7 replies to this topic

[Punk Oblivion]

As many have noted, it seems that PGI have taken TT numbers to start balancing the new IS ballistic additions. I feel this was a huge mistake. These are not NEW weapons really, just expanded weapon lineups. We already have the LB10X and the UAC5. Both of which are more or less balanced for MWO over TT. The starting balance for the new weapons should be based on these already existent weapons.

So I would recommend the following (major) stats. (I added in standard AC's in the middle for reference)

LB2X: 5 ton, 1 slot, .5 heat
LB5X: 7 ton, 3 slot, 1 heat
LB10X: 11 ton, 6 slot, 2 heat
LB20X: 13 ton, 9 slot, 5 heat

AC2: 6 ton, 1 slot, .6 heat
AC5: 8 ton, 4 slot, 1.5 heat
AC10 12 ton, 7 slot, 3 heat
AC20, 14 ton, 10 slot, 6 heat

UAC2: 7 ton, 2 slot, .8 heat
UAC5: 9 ton, 5 slot, 1.9 heat
UAC10: 13 ton, 8 slot, 3.5 heat
UAC20: 15 ton, 11 slot, 7 heat

Though these stats may not work perfect. They are at least based off of a currently balanced weapon in the game, which should be a good starting point for balance!

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Not really a realistic suggestion since it will impact the fitting of future stock loadouts.

NSR-9S for instance would not be able to fit UAC20s into the arms.

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 28 June 2017 - 07:53 PM.

[MBT808]

I kinda understand the UAC 20 burst, but I think with some tweaking it could be a single shot as well, considering your going to get a weight increase, heat increase(because of the double tap and AC 20's already high heat generation) and coupled with jam chance you're getting a high risk high reward weapon overall. I think if the UAC 10 and 20 remain how they are, UAC 5's are still going to be the best choice comparatively.

I can't speak on LB's since I don't use them at all. Although overall all the weapons in the public test seem either unfinished or underpowered/useless when compared to weapons already available.

[Punk Oblivion]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 28 June 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Not really a realistic suggestion since it will impact the fitting of future stock loadouts.

NSR-9S for instance would not be able to fit UAC20s into the arms.

As it is now, LBX20 and Heavy Gauss are in the same boat currently. Them not being able to fit in future stock loadouts. I think that is more of a problem of not being able to have dynamic weapon slots. Like slots overflowing from one section to the next.... can't think of what it is called in TT right now haha.

MBT808, on 28 June 2017 - 07:57 PM, said:

I can't speak on LB's since I don't use them at all. Although overall all the weapons in the public test seem either unfinished or underpowered/useless when compared to weapons already available.

LB's are really messed up. The LBX10 keeps it's -1 ton, -1 slot, -1 heat. But all the other LB's keep their original weight and GAIN slots?!? LBX2 is 4 slots! totally silly for a weapon that spreads damage past a couple hundred meters.

Edited by Punk Oblivion, 28 June 2017 - 08:45 PM.

[Kaptain]

Delete.

Edited by Kaptain, 28 June 2017 - 09:09 PM.

[MBT808]

Kaptain, on 28 June 2017 - 09:06 PM, said:

I disagree. Dual AC20 mechs are some of the best performing close range mechs in the game. Turning every hunchback, blackjack and bushwacker into a two tap 40 damage machine is a really bad idea. And that's not even considering the Dual AC20 mechs becoming essentially quad ac20 mechs.

depends on balancing. As I said though, I don't disagree with the burst change for the UAC 20 for balancing entirely(although I think it should be a 2 shot instead of a 3 and a audio change), but if properly balanced things could change. Currently as it is, I would say everything is probably going to change from the test guaranteed(and probably delay the 3060 tech injection). The UAC 10 could be changed to a double tap single shot easily and not upset balance, considering the AC 10 category is generally avoided except of mechs with quirks or specific chassis where it makes sense.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Punk Oblivion, on 28 June 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

As it is now, LBX20 and Heavy Gauss are in the same boat currently. Them not being able to fit in future stock loadouts. I think that is more of a problem of not being able to have dynamic weapon slots. Like slots overflowing from one section to the next.... can't think of what it is called in TT right now haha.



LB's are really messed up. The LBX10 keeps it's -1 ton, -1 slot, -1 heat. But all the other LB's keep their original weight and GAIN slots?!? LBX2 is 4 slots! totally silly for a weapon that spreads damage past a couple hundred meters.

You're thinking of splitting crits.

I think the problem is that there are far fewer mechs that split crits on LB20X and Heavy Gauss than there are carrying UAC20s in the arms. Fafnir FNR-6U, for instance, carries a pair of UAC20s in the arms.

Changing fitting requirements would mess up a bunch of variants already in development, and to even permit those to work, PGI would have to code splitting crits in... at which point you might as well have not even changed the fitting requirements, because you've solved the problem of HGauss and LB20X in the arms anyways.

[Punk Oblivion]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 28 June 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

You're thinking of splitting crits.

I think the problem is that there are far fewer mechs that split crits on LB20X and Heavy Gauss than there are carrying UAC20s in the arms. Fafnir FNR-6U, for instance, carries a pair of UAC20s in the arms.

Changing fitting requirements would mess up a bunch of variants already in development, and to even permit those to work, PGI would have to code splitting crits in... at which point you might as well have not even changed the fitting requirements, because you've solved the problem of HGauss and LB20X in the arms anyways.

That's it! And I definitely see your point. Adding a new mechanic at this point does seem more convoluted than just changing stats.

The UAC20 can easily be changed to 10 slots then, and add another .5-1 ton to the weapon. Or not. I guess really my main point of THIS thread was that the values I posted in my OP was a better STARTING POINT for balancing.

Every time I look at the weapon stats they gave for the PTS, it makes my head hurt as to why they would have weapon stats scattered all over the place. Seems like a nice linear set of stats would make life easier for balancing moving forward!