11 replies to this topic

[Felicitatem Parco]

Okay, wild question - would game balance suffer or improve if the Inner Sphere AC/10 was only 6 slots?

Would it hurt the game by making Inner Sphere Mechs more potent, or would it help the game by making Inner Sphere Mechs more potent?

It could not possibly "break" any builds due to construction rules, and it would not affect any TRO loadouts. It would just give the Inner Sphere the ability to mount 2 of them in a St with a Standard Engine (not with XL or LFE).

Would this help or hurt the game?

Edited by Prosperity Park, 03 March 2017 - 03:40 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prosperity Park, on 03 March 2017 - 03:38 PM, said:

Okay, wild question - would game balance suffer or improve if the Inner Sphere AC/10 was only 6 slots?

Would it hurt the game by making Inner Sphere Mechs more potent, or would it help the game by making Inner Sphere Mechs more potent?

balance? Not really. Break a few builds... maybe a little (though not in an "it won't work/fit" sort of way).

Bigger issue is the habit this community has of being offered an inch and then demanding a mile. Start modifying the basic physical stats of one weapon...people will start clamoring to have whatever their pet weapon is modified, likewise.

So, more worried about the inevitable Pandora's box of gamer entitlement than any base balance issues.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 March 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

balance? Not really. Break a few builds... maybe a little (though not in an "it won't work/fit" sort of way).

Bigger issue is the habit this community has of being offered an inch and then demanding a mile. Start modifying the basic physical stats of one weapon...people will start clamoring to have whatever their pet weapon is modified, likewise.

So, more worried about the inevitable Pandora's box of gamer entitlement than any base balance issues.

Hey, changing heat, damage, range, etc. is basically the same as changing size and tons. In BattleTech, you can load 2 LBX 10s in a side torso to get a couple slug guns, but we can't do that in MWO...

So making the AC/10 into a 6 slot weapon would make the game more like BattleTech.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prosperity Park, on 03 March 2017 - 03:48 PM, said:

Hey, changing heat, damage, range, etc. is basically the same as changing size and tons. In BattleTech, you can load 2 LBX 10s in a side torso to get a couple slug guns, but we can't do that in MWO...

So making the AC/10 into a 6 slot weapon would make the game more like BattleTech.

heat and damage don't change physical stats of a mech, crits and tons do. Especially tons. Losing crits, again, not as huge an issue, losing tonnage? Sort of is. That is about the only baseline this game actually has.

[FupDup]

Game balance would very very slightly improve, because the AC/10 is a little sub-par and has been for basically its whole life.

It wouldn't really help very much, though. The weapon's critslot size is not what holds it back. Having the same size as the Gauss Rifle makes no sense, but it's not a big issue.

The real issue is a combination of tonnage, damage, velocity, and cooldown that doesn't give the weapon a clearly defined role. It tries to do several things but doesn't excel at any.

[Bishop Steiner]

FupDup, on 03 March 2017 - 03:57 PM, said:

Game balance would very very slightly improve, because the AC/10 is a little sub-par and has been for basically its whole life.

It wouldn't really help very much, though. The weapon's critslot size is not what holds it back. Having the same size as the Gauss Rifle makes no sense, but it's not a big issue.

The real issue is a combination of tonnage, damage, velocity, and cooldown that doesn't give the weapon a clearly defined role. It tries to do several things but doesn't excel at any.

being able to fit 2x real ac10, instead of LB10s would be useful in some builds, if not exactly meta changing.

Real truth is the AC10 should have the base stats of the LB10x to begin with, but a little late for that. (and if anything the LB10X shoudl be heavier and fatter, since it has better range and switch fire, for less heat)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 03 March 2017 - 04:08 PM.

[Bilbo]

I might take a couple in place of an AC/20 in that case but ammo would be an issue. The only reason I don't do it with LBX/10 now is that by the time I get into a range where the pellet spread isn't an issue It just makes more sense to shoot a single AC/20 followed by SRMs. With a couple smaller AC/10s, I'd probably have to ditch the SRMs in order to take enough ammo to make use of the range.

[Jman5]

Well you would be cutting into the LB10X niche. Whether or not that's a big deal is debatable.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about the state of the Clan LBX slot sizes. It's nonsense that they are bigger than their Clan UAC counterparts.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jman5, on 03 March 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

Well you would be cutting into the LB10X niche. Whether or not that's a big deal is debatable.

To be honest, I'm more concerned about the state of the Clan LBX slot sizes. It's nonsense that they are bigger than their Clan UAC counterparts.

honestly feel the later IS LBX were largely done right by getting bigger, instead of them all being smaller than std ACs like in the case of the 10x. UACs, at least IS; you pay for in tonnage, but it does seem a bit silly that an rapid cycling enhanced autoloading mechanism would take up less space than shotgun. I guess the switch feed for ammo could account for it. It's mostly the IS LB10X that is out of whack IMO.

[El Bandito]

It costs 12 tons. I'd rather boat U/AC5s instead. With its heavy weight and the requirement of a Std engine to mount 2 in a ST slot--even after OP's proposed buffs, there is really nothing much to rejoice about (Clans can mount two CUAC10s with their superior XL engine, and still have more slots to spare!)

Edited by El Bandito, 03 March 2017 - 07:28 PM.

[Palor]

I always wished the Boars Head was 2 ballistics instead of how it is now...ah one can dream.