17 replies to this topic

[Skribs]

This might seem like a troll post, but I swear it isn't. All other weapons, including the SRM2 and SRM4, have ammo per ton that meets a set number of volleys. Ballistic weapons fire 1 round per shot anyway, energy weapons have no ammo, LRMs come in 180 (which divides evenly into 5, 10, 15, or 20) and SRM ammo comes in the form of 100 (which divides into 50 SRM2 volleys, 25 SRM4 volleys, or 16.67 SRM6 volleys). If SRM ammo came in a multiple of 12, say 96 or 108, it would divide evenly into 4 or 6 (and, which should be obvious, 2).

It's not a huge issue, but it would be nice.

[blinkin]

it is based on tabletop rules that state each ton of srm ammo adds up to:

• 50 shots for srm 2
  
• 25 shots for srm 4
  
• 16 (i think) shots for srm 6

so for that math to work out properly it is assumed that each ton of srm ammo is equal to 100 missiles.

[Skribs]

I know where the number comes from. It just doesnt agree with my OCD. I dont think a change of 4 or 8% would be a big deviation.

The devs can take or leave my suggestion, obviously, I am just voicing something that bothers me about the current design. I realize that mental disorder isnt a good reason to change the design, but I feel there is at least some logic to my suggestion.

[blinkin]

since armor was doubled i do think missile ammo needs some buffing along with other ammunition types.

srm do get a 25% damage buff but i still think they need some ammo buffing to balance out the double hitpoints more.

[Skribs]

Well there you go, bump it up to 108 or 120!

[focuspark]

Well... ballistics ammo is 150 damage points per ton, shouldn't missile ammo be the same (or worse since missiles have guidance systems)?

Why not 60 missiles per SRM ton, 40 missiles per SSRM ton, and 80 missiles per LRM ton?

That seems far more fair.

Yes I know 80 / 15 = non-integer value which triggers the OCD issue, but honestly that's the least of my concerns.

Hell, cut those numbers in half - would go a long way towards stopping people from complaining about SRM, SSRM, and LRM OP issues.

Edited by focuspark, 14 February 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Skribs]

Ballistic weapons are also unaffected by ECM or AMS.

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Well... ballistics ammo is 150 damage points per ton, shouldn't missile ammo be the same (or worse since missiles have guidance systems)?

Why not 60 missiles per SRM ton, 40 missiles per SSRM ton, and 80 missiles per LRM ton?

That seems far more fair.

Yes I know 80 / 15 = non-integer value which triggers the OCD issue, but honestly that's the least of my concerns.

Hell, cut those numbers in half - would go a long way towards stopping people from complaining about SRM, SSRM, and LRM OP issues.

ballistic weapons (with the exception of LBX) put all of their damage on one point with each shot. lrm and streak do not do that and srm only comes close to doing that when you are under 100m. also ALL ballistic weapons outrange srm, and anymore i don't think anyone is claiming that lrm are anything like OP.

[focuspark]

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

ballistic weapons (with the exception of LBX) put all of their damage on one point with each shot. lrm and streak do not do that and srm only comes close to doing that when you are under 100m. also ALL ballistic weapons outrange srm, and anymore i don't think anyone is claiming that lrm are anything like OP.

Ahh but they do... they just fire multiple times at once. Each missile only strikes a single location, but you get to fire a lot of them at once. Yes, you get fewer volleys but you can get the damage out faster. Since rounds of ammo are based on the damage per shot, not per volley it's a fair system.

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Ahh but they do... they just fire multiple times at once. Each missile only strikes a single location, but you get to fire a lot of them at once. Yes, you get fewer volleys but you can get the damage out faster. Since rounds of ammo are based on the damage per shot, not per volley it's a fair system.

do you think LBX is fair? this is a bit removed but i think the basic concept holds true.

on a side note i think most anything that requires ammo needs an ammo buff as well, to counteract the double armor.

Edited by blinkin, 14 February 2013 - 01:09 PM.

[focuspark]

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

do you think LBX is fair?

Honestly, yes. I love my LBX. Smaller, lighter, and cooler than a standard AC/10 but puts out enough damage to fast splat targets without the need to hover around like AC/2 and UAC/5 require.

Skribs, on 14 February 2013 - 12:53 PM, said:

Ballistic weapons are also unaffected by ECM or AMS.

True - other than you don't always know where to shoot due to ECM blocking data - but that said, I do not think ECM should prevent missiles from working either. IMO the current ECM mechanic is complete crap.

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

on a side note i think most anything that requires ammo needs an ammo buff as well, to counteract the double armor.

Screen shake and best DPS in game doesn't count?

Edited by focuspark, 14 February 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Screen shake and best DPS in game doesn't count?

i think they could use just a bit more staying power. individual fights would be the same (mostly), but non- energy weapons will be more viable towards the end of a match.

i don't think it should be outright doubled, because accurate aim accounts for some of the discrepency already. some small ammo buffs across the board would be good for this game i think.

[Marchant Consadine]

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

it is based on tabletop rules that state each ton of srm ammo adds up to:

• 50 shots for srm 2
  
• 25 shots for srm 4
  
• 16 (i think) shots for srm 6

so for that math to work out properly it is assumed that each ton of srm ammo is equal to 100 missiles.

The problem then is that the original game devs didn't do their math properly. My guess is that they first created srm 2 & 4. Ammo 50 and 25 made sense (implying 100 missiles). At later point they added srm6 they counted 100 / 6 = 16,something -> so 16 shots. Lefover shots would've been too annoying to keep track of in a tabletop game so they just left it to that. OP makes a very valid point. In this game they clearly took those srm2 and 4 as base values. It would've been more logical to take base value from srm6 since that way you could have them all even out. One of those things where exact values (that naturally is used when there's a computer counting stuff) are not practical in tabletop so there's a "close enough" compromise. Devs could've gone either way and they chose the current system (I think they think 100 is neater than 96, a clear indicator how they underestimated the community )

tldr: make it 16*6=96 missiles per ton. It will be as close to tabletop as this compromise and it will make more sense to a mathematician.

[blinkin]

Marchant Consadine, on 14 February 2013 - 08:00 PM, said:

The problem then is that the original game devs didn't do their math properly. My guess is that they first created srm 2 & 4. Ammo 50 and 25 made sense (implying 100 missiles). At later point they added srm6 they counted 100 / 6 = 16,something -> so 16 shots. Lefover shots would've been too annoying to keep track of in a tabletop game so they just left it to that. OP makes a very valid point. In this game they clearly took those srm2 and 4 as base values. It would've been more logical to take base value from srm6 since that way you could have them all even out. One of those things where exact values (that naturally is used when there's a computer counting stuff) are not practical in tabletop so there's a "close enough" compromise. Devs could've gone either way and they chose the current system (I think they think 100 is neater than 96, a clear indicator how they underestimated the community )

tldr: make it 16*6=96 missiles per ton. It will be as close to tabletop as this compromise and it will make more sense to a mathematician.

it leaves srm2 2 shots dry and srm4 1 shot dry. i was merely explaining why this came about.

[Marchant Consadine]

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

i think they could use just a bit more staying power. individual fights would be the same (mostly), but non- energy weapons will be more viable towards the end of a match.

i don't think it should be outright doubled, because accurate aim accounts for some of the discrepency already. some small ammo buffs across the board would be good for this game i think.

Out of topic here, but to me it seems that ballistics, missiles and energy weapons are quite balanced already. They just buffed large energy weapons (and will buff more in next patch with the ecm-nullifier ppc). Those made larger energy weapons viable for the first time in the time I've played this game. Now you want to buff ballistics?

Only problem I have with ballistics is that there's no viable light options. Machine gun is a joke currently but even after they buff it there's a huge gap between a machine gun and AC2 (5 tons to be exact). I know this can't be helped, because the tech is what the lore says it is. Just bugs me that after I load my k2 with 2*ppc I have no option other than machine gun for ballistics (which even if it was usefull would be smaller than I'd like). I guess I'll just have to wait 'till 2031 to get a light AC2 fitted in

[Marchant Consadine]

blinkin, on 14 February 2013 - 08:13 PM, said:

it leaves srm2 2 shots dry and srm4 1 shot dry. i was merely explaining why this came about.

Yes it does. as said it's a compromise. I just think this is the direction the compromise should be. I don't think I've ever seen srm 2 used and srm4 is exremely rare (in game that is). No harm done there. I know it bugs me though when the last salvo of srm6 isn't a full salvo (so much so that I'd rather not have it at all and I actually load the ammo for them in batches of 3tons to avoid this (yes I'm weird that way, but I like things to even out).

Then again this isn't a huge issue in any way, but I bet the man-hours required to change this woul be negligible also (I mean if this game is programmed in any sensible way it would mean changing one number). If there's a huge uproar then change it back (I do realise some people have different opinions than I do and I often have to live by those opinions even if they're wrong ).

[Stringburka]

focuspark, on 14 February 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Well... ballistics ammo is 150 damage points per ton

On a side note, that varies. AC20 is 140 (okay that's rounded down), UAC-5 is 125 and machine gun is 80.

Right now, SRMs get a 25% damage boost to compensate for higher armor. Many people think SRMs are too good. I think dropping them to standard TT values but increasing their ammo size by 20% would be fine and make them balanced.

The reason SRMs have higher damage per ton than ballistics is because ballistics have better precision compared to range (compare SRM and AC-20 or LRM and AC-2), and usually cause less heat per damage.

Edited by Stringburka, 14 February 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[Skribs]

Just to clarify, making them base 6 wouldn't be specific enough, because every other multiple of 6 is not a multiple of 4. It has to be base 12 to work with both SRM 4 and SRM 6. I also don't think it would be too game-breaking to go in either direction, 96 or 108 per ton.