47 replies to this topic

[Squigles]

That Guy, on 26 May 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

what about the LRM 5? its another one of the forgotten low end weapons

perhaps the SRM2 and LRM 5 could have more accurate missiles (less spread) as opposed to their larger cousins

Meh, I'm personally a huge fan of the LRM 5, depending on the situation. If you have the crits to spare, on a per tube basis an LRM 5 is the lightest. LRM 5 = .4T per tube, LRM 10 = .5T per tube, LRM 15 = .46T per tube, and LRM 20 = .5 T per tube.

So with the Centurion for example, if it has an unused missile hardpoint, you can tear out the LRM 10 and add in a pair of LRM 5's and free up a ton for a heatsink or armor, etc, without sacrificing 1 bit of firepower.

Edited by Squigles, 26 May 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Sassori]

As soon as you start buffing the AC-2 and the SRM-2 you start ruining other weapons. If the AC-2 is boosted to do 3 times damage so it does 6 damage for 6 tons. Sounds reasonable, except you just made the AC-5 completely useless. If you buff the AC-5 you then need to buff the AC-10, and then the AC-20, and the Gauss Rifle, and everything else which puts you in a huge vicious circle.

The point of the AC-2 is the extreme range plinker until we get light gauss rifles. They're low heat, low damage, high range. That's their niche. If we can shoot down an enemy commanders bombing run or the like then they have use there as well since Aerospace fighters can actually get plinked pretty hard by AC-2's due to how their mechanics work.

As for the SRM-2 the advantage isn't in the weapon so much as the ammo. It's a good support brawler weapon that generates very low heat with a lot of reloads for 1 ton. If you have 4 missile hard points, you could put 4 SRM-2's in there with 1 ton of shared ammo for 5 crits, 5 tons, and have 12 volleys of 16 damage short range missile fire. This frees up a lot of tonnage so that you can swap out those medium lasers in the stock catapult for a couple PPC's or 4 Large Lasers, and it frees up crits for additional heat sinks... Dang now I am really curious if that'll work...

Sweet Catapult - 65 tons.

Engine: 260 XL 4/6/4 Movement
Jump Jets: 120m
Internal Structure: Standard
Armor: Standard 12.5 tons (200 points)
Cockpit: 3 tons
Gyro: 3 tons
Heat Sinks: 18 [36] Double

Armamant:
(2) SRM 2's - RA
(2) SRM 2's - LA
1 Large Laser - RT
1 Large Laser - LT
1 Large Laser - CT
SRM 2 Ammo (1 Ton) RT

Not a bad mech really. Decent mobility, 24 infinite damage from large lasers, 16 additional damage up close from SRM 2's to the face. Can even swap out the large lasers for a pair of ER PPC's if you want and an additional double heat sink.

[ManDaisy]

SRM (2) and LRM (5) are actually quite nice from a modular standpoint. If you have 4 lrm (5)s or 3 srms (2) you dont have to worry about losing your full missile output if you take a critical hit such as with the case of an lrm (20) and srm (6). The downside is equiping artemis on each launcher will weight more and 3 srm (2) generate more heat then 1 srm (6). However as to artemis in MWO... it isn't in to my knowledge. Also with a buncha small launchers firing at once you dont have to worry about trickle fire. Example. LRM (20) has two volleys of (10 LRMS). 4 LRM(5), 1 volley of (20 LRMS). At least that is my assumption.

[Squigles]

Christopher Dayson, on 26 May 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

As soon as you start buffing the AC-2 and the SRM-2 you start ruining other weapons. If the AC-2 is boosted to do 3 times damage so it does 6 damage for 6 tons. Sounds reasonable, except you just made the AC-5 completely useless. If you buff the AC-5 you then need to buff the AC-10, and then the AC-20, and the Gauss Rifle, and everything else which puts you in a huge vicious circle.

Not entirely true, as the source of that damage number is sourced from the Solaris Rules, meaning if they go that route, all the balancing has already been done.

AC/2 = 8 damage in 10 seconds. while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/5 = 10 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
Ultra AC/5 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/10 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
AC/20 = 20 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage
Gauss Rifle = 15 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage

The higher caliber's, as an obvious side effect, tend to deliver their damage to less overall locations, which tend to result in faster armor breaches.

As an interesting note, the Solaris rules includes all the weapons that are included for the launch of MWO, no more, and no less.

[Zakatak]

Nobody likes the AC/5 either, so that should be improved too. I've never seen somebody deliberately modify their mech to carry one. I use the LBX/5 on MW4 every now and then, but never the AC/5.

(although 4x HVAC/2 on the Rifleman is good for some BVR combat)

[Steel Talon]

once PVE arrive, we will have to equip some MGs & ac/2s to kill some anoying infantry

[Sassori]

Squigles, on 26 May 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Not entirely true, as the source of that damage number is sourced from the Solaris Rules, meaning if they go that route, all the balancing has already been done.

AC/2 = 8 damage in 10 seconds. while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/5 = 10 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
Ultra AC/5 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/10 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
AC/20 = 20 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage
Gauss Rifle = 15 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage

The higher caliber's, as an obvious side effect, tend to deliver their damage to less overall locations, which tend to result in faster armor breaches.

As an interesting note, the Solaris rules includes all the weapons that are included for the launch of MWO, no more, and no less.

Ok how is an AC-5 even worthwhile using these rules? The 'needing to hit 4 times' aspect is completely GONE from MW:O. We have pin point accuracy with a point and click interface. Hitting is amazingly easy as compared to dice rolls, which is what the S7 rules are based on.

If I have a gun that fires 4 times in 10 seconds at massive range for 8 total damage, why would I bother taking a gun that fires twice in 10 seconds for 10 damage at shorter ranges, weighs more, takes up more space, and gets less shots per ton.

It just does not compute. These aren't balanced at all. It only proves my point that the S7 rules were not good at all.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 27 May 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[Deathz Jester]

Isn't it partially a situational thing aswell?

I mean, I can attempt to chip off an enemy's armor before they get close with an AC/2

and I have an extra bit of bang from an SRM2 for in close (assuming you have both weapons equipped)

If you dont feel the need to use the AC/2 then dont use it, be my guest and load up on 6 machineguns or whatever floats your boat

[Evgeny Bear]

Why not switching SRM 2 towards Stream SRM 2. it may deal low damage but at least it is guided and the more missiles hit, the more damage you deal.

[Stormeris]

Andar89, on 27 May 2012 - 01:35 AM, said:

Why not switching SRM 2 towards Stream SRM 2. it may deal low damage but at least it is guided and the more missiles hit, the more damage you deal.

theyre called Streak SRM, and the only difference is that they cant be shot without locking on...i think

[Evgeny Bear]

Stormeris, on 27 May 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

theyre called Streak SRM, and the only difference is that they cant be shot without locking on...i think

the resl difference is:
Streak SRM CAN lock onto something wich you made an optical contact with.
normal SRM and MRM are totally unguided, so you can not lock onto something anyway.

[Stormeris]

Andar89, on 27 May 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

the resl difference is:
Streak SRM CAN lock onto something wich you made an optical contact with.
normal SRM and MRM are totally unguided, so you can not lock onto something anyway.

Yeah but Streaks Cant be dumbfired, when SRMs can only be dumbfired, id rather use Simple SRMs so i wouldnt need to lock on to someone, just spam all of them at point-blank

[EvangelionUnit]

do you guys remember mechcommander and how SRM's worked there?
anyway, i think some boats or mechs that change a heavier AC for a pair of AC2's can lay down some nice fire over long range ... if you go around with radar off (most of you want to do this i guess) and you see some LRM sniper somewhere on a hill he would never know what hit him ... and from where (please for the love of god allow us to buy ammo packs without tracers!)

on the other side, if you dont want to play such special roles and know how to deal with more heat on the mech, just tear this thing out if possible and mount a ppc/large lase/gauss

for the SRM2: if you have a lol ammount of SRM2 launchers on the mech and use just one ton of shared Inferno Ammo, you could be pretty sure to empty your load in a short time, so you don't have to deal with inferno ammo explosions ?!

for the LRM5, they've got a nice knock down in MW4 Merc ... longbow with LRM5 packs only could knock down everything with one salvo (i just tied this again AI, i wasn'T into the MW4 online multiplayer) and if you shoot 20 or more missiles, its easier to overload AMS's (at least how it worked in MW:LL)

oh and what's about MG's?

[Spleenslitta]

I wasn't suggesting a huge boost to the AC/2 so that the other weapons need boosts as well. i just asked the dev's to make certain that it is a viable weapon without the need to mount more than one.
But the guys back on the first page calmed me down and now i look at things from a more positive point of view.
I do hope we can buy ammo without tracers like EvangelionUnit mentioned just above though.

If an AC/2 is loaded with precision ammo (and this ammo allows slightly longer range rather than increased accuracy) then it can be a really good weapon.
Caseless rounds can be used too if ammo amount becomes a concern in a light mech.

[Squigles]

Christopher Dayson, on 27 May 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Ok how is an AC-5 even worthwhile using these rules? The 'needing to hit 4 times' aspect is completely GONE from MW:O. We have pin point accuracy with a point and click interface. Hitting is amazingly easy as compared to dice rolls, which is what the S7 rules are based on.

If I have a gun that fires 4 times in 10 seconds at massive range for 8 total damage, why would I bother taking a gun that fires twice in 10 seconds for 10 damage at shorter ranges, weighs more, takes up more space, and gets less shots per ton.

It just does not compute. These aren't balanced at all. It only proves my point that the S7 rules were not good at all.

1. Unless you've played the game, you've no idea how hard/easy it is to hit, especially if you have to use a torso mount (which is decoupled from the fast moving arms targetting cursor), or are shooting at a fast moving target, with a weapon that has a travel time. If you're telling my you have a 100% accuracy with travel time weapons at range in every mechwarrior game ever made, I'm calling BS.

2. By definition you'd need to have the target in your sights for a much longer time with the AC/2 then the AC/5, with the former you'd need to see them at least every 2.5 seconds, cover will wreak havoc with your ability to strike constantly.

3. The damage scaling is appropriate, it's a 33% increase in weight for a 25% increase in damage over time from the AC/2 to the AC/5.

4. Who cares that it has less shots per ton, an AC5 has a damage potential 11% higher per ton (90 per AC/2 ton, 100 per AC/5 ton)

[Felime]

And remember that you're likely to have to lead your target a lot at long range with an AC/2, meaning, even if both you and your opponent are good, he's going to be able to juke and avoid some of the damage.

I hope to see balancing and fire rates somewhere around the solaris rules, obviously with some room to tweak so that the game is balanced.

[Sassori]

Squigles, on 27 May 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

1. Unless you've played the game, you've no idea how hard/easy it is to hit, especially if you have to use a torso mount (which is decoupled from the fast moving arms targetting cursor), or are shooting at a fast moving target, with a weapon that has a travel time. If you're telling my you have a 100% accuracy with travel time weapons at range in every mechwarrior game ever made, I'm calling BS.

2. By definition you'd need to have the target in your sights for a much longer time with the AC/2 then the AC/5, with the former you'd need to see them at least every 2.5 seconds, cover will wreak havoc with your ability to strike constantly.

3. The damage scaling is appropriate, it's a 33% increase in weight for a 25% increase in damage over time from the AC/2 to the AC/5.

4. Who cares that it has less shots per ton, an AC5 has a damage potential 11% higher per ton (90 per AC/2 ton, 100 per AC/5 ton)

1) I don't need to have played the game to have seen that it is literally point click targeting. Any gameplay video will show you that.

2) By definition an AC2 has a lot more range to play with than an AC 5, that's a lot longer time in the sights. Considering that until we get Light Gauss the AC2 has the potential to outrange /everything/ the damage is to much for the weight and criticals if it rivals the AC 5 thus making the AC 5 useless.

3) The damage scaling isn't appropriate because it's about more than weight to damage. There are other factors, like range, critical slots, heat, and ammo per ton that all come into play to balance out a weapon. By going 8 damage vs 10 at greater range (by 180 meters), easier on tonnage and critical slots then the AC5 is again, useless. The range is a dominant factor.

4) Who cares if it has less shots per ton? I should just ignore that on general principle but I won't. Amount of rounds = Sustainability in combat. Which is a major factor as to how damage is applied. Therefor, the amount of shots has great impact on a weapons viability. That's like saying: Who cares if the AC20 gets less shots per ton. It's a major factor to the weapon design.

No matter how you try to finagle it, the Solaris 7 rules throw TT balance right out the window. Balance is important for fair gameplay. They were optional rules for a reason. In order for balance to be maintained then the damage ratio's need to be maintained. Changing damage ratio's means changing armor ratio's means changing ammo ratio's etc etc.

But whatever, you're definitely not going to convince me, and I'm apparently not going to convince you. So done.

[Dymitry]

Personally I see AC2s, unless heavily clustered (mauler-like), as very good anti infantry/vehicles/aircrafts. The quick reload time means that you can fire more often at targets that are not as heavily armoured as mech...

In a mech vs mech situation, imagine if someone is being engaged by 2 mechs, one firing ac2s and another one with a gauss/erppc/er large laser, 99% of times the gauss/erppc guy is going to get much more love, often giving the ac2s time to deal relevant damage, it is easier to aim when not being shoot at.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Well AC/2's are more like harrassing fire, a way to hurt someone and get their attention from a great distance, even beyond LRM range. Look at a Blackjack, it mounts 2 AC/2's and 4 med. lasers (at least in the standard variant.) With the 2 light AC's it can lay down harrassing fire at ranges that many machines of equivalent or lower tonnage cannot match (unless they swap out weapons for AC/2's.) It will not likely take a target out (unless its already damaged) but it can 'soften' the target and keep it occupied. Working within a lance, its teammates can try to flank the target while it is preoccupied trying to close the distance with the Blackjack. Even if you know the damage being inflicted is minimal, if your the target it gets frustrating to be unable to reply to an attack, possible forcing a pilot to make a bad decision (like rush the Blackjack and leave its back exposed to the Blackjacks lancemates.) Makes me wish the Black jack was in the game .

[William Petersen]

Spleenslitta, on 26 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

As for the SRM 2....Well yes i would much rather use the SRM 4 or 6 too.
But the point here is that the SRM 2 is not being concidered as a viable weapon by anyone.
That's a flaw in the game for sure. What is the point of having weapons that nobody use?

The SRM-2 is just a scaled down version of the 4 with a slightly lower damage/heat ratio. If I only have 2 tons and a M.HP left on my max armour Mech, guess what's going in it. =P On the other hand, if I have 6 free tons and only a B.HP left, I've done something very, very wrong.


Though, I mostly prefer SRM-4's because they don't 'waste' ammo space.

The SRM-2 has 50 shots/ton. That's 100 missles.
The SRM-4 has 25 shots/ton. That's also 100 missiles.
The SRM-6 has 15 shots/ton. That's only 90 missiles.

Where did those extra 10 missiles go?! I don't know why they didn't just make it 96 SRMs per ton, that gives the 2 48 shots/ton, the 4 24 shots/ton, and the 6 16 shots/ton.

SRM-2s are not a waste of space. 4 damage for 1 ton (+ >=1 ton ammo) is way better damage/tonnage than 2 damage for 6 tons (+ >=1 ton ammo).