351 replies to this topic

[Belisarius1]

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

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

That really has no bearing on MWO. I'd be surprised if you could stop them, but that's no reason to rule it out.

Hopefully ammo's quite cheap. I see missiles getting the shortest end of the stick here if not.

[William Petersen]

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

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?

Coolant *is* the faulty system to deal with heat.

If you can't manage your heat with your heat sinks, you're firing too fast.

EDIT:

LordDeathStrike, on 30 April 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

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

Actaully it's not. An AC/20 gives you 7 heat; that's pretty significant.


EDIT 2:

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

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).

First, Ammo/Ton for an AC/20 is 5, not 10.

Second, where did they say weapons cannot be destroyed?

Edited by William Petersen, 01 May 2012 - 01:11 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

Maybe the devs will add some kind of regular expense for energy weapons too. Like the lense needs to be readjusted after each battle or something.

[Victor Morson]

Hayashi, on 30 April 2012 - 05:30 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.

I wouldn't say that. Ballistics have been some of the far-and-away most effective weapons in previous games, with the Gauss Rifle, Heavy Gauss Rifle, LBX/20 and RAC/5 being among the very top-tier weapons, as they tend to have drastically less heat than energy counterparts (even less than in TT in some cases).

Likewise, LRMs have always been pretty stellar with the exception of IS LRMs vs Clan LRM in puretech MW4 and SRM/MRM, which were always a mixed bag.

Anyway, I know most of these weapons aren't in MW4, but with the removal of the coolant "Free shot" command I think ballistics are going to be worth taking even if you have to pay for the ammo. I think as long as you have a decent win/loss ratio, you'll be able to at least keep your guns loaded and 'mech repaired.

[FaustianQ]

You know, I've always personally wondered why there are no lasers which use the open cycle lasing gas type to run cooler. It's not like a mechs arm is going to have infantry surrounding it, ends up doubling as a flamer, and the only downside is you have to use nonvolatile gas containers as "ammunition". I know the appeal of lasers is a lack of ammunition dependency, but hey flamer+laser that runs cooler!

[feetjai]

Energy or ammo driven...both have their cons and pros.

Close range fights:
I do not think it's wise to equip all energy. The heat should drive a mech into shutdown, if you continue to use alpha strikes. If this happends you will be a dead duck before you powerup again.
With close range the ammo guns should be superior. lasers could burn a hole, but ammo should blast a big hole at close range. With the possibility of taking an arm, leg or head off the enemy.

Medium/ long range:
energy weapons / missiles should are an advantage here.

Weather:
Is it cold or hot? Are you sure you want to use heavy laser / ER ppc in the desert?? Wish you luck!!

area looks: mountains, city, plain field, jungle, water
Could be awesome to dive into the water in places where it's deep enough. That could give a fight a sudden twist. I's not always about tonnage. weapons and good aim. Wise use of the surrounds should be an important point as well.
Water slows down bullets of high caliber....why not also in this game?? Lasers will fire into a different angle after entering the water.


The balancing should be done on bases of weight and heat production. Doesn't seem to be a problem to balance it. Why not create different mechs with different layout and test them on the field. See what config wins most and why. then re-tune until there is balance.

Can't wait for Mechwarrior online. =)

Edited by feetjai, 01 May 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[Chuckie]

Heres my 2 Cents

1) YOU can lock a Missle, hard to lock a PPC or LL and as for boating a bunch of ML you hit random spots.

2) Easily balanced by how quick our mechs can dissipate heat.

Keep looking at the Beta game plays.

Start with an all Missle/Ballisitic Mech vs and all energy layout..

Then increase or reduce the amount of heat lost by heat sinks, then double heat sinks (For higher tier mechs) until a balanced out come over a statistical average number of games vs the same players on the same maps. Done and done..

Then it becomes simply a preference issue, weight and ammo vs heat sink selection to yoru layout.

The GREATEST thing about this came is that unlike MW4, MW3, MW2, and even to a point MW:LL they can adjust balance, and change up the game regularly. So if someone finds a loophole in the MechLab to build SL Boats or something like a SRM Boat, maybe a Gauss boat, etc.. they can adjust the hardpoints on the mech, change the heat sinks, ammo rules, firing ranges/times, etc.. to maintain balance.

Thorn Hallis, on 01 May 2012 - 01:09 AM, said:

Maybe the devs will add some kind of regular expense for energy weapons too. Like the lense needs to be readjusted after each battle or something.

Could be as simple as rebuilding a damaged Laser or PPC is much more expensive than repairing a damaged or knocked out LRM or AC etc..

Edited by Chuckie, 01 May 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Tizzer]

With high cal weapons in water , They don't move slower they actually disintegrate on hitting it (i presume a similar effect with be had when it leaves the barrel) interestingly this would make low cal Ac/s Better underwater (according the the gods of Physics Mythbusters). I will admit I will run fairly hot mechs but that's because I like firing when i have the CHANCE of a hit rather then worrying if I'll get a better one. however I don't think ACs are gonna have a problem here the lower cal fast firing ones with have a much easier job of getting a better series of shots on a light zippy SoB (basis being 4 "hits" hit 1/2 locations max whereas the laser will sweep it spreading it much more and keeping it relatively intact.) that's my intelligible 2 cents

[Wyzak]

We do not know how expensive it will be to add heat sinks yet. Stock battlemechs generally do not sport many. Until we know how expensive they are to buy/add we cannot definitively say it will be cheaper to use energy weapons.

[Aegis Kleais]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep... Actually, even if the weapons are balanced, energy weapons will need to have an intrinsic calibration and upkeep cost associated with them to keep the game from becoming entirely energy based. Why buy ammo when you can use a laser/PPC over and over for free.

Balance is a tricky word; it's very subjective.

The benefit of energy weapons, besides not being ammunition dependent, is that they, like missiles, maintain their potency with range. This is not a characteristic shared by ballistics. So it might be feasible for ballistics (especially larger calibers) to scale disproportionately higher in damage the closer you are, making them excellent weapons for melee-range damage.

There are so many different characteristics of weapons, that you will definitely need to give PGI a couple iterations to dial in the numbers just right, not least of which includes how expensive the weapon is (due to rarity or sheer power)

[Mechteric]

If the (negative) effects of building up heat are implemented to the proper degree then there won't really be much an issue as the tradeoff between building up heat and being ammo limited can inherently balance it out.

[Ulric Kell]

Ammo should cost money, so as long as it does it makes sense. There are pros/cons with both energy and ammo weapons. In the end if one is OP the dev's can tweak it. That's why an MMO offers more stability and replayability.

[Belisarius1]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep...

Ammo based weapons being better doesn't automatically equate to pay to win, unless ammo is so absurdly expensive that only paying players can afford to keep their weapons restocked. I'm pretty sure that's crazy talk.

Aegis Kleais™, on 01 May 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

The benefit of energy weapons, besides not being ammunition dependent, is that they, like missiles, maintain their potency with range. This is not a characteristic shared by ballistics. So it might be feasible for ballistics (especially larger calibers) to scale disproportionately higher in damage the closer you are, making them excellent weapons for melee-range damage.

You're pretty much making that up, though. The power of a laser firing through atmosphere is at least as distance-dependent as a bullet doing the same. In fact, in the TT there's even an extended ruleset that gives range-dependent damage to energy weapons, but not ballistics.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[McQueen]

Orzorn, on 30 April 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

You mean heatsinks taking damage naturally?

I don't think the rules from the TT support that.

It depended on if the heat sinks were in the engine or extra added in other locations. Heat sinks outside the engine had their own critical slots and could be destroyed. This would reduce you heat capacity.

[Aegis Kleais]

Belisarius†, on 01 May 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

You're pretty much making that up, though. The power of a laser firing through atmosphere is at least as distance-dependent as a bullet doing the same. In fact, in the TT there's even an extended ruleset that gives range-dependent damage to energy weapons, but not ballistics.

Thing is, I'm not making anything up. There's been no confirmation on how MWO will implement weapons. They can either do a mix of what we've seen in released games, follow TT to the letter, or some hybrid of their choosing. What I've stated though is factual. Each weapon brings with it a subjective pro and con that you have to factor into the perceived value of the weapon.

Heat generated, range, reload times, ammo dependency, cost, damage, damage falloff, accuracy. A laser might have the same level of damage from 0m to the weapon's maximum range, and then fall off in damage at a set rate. A ballistic might have the majority of it's damage in ranges closer to the firing Mech than if hit at the outer range of the weapons "effective range". These are just properties which pilots can prioritize as being important to them or not.

[McQueen]

On topic, in the fiction energy weapons were the first choice of mercenaries because of the lack of ammo expense. House and Clan units didn't have to worry about the cost because their organization took care of it. In game that could be translated by having the Houses pick up the cost of ammo for house loyal units. If you run a merc or a lone wolf ammo becomes your problem.

[Jonas]

The Balance comes in when you can do more damage at further ranges and less heat. I also assume to make energy weapons more cost effective damage wise you would have to add more heat sinks.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

Completely agree. It makes zero engineering sense to flush coolant. If you spit out hot fluid... your mech is still hot! It doesn't magically reduce the temperature of your mech.

Edit: Boil a pot of water. Dump out the pot of water and press pot against face.

Edit 2: Don't do that.

This made me laugh to no end. Not sure why I found it so funny >.<

[Steel Talon]

Quote

Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep...

Hope NOT!!!
Or rename PGI into Wargaming 2.0 & this game into World Of Mechs

[Xaks]

I also think that the mechanics that PGI builds in for the 'minimum' range of energy weapons is extremely important to this discussion.

When we played tabletop, we had a blanket rule that you weren't even allowed to fire at a target above or below min/max range. Meaning, if the 3 hex minimum PPC were boated, and the enemy was at two hexes, you were using harsh language and a 12 gauge. It wasn't 'reduced damage', it was ZERO.

Thus, the balance. Plus, as was noted upthread, the video games' rendition of heat management has been *** up to this point, like jump jets. We cannot use any of them as a likely template, as PGI aren't stupid!