37 replies to this topic

[Widowmaker1981]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 12:24 AM, said:

They could also add HAGs to large laser ghost heat group, that would reduce these massive alphas.

Yeah, i think this is really the solution. To be honest i dont think HAGs naturally sync well with PPCs, so it might make sense to just take them out of the Gauss/PPC group and put them in the Large laser group.

[Curccu]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 October 2023 - 03:16 AM, said:

Yeah, i think this is really the solution. To be honest i dont think HAGs naturally sync well with PPCs, so it might make sense to just take them out of the Gauss/PPC group and put them in the Large laser group.

Not sure if technically possible but could be in both groups.

[The6thMessenger]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 03:34 AM, said:

Not sure if technically possible but could be in both groups.

Why tho?

Gauss + PPC is linked precisely because of the cancerous build of Gauss PPC, of doing heavy ppld at a range.

HAGs aren't ppfld, they are 5 ppfld x4, x6, and x8.

[Curccu]

The6thMessenger, on 13 October 2023 - 03:56 AM, said:

Why tho?

Gauss + PPC is linked precisely because of the cancerous build of Gauss PPC, of doing heavy ppld at a range.

HAGs aren't ppfld, they are 5 ppfld x4, x6, and x8.

Their velocity and range still syncs pretty well and alpha of 80+10 splash or 100+10 splash is pretty damn nasty.

[The6thMessenger]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 04:06 AM, said:

Their velocity and range still syncs pretty well and alpha of 80+10 splash or 100+10 splash is pretty damn nasty.

HAGs have COF and with long burst. They will not sync up, especially at that range that you seem to like, and would make leading even trickier.

[Curccu]

The6thMessenger, on 13 October 2023 - 04:44 AM, said:

HAGs have COF and with long burst. They will not sync up, especially at that range that you seem to like, and would make leading even trickier.

That long burst for HAG40 is less than a second, that is shorter than any medium or large category laser except MPL, HAG30 0,7 seconds so not that long.
Sure cone of fire messes up perfect aim a bit.

[The6thMessenger]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 04:56 AM, said:

That long burst for HAG40 is less than a second, that is shorter than any medium or large category laser except MPL, HAG30 0,7 seconds so not that long.
Sure cone of fire messes up perfect aim a bit.

And the Gauss Pepes basically have 0.00. The 2x CERPPC + 4x CAC10 basically have 0.11s of delay as threshold, 0.22s when it was still 3-round burst, so effective-wise 0.22s is the assumed limit where volley fire remains effective with CERPPC. HAC20 is at 0.42s which is almost twice the original CAC10 duration with +1 volley, and you can only fire two at a time, while still having COF.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Come on, there is just really nothing that puts this on the league of trad Gauss Pepes.

[Runecarver]

That was honestly underwhelming. The cauldron created this current situation, trying to excuse their past short sighted decisions is quite funny to me.

[Widowmaker1981]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 03:34 AM, said:

Not sure if technically possible but could be in both groups.

Not sure, my reason for suggesting moving it is to still allow HAGs to be paired with energy weapons for build variety - just stopping the problematic HAGVomit 120+ alpha builds. I dont think HAG+PPC needs to be banned in a world where GaussVomit is still OK...

I think id probably also advocate for doubling the number of shells on HAGs, but with a shorter interval (maybe 0.07 or so). Makes it 2.5 dmg per 'shell', same as the UAC5 and helps with the crazy damage per ton by making the ammo dmg/ton much worse.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 October 2023 - 05:25 AM, said:

I think id probably also advocate for doubling the number of shells on HAGs, but with a shorter interval (maybe 0.07 or so). Makes it 2.5 dmg per 'shell', same as the UAC5 and helps with the crazy damage per ton by making the ammo dmg/ton much worse.

Not really a fan of making ammo per ton worse, you're just increasing the tax to mount the weapon at that point. TBH though, the real question is why does it have to do 40 damage? This is the thing that has bugged me with MWO and MW5 is the insistence that the numbers have to match for some reason. MW4 numbers didn't match, LBX20 I'm pretty sure did something like 28 damage and the LBX10 did 14. Who cares, if we are being such sticklers about the numbers then pull a Mechcommander 2 and call the AC20 a heavy autocannon and a HAG40 a Heavy Hyper Assault Gauss (though the acronym makes that adjective a little.....rough).


Trying to avoid dovetailing to another discussion, but it has always bothered me that all the Mechwarriors have stuck with the "AC2 must do 2 damage per shot" theory which has typically turned them into rapid fire weapons which means they don't work well with lighter mechs because of the face time, but also there is less to distinguish them between the other types of ACs like UAC, LBX, HVAC, etc.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 13 October 2023 - 06:31 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 13 October 2023 - 06:28 AM, said:

Not really a fan of making ammo per ton worse, you're just increasing the tax to mount the weapon at that point. TBH though, the real question is why does it have to do 40 damage?

Im pretty sure its purely because people 'expect' it from the naming of the weapons and changing it would obviously also work as a way to decrease their damage/ton efficiency, sure.

I do think there is some benefit to decreasing ammo per ton, though. The HAG gets 240 dmg/ton, which is the highest of all ballistic weapons - (U)AC10 was already an outlier at 230/ton and standard gauss is 150/ton. Yes, it is a tax to mount the weapon but.. thats what ammo is for in the first place, and im arguing that at least part of the reason HAGs are problematic is that the tax to mount them is too low.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 October 2023 - 07:04 AM, said:

Im pretty sure its purely because people 'expect' it from the naming of the weapons and changing it would obviously also work as a way to decrease their damage/ton efficiency, sure.

I do think there is some benefit to decreasing ammo per ton, though. The HAG gets 240 dmg/ton, which is the highest of all ballistic weapons - (U)AC10 was already an outlier at 230/ton and standard gauss is 150/ton. Yes, it is a tax to mount the weapon but.. thats what ammo is for in the first place, and im arguing that at least part of the reason HAGs are problematic is that the tax to mount them is too low.

Hot take: if ammo is just a tax, increase the tonnage and give us unlimited ammo and be done with it. I know it won't happen because of ammo quirks and it's a bit late for that but meh.

Either way, I would just prefer the damage is dropped a tad which accomplishes both since it lowers the damage per ton and the damage potential in one go.

[Curccu]

Ammo per ton should be flat same number (rounded up) for all weapons, it is just silly how it changes between weapons.

[Widowmaker1981]

Curccu, on 13 October 2023 - 07:49 AM, said:

Ammo per ton should be flat same number (rounded up) for all weapons, it is just silly how it changes between weapons.

if anything, you could argue that it should be higher for weapons with lower velocity, as youd expect them to miss more often.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 October 2023 - 08:05 AM, said:

if anything, you could argue that it should be higher for weapons with lower velocity, as youd expect them to miss more often.

That kind of depends on the range of the weapon. I mean average time to target for weapons probably shouldn't be the same for short range as it is long range, BUT shorter range weapons don't need to have similar velocities as long range necessarily either.

[CFC Conky]

PurplePuke, on 12 October 2023 - 01:05 PM, said:

...

From my listen to the podcast, they intend to lower the heat capacity. That will limit alpha strikes.

Then they'll watch to see what happens. If it's not having the desired effect, they'll make another change.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I hope it works to curb some of the extremely high alphas in the game.

The change might limit and/or delay a second and/or subsequent alphas. Mechs will still be demolished by them.

Not a complaint, just an observation.

Good hunting,
CFC Conky

[D V Devnull]

I'll just catch up with both of these...

---

---

---

Samziel, on 12 October 2023 - 09:40 PM, said:

You did listen to the whole podcast did you? Join the Cauldron Discord to get your voice heard. They do read the forums too but the Discord was made specifically for this. https://discord.gg/BKb7muZZ3Y

Joining the whole Discord thing is not physically possible for me and will never be, due to multiple reasons that are all beyond my control. (The only thing I can tell you regarding those is that I'm on a super-old computer which can NEVER handle Discord without breaking... Please do not ask for further details, as it would be an MWO "Code Of Conduct" violation to tell those...) So there is why I hope that The Cauldron is paying proper attention to this thread and the discussion within, because we're all talking in the equivalent of a vacuum echo chamber otherwise.

---

---

---

CFC Conky, on 13 October 2023 - 10:05 AM, said:

The change might limit and/or delay a second and/or subsequent alphas. Mechs will still be demolished by them.

Not a complaint, just an observation.

Such changes going so far as to completely remove Heat Capacity expansion capability may entirely block the initial Alpha being fired at once, or cause Damage if the Override is enabled. Any combination exceeding about 49 Heat before cooling is applied will generally cause a shutdown of Clan Mechs automatically, should those of The Cauldron completely wipe out Heat Capacity on any Clan Mechs being expandable. Have you really seen how high the Heat amounts get when you stick together "6xERML (4.8x6=28.8 Heat) + 2xHLL (2x14.5=29 Heat) ... a total of 57.8 Heat = Auto-Shutdown @ 8.8 over the real limit" for starters? That moderately-sized total of 72 Damage Alpha would be permanently invalidated, while the I.S. can still come up with ludicrous super-deadly 80+ Damage Alphas — even crazy 'TTB'-styled staggered ones — that can leave people swearing from shock. Even the whole "6xERML (4.8x6=28.8 Heat) + 2xERLL (2x9.5=19 Heat) ... a total of 47.8 Heat" would be left in a very bad state, what with the 58 Damage that is limited to. That does not even include adding any Missiles and/or Ballistics to the weapons config, which would drive the Heat far higher. Some rather serious & considerable expansion is still needed for Heat Capacity unless the intent is to invalidate most Non-SRM and/or Non-Ballistic types of Builds which currently exist on the Clan side of things. It does not matter what your cooling rate is if your Mech's systems simply will not handle the total influx of applied Heat prior to cooling in the first place.

---

---

---

~D. V. "can not do Discord ever... can see bad ham-fisted changes entirely killing Clan Tech in general" Devnull

[The6thMessenger]

D V Devnull, on 15 October 2023 - 05:50 AM, said:

Joining the whole Discord thing is not physically possible for me and will never be, due to multiple reasons that are all beyond my control. (The only thing I can tell you regarding those is that I'm on a super-old computer which can NEVER handle Discord without breaking... Please do not ask for further details, as it would be an MWO "Code Of Conduct" violation to tell those...) So there is why I hope that The Cauldron is paying proper attention to this thread and the discussion within, because we're all talking in the equivalent of a vacuum echo chamber otherwise.

Well, there's phones.

Also yeah, there's an issue of it being an echo-chamber as well.