The economics of energy vs ammo driven weapons
#1
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM
#2
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:30 PM
Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:
Hasn't that always been a problem with MechWarrior games? Energy weapons have infinite shots, don't have detonatable ammo, are lighter, have no ammo costs, and are instant hit... making them better choices in almost all instances than ballistics... hopefully MWO will be better at balancing than the previous games were.
#3
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:34 PM
Don't ammo weapons sling more damage with way less heat?
#4
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:34 PM
In fact I'm fairly sure they've avoided all information regarding the games economy.
The next Developer Blog should address some of our questions about it , but I doubt any specifics .
Cheers .
#5
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM
Edited by Lt Trevnor, 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.
#6
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM
Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:
It's not really "pay to win" if it's funded by in-game currency...
Ammo costs: C-bills/ton (per Sarna)
SRM (any) 27,000
LRM (any) 30,000
AC/2 1,000
AC/5 4,500
AC/10 6,000
AC/20 10,000
M.Gun 1,000
These are basic munitions, no infernos or anything fancy like that. Missile ammo is pretty expensive, consider that an MLas costs 40,000.
#7
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:53 PM
Yes, you have to pay for ammo, but unless ammo costs are MUCH higher than I personally expect them to be, I'm not worried about the cost. We already have to pay to maintain the mech, a little ammo cost on top of that won't break the bank, but it must be considered.
Ammo based weapons also risk ammo explosions, if you don't include CASE then a bad hit could ruin your day really fast.
Ballistic and missile weapons also tend to weigh considerably more than energy weapons, this tends to be their chief limitation.
However, ballistic and missile weapons generate a LOT less heat, so while I have a limited number of shots, I can KEEP SHOOTING until the guns run dry, and I will be bringing extra ammo. Try to just keep shooting those "free-to-fire" PPCs as fast as they can recharge and see how far that gets you.
Second, if I'm not mistaken, ballistic and missile weapons tend to do more damage than energy weapons. Yes, you have an unlimited number of shots, but those lasers aren't putting out as much damage as my Autocannon. Even your PPC only matches an AC/10, and you better believe I plan to pack an AC/20.
In summery, there are a LOT of balance factors, but ultimately I expect the cost of ammo to be the least of them.
Addendum: it has been mentioned "Pay to win" as being an issue with ammo driven weapons. When the dev's say you can't "Pay to win" what they mean is you can't use real money to buy an advantage. They do NOT mean that you can't use C-bills. This game is going to fall flat really fast if the expenditure of C-bills can't get me anything better than what I start with. I expect to spend C-bills on weapons of all types, some of which will be better than others. I expect to use C-bills on different mechs, and I will personally find some better than others. That does not mean I can "Pay to win." It means the game has a functional economy with a currency that has value.
#8
Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:55 PM
William Petersen, on 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:
It's not really "pay to win" if it's funded by in-game currency...
... *snip snip* ...
Who knows how else the economy may work. Already seems we will have repairs to worry about, maybe maintenance as well? If so that could be an avenue to help balance the pros/cons of Ballistic over Energy weapons.
#9
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:02 PM
Pale Rider 010, on 30 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:
Beware, this is exactly the thinking that lost Tukayyid for the Clans. A mix of weapons will (should) always be superior to boating any one type.
I agree with you in part. I do love my SRMs, and I love a good AC, but I also love some fall-back lasers or a PPC. B-)
#10
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:15 PM
tanks)
If it is all in game money, and it is affordable to use ammunition based weapons based on average payout, it shouldn't be an issue.
#11
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:17 PM
#12
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM
Pale Rider 010, on 30 April 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:
Ton for ton, PPCs do the most damage. Even if a PPC matches an AC/10, the former is 7 tons, the latter is 12 tons. If we make up the difference with 6 heat sinks (because the AC/10 needs ammo) the PPC will be able to fire nonstop, and its range is far greater.
The AC/20 is more worth it, since it's 14 tons and exactly 2x the weight of a PPC. They'll be evenly matched when you bulk up ammo on the former and heat sinks on the second... except the PPC has greater range. But bringing a AC/10 to a PPC fight is a Very Bad Idea.
I prefer my weapons to be balanced, but honestly the previous MW titles have done a crap job at doing ammunition based weapons justice. TT is better at it, by far... and if MWO follows MW2/3/4's legacy you'll see me using mainly energy based weapons, along with everyone else.
In MW4: Mercs, a 4 ER PPC Sunder is basically The Best 'Mech, with the ability chainfire the ER PPCs to deal with vehicles and alpha on 'Mechs... which can OHKO an Osiris from 900+m away. Really hoping not to see that happen here.
#13
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:35 PM
#14
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:35 PM
Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
"Far greater" might be a bit of exaggeration
AC/10:
1-5/6-10/11-15
PPC:
1-6/7-12/13-18
PPC also has a minimum range of 3.
So, 3 hexes is 90 meters, which is nothing to sneeze at, but I wouldn't call that a "far greater" rage difference. 0=-)
And you're right, MW titles thus far have tended to do a pretty crappy job of balancing the weapons. The problem, I think, lies mostly with the heat dispersion being too fast and the lack of significant negative effects for high heat. We'll see how the MW:O folks handle it.
They've already taken a step toward encouraging diversity in weapons with the hard point system, hopefully the weapon attributes themselves are fuhrer encouragement.
#15
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:39 PM
Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
Are you playing with heat turned off or something? I don't normally run Assaults but a 4 ER PPC Sunder is going to run hot. Give me a mech with 4 Gauss Rifles and I'll show you a dead Sunder.
Edited by Magnificent Bastard, 30 April 2012 - 06:42 PM.
#16
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:50 PM
Magnificent *******, on 30 April 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:
Nope, on MW4 4 ERPPCs come with enough space weight to load heat sinks in the high twenties I believe. You can kill even an Atlas within 3 Alphas from that thing, and that Sunder can Alpha 2 times before reaching shutdown range on non-desert maps - and then cool down to 0k in half a minute to do the same thing again. The maximum possible number of Gausses is 3, given MW4's critical space restrictions... and 3 Gauss is weaker than 4 ER PPCs on MW4.
I greatly dislike how overpowered those things were in MW4.
The previous iterations of MechWarrior weren't as bad, in comparison, but they still overpowered energy weapons too much. I'm hoping the heat factor is far more emphasised on MWO to prevent that from recurring.
**EDIT** Confirmed, 27 heat sinks with max armour and engine speed 68.9 kph. Tested to clock 6 Atlas kills against one Sunder at range = 100 metres against the computer, way below what the ERPPC is capable of.
#17
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:54 PM
I heard ammo would be a major expense during one of the No Guts No Galaxy podcasts when they were reviewing one of the Q&As or Dev Blogs. Even if it uses in game currency, the Devs have said that weapons can not be destroyed. I can save money in ammo by rolling with PPCs to buy that next mech that much faster. I just foresee other frugal people also following this philosophy and we lose all the fun of seeing ballistic weapons. If energy weapon upkeep was balanced with ballistic weapon rearming cost, it would make for a more balanced game.
Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 06:55 PM.
#18
Posted 30 April 2012 - 06:56 PM
Edited by Rhinehart, 30 April 2012 - 06:58 PM.
#19
Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:02 PM
Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:
Its not a pay to win because you just buy them with c-bills, which, like EVERY OTHER Mechwarrior game, are earned through play.
Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
The AC/20 is more worth it, since it's 14 tons and exactly 2x the weight of a PPC. They'll be evenly matched when you bulk up ammo on the former and heat sinks on the second... except the PPC has greater range. But bringing a AC/10 to a PPC fight is a Very Bad Idea.
I prefer my weapons to be balanced, but honestly the previous MW titles have done a crap job at doing ammunition based weapons justice. TT is better at it, by far... and if MWO follows MW2/3/4's legacy you'll see me using mainly energy based weapons, along with everyone else.
In MW4: Mercs, a 4 ER PPC Sunder is basically The Best 'Mech, with the ability chainfire the ER PPCs to deal with vehicles and alpha on 'Mechs... which can OHKO an Osiris from 900+m away. Really hoping not to see that happen here.
They should include minimum range to balance PPCs. You can't PPC boat because, if they get within 90 meters, you're completely defenseless.
#20
Posted 30 April 2012 - 07:03 PM
Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:
Read whole thread
Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:
I heard ammo would be a major expense during one of the No Guts No Galaxy podcasts when they were reviewing one of the Q&As or Dev Blogs. Even if it uses in game currency, the Devs have said that weapons can not be destroyed. I can save money in ammo by rolling with PPCs to buy that next mech that much faster. I just foresee other frugal people also following this philosophy and we lose all the fun of seeing ballistic weapons. If energy weapon upkeep was balanced with ballistic weapon rearming cost, it would make for a more balanced game.
4 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users