36 replies to this topic

[Xandralkus]

This is the first of a large number of posts I will be doing, in which I discuss weapon balance. This one is dedicated to the AC-2.

TL:DR - Skip to bold text

Current raw stats:
Damage: 2
Cooldown: 0.5
Heat: 1
Ideal Range: 720
Max Range: 2160
Slots: 1
Tonnage: 6

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 4
Heat Per Second: 2
DPS per ton: 0.666
Alpha per ton: 0.333
Damage per Heat: 2

Let's see how the AC-2 stacks up against two other well-used, effective, player-approved weapons: the Gauss Rifle and the Medium Laser.

Gauss Rifle

Damage: 15
Cooldown: 4
Heat: 1
Ideal Range: 660
Max Range: 1980
Slots: 7
Tonnage: 15

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 3.75
Heat Per Second: 0.25
DPS per ton: 0.25
Alpha per ton: 1.00
Damage per Heat: 15

The AC-2 has a 32% advantage over the Gauss Rifle in DPS-per-ton.
The Gauss has 3 times (a 200% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The Gauss has 7.5 times (a 650% advantage over) the AC-2's damage-per-heat.

The AC-2 is quite underpowered in comparison to the Gauss (a ballistic weapon of similar range). A 32% DPS advantage is not worth the Gauss's 200% alpha-per-ton advantage and 650% damage-per-heat advantage; not in any universe. Let's compare it to the Medium Laser now, and see how it measures up:

Damage: 5
Cooldown: 3
Heat: 4
Ideal Range: 270
Max Range: 540
Slots: 1
Tonnage: 1

Current derived stats:
Damage per Second: 1.666
Heat Per Second: 1.5
DPS per ton: 1.666
Alpha per ton: 5
Damage per heat: 1.25

The Medium Laser has 2.5 times (a 150% advantage over) the AC-2's DPS-per-ton.
The Medium Laser has 15 times (a 1400% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The AC-2 has a 62% advantage over the Medium Laser's damage-per-heat.

The medium laser is an energy weapon, and I would expect a ballistic weapon to have a marked increase in damage-per-heat over an energy weapon. I would also expect the energy weapon to have higher DPS-per-ton and alpha-per-ton in exchange for the damage-per-heat dropoff.

While a 150% advantage in DPS per ton may be...plausibly understandable given the circumstances, a 1400% advantage in alpha-per-ton shows that something is clearly amiss. These weapons are not even close to being balanced against one another.

Ultimately, the AC-2 is supposed to be a rapid-fire ballistic weapon; we can balance it without altering these fundamental characteristics. The AC-2's alpha-per-ton needs to be increased - not drastically, but subtly (after all, it is not intended to be a high-alpha weapon). More importantly, the DPS-per-ton and damage-per-heat need to be modified so that they make up for the weapon's natural (though no longer debilitating) alpha-per-ton.

Suggested AC-2 Raw Stats:

Damage: 2.3 (up by 15%)
Cooldown: 0.4 (ROF up by 25%)
Heat: 0.6 (down by 40%)
Ideal Range: 720
Max Range: 2160
Slots: 2 (up by 100%)
Tonnage: 6

Suggested derived stats:
Damage per Second: 5.75
Heat Per Second: 1.5
DPS per ton: 0.958
Alpha per ton: 0.383
Damage per Heat: 3.83

Most obviously, AC-2 viewshake would need to be significantly reduced, since its role would be doing damage, not CC'ing the target. In fact, in a game such as Mechwarrior Online, CC from a weapon probably should not exist at all as a primary role.

Now let's see how the AC-2 v2.0 stacks up against the Gauss:

The AC-2 would have 3.83 times (a 283% advantage over) the Gauss Rifle's DPS-per-ton.
The Gauss would have 2.61 times (a 161% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The Gauss would have 3.91 times (a 291% advantage over) the AC-2's damage-per-heat.

I increased the size of the AC-2 from one critical to two. Ballistic weapons, historically, are always larger than the other classes of weapons, and the new AC-2 is actually worth its own weight. Increasing the size from one to two criticals will not in any way compromise any existing stock configuration.

The tonnage of the AC-2 remains unchanged through my proposed balancing. No alterations need to be made to existing mechs that use the AC-2.

The rate of fire has been increased by 25%, ammunition count per ton for the AC-2 should go up by 25% to match, or 94 rounds per ton.

The role of the AC-2 has not changed. It is a low-alpha, high-ROF weapon with long range, low weight, and good damage output, outclassed by the Gauss Rifle in terms of heat efficiency per damage and alpha damage per ton.

Edited by Xandralkus, 01 November 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

I think the damage is fine as it is, and would rather like tonnage go down to something like 4 tons. This way they would be the gun of choice for lights and some medium builds. This should not cause any problems with boating either since the highest amount you could mount of them in a plausible build would still be three due to the hardpoint limitations.

[Xandralkus]

Piipu, on 30 October 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think the damage is fine as it is, and would rather like tonnage go down to something like 4 tons. This way they would be the gun of choice for lights and some medium builds. This should not cause any problems with boating either since the highest amount you could mount of them in a plausible build would still be three due to the hardpoint limitations.

You cannot alter the tonnage of the weapon without opening up a nightmarishly massive batch of issues. If the tonnage drops, then suddenly every mech with an AC-2 has two extra tons - including trial mechs and canon variants. Where does this tonnage go? You can't gimp the chassis by two tons. You might not be able to stuff two extra tons of armor on. You can't add more weapons or heat sinks.

Edited by Xandralkus, 30 October 2012 - 10:37 PM.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

Currently there are no stocks using an AC2. And if there was, you could use the extra tons to add heatsinks or, since all the canon variants are ridiculously hot and ammo is used up a lot faster than in TT. I don't think preservation of canon variants should be used as an argument in game balance since the current game mechanics make them pretty much useless.

[Xandralkus]

One of the stock Dragons uses an AC-2, and it surely cannot be the only mech they will ever implement that has a default AC-2. Additionally, the default builds run hot because of the issues with heat sinks; once fixed, two extra heat sinks might not be that useful.

Edited by Xandralkus, 30 October 2012 - 11:13 PM.

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

Okay cool I did not look at all the stock mechs when I wrote my post. The rest of my post is no less valid though. I'd hate to see the devs not balance the game due to wanting to stick to the rules of a tabletop game that really was not too well balanced in the first place.

[MayGay]

as a long time player of Battletech I say the AC/2 should never be balanced, used, or in any way preferable to anything, even a machiene gun, and that not even a RAC/2 should ever be a more viable choice than any other weapon

reading issues other people have there are LAC/2s that weigh 4 tons, but have shorter range, but LAC/5s weigh 5 tons, so why not just take that, or a LRM 10, or a mlaser and a 3 hs, yeah it only shoots 270, but over 2x damage and unlimited ammo, as such I am just fine with the AC/2 remaining useless in MWO as it is in Battletech

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

Why on Earth should there be a weapon in the game that is completely useless? If it's useless, no one will use it and it might as well be removed altogether then. The argument that "it was so in TT" is just utterly ******** in every possible way. Screw TT, I want this to be a good game, not a dice-rolling simulator.

[Rumrunner2]

omg...atm the forum is full of senceless suggestions, one more or less, who cares

Many guys using AC2 and they like it because they learned to use it.

[Xandralkus]

Piipu, on 31 October 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

Why on Earth should there be a weapon in the game that is completely useless? If it's useless, no one will use it and it might as well be removed altogether then. The argument that "it was so in TT" is just utterly ******** in every possible way. Screw TT, I want this to be a good game, not a dice-rolling simulator.

The point of a weapon is to do damage, and the AC-2 lacks that. The devs have already deviated from TT, and the game is better for it. TT was never anything more than a preliminary starting point for weapons and mechs to evolve from.

It is an insult to the very essence of gaming and game design itself for a weapon to suck at being a weapon.

...Although for all the math I did, I see very little discussion about the actual numbers.

Edited by Xandralkus, 31 October 2012 - 03:02 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hmm. I would advise against raising the ACs rate of fire to improve the game balance. To be honest, the fast rate of fire is not that big of an advantage - yes, the DPS is theoretically good, but actually utilizing it - espeially at the long distances the AC2 can fire will be very difficult.

Try these stats:
(To wit: AC/2 firing every 1,4 seconds, producing 0,2 heat per shot and 2 damage per shot, and getting 150 ammo per ton). This should make the AC/2 a reasonable weapon.



I selected these values based on few weapon balance models Closed Beta testers developed for MW:O.
There is a more elaborate thread out there...

[jtyotJOTJIPAEFVJ]

So you're suggesting that since the AC2 has a hard time killing anything as is, its cooldown should be tripled while doing nothing else? That's cool.

Edited by Piipu, 31 October 2012 - 05:33 AM.

[Krivvan]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

That ER PPC is hilariously powerful. Like turning a Jenner into a Gaussapult powerful.

I think those stats work theoretically, but only in an environment where everything was liked MW3 mechs. The hardpoint system messes with the supposed balance here. The weight of a PPC may be theoretically balanced out by the weight of the heat sinks needed to achieve heat neutrality, but the reality is that a player can simply ignore having any heat sinks at all whereas there's no way for a player to ignore the tonnage on a gauss rifle.

Edited by Krivvan, 31 October 2012 - 05:51 AM.

[Blackfire1]

Those are old stats. Please ignore them.

The AC/2 is decent. Its a good placeholder. They doubled the Ammo and the fire rate. And they only do 4dps.... if you hit with them all. but they will rattle your cage into paste if your not careful.


I run a triple AC2 Hunchy. OMG so fun.

Think of it like this.
When the jager mech comes out. If you have a team of 8 all with AC2's.

(4 ac2's x 2 damage) x 8 mechs = 64 damage in one volley. x2 is 128 DPS.

In a 5 second fireing line is 640 damage.

Disgusting in group.

Edited by Blackfire1, 31 October 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[Xandralkus]

0.2 heat per shot simply raises the AC-2 closer to the gauss rifle's insanely awesome damage-per-heat ratio. We don't need another long-range ballistic weapon with insanely awesome damage-per-heat. The AC-2 is supposed to trade otherworldly-awesome damage-per-heat for more DPS-per-ton.

More importantly, a cooldown of 1.4 seconds is going in the wrong direction. This would nerf the AC-2, not buff it. You're advocating bringing its stats more in line with the gauss rifle, essentially making a rapid micro-gauss.

As it exists now:
The AC-2 has a 32% advantage over the Gauss Rifle in DPS-per-ton.
The Gauss has 3 times (a 200% advantage over) the AC-2's alpha-per-ton.
The Gauss has 7.5 times (a 650% advantage over) the AC-2's damage-per-heat.

Your changes would decrease the DPS per ton (the AC-2's only real strength) to below that of the Gauss, leave alpha-per-ton unchanged, and do nothing to fix the Gauss' apocalyptically massive advantage in damage-per-heat.

If the Light Gauss (or especially minigauss) come out for MWO, then these weapons will slowly intrude upon your proposed role of the AC-2. Making the weapon statistically less unique is never a good idea for game balance. Don't clone weapons.

Also, if one concentrates the fire of an entire group on a single target, every single weapon in the game is horribly overpowered. The maps currently break up line-of-sight rather well, thus slowing eight people from instantly applying damage to a single target. (Of course, LRM boats ignore this, and as such, we have MWO slowly turning into a slow-motion cover-based shooter)

In my opinion, that is not enough. Mechanics need to be further implemented in assault mode and all future game modes involving more than 4 players, to further split up groups across the map (multiple objectives required to cap, resource buildings for extra C-bills to the holding team, destroyable objectives, and the like.)

Edited by Xandralkus, 31 October 2012 - 10:42 AM.

[Korobug]

You have to take into account as well, these rapid fire weapons, if kept on the target, makes it incredibly difficult for the opponent to accurately target your opponents. Sure they out damage you, and they'll still probably land close to as many hits as they originally would, but if the shaking forces them to spread their damage about the different segments of your mech they're still going to lose.

[ltwally]

Xandralkus, on 30 October 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Suggested AC-2 Raw Stats:

Damage: 2.3 (up by 15%)
Cooldown: 0.4 (ROF up by 25%)
Heat: 0.6 (down by 40%)
Ideal Range: 720
Max Range: 2160
Slots: 2 (up by 100%)
Tonnage: 6

Math fail. .4 / .5 == 80%. That makes the change 20%. So, ROF goes up by 20%

Inversely, if you went from .4 to .5, it would be a change of 25%.

That's math.

Edited by ltwally, 31 October 2012 - 01:22 PM.

[ltwally]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

You seem to want more powerful weapons, across the board... except with ballistics.

Honestly, and I mean no offence here, I think pretty much all of your changes would screw up game balance and make the game significantly less fun, borderline broken.

[ltwally]

Xandralkus:

I think you're missing part of the point of the AC/2. It was never meant to be serious competition for the Gauss Rifle, but is instead a substitute light enough to be used on light / medium mechs.

Second, let's not forget the amount of ammo that comes with the AC/2. Substantially more.

Thirdly, due to the rocking effect of ballistic hits, a player can really distract a foe with concentrated AC/2 fire.


True, Gauss Rifle is better. But please remember the AC/2 isn't meant to equal it. It's a lighter, weaker weapon for lighter, weaker mechs.

[Deadoon]

ltwally, on 31 October 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Math fail. .4 / .5 == 80%. That makes the change 20%. So, ROF goes up by 20%

Inversely, if you went from .4 to .5, it would be a change of 25%.

That's math.

.4 goes into 1, 2.5 times.
.5 goes into 1, 2 times.

The rate of fire increasesby .5 out of 2 which is .25 out of 1, before you call a math fail do it yourself.

If anything is done to the ac/2 i'd say halve the heat generation because why should it generate the same heat as the ac/5?

Edited by Deadoon, 31 October 2012 - 01:46 PM.