211 replies to this topic

[G 4 R R E T]

The Shazbot, on 13 June 2018 - 04:49 PM, said:

Just wanna point out that you get extra ammo by using half tons for both the C-AC20 and C-UAC20 if these numbers are final.

Keen eye. Let us see if this makes it into production. The difference is not that much, but it would still be funny.

[Incoming Missile]

My body is ready.

They nev3r did correct the LRM ammo count when they removed the splash damage.

Getting that corrected and a buff in line with the other missiles? Wowzers.

[MovinTarget]

Vellron2005, on 14 June 2018 - 12:00 AM, said:

1) Missle Ammo count increase.. from 180 to 240.. that's about 3 extra shots of LRM20 per ton.. and means my highes ammo count will jump from 3500 missiles to 4416.. Don't know when I'm ever gonna spend that in a QP match, so I might start thinking about mounting additional heat sinks or something.. will see..

Crazy thought here, maybe people can use the weight savings to mount backup weapons...

Just saying...

What would almost make sence is if such buffs only activate when a mech *is* stock. So once you customize a mech your trade off is losing ammo and w/e other buffs you originally got. Kind of like set of 8 buffs...

[Daemonara]

I love the Blood Asp redesign, thank you for making it look more like the art!

[Lizardman from Hollywood]

So you just hid the timby red quirks inside its soft stats. Well at least you gave back 5 to 10% of the 25% you took away with the engine desync and agility nerf bat.

[Dee Eight]

Antares102, on 14 June 2018 - 08:12 AM, said:

10-20% more ammo is not huge.
50-100% would be huge.

10-20% more ammo wont make any loadout significantly more viable.

Bear in mind in most cases ammo is already 50% higher than in BT lore already. AC/2s are supposed to be 45 shots per ton (90 dmg/ton), AC/5 is 20 shots (so 100 dmg/ton), AC/10 was 10 (so again 100 dmg/ton) and AC/20 only 5 shots (so still 100 dmg/ton). Gauss is supposed to be 8 shots (so 120 dmg/ton), and MGs were 200 shots per ton but each shot was 2 damage, making them 400/dmg per ton. SRM-2s and 4s were effectively the same damage per ton (at 200) while SRM-6s were less (at 180). LRMs were the same 120 dmg/ton for all launcher sizes.

[IllCaesar]

Hey PGI guys, I see that you added 50 shots more to each ton of ammo for the RAC2.

It doesn't need that ammo buff at all. In fact it just exacerbates the weapon's main issue.

The fire rate and speed at which it's jam meter increases and decreases is almost identical to the RAC5. Because of that the RAC2 is pretty much useless in comparison. With as much ammo as it is given it can't hope to unload as much ammo as the RAC5. If you want to make that actually matter and make the RAC2 not a complete waste of tonnage compared to the RAC5. While its charge up to a full jam meter is slightly slower it also decreases more slowly while jams seem to last roughly the same amount of time. The only thing the RAC2 has going for it is the ammo count and matches often don't even last long enough to unload all of one's RAC2 ammo. That means the only possible relevant metric is the RAC2's long effective range, and even then not really. Because the RAC5 does double damage the advantage isn't damage dealt at 600m versus 800m but rather than a RAC2 round can hit at 1000m away while a RAC5 round can't and, well, really? That's all it has going for it, the fact that it can fire so far away to be practically worthless (especially compared to a PPC with the same range) except for getting a grazing shot for a kill assist?

Like I know it is just a RAC2 but why even bother putting the weapon in the game if you're going to add it alongside another weapon that is strictly superior to it in almost every relevant measure? Why bother your guy's to even change the line of code for the amount of ammo in a ton of it if the weapon is just going to remain pointless?

[Hauptmann Keg Steiner]

Yeonne Greene, on 14 June 2018 - 09:32 AM, said:

I do not think HGauss needs more ammo, considering the current strength of the relevant builds.

HGauss already had the lowest damage per ton of any ammo weapon in the game before everything else got buffed, with said relevant builds pretty much always crit slot and tonnage starved. I'm not sure how increasing that discrepancy helps.

[Y E O N N E]

IdToaster, on 14 June 2018 - 07:53 PM, said:

HGauss already had the lowest damage per ton of any ammo weapon in the game before everything else got buffed, with said relevant builds pretty much always crit slot and tonnage starved. I'm not sure how increasing that discrepancy helps.

The point is that those builds still perform at the top of the heap despite those drawbacks. Freeing up a ton or two because we don't need to carry as many to get the already-adequate ammo supply we have today is not really deserved.

[Genesis23]

PGI, please do something to bring LRM back in line. Buffing their velocity and ammo count while doing absolutely nothing to balance the counter measures is pure stupidity.

and while you are at messing things up, do at least some good and buff the spiders a bit, they are way undergunned years ago and now its much much worse. at least give them some love, you dont even have to make them the horrors they once were, but at least make it so that no one has to heavily justify his love for spiders.

Edited by Genesis23, 15 June 2018 - 12:09 AM.

[Ery]

GweNTLeR, on 13 June 2018 - 11:19 PM, said:

BUFF AMS or decrease LRM health!
It is a joke how much you are buffing LRM without actually buffing *ANY* countermeasures.
20% velocity the previous patch and 33% ammo increase this patch ARE YOU SERIOUS??????
MWO is becoming a red square shooting simulator
It is disgusting.

+1

Dont forget the AMS Overload Nerf last year...

[Daggett]

Tordin, on 14 June 2018 - 09:18 AM, said:

Baffles me a bit as well. Especially heavy gauss and heavy machine guns needs more ammo. Maybe they think the mgs are too situational to care adding more ammo, and extra gauss slugs just helps pinpoint galore even more?

In case of HMGs it's about balance.

Imagine the 12 HMG Piranha being viable, that would probably be too much DPS for a 20t mech.

[Sjorpha]

IllCaesar, on 14 June 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

Hey PGI guys, I see that you added 50 shots more to each ton of ammo for the RAC2.

It doesn't need that ammo buff at all. In fact it just exacerbates the weapon's main issue.

The fire rate and speed at which it's jam meter increases and decreases is almost identical to the RAC5. Because of that the RAC2 is pretty much useless in comparison. With as much ammo as it is given it can't hope to unload as much ammo as the RAC5. If you want to make that actually matter and make the RAC2 not a complete waste of tonnage compared to the RAC5. While its charge up to a full jam meter is slightly slower it also decreases more slowly while jams seem to last roughly the same amount of time. The only thing the RAC2 has going for it is the ammo count and matches often don't even last long enough to unload all of one's RAC2 ammo. That means the only possible relevant metric is the RAC2's long effective range, and even then not really. Because the RAC5 does double damage the advantage isn't damage dealt at 600m versus 800m but rather than a RAC2 round can hit at 1000m away while a RAC5 round can't and, well, really? That's all it has going for it, the fact that it can fire so far away to be practically worthless (especially compared to a PPC with the same range) except for getting a grazing shot for a kill assist?

Like I know it is just a RAC2 but why even bother putting the weapon in the game if you're going to add it alongside another weapon that is strictly superior to it in almost every relevant measure? Why bother your guy's to even change the line of code for the amount of ammo in a ton of it if the weapon is just going to remain pointless?

RAC2 is actually pretty good since the buffs it got last patch, 3 RAC2 is now a more powerful loadout than 2 RAC5 on things like the BSW-X1.

[o0cipher0o]

What scares me about the extreme lurm ammo buff is the fact that we'll likely end up seeing even more of the dumb assaults boating lurms, hiding behind a cover (thus making the artemis they're using useless, just to prove they're so noob they can't even use lurms properly), making it even harder for the decent players to carry the team when that happens.

Buffing AMS wouldn't affect the majority of the players that can actually play, as most of them (like me) never equip it, as it's a waste if tonnage considering you can use covers and actual tactical movement to avoid the bees.
What we need, is PGI to put in place something that rewards a more active use of LRM, and punishes people just spamming them from behind a rock. Heck, i like to use my hunchie 4j every now and then to make it rain, but i never stay farther than 5/600 meters from the enemy (and usually get even closer), and always manage to do well and survive even if i'm running an xl. So lurms are oerfectly viabke as a second line weapon (provided you also have some other weapons), and don't need to be relegated to the "yo i'll stay hidden behind a wall" playstyle, especially now that we'll be able to bring ancouple less tons of ammo for better backup weapons (or better cooling).

GG match quality.


That said, the rest doesn't seem too bad, and, hell yeah, abiut damn time you guys gave us the tools to easily import/export builds.

[MovinTarget]

Daggett, on 15 June 2018 - 12:27 AM, said:

In case of HMGs it's about balance.

Imagine the 12 HMG Piranha being viable, that would probably be too much DPS for a 20t mech.

FYI Piranha with 12 HMG and 3 tons of ammo would probably have to have an XL125 and 5 external HS...

Dunno if going 108 is really viable for a jumpless/ECM-less/MASC-less light for any scenario other than perhaps defense in FP unless it has some real Armor quirks...

[MovinTarget]

o0cipher0o, on 15 June 2018 - 05:25 AM, said:

What scares me about the extreme lurm ammo buff is the fact that we'll likely end up seeing even more of the dumb assaults boating lurms, hiding behind a cover (thus making the artemis they're using useless, just to prove they're so noob they can't even use lurms properly), making it even harder for the decent players to carry the team when that happens.

Buffing AMS wouldn't affect the majority of the players that can actually play, as most of them (like me) never equip it, as it's a waste if tonnage considering you can use covers and actual tactical movement to avoid the bees.
What we need, is PGI to put in place something that rewards a more active use of LRM, and punishes people just spamming them from behind a rock. Heck, i like to use my hunchie 4j every now and then to make it rain, but i never stay farther than 5/600 meters from the enemy (and usually get even closer), and always manage to do well and survive even if i'm running an xl. So lurms are oerfectly viabke as a second line weapon (provided you also have some other weapons), and don't need to be relegated to the "yo i'll stay hidden behind a wall" playstyle, especially now that we'll be able to bring ancouple less tons of ammo for better backup weapons (or better cooling).

GG match quality.


That said, the rest doesn't seem too bad, and, hell yeah, abiut damn time you guys gave us the tools to easily import/export builds.

If you want to nerf lurm boating, make in-air missile collision a thing... the more missiles converging on one target, the more likely some of them will get in each other's way, either reducing accuracy or just completely knocking into each other and cancelling each other out... This would reduce the efficacy of individual boaters and even more so, teams of boaters as they may have to coordinate firing to minimize the negative effects.

Edited by MovinTarget, 15 June 2018 - 05:52 AM.

[McHoshi]

LURMS become the new META. You will be so ****** up!

[o0cipher0o]

MovinTarget, on 15 June 2018 - 05:47 AM, said:

If you want to nerf lurm boating, make in-air missile collision a thing... the more missiles converging on one target, the more likely some of them will get in each other's way, either reducing accuracy or just completely knocking into each other and cancelling each other out... This would reduce the efficacy of individual boaters and even more so, teams of boaters as they may have to coordinate firing to minimize the negative effects.

The boating in itself doesn't really bother me, what bothers me is that 90 tonner that's standing in the back completely fresh, while inefficently sandblasting whatever enemy he can get a lock on for 3 seconds before going to the next one, when our team could have won if all that armor was actually soaking up some damage, and if he was doing some actual focusing (while maybe doing some more damage with the 3 lasers he's mounted as a backup).
In short, what bothers me is the kind of playstyle that's on the complete opposite of teamplay.

Edited by o0cipher0o, 15 June 2018 - 06:42 AM.

[Agent of Change]

IllCaesar, on 14 June 2018 - 06:05 PM, said:

Hey PGI guys, I see that you added 50 shots more to each ton of ammo for the RAC2.

It doesn't need that ammo buff at all. In fact it just exacerbates the weapon's main issue.

The fire rate and speed at which it's jam meter increases and decreases is almost identical to the RAC5. Because of that the RAC2 is pretty much useless in comparison. With as much ammo as it is given it can't hope to unload as much ammo as the RAC5. If you want to make that actually matter and make the RAC2 not a complete waste of tonnage compared to the RAC5. While its charge up to a full jam meter is slightly slower it also decreases more slowly while jams seem to last roughly the same amount of time. The only thing the RAC2 has going for it is the ammo count and matches often don't even last long enough to unload all of one's RAC2 ammo. That means the only possible relevant metric is the RAC2's long effective range, and even then not really. Because the RAC5 does double damage the advantage isn't damage dealt at 600m versus 800m but rather than a RAC2 round can hit at 1000m away while a RAC5 round can't and, well, really? That's all it has going for it, the fact that it can fire so far away to be practically worthless (especially compared to a PPC with the same range) except for getting a grazing shot for a kill assist?

Like I know it is just a RAC2 but why even bother putting the weapon in the game if you're going to add it alongside another weapon that is strictly superior to it in almost every relevant measure? Why bother your guy's to even change the line of code for the amount of ammo in a ton of it if the weapon is just going to remain pointless?

I'm going to go ahead and strongly disagree with you that the RAC2 is a useless weapon. Hell I'll just even go ahead and argue with you that the RAC5 is better than the RAC2.

I submit to you without malice, that if you truly believe the RAC2 to be useless that you may not be applying it to it's best effect. It is a really effective weapon, but it must be used correctly like most weapons, to bring out it's star. The RAC 2 is much cooler and has a better ability to sustain fire on a target. I have several multi RAC2 builds and not a one of them averages less than 500 damage a game, my 3xRAC2 nightstar routinely tops 900 damage. In fact the ONLY problem I've had with the RAC2 is ammo count.

And yes range does matter, the long range suppression is a great effect of the RAC2 vs. the RAC5. The point is I started fiddling with the RAC's becasue i'd been told not to bother with them. I got my unit to start messing with them and now every regular player has at least one multi RAC2 build they are using to great effect.

Honestly I think a serious buff to the RACs might just make them broken. But that is my experience so YMMV.

[Daggett]

MovinTarget, on 15 June 2018 - 05:35 AM, said:

FYI Piranha with 12 HMG and 3 tons of ammo would probably have to have an XL125 and 5 external HS...

Dunno if going 108 is really viable for a jumpless/ECM-less/MASC-less light for any scenario other than perhaps defense in FP unless it has some real Armor quirks...

Currently you can do XL170 with 2.5t of ammo:
PIR-1

With ammo that low you need to have really good trigger discipline and only attack backs. But even then you would have a hard time. But with a tad bit more ammo things may look different...

Going lower than 170 would indeed be very risky since you only have enough ammo to backstab, and operating behind enemy lines with less than 130kph just asks for trouble.