LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 07 June 2017 - 12:19 PM
Shifty McSwift, on 07 June 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:
Have they released the stats for the civil war weapons? Or are you basing this on something else?
Given how close PGI has stuck to TT stats for most weapons when introduced, I'm using the TT stats as the base. The two things PGI has not done in regards to TT weapon stats has been to adjust the weight and crit slot requirements.
For example, the Gauss Rifle for both Clan and IS are identical to their TT stats, in terms of tonnage, crit slots, damage, heat and maximum optimal range (long range in TT). So using TT as a base line to go from, it gives us a good idea of where these future weapons are going to fit in so to speak with in the current line up. For example, the IS UAC/20 is going to be a side grade to the AC/20, trading PPFLD for a slight weight increase (1t) as well as a likely burst fire mode to get a double tap, that is a reasonable trade. The LB-20X by comprison to the UAC/20 is just out right inferior in MWO, because it lacks the one ability that required the one crit slot increase in size, dual fire modes (Canister Shot and Slug Shot). The LB-2X is going to be trash heap, it goes from a 1 slot weapon to a 4 slot weapon without changing weight, the LB-5X gains 1 slot becoming the same size as a UAC/5 with about the ability to have PPFLD.
Given how close PGI has stuck to TT stats for most weapons when introduced, I'm using the TT stats as the base. The two things PGI has not done in regards to TT weapon stats has been to adjust the weight and crit slot requirements.
OK, that's a fair point/assessment, but aside from making feedback posts about it and hoping they read it we really are just stuck in that "we'll have to wait and see" position, which sucks but is part of the system of ongoing development in ways. The benefit there is at least with an ongoing system, there is room for change to mechanics in the future.
So, I guess let your specific concerns be heard, in a place that is most likely to be seen, it's all we can do for now.
LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 07 June 2017 - 12:55 PM
Shifty McSwift, on 07 June 2017 - 12:37 PM, said:
OK, that's a fair point/assessment, but aside from making feedback posts about it and hoping they read it we really are just stuck in that "we'll have to wait and see" position, which sucks but is part of the system of ongoing development in ways. The benefit there is at least with an ongoing system, there is room for change to mechanics in the future.
So, I guess let your specific concerns be heard, in a place that is most likely to be seen, it's all we can do for now.
All very true and valid points, there are other concerns as well, such as the IS ERSL, the current IS SLas is already an ERSL with out the ER in front of it, so what are they going to do for it? Nerf the SLas in to the ground or buff the IS ERSL into a beast?
A lot of focus is being given to things like LFE's that will not solve the engine imbalance, just render the Standard obsolete in 95% of all cases, rather than looking at other issues, like where does it seem like PGI is going to put the Ghost Heat limit at for Heavy Lasers for the Clans, how are they going to go about ghost head on LPPC's and HPPCs? With out aiming works in MWO, you are better off (if you've got the hard point count per location) to take 3 LPPC's (9t and 6 crits) over one HPPC (10T and 4 crits) to get 15 PPFLD for 15 heat. How are they going to handle the large bore IS UAC/s (10 and 20), there is reasonable argument for both single shell and burst, I would like to think burst is more likely.
In short, there are a lot of unknowns going into the tech update, but we can at least draw a baseline of how equipment should stack up by looking at the history of the equipment, while at the same time taking into account MWO's mechanics. The announced ramping damage and damage fall off of the ATM's was predicted by members of the community by doing the very thing I am suggesting, looking at history (TT) and looking at current mechanics (MWO), then extrapolating that information to figure out a a likely outcome.
Energy:
- Pulse Lasers have reduced cooldown, but also reduce damge and heat, so you would need more face time for higher dps (dakka like ACs)
- ER and Heavy lasers have still longer burn durations
- all PPCs have unique splash per range
I've tried to make each PPC unique and make HPPC a mix of multiple profiles that is worth taking over combining any of the other PPCs (e.g. LPPCs with PPCs).
PPC / LPPC
ERPPC / SNPPC
CERPPC / HPPC
PPCs are great for mid-long range and have 0 dmg min range LPPCs have constant ratio and 0 dmg min range (so they are less efficient on mid-long range) ERPPCs have highest direct damage (100%) on long-extreme only and have high splash on shorter range CERPPCs is using increasing direct damage, but has good averages HPPCs have some splash at min range, but get high direct damage overall (more than combinations of other types) SNPPCs start with high direct damage but drop off quickly and also have a shorter range and damage drop
Skill tree can spec 25% auto-charge time and/or splash bonus damage increase
Ballistics:
- all ACs use more bullets which increases difficulty to bring all damage on target
- Gauss requires longer charges which increases difficulty to use in brawl efficiently (might not be enough to prevent Gauss of beeing the only good PPFLD weapon) + 2 more heat
Missiles:
- longer cooldown for all missiles
- Stream-fire every missile
- Missile velocity increased for LRM/MRM + can skill velocity and volley duration
- (optional for more skill dependency) Streak/LRM lock mechanic changed to aquire 5 target components (e.g. 2x LT, 1x CT, 1x RT, 1x RL) for each 5 missiles.
Missile volley stats:
IS LRM 0.3s volley duration per 5 missiles
Clan LRM 0.75s volley duration per 5 missiles
MRM 0.25s volley duration per 5 missiles
ATM 0.2s volley duration per 3 missiles
SRM/SSRM 0.15s volley duration per 2 missiles
Missile cooldowns:
Spoiler
LRM5 5.5s cd
LRM10 6s cd
LRM15 6.5s cd
LRM20 7s cd
cLRM5 7s cd
cLRM10 7.5s cd
cLRM15 8s cd
cLRM20 8.5s cd
Strangely enough, they kept PPC and LRM min range, yet didn't include it for AC/5 or AC/2.
Of course, in TT it was an accuracy penalty, not damage.
IS XL will become mostly obsolete with the Light Fusion engine, as it gives Clan XL survivability. The big issue is that MWO robots don't damage model a lot of stuff, including a lot of stuff that kills a Clan robot as much as an IS one.
You can't damage actuators, which would cripple or disable a robot well before MWO does.
You can't kill a gyro, which would be a mobility kill.
You can't damage engines, which would mean even a Clan robot could be downed with merely internal damage, rather than blowing both ST's off, nor can it be effectively crippled by taking out a ST engine section before internals = zero.
Sensor damage doesn't exist. Nor can you cockpit-shoot a target, only destroy the entire head. Nor does pilot damage exist, which enough ammo explosions would jello a pilot with CASE or not.
If there were more vital spots, Clan XL wouldn't be nearly as big a thing.
The whole XL balancing debacle should've been remedied ages ago. I know, I know, my idea of how to do it moves us away from how it's done in the TT, but who cares.
C-XL: No penalty on ST loss, death on 2nd ST loss
IS-XL: Penalty similar to current C-XL on ST loss, death on 2nd ST loss
IS-LFE: No penalty on ST loss, death on 2nd ST loss
Simply put, the difference between a healthy and a crippled 'Mech is far smaller than the difference between a crippled and a dead 'Mech. This also gives the IS a bit of granularity in their choices. Yes, the C-XL is still going to be objectively superior, but the difference is going to be smaller and since PGI has been compensating for IS-XL's killing you on ST loss, that'd put most IS 'Mechs running them in a pretty good spot (might even need to revert some quirks on some of the better chassis).
2
Shifty McSwift, on 07 June 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:
