27 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

Zergling, on 03 March 2017 - 10:13 PM, said:

I expect the following weapons, as they aren't too complicated to implement (don't require ammo swapping for example):

Inner Sphere weapons:
ER Medium Laser
ER Small Laser
LBX2
LBX5
LBX20
UAC2
UAC10
UAC20
Streak SRM4
Streak SRM6
MRM10
MRM20
MRM30
MRM40
Light Gauss
Heavy Gauss
Light PPC
Heavy PPC
Light Machinegun
Heavy Machinegun


And for Clans:
Heavy Small Laser
Heavy Medium Laser
Heavy Large Laser
ER Small Pulse Laser
ER Medium Pulse Laser
ER Large Pulse Laser
Hyper Assault Gauss 20
Hyper Assault Gauss 30
Hyper Assault Gauss 40
Light Machinegun
Heavy Machinegun


MRMs would basically be longer ranged SRMs, but due to spread I expect the larger launchers would have awful damage/weight efficiency at medium range.
The MRM10 would basically be a replacement for SRM6 racks; bit less damage, but much better range.
The larger MRM launchers would be there to give mechs with few missile hardpoints a strong close range punch, comparable to a SRM vomit build but without requiring so many hardpoints. Eg, it'd only take 2 missile hardpoints for 60 or 80 MRMs, giving comparable damage output to five or six SRM6s.

Hyper Assault Gauss are simple enough; they are just LBX Gauss.

Heavy Lasers would be balanced against other clan lasers by having longer beam duration; I wouldn't be surprised if they hit 1.8 or even 2.0 second durations.

ER Pulse Lasers I'm not sure of; would they actually offer anything useful? They'd be simple enough to add, but would there be any point?

I don't know what Clan missile weapons can be added; ATMs would be complicated to implement, as they'd either require ammo swapping or multiple range/damage increments (and they'd be difficult to balance versus both LRMs and SRMs on top of that), and Streak LRMs would be kinda pointless (can't be fired indirectly, much worse damage/weight efficiency than regular LRMs).

I want RACs, MRMs and MMs, Heavy Lasers, ER for IS other lasers, Snub-Nosed PPC.

[Zergling]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:10 PM, said:

I want RACs, MRMs and MMs, Heavy Lasers, ER for IS other lasers, Snub-Nosed PPC.

RACs are a possibility, but how could they be implemented? In TT they are essentially just 'super-UACs'; even greater rate but greater probability of jamming (plus shorter range).
The heavily-RNG based UAC jamming in MWO isn't exactly a good feature, so I don't know if I'd ever want to use RACs with even greater probability of jamming.
And if RAC5s can get off a full 6 round burst without jamming... that's 30 damage per RAC5. Imagine a triple or quad RAC5 mech; the alpha damage would be insane.

They could be done, but I don't know if they could work as 'super-UACs' in MWO.


Mech Mortars? They'd basically be inferior LRMs that only have the benefit of being immune to AMS. I just don't know what they'd add to the game.


Snub-Nosed PPC... that one is slightly more difficult to add than a Light or Heavy PPC as it'd have to have a damage drop programmed in.
However, the damage drop could be done with MWO's existing damage-drop... lemme math it out.

Letsee, TT SN-PPC does 10 damage at 0 to 9 hex range (0 to 270 meters), 8 damage at 10 to 13 hex range (300 to 390 meters), and 5 damage at 14 to 15 hex range (420 to 450 meters).

The SN-PPC in MWO would have 10 damage, effective range of 270 meters, and a maximum range of 630 meters. At 450 meters range (half way between 270 and 630 meters), it'd be doing 5 damage.

...that honestly sounds kinda weak; it could probably use some sort of buff to work in MWO.

[The6thMessenger]

Zergling, on 03 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

RACs are a possibility, but how could they be implemented? In TT they are essentially just 'super-UACs'; even greater rate but greater probability of jamming (plus shorter range).
The heavily-RNG based UAC jamming in MWO isn't exactly a good feature, so I don't know if I'd ever want to use RACs with even greater probability of jamming.
And if RAC5s can get off a full 6 round burst without jamming... that's 30 damage per RAC5. Imagine a triple or quad RAC5 mech; the alpha damage would be insane.

They could be done, but I don't know if they could work as 'super-UACs' in MWO.

Look man, this ain't table-top, this is mechwarriors. We can be inspired by tabletop, but you can't just slap TT values here and expect it to be balanced, we can aim better here for crying out loud, and we don't need to take turns in doing ****. et-*******-c.

The6thMessenger, on 15 January 2017 - 08:28 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rotary_AC/5
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Rotary_AC/2

RAC has 6x the firing rate as a normal AC, while it has 3x the firing rate than a UAC. The problem is that it's obvious that 6x DPS of the standard AC is totally nuts for it's tonnage and slots. That's like 16.66666666666667 for a 3-slot 8-ton weapon, 4-slots for clan.

So my idea is that, it would have crazy rate of fire sure, but instead of dealing 2 damage each shot, it deals a total of 2 damage at a flurry of shots, while it's DPS is not a direct multiplication of the AC2, but it's DPS should reflect upon it's tonnage counterpart, with a bit of a bonus.

Needless to say while it says "RAC2", it's direct counterpart would have been "AC5" to account for it's tonnage, plus extra DPS to make it worth while. So the rationale is that it has 3x more DPS than the net of the UAC5, to account for it's extra face-time. Their damage rating is not per-shot damage, instead anchored on their DPS.

--------------------
UAC/5: On average jams every 6.67 shots fired in cooldown resulting in a 5 second jam time: 6 shots (first shot + 6.67 fast shots) * 5 damage / (6.67 * 0.83 seconds + 5 seconds jam) = 38.33 damage / 10.5361 seconds = 3.638 dps

- http://mwo.gamepedia...ra_Autocannon_5
--------------------

The Current Effective DPS of the UAC5 is 3.184586369338905, and the current DPS of AC5 is 3.01, so i would say that the sweet spot would have been at of effective chance: 3.533759108016715 that already took the jam chance into account, which the additional DPS is 3x.

Another main change is that as opposed of it relying on "recycle time", it uses "Rate of fire", that is because it's a larger "Machine Gun" than an auto-cannon instead, and would not use the "Ballistic Cooldown" Quirk, and would either have it's own CD/Spread quirk, or share with Machine Gun CD/Spread quirk.

--------------------
RAC2:

Range: 540m
Damage: 1
DPS: 3.544061302681992
Burst Threshold: 6
Rate of Fire: 0.12s
Jam Chance: 3s
Jam Duration: 8%
Jam Cooldown: 1.66
Ammo/ton = 150
--------------------

So to get the ROF with supposed jam chance, we simply change the equation with respect to targeted EDPS. Now for the sake of clarity, the burst threshold is amount of shots with 0% chance to jam, this is so that an amount of damage, in this case 6, is ensured before any jamming occurs. Think of it as Flamer gauge, that it won't incur heat-penalty until it's filled -- it's like that except it's jam-chance kicking in. The Jam Cooldown shows the duration which the burst threshold is regained, where one must cease firing for 1.66s for the next 6 shots to not have any jam chance once more, or 0.267s/ 1 shot if it's a continually refilling gauge.

18.5 DMG (1 damage x [6 (jam free shot) + 12.5 (jam-chance shot)]) / 5.23521820093247 Net Seconds = 3.533759108016715 DPS

5.235218200932471 - 3 (Jam Duration) = 2.235218200932471 (18.5 shots within a duration, w/o jam duration) = 0.1208226054558092s Rate of fire.

Rounding that off, the new ROF is 0.12s, and EDPS is recalculated. 18.5 / 5.22 = 3.544061302681992 DPS

That's a good DPS right? it's in between the DPS of UAC5 and AC10, with respect to it's tonnage.

Simmilarly, RAC5, should be in between AC20 and AC10 with respect with it's weight of 10 ton in terms of DPS, so that is like 4.5 EDPS right?

--------------------
RAC5:

Range: 450m
Damage: 2
DPS: 4.5
Burst Threshold: 6
Rate of Fire: 0.11s
Jam Chance: 4s
Jam Duration: 10%
Jam Cooldown: 2.5s
Ammo/ton: 75
--------------------

32 DMG (2 damage x [6 (jam free shot) + 10 (jam-chance shot)]) / 7.111111... Net Seconds = 4.5 DPS

7.111111..... - 4 = 3.11111.....

16 shots done over / 3.11111..... = 5.142857142857143 shots/sec = 0.194444....s rate of fire.

Rounding that to 0.18s, the new DPS would be at 32 / 6.88 = 4.651162790697674 EDPS.

I had this idea previously.

Zergling, on 03 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Mech Mortars? They'd basically be inferior LRMs that only have the benefit of being immune to AMS. I just don't know what they'd add to the game.

I'm okay with an AC projectile with splash damage, and steep arc. We had a thread for brainstorming previously: https://mwomercs.com...ars-any-ideasi/

Zergling, on 03 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

Snub-Nosed PPC... that one is slightly more difficult to add than a Light or Heavy PPC as it'd have to have a damage drop programmed in.
However, the damage drop could be done with MWO's existing damage-drop... lemme math it out.

Letsee, TT SN-PPC does 10 damage at 0 to 9 hex range (0 to 270 meters), 8 damage at 10 to 13 hex range (300 to 390 meters), and 5 damage at 14 to 15 hex range (420 to 450 meters).

The SN-PPC in MWO would have 10 damage, effective range of 270 meters, and a maximum range of 630 meters. At 450 meters range (half way between 270 and 630 meters), it'd be doing 5 damage.

...that honestly sounds kinda weak; it could probably use some sort of buff to work in MWO.

Well, it's just a lighter, shorter range PPC that could be mounted on lighter mechs, you don't need to expect much -- you might as well worry about micro-lasers having only 90 meters of effective range, DUH they are "micro". It could have only 3s of CD. Likewise it could be put at 360m instead -- since MWO need not to completely follow TT rules.

Also Light Gauss Rifles! I want Light Gauss Rifles.

[Zergling]

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Look man, this ain't table-top, this is mechwarriors. We can be inspired by tabletop, but you can't just slap TT values here and expect it to be balanced, we can aim better here for crying out loud, and we don't need to take turns in doing ****. et-*******-c.

Well yeah, but this is PGI we're talking about; they aren't the most imaginative or innovative sorts when it comes to thinking about things like this.

It's why I'm not confident of ATMs being implemented; PGI haven't demonstrated the sort of ability to implement complicated stuff like that in the past.

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

I'm okay with an AC projectile with splash damage, and steep arc. We had a thread for brainstorming previously: https://mwomercs.com...ars-any-ideasi/

That'd make missile hardpoints a lot more versatile.

Another idea would be for Mech Mortars to only use air-burst rounds, giving them a low-damage, area of effect damaging ability.
Sorta like a weak artillery strike.

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Well, it's just a lighter, shorter range PPC that could be mounted on lighter mechs, you don't need to expect much -- you might as well worry about micro-lasers having only 90 meters of effective range, DUH they are "micro". It could have only 3s of CD. Likewise it could be put at 360m instead -- since MWO need not to completely follow TT rules.

Yeah, if the SN-PPC had effective range of 360 meters, or even 400 meters, it'd be a good weapon.

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Also Light Gauss Rifles! I want Light Gauss Rifles.

Same here; I just hope they won't have 0.75 second charge up time and such a slow rate of fire.

I'm hoping for no more than 0.25 second charge time time (preferably none) and a faster rate of fire than the regular gauss; hopefully no more than 3.50 second cooldown (preferably 3.00 seconds).

Edited by Zergling, 04 March 2017 - 12:18 AM.

[The6thMessenger]

Zergling, on 04 March 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

Well yeah, but this is PGI we're talking about; they aren't the most imaginative or innovative sorts when it comes to thinking about things like this.

It's why I'm not confident of ATMs being implemented; PGI haven't demonstrated the sort of ability to implement complicated stuff like that in the past.

If that's the case, yeah.

Zergling, on 04 March 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

That'd make missile hardpoints a lot more versatile.

Another idea would be for Mech Mortars to only use air-burst rounds, giving them a low-damage, area of effect damaging ability.
Sorta like a weak artillery strike.

Kind of the point really. Anything to break the campers.

Zergling, on 04 March 2017 - 12:05 AM, said:

Same here; I just hope they won't have 0.75 second charge up time and such a slow rate of fire.

I'm hoping for no more than 0.25 second charge time time (preferably none) and a faster rate of fire than the regular gauss; hopefully no more than 3.50 second cooldown (preferably 3.00 seconds).

I'm okay with just 0.25 second charge, but rather i'm fine if it's just a weapon that capitalizes on long range, and quite possibly good damage/ton ammo. Like 810m - 1620m, 10 damage, and 2650 projectile speed, and 200 damage/ton ammo. That's an ok deal for me.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 04 March 2017 - 01:13 AM.

[Requiemking]

Hmm, MRMs could be a slight issue. After all, a 10 damage weapon for the same weight as an SRM6? Granted, MRMs could be balanced out, but still.....

[Hit the Deck]

Requiemking, on 04 March 2017 - 12:27 AM, said:

Hmm, MRMs could be a slight issue. After all, a 10 damage weapon for the same weight as an SRM6? Granted, MRMs could be balanced out, but still.....

You are looking at the wrong MRM because SRM6 does 12.9 damage (12 for the Clan version).

[Alan Davion]

Zergling, on 03 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

RACs are a possibility, but how could they be implemented? In TT they are essentially just 'super-UACs'; even greater rate but greater probability of jamming (plus shorter range).

The heavily-RNG based UAC jamming in MWO isn't exactly a good feature, so I don't know if I'd ever want to use RACs with even greater probability of jamming.

And if RAC5s can get off a full 6 round burst without jamming... that's 30 damage per RAC5. Imagine a triple or quad RAC5 mech; the alpha damage would be insane.

The really big problem here is, autocannons are supposed to be rapid fire weapons. Period.

Right now only the Clan ACs/UACs are proper rapid fire weapons, while IS are single shot PPFLD, which is complete anathema to the implementation of IS RACs.

As I understand ACs in the lore, normal ACs have a fixed firing rate, but are still at risk of jamming, UACs fire twice as fast, and RACs fire six times as fast. UACs and RACs have an apropriately increased risk of jamming due to their increased firing rates.

So quite honestly, PGI are going to have to change IS ACs to burst fire weapons like the Clan ACs if they have any hopes of implementing RACs in any proper fashion.

Unless they plan on just allowing us to fire an RAC round as fast as we can click our mouse buttons until... Ooops, you jammed up, have fun waiting ten times longer than a UAC to un-jam.

That being said, in terms of damage, they'd have to step that back accordingly in order to avoid RACs from becoming ridiculously overpowered.

For instance, if a standard IS AC2 were to be changed to a five round burst, similar to ACs work in lore, the damage would have to be reduced to 0.4 per round down from 2 as they are now. The same would apply to all class 2 ACs.

Class 5 ACs would be reduced to 1 damage per round.

The reason an RAC5 had a 5 damage per shot in TT was because your hits were determined by the roll of the dice, so you were just as likely to miss as you were to blow the head off a mech with one shot.

Obviously since we have PPPPA (pixel-perfect-pin-point-aiming), leaving an RAC5 at 5 damage per actual round would be LUDICROUSLY OP. So, due to the FPS style mechanics, some weapons have to take a hefty nerf to their damage output.

The6thMessenger, on 03 March 2017 - 11:53 PM, said:

Look man, this ain't table-top, this is mechwarriors. We can be inspired by tabletop, but you can't just slap TT values here and expect it to be balanced, we can aim better here for crying out loud, and we don't need to take turns in doing ****. et-*******-c.

And that FPS style aiming is exactly why we have half the problems with the game currently. Particularly the pixel-perfect-pin-point-aiming. That's part and parcel of what lead to the doubled armor/structure values we have currently.

Coupled with the absurdly over generous heat scale we have that allows people to fire alpha strikes way too often compared to how it was done in TT.

Yes you could build your mechs to be heat neutral in TT just like you can here, but that doesn't mean you should be able to do it all the time either. I'd be willing to bet such builds heavily altered the BV of mechs in TT.