crit slots versus 1 damage more and 1.25 secs faster cooldown difference between the AC10 and Heavy Rifle would end up with the AC10's immediate decline.

And instead of Dual AC20 King Crab we would get 4x Heavy Rifle King Crab.
4 less damage but double the range and 0.25 secs faster cooldown than dual AC20.
A 4x UAC5 King crab would have higher DPS i think but with jamming chances.

3 the minor thing.
It's far in the future but i would worry about the Light AC's role in this.
They seem like they would be a boring addition to our arsenal with such a relationship between AC's and Rifles.

I nearly humored you guys for a moment.
Then i thought "Rifles balanced like that would be so boring. Not worth the trouble and i go to work in 15 minutes."
Even if we perfect the relations between AC's by adjusting velocity, cooldown and armor penalty i will become very bored.
Players would be even more encouraged to peek out from the same piece of cover over and over again with just lowering Rifle firerate in comparison to AC's.
That's the road to PB MWO. PeekaBo MechWarrior Online.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 03 September 2016 - 07:34 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

I updated the original post with my results from trying to obey Alex Morgaine and Pjwned's suggestions.
They are hidden inside the spoilerbutton near the post top.

[Davison]

Spleenslitta, on 01 September 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

Pardon me Davison but you didn't read about the abilities afterall as you claimed to have done.
You never read all that was inside the original post and instead stopped when you came this far.

You never read past that. It's impossible that you read past that.
If you had read past that you would know about the abilities i asked you to select for the weapons.
Instead of talking about pure damage stats you would be talking about which ability is feasible and how the critical hit values should be adjusted.

For example one of the 3 different ways a rifle could have much higher chances at critically hitting internal components armor has been removed.

1- **% stands for the chance to crit 1 component. 2- **% for 2 comps and 3- **% for 3 comps.
Rifle crit chance table. 1- 60%.... 2- 30%..... 3-15%
The light rifle gets to roll once on this table, but the Medium gets 2 chances and the heavy 3 chances.
How much more damage once it critically hits something? 400% perhaps.

If a heavy rifle critically hits components with 2 of it's 3 chances it goes like this -
- 9 damage x 400% = 36 x 2 chances = 72 damage

An Atlas center torso would gone with a single shell. A heavy rifle could do the job of an 4 AC20 shells in a single shot just because of an ability to have higher chances to critically hit something.
Too powerfull? Then help me adjust the values.

I trust you can excuse my late reply. Long day and longer night. I HAVE read your suggestions. More than once. The issue is that I don't see the weapons themselves as being viable in the first place in MWO in a way that isn't already fulfilled by other armaments. That, in and of itself, was, and remains, the issue.

I've made my suggestions. I'm sorry if they fall outside the parameters set, but I don't see making rifles a "structure smasher" that does little to armor as being worthwhile compared to simply carrying weapons that are equally effective against both. My thoughts on mortars and blazers are already voiced, as well.

My opinion remains where it was, thus I believe it best to bow out of this discussion. Hope you find your satisfaction in the matter.

[Spleenslitta]

Davison, on 03 September 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

I trust you can excuse my late reply. Long day and longer night.

My opinion remains where it was, thus I believe it best to bow out of this discussion. Hope you find your satisfaction in the matter.

Excuse not necessary. And i must say you handled the matter more maturely than i did.
I have attempted to go down a mainstream way in post 51#. But it ended up crushing the AC10 and the AC5.
Rifles became more powerfull than AC's through light weight.

[Pjwned]

Spleenslitta, on 02 September 2016 - 11:13 PM, said:

I'm worried about 2 major things and 1 minor thing when removing that penalty you two suggest along with changing cooldowns.

1 lack of variety
Instead of occupying a role of it's own the Rifle becomes so similar to an AC that it might as well be an AC.
Let's say we get Light AC's too just to have that covered.
I'll add the same cooldown to light AC's as standard AC's and convert TT range into MWO's standards.
......................Damage......Heat.........Range......Weight........Crit slots.......Cooldown
Light AC2............2...............1............540..............4.................1................0.72sec
Light AC5............5...............1..............450............5..................2................1.66sec

Standard AC stats......................................................................Ammo
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
AC2.......2.............1......720m......6tons......1 slot.........2000..........75..............0.72secs
AC5........5............2......620m..... 8tons......4 slots.......1150..........30................1.66secs
AC10.....10...........4......450m......12tons....7 slots........950..........20................2.5secs
AC20......20..........6........270m....14tons....10 slots.....650............7................4 secs

Now look at Rifles with 1.5 x firerate of AC's like Alex suggested and no armor penalty. Heavy rifle has 1.5x AC10 cooldown.
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........????.........36.............1.08 secs
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......????........18...............2.5 secs
Heavy.....9.............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots.......????..........12............3.75 secs

Not every weapon needs to be super unique or anything.

Quote

Massive thing to worry about down below in worry number 2.

2 This would lead to the Rifle boats and possibly lower TTK.

Rifles would be light compared to the amount of damage they cause.
It falls completly apart when the Heavy Rifle is compared to the AC10.
Ironicly the AC2 is somehow the weapon that survives the rifles best because of how drasticly different it is to the Light Rifle.

These Rifles without armor penalty would actually lead to the decline of the normal AC5. Why?
Medium Rifle advantages - 3 tons lighter, 2 crit slots less and 1 damage more.
AC5 advantage - 0.84secs faster cooldown, 170m longer range.

Heavy Rifle versus AC10.
Heavy rifle advantages - 90m more range, 4 tons lighter, 4 crit slots smaller.
AC10 advantages - 1 more damage, 1.25secs shorter cooldown.

Those 4 tons and 4 crit slots versus 1 damage more and 1.25 secs faster cooldown difference between the AC10 and Heavy Rifle would end up with the AC10's immediate decline.

And instead of Dual AC20 King Crab we would get 4x Heavy Rifle King Crab.
4 less damage but double the range and 0.25 secs faster cooldown than dual AC20.
A 4x UAC5 King crab would have higher DPS i think but with jamming chances.

I guess I see your point, so maybe the rifles wouldn't all have good ammo per ton or velocity if removing the damage penalty actually did make rifles a little too good, even if they did all have rather high cooldowns as suggested, or maybe range and even heat could be adjusted too; speaking of heat I did notice that in your king crab example you didn't consider heat generation between 4x heavy rifles and 2x AC20 and also seem to underestimate a bit how hard it is to find 4 ballistic hardpoints on most mechs.

That said though, if the heavier rifles were actually too good without a damage penalty then maybe we could just add the light rifle only or even not add any rifles and simply add light ACs instead, but I think the rifles could be balanced with some stat tweaks and still not have a damage penalty...but then again they might still be too good if they only take up a few crit slots at most apiece.

I'm not sure how I feel about rifles now that I think about it more...bleh.

Quote

3 the minor thing.
It's far in the future but i would worry about the Light AC's role in this.
They seem like they would be a boring addition to our arsenal with such a relationship between AC's and Rifles.

I nearly humored you guys for a moment.
Then i thought "Rifles balanced like that would be so boring. Not worth the trouble and i go to work in 15 minutes."
Even if we perfect the relations between AC's by adjusting velocity, cooldown and armor penalty i will become very bored.
Players would be even more encouraged to peek out from the same piece of cover over and over again with just lowering Rifle firerate in comparison to AC's.
That's the road to PB MWO. PeekaBo MechWarrior Online.

Seems pretty minor to me as well since Light AC2 & AC5 would have different enough stats still.

Edited by Pjwned, 03 September 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

Pjwned, on 03 September 2016 - 10:45 AM, said:

I'm not sure how I feel about rifles now that I think about it more...bleh.

You want simplisity for the sake of easier programming, lower development time, ease of understanding for newbies and easier to balance.
Understandable.

I want Rifles to have a role that i see no other weapon have except for MG and LBX. I want more variety.
I won't try to convince you anymore. Let's just agree to disagree.
I thank you because you made me get more determined actually.

[TheArisen]

Looking at the numbers, I'd say it'd be worth putting on the PTS.

The Binary & Rifles could work fairly easily but mortars would be complicated. Perhaps mortars could lock on, fire in a very tall arc & hit the location where a mech was when it was locked.

[Spleenslitta]

TheArisen, on 03 September 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

Looking at the numbers, I'd say it'd be worth putting on the PTS.

The Binary & Rifles could work fairly easily but mortars would be complicated. Perhaps mortars could lock on, fire in a very tall arc & hit the location where a mech was when it was locked.

Which abilities would you select for the Rifles and Blazer to give them the edge they need to overcome their weak TT stats?
Or would you like to go down the no armor penalty path?

If the no armor penalty path i'd say the Heavy Rifle needs a much longer cooldown to make up for being 4 tons lighter and 4 crit slots smaller than the AC10.
I'd say it could be something more along these lines
.................................................................................................ammo per........Rifle................AC2/5/10
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........????.........36.............2 secs................0.72secs
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......????........18...............5 secs................1.66secs
Heavy.....9.............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots.......????.......12............7 or 8 secs........2.5secs

It looks pretty extreme but when you compare the weight and crit slot amounts of AC and Rifles it might make sense.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 03 September 2016 - 11:43 PM.

[TheArisen]

Spleenslitta, on 03 September 2016 - 11:07 PM, said:

Which abilities would you select for the Rifles and Blazer to give them the edge they need to overcome their weak TT stats?
Or would you like to go down the no armor penalty path?

If the no armor penalty path i'd say the Heavy Rifle needs a much longer cooldown to make up for being 4 tons lighter and 4 crit slots smaller than the AC10.
I'd say it could be something more along these lines
.................................................................................................ammo per........Rifle................AC2/5/10
..........Damage...Heat...Range....Weight....Crit slots...Velocity.....Tonn.........Cooldowns.........Cooldowns
Light.......3.............1......360m......3tons......1 slot.........????.........36.............2 secs................0.72secs
Medium...6.............2......450m.....5tons......2 slots.......????........18...............5 secs................1.66secs
Heavy.....9.............4......540m......8tons.......3 slots.......????.......12............7 or 8 secs........2.5secs

It looks pretty extreme but when you compare the weight and crit slot amounts of AC and Rifles it might make sense.

I covered BLS before, short burn time & reduce it's heat. The ERppc is pretty rare & a weapon that's even hotter won't get used.

Rifles I'd test a reduced penalty or remove the penalty.