347 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

The Lighthouse, on 08 June 2018 - 11:15 PM, said:

And please no "then we will have obsolete weapons!". We already have plenty of obsolete weapons, like Clan ACs, standard engine except for heavy gauss builds and etc. Just when was last time someone was using normal IS Small Lasers?

You know, the whole point of this thread is to fix those weapons in particular. =3

[Dogstar]

Tarogato, on 08 June 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

This is just my personal opinion:

I prefer things the way they are. I like how Clan engines, DHS, Endo, and Ferro are better. The result is that the mechs are built differently. So IS must be stronger in different areas, such as durability, or the manner in which their weapons deal damage (duration, spread, velocity, shellcount, etc) It's a fundamentally different philosophy between the factions. It would be a shame to lose this by changing the properties of these fundamental equipment.

I'm sorry but I think that this demonstrates that you're not suitable to be the spokesperson arguing for these changes.

Difference is good and there should be differences between the technologies but if you can't see that having the basics be significantly better for one side is a bad thing then you're too biased to provide a balanced balance.

Combined with the 'meh' level of these proposed changes I don't think that this proposal should be supported by the 'community' as it doesn't address any fundamental problems and thus is just tweaking for the sake of tweaking.

Edited by Dogstar, 08 June 2018 - 11:50 PM.

[A Dummy]

Khobai, on 08 June 2018 - 10:30 PM, said:

Given that CACs are entirely made up weapons to begin with, theres no reason PGI cant reduce the number of crit slots they take up by -1, so they at least arnt bulkier than CUACs. That doesnt violate canon crit slot values because they dont technically exist in battletech. And then just make them single shot but with a longer cooldown and higher heat than ISACs. And both ISACs and CACs should have better range and velocity than their UAC counterparts.

Technically to my understanding, the Clan ACs are supposed to represent the Clan LBXs just with Slug rounds, and for some reason they don't call them LBX-Slug because I guess to avoid confusion or something, which is why they take the same amount of slots as the LBX Cannons.
The part they did make up though is them having to fire multiple shots in a row, canonically they should fire just a single Slug shot like the IS ACs, even if that meant nerfing something else like you mentioned.


On the balance changes themselves, like last time I overall like the look of the changes shown, though I personally have some nitpicks on a few changes, or more specifically the lack of certain changes.

UAC/2 (Both IS and Clan)
I feel like these run too hot even compared to the other UACs, just look at the DMG/Heat on them, I think if they were toned down a little to 0.7 heat they would feel a lot better.
The heat increase from a standard AC/2 to an Ultra is actually higher than the heat increase that the AC/5 gets to Ultra, going from 0.5 heat to 0.8 vs 1.4 to 1.66 or a heat increase of 0.3 vs 0.26, and you really feel that heat increase on the UAC/2s since they fire a little more than twice as fast than UAC/5s.

MRM10
I feel like these ones specifically run too hot compared to the other missiles, I think 3.5 heat would be better for them while still keeping the theme of the lightest missile of the group being the least heat efficient, but not quite so extreme as it is right now. (Or at least 3.75 heat if 3.5 would step on the toes of the MRM 30, or somewhere inbetween.)
Currently 1 MRM 40 still generates less heat than 3 MRM 10s, as the MRM 40 only generates 11.5 heat while 3 MRM 10s generate 12 heat, basically I wanna see 3 MRM 10s generate somewhere around 10~ heat per volley so it's closer to the MRM 30 without surpassing it.

Snub-Nose PPC
I like the changes brought up, but honestly one thing I'd like to see for these is to raise their max range to 3x optimal range or 810 max range so that way they can still poke good at medium range with a long range tickle.
Really the main reason I wanna see this change is mostly just for lore reasons, as in lore the Snub-Nose PPC has almost the same range as a standard PPC at 15 max range vs 18 max range, just that it also has a much faster damage drop-off.
Again though, I mostly just want this as a flavor buff, and it seems like it wouldn't hurt to let it be ok in medium range fights since the darn thing still weighs 6 tons and generates a nice chuck of heat, and it wouldn't make it surpass any of the IS Large Lasers either.

Personal nitpicks/Whines
I still want Flamers to do some level of damage, like 0.5 or even 0.3 if that's too much, which is still a lot weaker than the damage LMGs put out and at a shorter range at only 90.
I also still kinda personally wish the Clan ERPPC could just have its splash damage removed in favor of buffing the CD and Heat back again.
Or perhaps keep the CERPPC the way it is and instead add a new Clan PPC like the Enhanced ERPPC that could trade the made up splash damage for better direct damage or something, I just want to different options on Clan like I get for IS. (Clan HAGs when please? )
In either case though, I can respect the comments given for both cases of not wanting Flamers to get outta control since they already heat up mechs, and not wanting to touch CERPPCs since they're already performing fine in their niche, just wanted to throw out my personal whines on these anyway. (PS, I still think ATMs could use an ammo buff to 120, grumble grumble. )

Again though, overall I like the changes presented and think it would make for an overall improvement to the game as someone that uses both IS and Clan mechs, even if I have some slight differing opinions on the details.
I give it a +1 o7

[The Lighthouse]

Tarogato, on 08 June 2018 - 11:19 PM, said:

You know, the whole point of this thread is to fix those weapons in particular. =3

I doubt it, since just like previous suggestion, this whole balancesheet does not deviate from "IS for short, cool. Clan for long, hot" mentality that really has not worked at all. Not to mention this direction also caused massive imbalance on each game modes (QP, Solaris and FP).


Timberwolf is probably the biggest victim. It was used to be a very good brawler, but as balance changes went, the Clan weaponry became just way too hot compared to IS counterpart, and without any decent quirks and recent agility nerf, Timber is utterly useless compared to other Clan mechs. The fact is Clan has been kept losing competitive brawling mechs for a long time, and now the whole Solaris is dominated by IS mechs, such as Vindicator.

Except Vindicator is not that great for rest of the mode because brawling is not so great idea on other modes.

But at the same time you we would not make Clan stuffs too cool, otherwise ranged high-alpha Clan mechs get massive benefit as well.

The balance suggestions you guys made still rely on heavy defensive IS quirks and still encased on the idea of "IS for short, cool. Clan for long, hot", which only creates outliners and unbalanced modes.

I think you are underestimating how heavy IS stuffs are and how light Clan stuffs are. Not only that, IS stuffs also take more slots than Clan ones (which is IMO the bigger problem than other issues like XL engine and tonnage issues).

In order to solve this issue, pretty much everything has to be changed; from XL engine death, Endo/Ferro slots, weapon stuffs, silly heatsink balances (now PGI is basically doing... only because for Stock mech MWOWC... lol..), and of course all of those quirk balance for each mechs.

Or we can go short route. Bring mixtech, then we can skip pretty much everything else except balance quirks, which still take a long time but would be still better than trying to fix everything.

[Tarogato]

Davegt27, on 08 June 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

if you guys get to ask them
why did they change the Jager??

Are you talking about the arm HP nerf?

Heck if I know. That's a dartboard change if there ever was one. Even for consistency they could have applied the same change to the Rifleman, Blackjack, Locust, Raven, Osiris, Urbie, Uziel, Shadow Cat, Sun Spider...

Off-topic, btw. =P

Dogstar, on 08 June 2018 - 11:50 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I think that this demonstrates that you're not suitable to be the spokesperson arguing for these changes.

Difference is good and there should be differences between the technologies but if you can't see that having the basics be significantly better for one side is a bad thing then you're too biased to provide a balanced balance.

You might have noticed that I specifically began that statement of opinion with, "This is just my personal opinion".

You can dislike my personal opinion. That's fine.

Or you can call into question my ability to be fair and unbiased when I need to be for the purposes of this project. I would take affront to that accusation, because I assure I am doing the best that I can when it comes putting suggestions into the doc and collecting feedback.

If you want to attack the proposal, attack the suggestions in the proposal itself.


fwiw, you know, I object strongly to the reduction of clan laser damage values, and I would personally much rather see all burn durations increased instead. I have posted about this many times, and argued vehemently for it. But that is not what you see in the doc because it is my solution and I accept that my solution is not always the solution that everybody else wants.

Dogstar, on 08 June 2018 - 11:50 PM, said:

Combined with the 'meh' level of these proposed changes I don't think that this proposal should be supported by the 'community' as it doesn't address any fundamental problems and thus is just tweaking for the sake of tweaking.

I have two separate questions:

A: Which changes do you object to?

B: Would you rather ask PGI to symmetrically balance equipment first and leave the useless weapons as useless in the interim?

(if yes, then do you seriously think PGI would be agree to this? This is the sort of change that PGI would only do if almost literally everybody in the community agreed that they want it. I say that because it poses a substantial breakaway from the lore, it would break all stock mech builds (and PGI has doubled down on stock mechs by specifically mandating them in the World Championships) and require PGI to redo all of their Champion mech builds for one or both factions. Furthermore, it would create a brand new environment in which all weapons and quirks must be reassessed and rebalanced. To say that it is a humongous undertaking would be an understatement.)

Edited by Tarogato, 09 June 2018 - 12:51 AM.

[Tarogato]

UPDATE:

After assessing feedback here and on reddit, the following changes are pending (people went to bed, so internal discussion is on hold. Expect the doc to be updated some time tomorrow)



Gauss:
It was suggested to replace the ExplodeChance change with a Item Health buff. We rather liked this idea and are discussing the details now. This means that instead of Gauss being less likely to cause internal damage, it will now be less likely to crit out in the first place. (remember, the dice aren't rolled on the ExplodeChance until the weapon is destroyed by crits anyways)

This buff may additionally apply to ClanGauss.


Clan Standard ACs:
McGral suggested replacing the shellcount changes to cACs with substantial velocity buffs instead. We decided we liked this approach, and will be discussing numbers soon. The benefits of this method are two-fold: much more granular, and provides a route to improving the cAC2 which was previously untouched.


RACs:
We are toning down are buffs to RACs. Feedback suggested that PGI's buff made the RAC2 a lot better than we are giving it credit for, and RAC5 may not require such substantial buffs to bring it up to par.

RAC2 may only see a suggestion for a velocity increase.
RAC5 may see a suggestion to match its spread value to be equal to that of the RAC2. The rest undecided as of yet.

Edited by Tarogato, 09 June 2018 - 01:07 AM.

[Tarogato]

The Lighthouse, on 09 June 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

Timberwolf is probably the biggest victim. It was used to be a very good brawler, but as balance changes went, the Clan weaponry became just way too hot compared to IS counterpart, and without any decent quirks and recent agility nerf, Timber is utterly useless compared to other Clan mechs. The fact is Clan has been kept losing competitive brawling mechs for a long time, and now the whole Solaris is dominated by IS mechs, such as Vindicator.

Barring mobility, the significant buffs proposed for cSPL and cSRM6a should really help the brawling Timber. So I believe we are directly addressing the problem you've brought up?

The Lighthouse, on 09 June 2018 - 12:31 AM, said:

The balance suggestions you guys made still rely on heavy defensive IS quirks and still encased on the idea of "IS for short, cool. Clan for long, hot", which only creates outliners and unbalanced modes.

The Clans are really missing their brawlers. ACH, KFX, ADR, VPR, ACW, IFR, SHC, HMN, NVA, BKL, SCR, MDD, LBK, SMN, SNS, ON1-IIC-A, TBR, GAR, MAD-IIC-SC, MCII-2, KDK-SB. These are all brawlers that will perform better with the suggested cSPL and cSRM buffs. These mechs used to outbrawl IS mechs until their weapons were overnerfed over past year. Do you not think that bringing these back would be a great step toward the parity you are looking for?

Edited by Tarogato, 09 June 2018 - 01:26 AM.

[lazorbeamz]

LordNothing, on 08 June 2018 - 06:29 PM, said:

there are a few other mechs that can boat ac5s pretty well. the is version does have a low tonnage niche that my urbies and light mediums dont mind. the cac5 is still a superior weapon but it just doesnt really have that much of a niche there. i run a uac10 on my adder because it can with all the clan tech not eating all my tonnage and slots. theres really no reason to take the cac5 for the light/light medium niche, and the cac2 is the superior choice for boating (points at ultraviolet). single shot (not that i dont love my burst guns), extreme range, and all that crit.

AC5 can be also boated on cyclops sleipnir and warhammer - black widow. Because you can have 4 of those cannons. 4 ac2 would net smaller DPS (ac2 ~2.8, ac5 ~3.0).

Regarding the clan CAC5, it is slightly less appealing because it fires two bullets and it decreases its dps to the level of ac2(both at 2.8) so i would generally choosre to boat cac2 and load my mech with auxiliary weapons and especially double heat sinks and ammo. Generally speaking ac2 and cac2 spend your tonnage more efficiently(pretty much the same dps for a lot less tonnage) but if you can boat 4 or 6 ballistics you can go for ac5 if you got the tonnage for pure dps increase and some alpha strike.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 09 June 2018 - 01:30 AM.

[lazorbeamz]

Tarogato, on 08 June 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

For how much they spread damage, you are better off with 4x cLB10 which at least deal an extra 20% crit damage on average.

If you are going to sit and trade, I'd still rather the 4x cUAC10 and put up with the 0.5s delay to get the 13% more average burst. (and even without the 4x cERML, the 4x cUAC10 still deals an average alpha of about 73, versus the 68 of the cAC10 build.)

The cAC10's need something more to entice me to mount them.





You can't just fix how people play the game.

How people play the game is a product of how the game is balanced. It it is because things like mid-range laservomit are strong that the metagame is static rangey-pokey nascar. It is because of things like brawl not being strong enough that people would rather just sit back and poke instead of charging in and trying to smash in faces. Tweak the weapons, and then there is a hope in the world that player behaviour may adapt. But if you change nothing first, then players will continue to do what they are encouraged to do by the current state of weapons in the game.

Regarding CAC10 vs LBX10. I played kdk 3 CAC10 vs LBX10 mirror. I beat the guy with focused damage through the CT and the next round he remade his KDK with CAC10 . Aimed fire with CAC against heavy and assault CTs is a thing and it is impossible to do with LBX. LBX will outdo CAC only when closer than ~150 meters. However i can agree that there s little diffirence if you are shooting at medium or lights because you dont aim at a center torso. You just hope to hit something. At this point LBX spread is a non issue.. In QP you also have much more freedom to shoot at longer distances with CAC. UAC are ridiculously hot really. But i can understand that classic uac30 dakka can be beneficial in QP SOMETIMES but not always. With CAC you can also use cerml more often because your cannons dont overheat you nearly as much. You just slap 2 cerml and use them for alpha strike if you re cold.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 09 June 2018 - 01:45 AM.

[lazorbeamz]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 June 2018 - 07:16 PM, said:

Moving on, when it comes to cAC, it's really the fact that they serve no useful function. Want consistent DPS? Just don't double-tap the Ultra, and save yourself the slots. I like the increased velocity idea with compensatory cooldown reductions (to account for volley duration) over the single-shot idea; if it doesn't work, we can always try the single shot.

Dont double tap cuac2 and receive 75% bonus heat for no benefit gained? For sustained dps really? Yes cac are "useless". The only thing they do is reduce your heat like 2 times. But useless . Sorry for sarcasm.

Edited by lazorbeamz, 09 June 2018 - 01:43 AM.

[El Bandito]

lazorbeamz, on 09 June 2018 - 01:26 AM, said:

AC5 can be also boated on cyclops sleipnir and warhammer - black widow. Because you can have 4 of those cannons. 4 ac2 would net smaller DPS (ac2 ~2.8, ac5 ~3.0).

Quad AC5 is simply sub par loadout for the Sleipnir. For 10 tons more, you can put 6 on an Annihilator.

[The Lighthouse]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 01:25 AM, said:

Barring mobility, the significant buffs proposed for cSPL and cSRM6a should really help the brawling Timber. So I believe we are directly addressing the problem you've brought up?


The Clans are really missing their brawlers. ACH, KFX, ADR, VPR, ACW, IFR, SHC, HMN, NVA, BKL, SCR, MDD, LBK, SMN, SNS, ON1-IIC-A, TBR, GAR, MAD-IIC-SC, MCII-2, KDK-SB. These are all brawlers that will perform better with the suggested cSPL and cSRM buffs. These mechs used to outbrawl IS mechs until their weapons were overnerfed over past year. Do you not think that bringing these back would be a great step toward the parity you are looking for?

Ok, that's great. Then how's IS long range?

I looked through changes. It is not like SRM change would do anything, but cSPL buff is significant. Ok, say supposedly these changes would bring enough that Clan brawling is viable again.

However, fundamentally IS is still crippled against Clan regarding range issue. There is some damage nerf on CERML (from 7 to 6.5... so with 6xCERML we are going down from 42 to 39. Literally only 3 damage missing) and -2 on CHLL, but it is very obvious that Clan is still going to dominate range battle.


But you are not going to make it so CERML does same damage as IS ERML, for instance. I know you don't want to.


Because TT values are so clearly distinct you don't want to touch damage values too much, just like you are so resistant to change tonnage values and/or critical space values (ironically, Jordan Weisman seems to disagree with you regarding that, seeing how he set up his Battletech game at HBS.)


Except the problem is that TT values are rigged and bad from the start.

Tarogato, on 08 June 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

I prefer things the way they are. I like how Clan engines, DHS, Endo, and Ferro are better. The result is that the mechs are built differently. So IS must be stronger in different areas, such as durability, or the manner in which their weapons deal damage (duration, spread, velocity, shellcount, etc) It's a fundamentally different philosophy between the factions. It would be a shame to lose this by changing the properties of these fundamental equipment.

I also find this really troublesome. Indeed, because Clan engines, DHS, Endo and Ferro are better, thus IS mechs and Clan mechs built differently.... as in.... Clans are so much better than IS it isn't funny, even you account facts such as duration and all other stuffs.

Only massive quirks are covering this fatal problem. Once you get rid of quirks, there is no way any IS mech can remotely compete with Clan mechs in any roles, even with current balance with gimped cSPL.

Except problem is that now this whole quirk method is showing its limitation after the introduction of Solaris. With 1v1, quirks completely dominate the game. But people should had seen this a long time ago; it was almost obvious in Scouting FP.


There was really no different philosophy between Clan and IS techs. If there is one, it is "Clan's are better than IS's" from the start, right from Lore/TT. Only 'restrictions' were really mech numbers and the fact that Clanners looked down focus firing to one mech. But it was just a suggestion and everyone who used Clan just did focus fire anyway.

The reason.... I mean the mechanic that prevented Clans from conquering IS was NOT implemented as in-game mechanics, but as in-lore (basically, IS infrastructure and manufacturing power is so much bigger than Clan's. Clan was out-numbered from the start.) But players gave no damn about lore and complained.

Thus eventually Jihad/Dark Age happened. Mixtech introduced widely, IS factories making Clan equipment and vice versa. Unlike previous 'lore' balance, this method affected actual gameplay and solved the problem once for all, much to shock and embitterment from Clan players.



So here is the deal. Jordan Weisman basically showed us two ways (since he is the one who did this whole Dark Age stuff.)


1) We carry on with these changes like your balance spreadsheet, relying on quirks. Game still fundamentally unbalanced.

2) We can go HBS Battletech route and change a lot of stuffs, like 6-slot AC20, AC2 which does more damage than 2 X UAC2, near-worthless PPC and so forth.

3) We can go Jihad/Dark Age route and treat Clan weaponry as just one of the weapons available to everyone. No additional changes needed.

I think no.3 is the best way.

[Dogstar]

Tarogato, on 09 June 2018 - 12:48 AM, said:

I have two separate questions:

A: Which changes do you object to?

B: Would you rather ask PGI to symmetrically balance equipment first and leave the useless weapons as useless in the interim?

A: All of them
B: Obviously not

I've already stated that I want a balanced difference in the techs, what I mean by this is that I'm happy for clan tech to have advantages provided that IS tech has other, different, advantages that balance those out - but not big quirks! Quirks should be there to provide flavour for different chassis or compensate for bad geometry not bolster up disadvantaged tech.

If you want my in-depth suggestions as to how I'd fix the game that's fine but this is not the place for them and a I suspect a lot of people would find then far too differrent.

e.g. I think:
all lasers should have a much longer duration (and shorter cool-down to compensate)
that there should be a cap on damage output of 30 per second
ISXL shouldn't die on ST loss
etc
etc

[Tarogato]

Which changes do you object to?

Dogstar, on 09 June 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

All of them

This is an immensely puzzling response to me. Humour me for a second:
What do you find wrong about buffing the IS SmallLaser?

[MischiefSC]

Tarogato, on 08 June 2018 - 08:31 PM, said:

This is just my personal opinion:

I prefer things the way they are. I like how Clan engines, DHS, Endo, and Ferro are better. The result is that the mechs are built differently. So IS must be stronger in different areas, such as durability, or the manner in which their weapons deal damage (duration, spread, velocity, shellcount, etc) It's a fundamentally different philosophy between the factions. It would be a shame to lose this by changing the properties of these fundamental equipment.

.

I can agree with that in principle but it means that if those things are better than IS weapons and equipment have to be outright better than Clan weapons, by enough to offset the Clan advantage in Endo, DHS, CXL, etc.

The idea of trying to make IS/Clan weapons balanced for in combat performance is great -

But it ignores the other factors. To do what you're talking about would need things like inherent universal quirks for IS armor structure, armor and something else. That or IS weapons being flat out 1 to 1 superior... Which screws Clan hardpoint starved mechs.

I don't see a clear path to make that work. You're better off buffing IS DHS/Endo/XL at al and balancing weapons for performance, not slots/tonnage.

Edited by MischiefSC, 09 June 2018 - 06:03 AM.

[Khobai]

Dogstar, on 09 June 2018 - 02:54 AM, said:

Quirks should be there to provide flavour for different chassis or compensate for bad geometry not bolster up disadvantaged tech.

exactly.

quirks should only be used to differentiate otherwise similar mechs and to help out mechs with bad geometry/scaling that cant really be changed.

quirks should not be used to give IS "free" magical powerups because PGI cant balance IS vs clan tech properly.

just balance the two tech bases and get rid of the IS superquirks. game will be way less lopsided and so much better off.


And while I dont entirely disagree with all the proposed weapon changes.. I do think any balance proposal that completely ignores the fact that CXL, CDHS, and CES/CFF are all outright superior is a garbage balance proposal.

Edited by Khobai, 09 June 2018 - 06:45 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

lazorbeamz, on 09 June 2018 - 01:40 AM, said:

Dont double tap cuac2 and receive 75% bonus heat for no benefit gained? For sustained dps really? Yes cac are "useless". The only thing they do is reduce your heat like 2 times. But useless . Sorry for sarcasm.

cAC/2 is sort of the exception that proves the rule, seeing as it's the only cAC that's single-shot like its IS counterpart.

[Mister Glitchdragon]

I like these changes. Thanks for putting this together and best wishes for PGI's attendance.

[Electron Junkie]

I like most of the proposed changes, but still think the two biggest issues that need to be addressed are the fact that ammo based weapons simply have too much ammo per ton and lasers, for the most part, run too cold causing to much spike damage that leads to a TTK that is too low.

I've always been of the opinion that ballistic weaponry should be huge risk and always be expended quickly as possible as ammo explosions should be more common and always devastating. (Gauss should only explode when charged so the charging mechanic has always bugged me and they should not explode once all ammo is expended and they would not be powered up.. but I digress). And once that most of your ammo has been expended that the match should move to the slower more methodical backup energy weapons.

Increasing laser heat we would significantly change the way matches unfold and force more mixed ballistic and energy load outs. Lasers can still be peaking weapons but running hotter will require more time in cover and lower overall DPS forcing a more mobile game as teams can advance / flank easier due to the longer time required to remain in cover while cooling down.

Lowering ammo count will force matches to move into close and medium range sooner as LRM, Gauss, ACs 2-5 will expend most of their ammo forcing a switch to hotter energy weapons allowing a more mobile game or shorter range ballistics which also require closer engagement.

Either way most matches should devolve into closer range ballistic and finally hot running laser fights where heat management and twisting plus dead component shielding determine the winner.

I won't even get into what I think was PGIs initial flaw of not simply making weapon damage based on the 10 second rule.
AC-2 does 2 dmg over 10 seconds where 5 shots in 10 seconds equals 0.2dmg per shot. Would have been so much easier then what we currently have to balance.

[Tarogato]

Electron Junkie, on 09 June 2018 - 07:41 AM, said:

I like most of the proposed changes, but still think the two biggest issues that need to be addressed are the fact that ammo based weapons simply have too much ammo per ton

People usually complain that ballistics don't have enough ammo per ton, because we have stock tabletop ammo values, but literally doubled mech durability. You're the first person I've seen to think the opposite. And actually... PGI is increasing ammo per ton next patch.

Quote

I won't even get into what I think was PGIs initial flaw of not simply making weapon damage based on the 10 second rule.
AC-2 does 2 dmg over 10 seconds where 5 shots in 10 seconds equals 0.2dmg per shot. Would have been so much easier then what we currently have to balance.

A world in which the AC2 deals 0.2 DPS is a world where the AC2 is utterly useless.
Tabletop DPS is the worst imaginable way to balance the game. In fact, it would be impossible to balance. How do you make the AC2 useful when the AC20 deals literally ten times the DPS? Or vice-versa, how do you make the AC20 not completely overpowered?