36 replies to this topic

[Van Tuz]

No to the first question.
Reason is that some weapons are easier to use and therefore deliver all the potential damage than the others. SSRM can convert much more potential damage into actual damage than AC/20. It's also changes with the player skill.
Damage per ton is a good balance value and should not be normalised.

Yes to the second question. However, i severely doubt that it may make IS weapons somewhat comparable to clan tech.

[NighthawK1337]

El Bandito, on 03 February 2017 - 11:24 PM, said:

No. Because it takes 0.81 ton of AMS ammo to destroy 1 ton of LRM ammo. With AMS overload it takes less than half ton of AMS ammo to destroy 1 ton of LRM ammo. AMS is already ahead in that regard.

Basically, bring more AMS ammo, cause your opponents are bringing 8-10 tons of LRM ammo, each.

I calculated that 1 ton of AMS with overload can block about 2.14 tons of LRM. I bring like 2.5 to 3 tons each game and often I see it still not being enough. Maybe because I'm usually the only one bringing in AMS? I go with the Nova-S with 3 AMS and 30% rate of fire quirk so maybe that's also a reason why I run out of ammo so fast.

Also considering that the LRM buffs made LRM boats more common again and they usually bring between 8-10 tons like you said, it's getting harder and harder to use the AMS umbrella for extended periods in the pug queue if more than 1 LRM boat is in the enemy team(which has a really low probability). At best I can only block 1 LRM boat considering only ammo throughout the match. If only people brought more AMS. T_T

Well AMS does nullify one person so that may be called OP in a specific circumstance but I'd like to believe that people who only bring LRMs deserve to be countered, especially those 4LRM15 + Arty Warhawks or 4LRM20 + Arty Scorches. >_<

More ammo would make AMS boat Nova and Kitfox more effective, and will make other players consider AMS more in other mechs if they can save a little bit more tonnage.

[El Bandito]

NighthawK1337, on 04 February 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

I calculated that 1 ton of AMS with overload can block about 2.14 tons of LRM. I bring like 2.5 to 3 tons each game and often I see it still not being enough. Maybe because I'm usually the only one bringing in AMS? I go with the Nova-S with 3 AMS and 30% rate of fire quirk so maybe that's also a reason why I run out of ammo so fast.

People generally do not bring AMS in solo-q, cause they are either dumb, or selfish. It is a negative feedback loop since less people bringing AMS = AMS looking even more worthless than usual. You are a good person to bring AMS.

NighthawK1337, on 04 February 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

Well AMS does nullify one person so that may be called OP in a specific circumstance but I'd like to believe that people who only bring LRMs deserve to be countered, especially those 4LRM15 + Arty Warhawks or 4LRM20 + Arty Scorches. >_<

Mere 3.5-4 tons worth of equipment heavily countering 20 tons worth of weapons is already a good deal. LRMs are already too situational, no need to make it any worse. Those big LRM boats are doing their best to overcome potential AMS umbrella, and if 45-60 LRMs can't even cut through one person's AMS then you are looking at the extinction of an entire weapon group.

NighthawK1337, on 04 February 2017 - 01:38 AM, said:

More ammo would make AMS boat Nova and Kitfox more effective, and will make other players consider AMS more in other mechs if they can save a little bit more tonnage.

No. PGI had increased IS AMS from 1000 round per ton to 2000 per ton years ago, but AMS usage didn't increase. People prefer one extra heatsink or 1 more medium laser, than 1.5 ton of AMS + ammo. As I said, people are either dumb, or selfish.

Van Tuz, on 04 February 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

No to the first question.
Reason is that some weapons are easier to use and therefore deliver all the potential damage than the others. SSRM can convert much more potential damage into actual damage than AC/20. It's also changes with the player skill.

SSRM might cause more damage than AC20, but the damage is spread over 7 sections, making it much less effective against anything over 45 tons. SSRM also doesn't change much with player skill, while AC20 sure does.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 February 2017 - 02:26 AM.

[Van Tuz]

El Bandito, on 04 February 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:

Mere 3.5-4 tons worth of equipment heavily countering 20 tons worth of weapons is already a good deal.

SSRM also doesn't change much with player skill, while AC20 sure does.

Say what?
1 AMS without modules (which, let me remind you, costs 15 ton of GXP and 7 kiloton of C-bills combined) can "hard counter" LRM3. With modules - LRM5. Mechs that can bring 3 AMS is the exception, not the rule and even they can "hard counter" just LRM15. Out of IS-LRM30 or C-LRM60 that fits into said 20 tons. So increasing AMS ammo won't help to promote its use. If you showing people that single basic AMS can't do crap about missile rain then don't wonder why no one even takes it.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic.

That's what I said. Therefore normalising everything using only top-tier MLG JJ 360 no-scope AC/20 on Locust (read: 100% accuracy on anything) as a baseline will screw up low-tier players twice a day.

Edited by Van Tuz, 04 February 2017 - 02:47 AM.

[Burke IV]

I think that the drawbacks of heavy LRM use eg. ammo taking up space, your whole mech being a potential ammo explosion, running out, balance up reasonably well against the advantages. I wouldnt give LRM boats any more ammo or any more free space for more heatsinks or weapons. 1260 LRMS would turn into 1400 at +20, thats a pretty big comfort zone and alot more spam, or its 1 free ton and 1 free slot on potentially a 50 or 60 ton mech. Clans would love that.

I do think IS gets a slightly hard deal with LRMs but imagine 300 per ton on some of those archer builds that now only need half as much ammo space

[El Bandito]

Van Tuz, on 04 February 2017 - 02:45 AM, said:

Say what?
1 AMS without modules (which, let me remind you, costs 15 ton of GXP and 7 kiloton of C-bills combined) can "hard counter" LRM3. With modules - LRM5. Mechs that can bring 3 AMS is the exception, not the rule and even they can "hard counter" just LRM15. Out of IS-LRM30 or C-LRM60 that fits into said 20 tons. So increasing AMS ammo won't help to promote its use. If you showing people that single basic AMS can't do crap about missile rain then don't wonder why no one even takes it.

As I said, people are either selfish, or dumb. They do not understand how AMS can be effective when everyone bring it. Many think just because they can evade LRMs just fine, their teammates can as well, in solo-q.

Edited by El Bandito, 04 February 2017 - 02:58 AM.

[Van Tuz]

El Bandito, on 04 February 2017 - 02:57 AM, said:

As I said, people are either selfish, or dumb. They do not understand how AMS can be effective when everyone bring it.

I wouldn't called throwing out dead weight a "dumb" move.
It's quite rare to see 3 or more mechs standing in the same place (and if they do, they're just asking for an airstrike). And if they stay 50-70m away from each other then AMS effectiveness is decreased even more as missiles spend half of the time in the most AMS auras than they supposed to. Therefore AMS doesn't have any noticeable impact in the QP. If you don't use holy cover - you'll be "golden shower"ed no matter how many VFX launchers are around.

Speaking of "useless things". NARCs (especially IS) really need much more ammo per ton.

Edited by Van Tuz, 04 February 2017 - 03:34 AM.

[NighthawK1337]

Van Tuz, on 04 February 2017 - 03:32 AM, said:

I wouldn't called throwing out dead weight a "dumb" move.
It's quite rare to see 3 or more mechs standing in the same place (and if they do, they're just asking for an airstrike). And if they stay 50-70m away from each other then AMS effectiveness is decreased even more as missiles spend half of the time in the most AMS auras than they supposed to. Therefore AMS doesn't have any noticeable impact in the QP. If you don't use holy cover - you'll be "golden shower"ed no matter how many VFX launchers are around.

Speaking of "useless things". NARCs (especially IS) really need much more ammo per ton.

That's why I boat them. And stick to people who don't have AMS and/or too slow to use cover effectively. works wonders for my WLR. It's not dead weight if you have enough of them. 3 mechs with 1 AMS + overload will waste 2 extra module slots needed. So I actually prefer it that only mechs with 2-3 AMS only take them. Another thing is the inevitable scattering like you said, having all the AMS boated by 1 person will make sure that the AMS is being used to the fullest assuming that the person knows what he's doing.
Although it'll be harder to cover the whole team but LRM boats usually focus fire anyways.



I agree with the narc, 1 ton for only 12 is too few if you don't have the extra duration quirk or module. maybe 14-16 would be okay. The problem is that the weapon is too heavy to pack in with more ammo for lights. So far only mechs that really use narcs are the Raven because of the extra duration.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 04 February 2017 - 04:39 AM.

[Snazzy Dragon]

NighthawK1337, on 04 February 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:

That's why I boat them. And stick to people who don't have AMS and/or too slow to use cover effectively. works wonders for my WLR. It's not dead weight if you have enough of them. 3 mechs with 1 AMS + overload will waste 2 extra module slots needed. So I actually prefer it that only mechs with 2-3 AMS only take them. Another thing is the inevitable scattering like you said, having all the AMS boated by 1 person will make sure that the AMS is being used to the fullest assuming that the person knows what he's doing.
Although it'll be harder to cover the whole team but LRM boats usually focus fire anyways.

The issue with AMS is that you have to babysit the allies you want to protect even with range extension and quirks/modules

Babysitting an assault from LRMs only to find out they are a potato and you would have been better off shooting from a ridge than protecting the man that can't even hit an atlas consistently is not fun

[ingramli]

No to both questions.

My reasoning:
Weapons are NOT EQUAL. Each weapons have different face time, damage per salvo, and hit/miss ratio (or at least, how hard to score a hit).

IMHO, weapons that have shorter face time / higher DPS per ton, or higher single hit damage should have less dmg potential per ton to balance it off, setting them all equal does not really make sense in balancing.

Second question,
The ammo amount is not the problem, the engine shortcomings and the weapons' heat / burn time IS the problem, making another thing unbalance to solve a balance issue is never the best solution to the problem.

Edited by ingramli, 04 February 2017 - 06:33 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Van Tuz, on 04 February 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

No to the first question.
Reason is that some weapons are easier to use and therefore deliver all the potential damage than the others. SSRM can convert much more potential damage into actual damage than AC/20. It's also changes with the player skill.
Damage per ton is a good balance value and should not be normalised.

well the AC20 is a PPFLD weapon that you just need to hit and you do immense damage to a target,
SSRMs on the other hand have guaranteed Spread, so they will never do so much damage to single location,
SSRMs are only Good vs Lights and Smaller Mediums, an AC20 is good against everything, and you can fire and Twist,
yes SSRMs have better guaranteed Damage, but its not Effective Damage(its harder to kill with SSRMs than an AC20)

Van Tuz, on 04 February 2017 - 01:33 AM, said:

Yes to the second question. However, i severely doubt that it may make IS weapons somewhat comparable to clan tech.

this idea is just to elevate some of this burden,
mostly in the Weight & Crits of the Weapon System,

ingramli, on 04 February 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

No to both questions.

My reasoning:
Weapons are NOT EQUAL. Each weapons have different face time, damage per salvo, and hit/miss ratio (or at least, how hard to score a hit).

IMHO, weapons that have shorter face time / higher DPS per ton, or higher single hit damage should have less dmg potential per ton to balance it off, setting them all equal does not really make sense in balancing.

i see, so in this case you actually agree?
the weapons the benefit the most from this are the AC2 & AC5 & LRMs,
all 3 weapon Types require allot of Staring to be useful(For LRMs you dont always have a Spotter)
in this case this change does buff DPS type Weapons(AC2 / 5) more so than lets say Gauss and AC20,

ingramli, on 04 February 2017 - 06:32 AM, said:

Second question,
The ammo amount is not the problem, the engine shortcomings and the weapons' heat / burn time IS the problem, making another thing unbalance to solve a balance issue is never the best solution to the problem.

Engine balance is another issue, and such another topic,

but even if engines were equal:
IS Gauss would still be considered inferior to Clan Gauss by many,
IS LRMs would still be considered way to heavy compared to Clan LRMs by many,
this idea is just to elevate some of this burden,

[Insanity09]

Normalize weapon damage per ton between all weapon systems? No.

A missile, sr or lr, is not the same thing as a ballistic shot, mg or ac, which is not the same thing as a lump of gauss ammo. Different propellants, in some cases warheads, and guidance systems implicitly show that ammo normalization across differing weapon systems is not reasonable.

Now, normalizing for a given weapon system? Yes, I can see that.

All AC's should have the same damage per ton (I'd suggest 160 as the simplest, and closest to existing amounts (tech wise all ac's are supposed to be using the same ammo, just firing different volumes of shells.
LBX systems, being based on a different ammo type (shotgun pellets vs shells) could use a different number, but again, they should all have the same d/t. Perhaps 140 to account for the casing?
Similarly, since normal SRMs are not guideable and SSRMs are, I could see giving SSRMs less damage per ton. The guidance package must take some weight/space that isn't explosive. Perhaps 192 damage/ton(96 missiles/ton)? (which would divide nicely for SSRM 2, 4, and 6, unlike the base SRM ammo)
(And in case folks try extending this too far, artemis systems add improvements to the launcher not the missiles.)

As far as giving one faction an ammo advantage over the other, I'd have to say no.
I appreciate the thought about trying to redress the IS/Clan tech imbalance in some small way, but don't think that's the right way to go.

[NighthawK1337]

Snazzy Dragon, on 04 February 2017 - 06:09 AM, said:

The issue with AMS is that you have to babysit the allies you want to protect even with range extension and quirks/modules

Babysitting an assault from LRMs only to find out they are a potato and you would have been better off shooting from a ridge than protecting the man that can't even hit an atlas consistently is not fun

I leave them to die when I see them running **** builds like LRMs.
I admit that some are potatoes but some can actually make a difference. I got the range module too. I don't just babysit, often times I also go into LRM boat hunts, I just hide in the terrain further just below the missile arc while waiting for them to get distracted then get close and leg them.
I really need more ammo though, 5k isn't enough anymore with all the rain.

Edited by NighthawK1337, 04 February 2017 - 03:00 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Ngamok, on 03 February 2017 - 10:22 AM, said:

Gauss and AC20 Ammo only, rest are fine.

Edit: Why? Because there needs to be some trade offs for weapon systems. We don't need people to take less tonnage in ammo only to add other weapons or heat sinks or jump jets.

Well, considering that on a 16-ton free space, a Gauss only have 1 ton of ammo, an AC20 has 2 tons of ammo, an AC10 has 4 tons of ammo. etc. etc.

AC20 and Gauss are already that heavy that there would be even less tonnage for ammunition, and the AC20 is further aggravated by the part that it deals less damage/ton. I agree that weapons should have trade offs due to their classes, well GR and AC20 are already disadvantaged that they don't need this 150 damage/ton.

As for the obviously lighter series of weapons, i don't know about that since they are already can be amassed, and still have ample ammunition to boot -- and one need only to lessen the launchers for more ammunition, and less ammo consumption.

I say 200 Damage/ton for AC20, AC10 (and LBX variant), and GR (and LGR) to account for their heavy weight.

[Kuaron]

I consider all three ideas as horrible.

1) Normalized ammo balance:
No, ammo should be balanced in dependence of weapon usability. Said simple: If a weapon is shooting strong and far, its shots probably contain more gunpowder. Or, viewed from a different angle, for balance of more and less effective and versatile weapons.

I would support, though, resolving the inconsistency around AC10s with their more weight efficient ammo.

2) LRMs:
Not so heavy LRM launchers and heavy (not as weight efficient) ammo is the direction to go, not the opposite one. This way one is supporting LRMs with limited ammo as a support/secondary weapon. The other way one is supporting boating.

3) IS vs. Clan ammo weight:
A cheap way to sneak around the IS-Clan-differences and make their weapons differ in weight only nominally.
As an IS loyalist, I want balance, not equality!

[Dimento Graven]

Jman5, on 03 February 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

...I'm worried that doing that would subvert the whole advantage clans have of lighter weapons.

So, screw balance if it interferes with Clan advantage?

Quote

If you do that then you start calling into question other counter-balance systems introduced such as the stream fire, and lower hitpoints of the UAC/20 and Gauss. Or the 100% explosion rate of Gauss vs 90% for IS.

Those are already in question, and some have been for years.

I don't think it's even moot.

You can't have 'balance' mean: "Clans get most of the advantages and IS gets as few as possible."

Monkey Lover, on 03 February 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

Clans should have more ammo per ton. All Thier other weapons take up less slots and are less weight why not ammo.....

I dunno, 'cause at some point in the next decade we'd like to see a BALANCED game?

Edited by Dimento Graven, 07 February 2017 - 10:50 AM.

[Jman5]

Dimento Graven, on 07 February 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

So, screw balance if it interferes with Clan advantage?

Those are already in question, and some have been for years.

I don't think it's even moot.

You can't have 'balance' mean: "Clans get most of the advantages and IS gets as few as possible."

I dunno, 'cause at some point in the next decade we'd like to see a BALANCED game?

If you change ammo rules for IS so that it in effect creates tonnage parity between Clan and IS weapon types, then you have to start pulling back the nerfs to clan weapons that were originally put in place because Clan weapons are lighter. You can't have both on top of the Quirks or you do screw balance.

This is why I'm in favor of the 200 damage per ton rule across the board, but against the IS getting 300 damage per ton. You're opening a whole can of worms there.