190 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 28 March 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

The point is that what I've been calling whack-a-mole balance is bad for diversity in game-play - this form of balance is completely blind to anything other than "does it kill," and to heck in a handbag with anything that doesn't fit that idea.

A reminder, we should stop judging boats by the criteria "does it float?" and planes by the question "does it fly?" Because, clearly, that is small minded. Sinking boats and immobile planes add diversity to the world.

Edited by Victor Morson, 28 March 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 25 March 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

If it is inferior than literally any other gun in the game, that's a bad weapon. Yet you say it's a good weapon?

For what I think is the fourth time, I haven't been saying it's a good weapon. I've been saying that it has a job that it does; a job which I even quoted you agreeing with!

Quote

Which is still pretty far off topic.

So it's off topic in a thread discussing weapons balance to point out how a group of weapons are, as a group, all better weapons than most others?

Quote

10 UAC/2s sounds fearsome on a Clan 'mech. Until you realize that it has the damage potential of a single LRM-20. On a 100 ton 'mech. Sweet Jesus that's terrible, in particular coming from a tech base that can do the same damage as that with just two ER Large Lasers with better focused fire.. and there's Clan 'mechs that carry six of them for 10 tons less.. I mean holy crap is that a terrible 'mech.

Tactical Ops, page 100:

Rapid-Fire Mode: Any standard or light autocannon (not LB-X, Ultra or Rotary models) can be fired at double the standard rate as though it were an Ultra AC. This approach carries considerable risks. Follow the standard rules for a Rapid-Fire Weapon firing two shots (see p. 114, TW), with the following exceptions. The weapon’s arming circuitry fails on a To-Hit Roll result of 4 or less (rather than 2 or less). On a To-Hit Roll result of 2, the ammo feed jams, causing the rounds in the chamber to explode inside the barrel. This causes an effect similar to an ammunition explosion, but inflicts only the amount of damage the autocannon would normally inflict in one shot and does not cause any other ammo to explode. The autocannon is considered completely destroyed (meaning players must mark off all of its critical slots). CASE keeps this damage from spreading to other locations, but the MechWarrior still receives two pilot hits. Double the heat generated by the specific weapon type used when firing in Rapid-Fire Mode.

Multiple Targets: Rather than firing at a single target, any type of autocannon can be “walked” across two targets close to one another.


So 20 points of damage at 2,220 meters (74 hex, extreme range) at only +6 (on 2d6, that's a 72.22% hit rate), and +8 ( that's a 41.67% hit rate) on LOS shots (2,221 meters out to 35 miles or how ever far you can see) away is something that can be ignored?

...

wow.

Besides which, you're leaving out the other side of the equation; the armor values, and the most armor (outside of specialty armor) a 'mech can carry on any one section is 62 points of armor, and that's only *if* you completely strip the rear section of all armor.

Quote

I hate weapons that are really heavy that don't kill stuff. The majority of weapons you listed were very light. I'd have no problem with an AC/2 if it was very light, because you'd be able to jam a several instead of just one, making it more than viable. If an AC/5 weighed half as much as it does currently, it might be a very respectable weapon. As it stands it's so heavy it's a lighter 'mechs main firepower and that is where it falls apart very fast. My point is a weapon that's only a half ton out performs it, and weapons in the same weight bracket WAY outperform it.

So, because you hate weapons that are really heavy that don't kill stuff fast, they should be whack-a-moled or otherwise changed?

Quote

... It's inferior to every single gun in the BTU; it doesn't have enough damage to be used as ranged fire support when faced with LRMs, PPCs, ER weapons to compete with them, and it's not enough damage to drive off even close range 'mechs from just walking up to it.

Yes, it might be the "worst" weapon in the BTU by some standard... which does not justify messing with it. If you make it better than some other weapon; or even close, you'll wind up having to mess with that weapon ... or give something else a bonus ... it's a never ending cycle.

There is always a "worst" and a "best" by whatever standard... that will never change, unless everything is made exactly equal.

Quote

Again with this. What is the job of an AC2? You've just said it can't do anything better than any other weapon. There's literally no advantage to taking it over a superior fire support weapon. None, at all. Unless the BV for it is severely nerfed, that is.

How does saying that "a weapon has a job" (which is what I've been saying) turn into "a weapon does something better than any other weapon?"

Saying a weapon has a job means it does something in particular.

Saying a weapon does a job in particular better than all other weapons is NOT the same thing as saying it does something in particular.

You need to quit equivocating the two usages. They are not the same thing.

Quote

There's only three types of 'mechs that have any business out there:

A: Find it. Recon 'mechs.
B: Kill it. 'Mechs designed to kill other 'mechs. This includes fire support, brawlers, anything that's role is damage dealing.
C: Extreme specialty support. This might be a 'mech designed towards electronic warfare or command roles, it's hard to tell in MWO. An example of specialty support in MWLL for example is a Clan hovercraft with AECM which, in that game, hides nearby allies from radar. It's not very good past that. There's likely to be designs like this in MWO, at least in spirit.

Why should we accept your list? On what basis?

Quote

What you positively do not want is a 'mech that's designed for fire support or mid range fighting mounting inferior guns on purpose, unless it came really cheap to the config.

So now, other factors beyond weapon performance count?

(emphasis mine, obviously)

Quote

At the end of the day AC/2 centric 'mechs are not specialty 'mechs. They're fire support 'mechs, which fall into "kill it."

I disagree that "fire support" requires the "kill it" qualification. It is useful to soften up targets without killing them at extreme range before they get close.

Quote

Because it's a game about blowing up the enemy, people want stuff that, you know, blows up the enemy. Some players might want to be more creative and use electronic warfare, calling down powerful support abilities or worry about spotting the enemy for the team, but at the end of the day, everyone wants to contribute to the goal of killing the enemy team.

And I would like to see the roles expanded beyond what we have already had; and if you think getting peppered with ac2's is something to be ignored which doesn't contribute to your being a softer target for other people ...

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 28 March 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

A reminder, we should stop judging boats by the criteria "does it float?" and planes by the question "does it fly?" Because, clearly, that is small minded. Sinking boats and immobile planes add diversity to the world.

This analogy does not apply.

AC/2's do damage; and they do it at extreme range... which I have been pointing out.

I am not saying to NOT judge weapons by their damage when i say that factors beyond damage ability should be considered, unless you're saying in your post here that ac2's totally rock and own all other weapons. Expanding one's view does does not require subtracting from it.

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 28 March 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

This analogy does not apply.

A haiku:

My car needs to be pushed;
My light bulb provides almost no light;
My toilet cannot flush.
All these things could be said to have a purpose, as a gun that can't kill people.

Diverse I am.

--

In all seriousness, given other weapons hit to similar ranges with more damage, for less weight and in some cases without ammunition concerns, the AC/2 is terrible and 'mechs that center around it are terrible. The UAC2 bane is terrible. The LRM/15 Bane does 120 damage at long range versus the AC/2 Bane's 40. Seriously, it's a 100 ton Clan assault that might have problems going up against a Tier 1 IS mech.

Edited by Victor Morson, 28 March 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Johannes Falkner]

What would be the next worse weapon after the AC/2 (and AC/5)? MGs, small lasers? How much should they be buffed?

There should be CHEAP weapons that perform according to their costs. Higher performing (and correspondingly higher costing) weapons are just that. Game balance can allow for subpar weapons. If you don't like AC/2s then buy a mech that does not use them (or pick a different mech to begin with).

[Felicitatem Parco]

Well... we can "balance" AC/2 by making them a little lighter in weight. It takes up only 1 critical slot (75% less space than a single AC/5), but a single AC/5 weighs just 33% more than a AC/2. So, if you want to "balance" the AC/2, then just make it a little lighter so you can put more of them on weight-limited chassis.

I know we won't be shooting at aerospace fighters in the immediate future, but AC/2 can still be a harasser weapon. Scouts could fit a whole bunch of compact little AC/2s if they were only a bit lighter.

[Karl Streiger]

I said it a hundred times and i will say it a lot more...did the fraction that argue AC2s need a buff have ever played TT?
Have you ever played 3025 - battles - have you ever seen what a BlackJack is able to do?
Have you ever played a Solaris 7 match - where a AC2 is able to fire every turn at low heat?

Edited by Karl Streiger, 28 March 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 28 March 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

I said it a hundred times and i will say it a lot more...did the fraction that argue AC2s need a buff have ever played TT?

First, we're not a fraction; second, yes we have. Even in 3025 the AC2 is a terrible weapon contrasted to the LRM. Likewise, the AC2 and AC5 have never been ported effectively to a MechWarrior sim environment, outside of Living Legends where it was given an effective niche by giving it a bonus against aircraft.

But if you glance through the thread there is a lot of discussion about all incarnations of light ACs at all points in the franchise, where it's simply not worth the tonnage versus weapons with a similar range.

Karl Streiger, on 28 March 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Have you ever played 3025 - battles - have you ever seen what a BlackJack is able to do?
Have you ever played a Solaris 7 match - where a AC2 is able to fire every turn at low heat?

Honestly the only thing a Blackjack has done is give the person who rolled one a reasonable excuse as to how bad their force is. Sure, it might TAC, but for 100 BV more you get a medium with even faster movement and is carrying two LRM-15s in the form of the Trebuchet that also can TAC. Plus we're talking 30 damage versus 4 at said ranges. Color me unimpressed. Most people who get stuck with a 2xAC/2 Blackjack immediately rush with the intent of getting into medium laser range as fast as possible, which given how much the AC/2 takes out of it, isn't very fast at all.

The Solaris rules are interesting, however, in that they allow for them to fire (with full damage) much more often, instead of providing such low damage-over-time; it raises their DPS (as CBT turns simulate a period of time) vastly over the TT counterparts which most MW games have balanced them to reflect.

Edited by Victor Morson, 29 March 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[docmorningstar]

Don't forget that in 3025 all weapons 'hit' their aimpoint, no matter whether the target was moving or not...meaning that AC/2s worked like insta-hit lasers, that fired at silly ranges. THat is why they were at all useful in 3025. You could cockpit shoot moving light mechs at max range, no problem. NOT a good thing....

[Belisarius1]

docmorningstar, on 29 March 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

Don't forget that in 3025 all weapons 'hit' their aimpoint, no matter whether the target was moving or not...meaning that AC/2s worked like insta-hit lasers, that fired at silly ranges. THat is why they were at all useful in 3025. You could cockpit shoot moving light mechs at max range, no problem. NOT a good thing....

Just for the record, I'm pretty sure they're talking about tabletop CBT set in the 3025 epoch, not the sim.

[docmorningstar]

hrm...I've never played a TT game where the AC2 blackjack was useful in tabletop EXCEPT FOR killing tanks

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 29 March 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Honestly the only thing a Blackjack has done is give the person who rolled one a reasonable excuse as to how bad their force is. Sure, it might TAC, but for 100 BV more you get a medium with even faster movement and is carrying two LRM-15s in the form of the Trebuchet that also can TAC. Plus we're talking 30 damage versus 4 at said ranges. Color me unimpressed. Most people who get stuck with a 2xAC/2 Blackjack immediately rush with the intent of getting into medium laser range as fast as possible, which given how much the AC/2 takes out of it, isn't very fast at all.

The Solaris rules are interesting, however, in that they allow for them to fire (with full damage) much more often, instead of providing such low damage-over-time; it raises their DPS (as CBT turns simulate a period of time) vastly over the TT counterparts which most MW games have balanced them to reflect.

docmorningstar, on 29 March 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

hrm...I've never played a TT game where the AC2 blackjack was useful in tabletop EXCEPT FOR killing tanks

I thought the same once...

but the AC2 on a BlackJack is a great weapon:
* short range of 8 minmum range of 4 - better bracket as the LRM
* medium laser long range 7-9 -> short 0-3.

When used right a Trebuchet hasn't any chance. It may hit harder but you will hit more often.

You can pin every enemy with your light guns with high precision. Most mechs can hardly avoid to get a hit by a AC2 most light mechs can hardly take more than 3 hits in every location before you cause critical damage - move to close and you will feel the fury of 4 medium laser - stay away and the AC 2 will kill you slow

Of course there are some mobile light mechs that can kill a BlackJack - for example the Wolfhound. But again i would rush forward...3 mlas vs 4 mlas
the large laser will cause overheating. Panther - BlackJack - again rush 4 SRMs vs 4 MLAS.

The BJ is able to be a hard match for every mech in his weight class.


At least if you really think the Kraken with its 10 ultra 2 or the Deimos with its 6 ultra 2 are bad mechs...well face them in vakuum and see your troops dying.

[Xhaleon]

Hey, I've got this idea that might step on some people's toes a wee bit.

Why not we bring some of the idea of Through Armor Criticals to into play? I know, I know, its a level of randomness that a lot of people are trying to avoid, but hear me out.

Since the AC/2 and the AC/5 both do not have a defined niche role that separates them from the rest (and suck at the role that they do have), why don't we give them one instead of trying to fit them somewhere on the DPS line? Make them the only weapons that do some controlled TAC-ing! Or better yet, make all ACs have this as their exclusive attribute!

Basically, the more damaged the section being hit is, the more likely that an AC will score an armor pierce and have a chance to do damage to internals and/or components even when armor is not reduced to zero. Weapons should usually do this when armor is stripped as normal, but ACs start causing critical hits to subsystems faster. Although it is based on some factor of luck, the chance of it penetrating at 100% and above 50% is nil to nearly zero. Only by the help of other big guns (or mechs) removing the armor of the enemy will the ACs start making reliable critical hits up to being very consistent when the armor of the target is reduced to near destruction. The damage value of the AC helps it strip armor and do criticals by itself, but the low damage of the 2-point and 5-point versions are bad enough to solidly define their place in the weapon hierarchy.

By varying the chance of the TAC based on armor level, all ACs in general can be upgraded to this standard safely, as even the big bore 20-pointers cannot penetrate fresh armor on the first shot, but will start doing so as armor is stripped off. Even then, the AC/2 and AC/5 get a break by being able to fire many more shots and cause more criticals, so they still have a use.

I have not thought too much about the other variations of ACs, but I'd like to polish the basic idea first before looking at the outlying options (as of 3049). LBX cluster shots could be thought of as non-penetrating, but with so many pellets are much more likely to score critical hits after armor is stripped (as per normal expectations). The regular LBX slug ammo should function as per the proposal above.

In an RPG sense, all the other weapons have higher DPS, but the autocannons are the only ones to have a critical threat, and the potential to cause a lot of status effects (subsystem damage) earlier on in a fight. Whatcha think?

[Slyck]

I think this whole thread will be ironic when the Jagermech becomes the premiere sniping mech because of the tracking speed of arms and the accurate damage grouping of ACs over their peers. There will be cries of broken across the boards.

But to be honest the great advantage of AC is economy. They're cheap weapon systems and that will mean that we will probably always be able to afford to repair and redeploy our AC mechs over those that carry energy heavy load outs. C-Bills and repair cost will be a part of this game so this advantage can't be ignored.

Edited by Slyck, 29 March 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Siilk]

Slyck, on 29 March 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

I think this whole thread will be ironic when the Jagermech becomes the premiere sniping mech because of the tracking speed of arms and the accurate damage grouping of ACs over their peers. There will be cries of broken across the boards.

The problem is, any mech with 2 ER Large lasers in it's arms would beat Jagger at that. LLs are lighter, smaller and deal more damage, than AC2s and AC5s together while having only slightly shorter range. As for heat, let's see: 2xAC2 + 2xAC5 + 4 tons of ammo = 32 tons, 14 crit slots. 2xERLLs = 10 tons, 4 crit slots. So there would be 22 tons and 10 crit slots to fill with heatsinks. It'll be more than enough to dissipate 24 heat from both LLs.

Slyck, on 29 March 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

But to be honest the great advantage of AC is economy. They're cheap weapon systems and that will mean that we will probably always be able to afford to repair and redeploy our AC mechs over those that carry energy heavy load outs. C-Bills and repair cost will be a part of this game so this advantage can't be ignored.

True. I suppose that's the easiest way to balance smaller ACs after all.

[Slyck]

Siilk, on 29 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

The problem is, any mech with 2 ER Large lasers in it's arms would beat Jagger at that. LLs are lighter, smaller and deal more damage, than AC2s and AC5s together while having only slightly shorter range. As for heat, let's see: 2xAC2 + 2xAC5 + 4 tons of ammo = 32 tons, 14 crit slots. 2xERLLs = 10 tons, 4 crit slots. So there would be 22 tons and 10 crit slots to fill with heatsinks. It'll be more than enough to dissipate 24 heat from both LLs.

Except we know that all lasers do DoT and the ACs do instantaneous damage as part of the balancing against laser boats. So the ACs just have to be lined up, timed and fired like sniping in most games, but the lasers have to be line up, fired and held on target to both do all the damage they are capable of and do it all to a single location. Not impossible but significantly more difficult.

ACs: Boom! Headshot!

Lasers: Heeeaa ... damn he moved!

[Siilk]

Slyck, on 29 March 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Except we know that all lasers do DoT and the ACs do instantaneous damage as part of the balancing against laser boats. So the ACs just have to be lined up, timed and fired like sniping in most games, but the lasers have to be line up, fired and held on target to both do all the damage they are capable of and do it all to a single location. Not impossible but significantly more difficult.

Not exactly. ACs are confirmed to have travel finite time and projectile drop, so it wouldn't be so bright for them either. Furthermore, smaller ACs could pretty much end up being high RoF weapons, instead of single- or short burst-firing ones, which would make them even harder to use for sniping.

[Slyck]

Travel time can be learned and typicaly is in most shooters. And as far as I know the projectile drop only happens beyond the ACs long range bracket.

As to ACs with differing RoT of fire, I'm all for it. As a matter of fact I'm all for different behavioral varieties (models) in each weapon class. But that doesn't appear to be the case in this game. We haven't seen low caliber ACs, but we can infer that they will behave like the AC/20 we have seen, which is single shot. I can understand from the devs point of view not wanting to have burst fire ACs as that will make them DoT and from metagame standpoint that appears to be the place of lasers and their answer to the very balancing we're discussing here.

The last bit is only conjecture from what we have seen and heard, but it is the only conjecture we have evidence twards.

[Hao Yu]

For MWO, I would throw all previous canon conventions (perceived or actual) out the window and balance the ACs like any other weapon system: Take the concept in a void and balance from scratch.

First of all, autocannons, even the higher caliber ones, were the most badly-balanced elements of the original tabletop game. They made no sense. Heavier than energy weapons? Lower caliber shells having longer range than larger shells? Insanity.

The only time a ballistic weapon made sense in the game was when the Gauss rifle was made. Heavy as hell, but its weight was proportionate to the damage it dealt.

That's the reason why most of the non-canon balance changes some players used for their games used the Gauss as the basis for altering the stats of the autocannons. Even if they didn't do that, they mostly agreed that the stats of the ACs had to be redone from scratch.

Second, even if ACs were balanced in the original game (and I'll repeat, they're NOT), you can't directly translate a turn-based tactical game into a live-action simulator and expect similar results. There's this element called Rate of Fire that can't simply be a matter of heat. It's a matter of the difference in live combat between automatic weapons (like an assault rifle) and single fire weapons (like a sniper rifle). ACs should be balanced against lasers in that way.

In the end? Rewrite the stats completely. Give heavy weapons some range (it would certainly give the Atlas a better open-field reputation). Make the whole mess of ballistic guns lighter. Devote most of the weight to ammo, not the actual gun. Make them fire like assault rifles. Give them some legitimacy against all those PPC lovers.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'd prefer for them to put in TACs as Xhaleon suggested - however any mention of "chance" or even worse "RNG" sends a fair proportion of these boards frothing and foaming at the mouth as it denigrates their 1337 ski11s.