104 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

VonBruinwald, on 14 February 2021 - 12:03 PM, said:

Making MMLs a direct-firing-arc-only LRM (with 2 damage from 0-270m) would opens up playstyles.

Short range:

Hard-lock - Streak SRMs

Soft-lock - MMLs

No-lock - SRMs / MRMs

Medium range

Soft-lock - LRMs / MMLs

No-lock - MRMs

Long range (lock only)

Direct Fire - LRMs / MMLs

Indirect fire - LRMs

Streaks would be a better option for short range builds as all missiles hit and LRMs are better at long range due to indirect fire capabilities. MRMs and SRMS would offer superior accuracy vs. MMLs when firing without a lock due to a lack of arc.

(Hard-lock = All missiles hit, Soft-lock = Missiles have spread, in case it wasn't obvious)

Lock-on MMLs would definitely be way better than Streaks because having spread across the torso is far better than having fully randomized hit locations. Insert giant debate about SSRM mechanics here, yadda yadda yadda.

The soft lock vs. hard lock differentiation isn't really that meaningful in practice because most or all of the missiles are still gonna hit, barring terrain or AMS interference.

[Spheroid]

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 10:54 AM, said:

Since MWO can't switch ammo types PGI would inevitably make both the LRM and SRM modes of MMLs have the same mechanics. Both would either lock-on like LRMs currently are or both would be dumbfired like SRMs currently are. I think the more likely outcome is the former.

Why is impossible from a programming standpoint to give a mml type weapon a dual attribute function? LRMs are a "javelin" type projectile and SRMs are a "waypointrocket" object.

Could not projectile type be determined by indicated lock range where IF lockrange < 270 or null, type = "waypointrocket" ELSE projectile type = "javelin"?



Weapon faction="InnerSphere" HardpointAliases="Missile,Missile2,SRM,SRM2,ISSRM,ISSRM2" name="SRM2" id="1030"><Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\SRM2.dds" descTag="@SRM2_desc" nameTag="@SRM2"/><WeaponStats volleydelay="0.25" speed="400" lifetime="15.0" duration="0.0" tons="1" ammoPerShot="2" ammoType="SRMAmmo" cooldown="2.0" heat="1.6" impulse="0.11" minheatpenaltylevel="7" heatpenalty="1.75" heatdamage="0" damage="2.15" numFiring="2" projectileclass="waypointrocket" type="Missile" slots="1" Health="7.5" critDamMult="1.0" spread="2.5" artemisAmmoType="SRMAmmoArtemis" formation_size_per_index="0.025" formation_size="0.005" radius="0.05" maxheight="0" projectileHealth="1.0"/>

Weapon faction="InnerSphere" HardpointAliases="Missile,Missile5,LRM,LRM5,ISLRM,ISLRM5" name="LRM5" id="1026" CType="WeaponLRM"><Loc iconTag="StoreIcons\LRM5.dds" descTag="@LRM5_desc" nameTag="@LRM5"/><WeaponStats volleydelay="0.5" speed="210" lifetime="15.0" duration="0.0" tons="2" ammoPerShot="5" ammoType="LRMAmmo" cooldown="3.25" heat="2.2" impulse="0.3" heatPenaltyID="2" minheatpenaltylevel="5" heatpenalty="3.4" heatdamage="0" damage="1.0" numFiring="5" projectileclass="javelin" type="Missile" slots="1" Health="7.5" critDamMult="1.0" spreadLOS="3.7" spread="4.7" artemisAmmoType="LRMAmmoArtemis" formation_size_per_index="0.01" formation_size="0.1" formation_speed="2.5" UseTAG="1" radius="0.05" trackingstrength="2.0" uselock="1" maxheight="150" minheight="20" peaktime="-0.333" peakdist="0.6" projectileHealth="1.2"/>

Edited by Spheroid, 14 February 2021 - 12:27 PM.

[FupDup]

Spheroid, on 14 February 2021 - 12:27 PM, said:

Why is impossible from a programming standpoint to give a mml type weapon a dual attribute function? LRMs are a "javelin" type projectile and SRMs are a "waypointrocket" object.

Could not projectile type be determined by indicated lock range where IF lockrange < 270 or null, type = "waypointrocket" ELSE projectile type = "javelin"?

Ask our dev overlords why. I base my assessment off of what we've seen from them so far. Maybe they might pull a surprise on us, but I don't bet on surprises.

[PocketYoda]

Der Geisterbaer, on 14 February 2021 - 07:58 AM, said:

But to what actual gameplay benefit?

To give a plethera of useless mechs viable weapon loadouts, a lot of MWO weapons are too heavy for some mechs, Black lanner springs to mind, with lighter weapons more viable builds pop up.

Yes the weapons may not change damage a huge amount but it would make a lot of mechs viable to take out.

[FupDup]

Samial, on 14 February 2021 - 02:18 PM, said:

To give a plethera of useless mechs viable weapon loadouts, a lot of MWO weapons are too heavy for some mechs, Black lanner springs to mind, with lighter weapons more viable builds pop up.

Yes the weapons may not change damage a huge amount but it would make a lot of mechs viable to take out.

Just look at MRMs as the best example of a weapon that could shake up the meta and make formerly useless hardpoints or mechs not useless. Biggest example, MRMs turned the IV4 from a meme into a god.

Admittedly, many of the eligible new weapons won't be as huge of gamechangers as MRMs were, but there are still several open holes that need to be filled in terms of roles:

A. Small ballistics for both factions (LACs, PACs, Magshots, AP Gausses)
B. IS laser vomit (needs more alpha, enter the Binary Laser Cannon)
C. Clan lasers with less heat and duration (Chemical Lasers)

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2021 - 02:32 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 07:22 AM, said:

Light ACs should not have their cooldown increased under any circumstances because that eliminates their entire purpose. They exist to give low-tonnage mechs access to viable dakka. Nerfing their rate of fire makes them unable to compete with lasers and missiles at low tonnages. Make them burst-fire, slower velocity, higher heat, basically any other nerf than cooldown. They need DPS.

A light packing LACs should ideally pose a similar threat level as a laser-boating light, otherwise LACs just serve to buff existing powerful dakka heavies and assaults but give absolutely nothing to lights or mediums.

Well the problem is that it's not the lights, but it's the heavier mechs that can ALSO bring the LACs to bear. Yeah a light may pack 1 or 2, but the assaults that had no problem bringing standard ACs in the first place can now also bring more provided they have the hardpoint, and at lighter rig too. Imagine a Dire-Wolf massing PAC8 at 64 alpha every 2s or so. Yeah we can GH, but come on that's BS.

What I propose however, is to have ballpark DPS/Ton. The MWO-Veteran in me says that it'll be more helpful if we have higher damage and cooldown, but lower damage and lower cooldown can also be achieved.

Something like the AC5 that does 3.01 DPS at 8 tons, the LAC5 should only do around 1.88125 DPS, this is to keep the heaver ACs relevant. The AC2s, that does 2.78 DPS at 6 tons, the LAC2 should only do around 1.853 DPS. Yeah that does seem to encroach on one another's DPS, so we could possibly just increase LAC5 DPS slightly, but nowhere near competitive with it's heavier counterpart.


LAC2

Total Damage: 2
Shot Count: 2
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 0.85s
Velocity: 1350 m/s
Range: 540m - 1080m
DPS: 1.853

LAC5

Total Damage: 5
Shot Count: 3
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.98
Velocity: 1100 m/s
Range: 450m - 900m
DPS: 2.16

C-PAC2

Total Damage: 2
Shot Count: 2
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.01s
Velocity: 1350 m/s
Range: 540m - 1080m
DPS: 1.63

C-PAC4

Total Damage: 4
Shot Count: 3
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.55
Velocity: 1100 m/s
Range: 450m - 900m
DPS: 2.12

C-PAC8

Total Damage: 8
Shot Count: 4
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 2.98
Velocity: 850 m/s
Range: 360m - 720m
DPS: 2.339

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 February 2021 - 04:36 PM.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 04:24 PM, said:

Well the problem is that it's not the lights, but it's the heavier mechs that can ALSO bring the LACs to bear. Yeah a light may pack 1 or 2, but the assaults that had no problem bringing standard ACs in the first place can now also bring more provided they have the hardpoint, and at lighter rig too. Imagine a Dire-Wolf massing PAC8 at 64 alpha every 2s or so. Yeah we can GH, but come on that's BS.

What I propose however, is to have ballpark DPS/Ton. The MWO-Veteran in me says that it'll be more helpful if we have higher damage and cooldown, but lower damage and lower cooldown can also be achieved.

Something like the AC5 that does 3.01 DPS at 8 tons, the LAC5 should only do around 1.88125 DPS, this is to keep the heaver ACs relevant. The AC2s, that does 2.78 DPS at 6 tons, the LAC2 should only do around 1.853 DPS. Yeah that does seem to encroach on one another's DPS, so we could possibly just increase LAC5 DPS.


LAC2

Total Damage: 2
Shot Count: 2
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 0.85s
Velocity: 1350 m/s
Range: 540m - 1080m
DPS: 1.853

LAC5

Total Damage: 5
Shot Count: 3
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.98
Velocity: 1100 m/s
Range: 450m - 900m
DPS: 2.16

C-PAC2

Total Damage: 2
Shot Count: 2
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.01s
Velocity: 1350 m/s
Range: 540m - 1080m
DPS: 1.63

C-PAC4

Total Damage: 4
Shot Count: 3
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 1.55
Velocity: 1100 m/s
Range: 450m - 900m
DPS: 2.12

C-PAC8

Total Damage: 8
Shot Count: 4
Shot Interval: 0.11
Cooldown: 2.98
Velocity: 850 m/s
Range: 360m - 720m
DPS: 2.339

Nope, not mounting any of those on my mechs big or small. I'm just sticking with RACs for my dakka lights if this is how they're gonna look. That PAC/8 is especially sad, doing lower DPS than the CAC/2 despite its slightly higher weight and drastically reduced range. Like...how. That is so bad.

I'd rather go the heat route because the "heat wall" is the main reason why the big boy mechs benefit from ballistics so much, meanwhile a small dakka mech is going to have a lot of heat to spare. We can even use a canon/realistic explanation by saying that these weapons use caseless ammo, which actually exists in the BT universe and in real life it does drastically increase weapon heat.

Side note, this also explains why Chemical Lasers run colder than IS lasers (the chemical "shell" takes some of the heat with it when it gets ejected from the mech).

https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Caseless

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2021 - 04:39 PM.

[LordNothing]

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 08:18 AM, said:

Another note about Bloodhound Probe is that it can actually counter Stealth Armor.

you can throw in aecm as a counter i suppose. on the equipment front id also like to see blue shield, which would counter all the capped ppcs.

also id like to see medium and heavy rifle. id implement them sort of like rocket launchers with several rounds built in but no additional ammo. wouldn't mind having an arbiter to mount them on. i imagine an entire game mode where people are running rockets and rifle, mortars and chem lasers and the like, where its physically impossible to clear all the mechs because nobody has enough ammo. imagine fp where you only get like 8 shots before you are spent.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 February 2021 - 05:15 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Nobody is going to use LACs if they are multi-shot. They might use them if they have lower DPS, since a pair of LAC/5 is a lighter AC/10 and goes well with PPFLD implements like PPCs.

See also: Clan ACs. There is exactly one instance where a Clan AC other than the 2 is used unironically, and that's boating 4x cAC/10 on a Kodiak...and even then it's just meh.

The fact that LACs have significantly reduced range is enough to give them a different role, IMHO. You won't run overwatch with LAC/5 because 450 m is not enough. At extreme range, the LAC/2 will not be putting the AC/2 out of business any time soon at only 540 meters.

[LordNothing]

Miss Greene, on 14 February 2021 - 05:01 PM, said:

Nobody is going to use LACs if they are multi-shot. They might use them if they have lower DPS, since a pair of LAC/5 is a lighter AC/10 and goes well with PPFLD implements like PPCs.

See also: Clan ACs. There is exactly one instance where a Clan AC other than the 2 is used unironically, and that's boating 4x cAC/10 on a Kodiak...and even then it's just meh.

The fact that LACs have significantly reduced range is enough to give them a different role, IMHO. You won't run overwatch with LAC/5 because 450 m is not enough. At extreme range, the LAC/2 will not be putting the AC/2 out of business any time soon at only 540 meters.

idk about that. ive always suggested they be implemented as burst weapons, because they are reducing caliber to bring the weight down, which means more shells to make up the weapon rating. the point is to give mechs with less tonnage the ability to carry heavier ballistics. if you implement them in a way where you see 100 tonners boating them, you did it wrong.

a little bit of z-spread never bothered me. you just have to follow through as if you were using a laser. i use all the cacs, except the 5 (the 5 class in general is in dire need of buffs, all tech bases and types, possibly excluding the uac5 which is still useful).

though you can even flip the pacs so they are single shot, as clans have few ppfld ballistics.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 February 2021 - 05:25 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 04:36 PM, said:

Nope, not mounting any of those on my mechs. I'm just sticking with RACs for my dakka lights if this is how they're gonna look. That PAC/8 is especially sad, doing lower DPS than the CAC/2 despite its slightly higher weight and drastically reduced range. Like...how.

The thing is that, well, it adheres to meta a lot more than RAC does.

Yeah you can dakka with RAC2s and RAC5s, but what the LAC5 and LAC2 offers is higher moment to moment DPS than sustained ones. The LAC5 in my setup actually deals 5 damage under 0.22s (-1 shot from 0th second) translating to 22.72 DPS, and LAC2 deals 2 damage under 0.11s which translates to 18.18 DPS. Meanwhile, aside from afflicting yourself with spinup time that RACs requires a sense of readiness, the RAC2 at 6.5475 DPS, would need 0.305s to match what the LAC2 could do in 0.11s, the RAC5 at 0.458s to match what the LAC5 can do in 0.22s

(LAC2) 0.11s < 0.305s (RAC2)
(LAC5) 0.22s < 0.458s (RAC5)

And you know what the kicker is? At half the weight, the LACs could actually bring 2 weapons for every 1 RAC of their class.

The problem with your approach is not considering their application, that the weapons you just compare to doesn't need to compete in the same role of DPS, nor the same rangeband. If you wanted the starey Dakka, the RACs are already enough for that role, why not bring those? Why the need to supplant RACs with LACs?

Same goes with the PAC8 vs CAC2 despite 0.5t heavier, so what? The PAC8 could output 4 CAC2 shots under 0.33s, whereas the single CAC2 would need 2.16s to output the same. To a pokey-hidey role of lights which suits them better to minimize the incoming fire, this is actually pretty good.

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 04:36 PM, said:

I'd rather go the heat route because the "heat wall" is the main reason why the big boy mechs benefit from ballistics so much, meanwhile a small dakka mech is going to have a lot of heat to spare.

...

Side note, this also explains why Chemical Lasers run colder than IS lasers (the chemical "shell" takes some of the heat with it when it gets ejected from the mech).

Sure, but why tho? I mean one one hand, this means that lights would also have to forgo supplementary energy weapons and/or allot additional heatsinks which would have defeated the point of Dakkas being lightweight at all. Why not just bring a single heavy ac in their class and be done with it?

I don't see why LACs or any variation thereof should have their effectiveness soley calibrated for the lighter mechs. They are lights and mediums packing little investment of equipment, they shouldn't even be that powerful right now because the game is pushed towards mobility that heavier mechs can pose more as liability than an asset.

Keeping it effective based on it's tonnage allotment assures that it's useful for all classes. And if LACs are as powerful as their heavy counterpart despite the lighter allotment, that just means there's little point in actually mounting heavy acs on lights. I mean why put an AC10 or UAC10 on an Urbie or Raven at all?

Miss Greene, on 14 February 2021 - 05:01 PM, said:

Nobody is going to use LACs if they are multi-shot. They might use them if they have lower DPS, since a pair of LAC/5 is a lighter AC/10 and goes well with PPFLD implements like PPCs.

Why is that they have to be synergistic to PPCs? So why not use AC10 instead?

The LACs should still pose use for Lights and mediums as intended despite being multishot, because they are so far the only option for dakka. And that is enough for the weapon.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 February 2021 - 05:33 PM.

[LordNothing]

i dont care about ppc synergy when im trying to cram a couple autocannons into a locust. im fine with them being range gimped, burst fire guns. one can never have too many lego.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 February 2021 - 05:41 PM.

[crazytimes]

I appreciate the optimism... but it has been what 4 years since a weapon, over 2 years since a mech... and they are forecasting another 9 months until they consider putting a new hardpoint on an existing chassis.

If you think new weapons are happening before the heat death of the universe...

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 05:22 PM, said:

The thing is that, well, it adheres to meta a lot more than RAC does.

Yeah you can dakka with RAC2s and RAC5s, but what the LAC5 and LAC2 offers is higher moment to moment DPS than sustained ones. The LAC5 in my setup actually deals 5 damage under 0.22s (-1 shot from 0th second) translating to 22.72 DPS, and LAC2 deals 2 damage under 0.11s which translates to 18.18 DPS. Meanwhile, aside from afflicting yourself with spinup time that RACs requires a sense of readiness, the RAC2 at 6.5475 DPS, would need 0.305s to match what the LAC2 could do in 0.11s, the RAC5 at 0.458s to match what the LAC5 can do in 0.22s

(LAC2) 0.11s < 0.305s (RAC2)
(LAC5) 0.22s < 0.458s (RAC5)

And you know what the kicker is? At half the weight, the LACs could actually bring 2 weapons for every 1 RAC of their class.

The problem with your approach is not considering their application, that the weapons you just compare to doesn't need to compete in the same role of DPS, nor the same rangeband. If you wanted the starey Dakka, the RACs are already enough for that role, why not bring those? Why the need to supplant RACs with LACs?

Same goes with the PAC8 vs CAC2 despite 0.5t heavier, so what? The PAC8 could output 4 CAC2 shots under 0.33s, whereas the single CAC2 would need 2.16s to output the same. To a pokey-hidey role of lights which suits them better to minimize the incoming fire, this is actually pretty good.

I'm comparing LACs and PACs by DPS because their alpha strike values are low for their tonnage. Having low alpha strike relative to their weight puts them into the DPS category by default. They ain't gonna ever compete with the alpha-per-ton of lasers or missiles, but they might have a chance at competing with DPS.

If we want low-DPS high-alpha ballistics for light mechs then Mech Rifles would be better fit for that because they actually have good alpha-per-ton (assuming we reduce or ignore the anti-armor penalty). Mech Rifles would make sense as having slow rate of fire to keep them from replacing ACs. And of course Magshots and AP Gauss.

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 05:22 PM, said:

Sure, but why tho? I mean one one hand, this means that lights would also have to forgo supplementary energy weapons and/or allot additional heatsinks which would have defeated the point of Dakkas being lightweight at all. Why not just bring a single heavy ac in their class and be done with it?

I don't see why LACs or any variation thereof should have their effectiveness soley calibrated for the lighter mechs. They are lights and mediums packing little investment of equipment, they shouldn't even be that powerful right now because the game is pushed towards mobility that heavier mechs can pose more as liability than an asset.

Keeping it effective based on it's tonnage allotment assures that it's useful for all classes. And if LACs are as powerful as their heavy counterpart despite the lighter allotment, that just means there's little point in actually mounting heavy acs on lights. I mean why put an AC10 or UAC10 on an Urbie or Raven at all?

You're already not going to get much in the way of supplementary weapons because of how little tonnage you have to work with, maybe like 2 or 3 Medium Lasers at most assuming you want to stay in the same speed bracket as the Adder or Kit Fox.

Also I should clarify that I'm not asking for them to be as hot as lasers or PPCs, I'm thinking somewhere around 2x the heat of the corresponding standard AC (i.e. LAC/2 is as hot as 2x AC/2) or giving them the same heat as the next higher class of AC (i.e. LAC/2 is as hot as AC/5).

The AC/10 and UAC/10 are already prohibitively costly to mount on a light mech, hence why we're even asking for more low-tonnage ballistics in the first place. If we want to make those easier to mount then we need more weight-saving equipment like XL Gyros and XXL Engines (also ammo quirks would be nice).


EDIT: Final note here, using the current standard ACs as our baseline is not gonna end well because standard ACs are kinda poop right now. They need improvements even if we never get another timeline advancement.

Edited by FupDup, 14 February 2021 - 06:12 PM.

[LordNothing]

crazytimes, on 14 February 2021 - 05:44 PM, said:

I appreciate the optimism... but it has been what 4 years since a weapon, over 2 years since a mech... and they are forecasting another 9 months until they consider putting a new hardpoint on an existing chassis.

If you think new weapons are happening before the heat death of the universe...

the only way we will get any of this stuff is if pgi hands over running of the game to the community. but they aint done milking it yet.

[FupDup]

crazytimes, on 14 February 2021 - 05:44 PM, said:

If you think new weapons are happening before the heat death of the universe...

I don't, but it's an entertaining academic exercise.

LordNothing, on 14 February 2021 - 06:05 PM, said:

the only way we will get any of this stuff is if pgi hands over running of the game to the community. but they aint done milking it yet.

New content would probably help them milk it better because it would beef up the player population for at least a while and give bored veterans a reason to start up the game again (in one of their threads they did say they wanted to bring back old retired players).

[The6thMessenger]

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 06:05 PM, said:

I'm comparing LACs and PACs by DPS because their alpha strike values are low for their tonnage. Having low alpha strike relative to their weight puts them into the DPS category by default. They ain't gonna ever compete with the alpha-per-ton of lasers or missiles, but they might have a chance at competing with DPS.

If we want low-DPS high-alpha ballistics for light mechs then Mech Rifles would be better fit for that because they actually have good alpha-per-ton (assuming we reduce or ignore the anti-armor penalty). Mech Rifles would make sense as having slow rate of fire to keep them from replacing ACs.

"Having low alpha strike relative to their weight puts them into the DPS category by default. " What? No. Alpha and DPS is a matter of weapon configuration.

Likewise it's not just whether it's DPS or Alpha, but rather what role can it actually play, and how it is used based on what the lights are capable of. The Mech-Rifles, assuming single-shot high-damage weapons, could actually supplant the use of Gauss-Rifles in their capacity for long-range high alpha.

If you want to dakka facetime with lots of damage -- high risk high-reward, you RAC. If you want a pokey-face dakka, you LAC. You want actual sniper-capabilities, you Mech-Rifle.

It's not just either-or, it's the multitude of options. What else you can mix-and-match, you can literally use LACs with lasers and they can synergize well with them.

Again if you just wanted "DPS", the RACs can already provide.

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 06:05 PM, said:

You're already not going to get much in the way of supplementary weapons because of how little tonnage you have to work with, maybe like 2 or 3 Medium Lasers at most.

That's still 10 to 15 damage, especially when you're out of ammo. That's not so bad.

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 06:05 PM, said:

Also I should clarify that I'm not asking for them to be as hot as lasers or PPCs, I'm thinking somewhere around 2x the heat of the corresponding standard AC (i.e. LAC/2 is as hot as 2x AC/2) or giving them the same heat as the next higher class of AC (i.e. LAC/2 is as hot as AC/5).

That's not going to end well.

If you wanted to prevent heavier mechs using multiple weapons at all, just add GH with a small amount of heat penalty. The CUAC5 GHs at 3, but is still useable. Maybe same direction.

FupDup, on 14 February 2021 - 06:05 PM, said:

The AC/10 and UAC/10 are already prohibitively costly to mount on a light mech, hence why we're even asking for more low-tonnage ballistics in the first place. If we want to make those easier to mount then we need more weight-saving equipment like XL Gyros and XXL Engines (also ammo quirks would be nice).

I don't know what to tell you, You know Clans could actually mount UAC10s just fine, even UAC20s. At least the 30-tonners where it's at. The IS 30 and 35 tonners can mount UAC10s at a limited capacity, they just need ammo/ton quirks.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 14 February 2021 - 06:45 PM.

[Ialdabaoth]

Never change, MWO community... never change.

[Y E O N N E]

LordNothing, on 14 February 2021 - 05:22 PM, said:

idk about that. ive always suggested they be implemented as burst weapons, because they are reducing caliber to bring the weight down, which means more shells to make up the weapon rating.

Does not compute. You have the weight of the casings, primers, and possibly sabots for every shell, now, some of which you would otherwise only need one of. The overall weight would likely be higher, not lower, with smaller calibre doing the same damage against armor with all else being equal.

Quote

the point is to give mechs with less tonnage the ability to carry heavier ballistics. if you implement them in a way where you see 100 tonners boating them, you did it wrong.

Not really. Small lasers are useful on Assaults, too, you know.

Quote

a little bit of z-spread never bothered me. you just have to follow through as if you were using a laser. i use all the cacs, except the 5 (the 5 class in general is in dire need of buffs, all tech bases and types, possibly excluding the uac5 which is still useful).

though you can even flip the pacs so they are single shot, as clans have few ppfld ballistics.

You use all the cACs poorly and would do better with PPFLD. Sorry to be blunt.

Edited by Miss Greene, 14 February 2021 - 07:16 PM.

[FupDup]

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 06:31 PM, said:

"Having low alpha strike relative to their weight puts them into the DPS category by default. " What? No. Alpha and DPS is a matter of weapon configuration.

Likewise it's not just whether it's DPS or Alpha, but rather what role can it actually play, and how it is used based on what the lights are capable of. The Mech-Rifles, assuming single-shot high-damage weapons, could actually supplant the use of Gauss-Rifles in their capacity for long-range high alpha.

If you want to dakka facetime with lots of damage -- high risk high-reward, you RAC. If you want a pokey-face dakka, you LAC. You want actual sniper-capabilities, you Mech-Rifle.

It's not just either-or, it's the multitude of options. What else you can mix-and-match, you can literally use LACs with lasers and they can synergize well with them.

Again if you just wanted "DPS", the RACs can already provide.

No, it's a characteristic determined by the weapon's stats. A Heavy Gauss for example is never gonna be a DPS weapon regardless of build or playstyle. It's a frontloaded weapon by its nature. Extreme example yes but it gets the point across.

A Medium Laser and AC/5 both deal 5 damage, but the ML is a good frontloaded weapon and the AC/5 is a DPS weapon with really bad frontloaded characteristics, because the AC/5 pays so much for its 5 damage that it has to shoot faster in order to be somewhat relevant. The Magshot and AC/2 both deal 2 damage. The Magshot would work fine with a slow cooldown because it only weighs 0.5 tons, but since the AC/2 pays 6 tons it has to shoot really fast to be worth its weight. Etc.

Basically a weapon can get away with low damage if it either has very low weight (laser) or fairly fast firing (AC). Low damage and moderate tonnage and slow firing is the worst of all worlds.

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 06:31 PM, said:

That's not going to end well.

If you wanted to prevent heavier mechs using multiple weapons at all, just add GH with a small amount of heat penalty. The CUAC5 GHs at 3, but is still useable. Maybe same direction.

I'm okay with setting their Ghost cap lower.

The6thMessenger, on 14 February 2021 - 06:31 PM, said:

I don't know what to tell you, You know Clans could actually mount UAC10s just fine, even UAC20s. At least the 30-tonners where it's at. The IS 30 and 35 tonners can mount UAC10s at a limited capacity, they just need ammo/ton quirks.

Adder, Fox, and Cougar can handle it, but they are outclassed by the other higher-damage builds available. But they are at least doable.

The IS 35-tonners can squeeze it in but backup weaponry won't be so great. The Urbanmech enters meme territory with a UAC/10 because it requires a substantial engine downgrade (XL180 only leaves room from 1 ton of ammo, and that's without adding JJs).