351 replies to this topic

[Ravn]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 09:02 PM, said:

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.

Excellent point, even tho we got off on a tangent of heat economics, it does have its place in this discussion. Do you want to pay to not deal with heat? That is something to consider.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

i will ONLY pay to avoid heat in terms of weapons IF PGI gives us a faulty system to deal with heat. IF they give us emergency coolant and etc to deal with heat build up, then, ill take heat over ammo dets any day

but thats just me ya know?

[Orzorn]

Yeach, on 30 April 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Which is unrealistic gameplay wise.

Hehe, it didn't help that Mechwarrior 2 Mercs had a bug where any autocannon shot within about .5 seconds of the first automatically did no damage. ACs in Mercs fired two rounds at a time, so the second was almost always wasted (if it hit a different location the damage was still valid, though). Really crappy bug.

Quote

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?

It depends on the map. City battles would definitely be within that range a lot of the time. Additionally, any mech faster than you, especially fast lights like the Jenner, could harry you all day and you couldn't retaliate effectively, whereas an autocannon user could.

Quote

If I am facing a bunch of mechs and one gets into my minimum range, I am probably going to switch targets.

Well, have fun getting hit while you're trying to aim.

[Ravn]

Straker, on 30 April 2012 - 09:06 PM, said:

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.

If there is respawn, do you have to enter the drop with enough ammo purchased to support each new loadout? It would probably be billed as you consumed it.

[a rabid chihuahua]

One other thing, that I haven't seen mentioned. Not sure how it will effec tthe game,but unless you use a pusl elaser maybe ...Aren't ballistics /missles the only weapons that can scatter damage across mutliple facets of a mech in one volley. I always like carrying a slew of energy weapons on loadouts my self,but always kept a AC wiht cluster rounds or SRM to pepper after opening holes. I can see why wanting to have a a bunch of ballistics can have it's advantages.

[Kreisel]

Every weapon has it's place, inherit advantages and disadvantages. The devs have stated time and time again, anyone should be able to get any Mech (at-least within the IS), just for different prices. In essence this means anyone can also get their hands on any weapon as well. So don't expect that anything other than cost will prevent any weapon in the game from becoming common place if it's not balanced. but as it stands, there is a pretty good reason to select any give weapon over another.

• I take lasers for long term spread out damage I don't have to worry about ammo count for. Their point is for the long fight, as a DOT they will have less punch but do more damage in the long term. The more you have the more you have to play the heat game.
  
• Pulse lasers are lasers that flash on and off. we don't really know how they work yet.
  
• I bring AC for 'spike damage' when I pull the trigger, the full damage is delivered right now to where it hits, and it can throw off my foes aim. The smaller the round the further it flies and the less weight/space it takes. It produces negligible heat.
  
• LBX AC's it's a shotgun... nuff said.
  
• I get a Gauss Rifle if I want a big heavy massive sniper riffle (indication is right now we only have the 8 critical spot taking protype Gauss.) it is BIG, and heavy, hits like a mac truck and knocks around whoever I shoot at. It's unique in being a low heat source for a large amount of damage from direct fire in a single shot at long range.
  
• I take flamers if I want to get up close and personal and overheat my foe, they are just all hot all the way around.
  
• Assuming Machine Guns are balanced to be useful against Mechs, I pick them up as a way of doing damage over time without building up heat. A constant source of little bit of damage at a time that can add up.
  
• LRM give me the chance for indirect fire and are semi guided. assisting my aim if I lock on. they have amazing long range.
  
• SRMs are a low heat, low weight ammo dependent way of getting some short range punch on my mech. It's damage is spread around depending on where the missiles all hit but still arrives all at once unlike lasers that you'll have to keep on target.
  
• PPC's are the one weapons we really don't know how the Devs are gonna balance yet. It's energy weapon, and heavy for one, but not so heavy as big ballistics, it has a very long range, it does have a physical impact and messes with electronic systems to boot. It uses a lot of heat, potentially might not be able to shoot anything to close range (it's likely this wont be the case.) It's basically your energy sniper rifle, counterpoint to the Gauss.

The largest thing that will prevent PCC/Gauss dominance is map designs. MW4 Mercs, where these weapons are king has this tendency towards sniper nest in their multiplayer map design: big open fields with hills or cover walls on either side, but nothing significant in the middle. Just like any other FPS if you design a sniper rifle friendly maps, where you can kill players with single shots, guess what everyone will bring. But if you provide cover to get people into range of those other weapons effectively, and they have to score multiple hits with the big slow weapon on fast moving targets, darting from cover to cover, who are going to get in their face or start running around their back... then people start thinking about other options. Gauss and PPC are harder to balance than sniper riffles that one has to limit their view to looking down a scope to be accurate with though.

Edited by Kreisel, 30 April 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Ravn]

I'll be back in a couple posts. I have to read this wall kreisel made.

Edit: You missed the theme of this thread. Energy weapons are cheaper to deploy time after time. No ammo costs.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[LordDeathStrike]

Zwergonfire, on 30 April 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Yeah, but..
Don't ammo weapons sling more damage with way less heat?

in 3049 the ppc is the best dmg for the tons, but its heat is a ******.

the ac 20 is great dmg, but huge and heavy and needs ammo, but its heat is moot.

lrms do nice dmg, use ammo, and cause some heat.

its all a balancing act, where most boat mechs fail (with the exceptions of stock boats as they are built balanced enough to operate like the awesome)

[Rejarial Galatan]

balance your costs. its all gonna cost ya. ammo costs, heat costs, etc etc

[Evex]

I think one of the things to take into account is will the ammunition be covered in the repair cost? If I remember correctly TT rules included cost of ammo into the mechs total cost. For instance the HBK-4G hunchback cost 3, 437, 875 c-bills, while the full laser version of the mech the HBK-4P hunchback cost 3, 377, 875 c-bills. That's a difference of 60,000 c-bills in favor of the beam version of the hunchback. Now lets assume that repair cost is half the total cost of the mech, which includes ammo. The repair cost for the HBK-4G Hunchback is 1,718, 938 c-bills, while the HBK-4P version is 1, 688, 938 c-bills to repair. The difference in repair cost is 30,000 c-bills in favor of the HBK-4P.

You also have to remember that weapons don't get destroyed, so your not having to buy another AC/20 or PPC. Instead your only repairing the weapon after a match. One thing that confounds me is in TT rules when a weapon is purchased does ammo come with it. For instance if you buy a AC/20 does it come with 5 rounds of ammunition, and when you put in an extra 2 tons of ammo it gives you 15 rounds, or does that two tons of ammo give you 10 rounds, which means the AC/20 doesn't come with ammo?

[Orzorn]

Evex, on 30 April 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

One thing that confounds me is in TT rules when a weapon is purchased does ammo come with it. For instance if you buy a AC/20 does it come with 5 rounds of ammunition, and when you put in an extra 2 tons of ammo it gives you 15 rounds, or does that two tons of ammo give you 10 rounds, which means the AC/20 doesn't come with ammo?

They do not come with ammo. Each ton of ammo for the AC/20 is 10 rounds.

They said that weapons could not be destroyed, but they never mentioned heat sinks. If heat sinks can be destroyed in MWO, that makes a big difference. I can get rid of my ammo before its destroyed ( I want to fire it all, of course!), but your heat sinks are just waiting to be crit. That could go towards balancing the cost. I know that in Mechwarrior 2 Mercs, replacing heatsinks was pretty expensive, especially double heat sinks. There were many times where I couldn't both replace my heat sinks and purchase a bunch of new ones to future repairs while I was in the field. That really limited my designs. Of course, we won't have any issues with supply, but the cost of replacing heat sinks is definitely an issue (if heat sinks can indeed be destroyed).

[Kreisel]

Yeah, I tend to write a lot >_<. Sorry I know I can get kinda TLDR.

But the common argument of this thread has been: People will take energy weapons because there is no point to bring anything else, Economics aside, which simply isn't true. If you want to do anything other than pull the trigger and then hold the weapon on target for a few seconds, while carefully watching your heat, hoping no allies stray through your line of fire in the meantime and don't care about having any knockback when you shoot them. Sure... go ahead and energy boat. The only exception to this is the PPC, and we don't know how that is gonna work yet.

In order to do anything else you need ammo. Sure would some players limit themselves to save a few c-bills, yeah... but they are really limiting their options and abilities. I'm ok with a self imposed handicaps to save a few c-bills, especially when balanced against a potential for larger profits the better you do.

We really don't know how c-bills will be rewarded, but... if spending a little more on ammo means I might be able to fill my role better and be more successful in the first place, thus earning more c-bills. Then it's worth it to spend the c-bill for greater potential earnings.

I've already stated in a previous post, if you can't fully repair your mech with the c-bills you ear from even a loosing match, it's going to be a major problem for lots of players. While ammo will cut into your profits, it should be negligible and certainly less than the cost of major repairs. This could also be countered by making an AC cost comparably less to repair if destroyed than a laser does.

Your also much more likely to have FF incidents with lasers, as demonstrated by the video clip where an ally walk through 3 laser beams a good full second or two after they have been fired. If the game builds in a cost for those it will be a economic reason to favor having other options when a friendly is near the fire zone.

Edited by Kreisel, 30 April 2012 - 09:52 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Kreisel: I counter your FF argument with this: your just as likely to have some player hit a team mate with an AC or a stray missile as you are a beam type weapon.

[Orzorn]

Kreisel, on 30 April 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

Your also much more likely to have FF incidents with lasers, as demonstrated by the video clip where an ally walk through 3 laser beams a good full second or two after they have been fired. If the game builds in a cost for those it will be a economic reason to favor having other options when a friendly is near the fire zone.

That is definitely something to remember when talking about energy weapons. Lasers are now effectively damage-over-time weapons. Gone are the days of instant pin-point damage. You're going to have to hold that laser steady for it to do maximum damage, and any terrain, ally, or enemy that gets in the way will reduce that damage. Compare that to direct fire weapons like the autocannon. Of course, the PPC also gets that same advantage.

Really, that's what most of this conversation seems to be going back to. We know lasers seemed to have a balancing factor now, but PPCs are the odd man out. They're almost superior to autocannons in many ways, but that's why I keep talking about the minimum range. It IS a big deal, and, if implemented, it WOULD get people in some serious situations.

[Kreisel]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

Kreisel: I counter your FF argument with this: your just as likely to have some player hit a team mate with an AC or a stray missile as you are a beam type weapon.

Perhaps, but at least that was controllable. It's your own mistake when you fire a weapon when an ally is in your crosshairs. It's another matter to shoot something when you have a clear shot and have a friendly cut though a line of constant fire you can't turn off a second or two after the ballistic would have made contact with the target.

Though there is somewhat of a counter in that if you hit them with an AC it will do all of the damage, instead of them only soaking the part of the damage they were in the beam for.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Kreisel, I counter again with a question: IF I am using a machinegun lets say, and a Jenner lets say suddenly rushes through my arc of fire, hows that MY mistake? its like sayin well, you have bullets your not at fault if you FF but, you have beam weapons, it IS your fault if you FF? uh, its your fault if you see them and dont stop firing, ballistic OR energy, but its THEIR fault if they choose to hit the stream of hate comin from your mech ya know?

[Ravn]

Personally I've never had a problem with FF. Only my friends do.

Edit: Haha, New sig created.

Edited by Ravn, 30 April 2012 - 10:16 PM.

[Kreisel]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Kreisel, I counter again with a question: IF I am using a machinegun lets say, and a Jenner lets say suddenly rushes through my arc of fire, hows that MY mistake? its like sayin well, you have bullets your not at fault if you FF but, you have beam weapons, it IS your fault if you FF? uh, its your fault if you see them and dont stop firing, ballistic OR energy, but its THEIR fault if they choose to hit the stream of hate comin from your mech ya know?

The game isn't going to know the difference who fault it is. It's going simply going to apply the damage and if the game charges you c-bills from FF damage you'll get charged for them.

From my understanding of how lasers work... and I could be wrong about this. But since in every game play video lasers fire, stay on a few seconds, stop and never really stay on, I don't think they work like a machine gun. I'm assuming that I pull the trigger once, and then the laser stays on for a few seconds.

This is different than a machine gun, where I can choose to let go of the trigger the moment that Jenner darts into my fire, or I can tell he is about to. I can reduce the amount of friendly fire he takes by stopping shooting.

This assumes a lot about how lasers work. But if they DO work the way I feel they do from watching the videos, then once pull the trigger, there is nothing I can do to stop that stream of damage until it's done.

Edited by Kreisel, 30 April 2012 - 10:36 PM.

[Ravn]

We can't know that yet.

[Orzorn]

Even in Mechwarrior 3 you could not stop the lasers from continually firing. Only pulse lasers had that capability.