351 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

hehe. Ravn, cost of ammo, both for buying it and what having it go boom ON me is why I avoid it. That and its affected by stuff like air resistance and gravity and its propulsion, makes me go and take sides with energy weapons.

[Orzorn]

Yeach, on 30 April 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Back on topic
AC10 vs PPC
AC10
1 x AC10 = 1 x 200k
2 x AC10 ammo = 2 x 6k
3 x heatsinks = 3 x 2k
= 218k

PPC
1 x PPC = 1 x 200k
10 x heatsinks = 10 x 2k
= 210k

PPC beats AC10 in terms of cost here

My opinion AC10 needs a trim in cost in both weapon and in ammo.
IMO ammunition should be cheaper than heatsinks.

The AC/10 loadout takes 12 criticals in total. The PPC loadout takes 13. Just something to take note of.

The PPC has minimum range, however. If the developers implement this correctly, then ambushing a PPC using mech could really, really suck for it, whereas a mech with an AC would laugh and start blasting you to pieces.

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Right, so you are willing to pay for that ammo even tho you know you can use an equivalent energy weapon for free?

In the case of cluster versus normal rounds, yeah. I would definitely load my mech up with both rounds to give me greater flexibility. I could hit at range, hit close up, hit multiple mechs, etc. That is something that even a PPC could never hope to do.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Something to take into account here. No matter how many criticals a weapon takes up, there is something, always SOMETHING that will hurt the weapon in the end. Pure range for energy weapons, ie how long the beam will maintain cohesion before it dissapates before its useless, and for ballistic weapons, machine guns, missiles, etc: just how fast was that round going when it left the barrel, or how much fuel does that missile have? How THICK is the atmosphere? How much gravity on this planet? See, atmosphere and gravity are the killers to ballistic weapons, not so much so for energy. A gauss rounds gonna fall outta the sky before the ER PPC beam loses cohesion. just sayin, and dont hate me for this. lol

[Ravn]

So you are saying that ACs inherently pack more of a whallop and are worth purchasing ammo over and over. I think I still prefer to play cheap, not buy ammo, and use energy weapons effectively. I plan on playing scout mech anyway.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Gun Bear]

Lasers in MWO seem to be dealing damage over time, you need to keep your reticule over the enemy to get max damage. Ballistic weapons deal direct damage immediately to the area hit.

[Yeach]

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

The AC/10 loadout takes 12 criticals in total. The PPC loadout takes 13. Just something to take note of.

The PPC has minimum range, however. If the developers implement this correctly, then ambushing a PPC using mech could really, really suck for it, whereas a mech with an AC would laugh and start blasting you to pieces.


In the case of cluster versus normal rounds, yeah. I would definitely load my mech up with both rounds to give me greater flexibility. I could hit at range, hit close up, hit multiple mechs, etc. That is something that even a PPC could never hope to do.

The minimum range on the PPC is a wash because it has that extra range over the AC10.
The 1 critical slot in my opinion is close to a wash as well as it is not worth the 8k cost advantage of the PPC.
If you were including engine heatsinks, then it would be even more in favor of the PPC (since you do not need to add (as many) heatsinks).

[Felicitatem Parco]

I've always felt that ballistics are meant to dump large quantites of high damage fire over a prolonged period of time until you run out of ammo; the point is to kill them as quickly as possible in a blitz without suffering too much serious damage yourself. This favors the brawler.

Energy weapons give you the option to dump extreme amounts of firepower into a target in a short burst followed by a significang lag period such that your peak firepower output is higher than a ballistics boat but your continuous output level over-time is lower due to the limits of heat dissipation. This favors the hit-and-run fighter, but your "period of peak firepower output" doesn't last long enough to kill most Mechs. You have to hit, run, then hit again, or else you'll overheat before accomplishing your first kill..

Sniping can be done with both, but with their limits. Gauss and AC sniping will eventually run those guns out of ammo [leaving you with just a few medium lasers, most likely] but you can lay down the supressive fire non-stop at the weapons' maximim rate of fire until that time comes. PPC sniping will last as long as your chassis, but the rate of fire has to be limited to less than what the weapons are capable of... which requires great self-control.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 30 April 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[Kraktzor]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

So you are saying that ACs inherently pack more of a whallop and are worth purchasing ammo over and over. I think I still prefer to play cheap, not buy ammo, and use energy weapons effectively. I plan on playing scout mech anyway.

Makes sense for a scout. Energy weapons reduce maintenance costs (no ammo) and you don't have to worry about ammo conservation when your running around out in the periphery of the battle far from your buddies.

[Ravn]

Kraktzor, on 30 April 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Makes sense for a scout. Energy weapons reduce maintenance costs (no ammo) and you don't have to worry about ammo conservation when your running around out in the periphery of the battle far from your buddies.

You made my day Kraktzor for following my logic line, not talking about heat economics, or damage per crit/ton, or whatever. Another frugal mind! I wonder if DPC/DPT will become a common term like DPS.

[Kraktzor]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

You made my day Kraktzor for following my logic line, not talking about heat economics, or damage per crit/ton, or whatever. Another frugal mind! I wonder if DPC/DPT will become a common term like DPS.

We can hope

[Yeach]

So energy weapons have the advantage (over ballistic weapons) of costs, no ammo explosions, less critical and less weight usage (when engine HS included), accurate instant damage on target (with the possible disadvantage of DOT)

Why take a ballistic weapons at all?
(I'm not including the Solaris rules of ballistic weapons having faster recycle)

[Orzorn]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

So you are saying that ACs inherently pack more of a whallop and are worth purchasing ammo over and over. I think I still prefer to play cheap, not buy ammo, and use energy weapons effectively. I plan on playing scout mech anyway.

Well, in the games they can pack a whallop because of refresh rates. In Mechwarrior 2, autocannons were literally automatic. You could easily fire around 10 rounds within 2 seconds or so, which is way more DPS than a PPC could put out.

Yeach, on 30 April 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

The minimum range on the PPC is a wash because it has that extra range over the AC10.

Its only a wash if we're doing tic-for-tac comparisons. In-game, a minimum range would be brutal. How many engagements happen at max range compared to those that happen at close range? Once the match gets going, engagements get closer and closer. Once the enemies close that extra max-range, then the range advantage of the PPC over the AC is lost, and once the minimum range is closed, the PPC doesn't just have to deal with a disadvantage, its literally worthless within that range. That's a big, big disadvantage. Imagine an Awesome getting caught like that. One small laser is all that mech has to itself, whereas, without the minimum range rule, you get a mech that can demolish enemies at any of those ranges with impunity. Just another reason Mechwarrior 4 was so unbalanced.

[Straker]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Ok, lets look at the economy of Energy and Ballistics. Energy weapons travel at light speed, minimal leading needed to hit what your aiming for. Ballistics: Travel as fast as the rounds propellant system, chemical or magnetic can shove it out the end of the barrel, after that, frictions slowing it down and gravity is PULLING it down. Energy weapons are not affected by friction OR gravity, unless some blackhole settles on the field, then yer all screwed anyway. But, in terms of the above, energys gonna win out. BUT, they are hot, pure and simple. MOST ballistics, are cooler <temp wise>. NOW, also consider that MOST energy weapons when destroyed will not remove huge chunks of the mech, ammo stores in a mech, if detonated will. Its all a pick your poison thing. What is YOUR preference. Load what YOU want based on WHO YOU ARE, and what YOU want from your fight/experience. Not what Rejarial or Kraktzor or Helmer or any other player wants. We are all individuals and well, we think differently, want diff things. Yes, I know, I just spouted commonsense rhetoric yadda yadda blah blah

But I think that is the point that is being made. Each person should be able to play their own playstyle and choice. Yet ammunition costs could force people out of their playstyle. If I like energy weapons, and you like ballistic, and after every match you are forced to spend half your profit on buying ammo, eventually with my energy weapon playstyle I can upgrade my mech faster due to more money.

Now if there is a tangible advantage that ammo based weapons give you, balancing cash flow overall then things should be ok.

[Rejarial Galatan]

not that i am a fan of ballistic weapons, BUT, there are those who prefer them over energy or prefer mechs that rely heavy on missiles, catapults or some such like that. boils down to preference

[Ravn]

Yeach, on 30 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

So energy weapons have the advantage (over ballistic weapons) of costs, no ammo explosions, less critical and less weight usage (when engine HS included), accurate instant damage on target (with the possible disadvantage of DOT)

Why take a ballistic weapons at all?
(I'm not including the Solaris rules of ballistic weapons having faster recycle)

I don't know! That's why I started this thread. I see hundreds of people running around with energy boats.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Straker, on 30 April 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

But I think that is the point that is being made. Each person should be able to play their own playstyle and choice. Yet ammunition costs could force people out of their playstyle. If I like energy weapons, and you like ballistic, and after every match you are forced to spend half your profit on buying ammo, eventually with my energy weapon playstyle I can upgrade my mech faster due to more money.

Now if there is a tangible advantage that ammo based weapons give you, balancing cash flow overall then things should be ok.

on the costs of ammo, with the devs keeping quiet we can only guess, but, I would assume with ammo heavy mechs in the game, they may have it so costs are not extreme.

Ravn, it boils down to a few things now that I think on it: Heat hasnt been done right in ANY MW title. PERIOD. MOST ppl see energy weaps as easy button, gonna prove a BIG mistake to think that way, just you watch. and most importantly for those who DO know what the heck they are doing, its a personal, deeply personal choice to run energy boats or missile boats or gun boats <ammo that is> ya know? but for me, its just not worth the risk dmg to myself wise to take ammo into a fight, id rather risk blowin the reactor.

[Yeach]

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Well, in the games they can pack a whallop because of refresh rates. In Mechwarrior 2, autocannons were literally automatic. You could easily fire around 10 rounds within 2 seconds or so, which is way more DPS than a PPC could put out.

Which is unrealistic gameplay wise.

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

Its only a wash if we're doing tic-for-tac comparisons. In-game, a minimum range would be brutal. How many engagements happen at max range compared to those that happen at close range? Once the match gets going, engagements get closer and closer. Once the enemies close that extra max-range, then the range advantage of the PPC over the AC is lost, and once the minimum range is closed, the PPC doesn't just have to deal with a disadvantage, its literally worthless within that range. That's a big, big disadvantage. Imagine an Awesome getting caught like that. One small laser is all that mech has to itself, whereas, without the minimum range rule, you get a mech that can demolish enemies at any of those ranges with impunity. Just another reason Mechwarrior 4 was so unbalanced.

The PPC has 3 hex range advantage over the AC10 and 3 hex minimum range. If you are able to stay out of that 3 hex range which mechs with equal mechs should then there is no advantage. Besides how many fights will drag down into the 3 hex minium range?
If I am facing a bunch of mechs and one gets into my minimum range, I am probably going to switch targets.

[Ravn]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

not that i am a fan of ballistic weapons, BUT, there are those who prefer them over energy or prefer mechs that rely heavy on missiles, catapults or some such like that. boils down to preference

This is true, but I don't think those players should be at a financial disadvantage compared to those using energy weapons, unless the ammo driven weapons do indeed pack a little more punch. But then, you are paying to win (USING IN GAME CURRENCY /extinguish torches)

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Straker]

Another factor I havn't seen mentioned is also how long matches last and how respawns or coming back in another chasis is handled. If matches go long, it is more likely you will run out of ammo, giving energy an edge. However if you respawn with ammo loaded out, or drop in with a different mech, then ballistic may be the way to go.

All of these will have an effect on how much the cost of ammo is worth.

[Rejarial Galatan]

We are all 'paying' to win in that sense Ravn <breaks out the fire hoses and hydrants> BUT, I KNOW ammos gonna cost players, but again, how much? no clue, I doubt its gonna be extremely high, like to price out players. But, also depends on what payouts we get per match on a player basis ya know?