20 replies to this topic

[senaiboy]

Just a suggestion. It seems illogical for ammo in the legs to be loaded to weapons up in the arms, unless they teleport into the reload chambers or something. It makes more sense for ammo to be in the torsos/arms.

Advantage:
Limiting where you can put ammo will discourage those assault mech pure LRM boats/AC20 boats and encourage some variety in their weapon loadout. Specific mechs like Commando-2D or Catapult-A1 can still pack sufficient ammo in the side torsos and arms.

Disadvantage:
Component slots in the legs will be practically useless for mechs with DHS.

Any comments?

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 08:55 AM.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Ammo should not be restricted in location.

If you think people are putting all their ammo in their legs, there's a simple solution: shoot them in the legs. A lot of the same people who put ammo in the legs actually reduce leg armor before they do any other locations, making this pay off even more than it otherwise would.

Plus, legging someone is usually a death sentence for that player, and in Conquest pretty well takes him out of the game altogether.

[Deathlike]

Short answer: No

Long answer: Do you seriously want more side coring instead of legging?

Given that most ammo heavy driven mechs are using XL because of the tonnage they require, you are make side coring much more viable than intended...

Why bother with the dakka if the dakka ammo will get you killed faster? Then again, MG ammo explosions on a 6 MG Jager-DD would be glorious.

[senaiboy]

The suggestion is to discourage LRM boats and dual AC20 mechs, as they will have less ammo to play with. Other mechs will largely not be affected. On the contrary, those who put ammo in the legs will put more armor there won't they?

I don't get the side coring vs legging argument. Stalkers (as an example for LRM boat) can have up to 72 armor per leg, rarely does anyone leg a Stalker in the first place? As for light/medium/heavy mechs, I don't think this will increase side coring that much. Arms are the least likely to be destroyed, and those mechs with XL engines will be cored if their side torsos are destroyed anyway.

Ballistics have the advantage of high DPS, low HPS, pinpoint damage compared to Lasers. The current downside is their limited ammo, which for those who make a viable build, will often not use up their ammo before the match is up/they are dead so practically not a real disadvantage. There is also the explosion risk, but it doesn't happen that much unless you boat ballistics/LRMs, and this suggestion will discourage boating by increasing that risk further.

Edit: What is the argument for not limiting ammo to torsos/arms? I don't play 70LRM Stalker/Awesome or AC20 Jagers so I'm not definitely sure where they put their ammo, but I'm guessing a lot of it are in the legs based on my smurfy tinkering.

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 09:25 AM.

[Deathlike]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 09:09 AM, said:

The suggestion is to discourage LRM boats and dual AC20 mechs, as they will have less ammo to play with. Other mechs will largely not be affected. On the contrary, those who put ammo in the legs will put more armor there won't they?

Both are not the biggest threats, although the latter is a bit more serious in PUG play... not in higher level play.

Every single time I see either, they are easy to blow up, and occasionally I do go side torso coring if the situation warrants it.

Quote

I don't think this will increase side coring that much. Arms are the least likely to be destroyed, and those mechs with XL engines will be cored if their side torsos are destroyed anyway, so at the most there'll be a 10% increase in relative risk for every ammo they have.

You magically change the dynamics, and not for the better. I will explain to you after responding to the next thread...

Quote

Ballistics have the advantage or high DPS, low HPS compared to Lasers. The current downside is their limited ammo, which for those who make a viable build, will often not use up their ammo before the match is up so practically not a real disadvantage. There is also the explosion risk, but it doesn't happen that much unless you boat ballistics/LRMs.

Edit: What is the argument for not limiting ammo to torsos/arms?

Based on your suggestion you're making Stalkers and high energy boats a lot more popular. Instead of taking weapons with their own inherent risks (tonnage/crits + ammo), you pretty much will make energy based mechs a lot more popular. That's the problem.

Here's a common scenario.

The most popular Centurion is the Cent-A... 2 med, 3 SRM6. For the mech to be perfectly viable, the ammo must be distributed well.. so what tends to happen is the ammo is spread from the head to the legs, usually NOT in the torso sections.

If someone were to construct a Cent where the ammo was strictly in the arms or side torso, the Cent really becomes a ticking time bomb. For the Cent's power, it MUST torso twist to distribute damage. This also means that the arms tend to have their armor exposed. Even if you put the ammo in the side torsos, generally there is NOTHING to protect it.. you either would use the SRMs in the left torso to "buffer" the damage or leave it FULLY exposed in the right torso with maybe a DHS just to cover the ammo up.

I had some bad experiences with a Cent when I forgot to remove ammo that was still in the arm... suffice it to say, I ended up dying through an ammo explosion. That wasn't pretty.

Anyways, you PREVENT effective usage in torso twisting because of ammo placement... and you ALREADY run the risk of an ammo explosion when your leg is exposed... it should be by personal choice to put it there. Don't complain about ammo explosions when that SHOULD be better armored than the arms. Putting ammo in the side torsos is a recipe for self-implosion.

As a rule of thumb, it is really BAD practice to put ammo in the side torsos (at best, you would put only 1 ton there to fill up the LAST SLOT in that section and hope to consume them ASAP). For Atlases, extra AC20/Gauss ammo tend to go into the right arm (because when the RT goes, the ammo is pointless).

[senaiboy]

Solution to the non-XL mechs (in your Cent example) - C.A.S.E.

It is an underused component, but in the case of your Cent a C.A.S.E may just save your life. I'm not sure about the component slots available though, I've not used a Cent so far.

The risk of ammo explosion is already pretty low, unless you pack lots of them. And to be fair, for an XL mech if your side torso is exposed chances are slim for you to survive anyway, I don't see it increasing your chances of death significantly.

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 09:40 AM.

[Deathlike]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Solution to the non-XL mechs (in your Cent example) - C.A.S.E.

Case is useless.. even in the instances where it normally make sense to use it.

Most of the time, if you lose that side (especially in the example of the Cent) you're pretty much close to doomed.

Quote

It is an underused component, but in the case of your Cent a C.A.S.E may just save your life. I'm not sure about the component slots available though, I've not used a Cent so far.

It's underused because its effect amounts to uselessness in most instances. That doesn't even factor XL+CASE is a useless combo.

See, I understand that you hate ballistic and ammo boats, but they do have WEAKNESSES and thus can be countered (ammo dependency, XL engine usage, etc.). If you're having problems with the current system, you're not going to get better as a player.

You're effective wanting more energy boats ruling the field, and if you like the current PPC heavy meta, your idea will push it further.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 June 2013 - 09:42 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Voted no. This has been argued multiple times in multiple threads, including this one. There's no necessity for it and it merely limits Mech configurations. The argument that LRM boats or AC40 Mechs need to be "nerfed" hasn't ever been conclusively proven within the community or even recognized as a problem by PGI, so this recommendation's basic premise is flawed from the start.

[Vassago Rain]

Ammo in battletech is transported through the mechs using a complicated series of tubes.

Many, many, many, many stockmechs have exploding knees or faces. It's completely normal. If you see someone you know for a fact has lot of ammo, just aim for the legs. They're almost always sparsely armored, too, in addition to the exploding knees.

[Deathlike]

Instead of the 2AC20 Jager... hello 4 PPC Jagers!

Also, you've now removed Cents and the hunchy (HBK-4SP) from higher level play. Congrats! No more viable mediums in higher level play.

Plus, you've removed any reason to use the Catapult-A1.

Edited by Deathlike, 16 June 2013 - 09:57 AM.

[LauLiao]

You know what makes LESS sense? A bipedal, upright-walking war machine. Get over it. If you need something to "make sense" of it all, think of it as an advanced, lostech ammo feed system.

[senaiboy]

PPCs are already getting a "nerf" with the boating heat penalty. Although I doubt it'll work, at least PGI is looking at it. That is a separate issue.

I'm not sure why you're saying C.A.S.E is useless, when it does what it does. Your Cent most probably has a STD engine, and it works in your case. I don't get how HBK is removed from higher level play.

I have no issues with ballistics or LRM boats - I own Jagers with 4 MGs, 4 AC2s + 2 MGs, Catapults with 50 LRMs, etc. I just thought there isn't any reason for ammo to be in the legs, besides making AC40/LRM70 a viable build.

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Deathlike]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

PPCs are already getting a "nerf" with the boating heat penalty. Although I doubt it'll work, at least PGI is looking at it. That is a separate issue.

It's not a good one... and not hard to work around.

Quote

I have no issues with ballistics or LRM boats - I own Jagers with 4 MGs, 4 AC2s + 2 MGs, Catapults with 50 LRMs, etc. I just thought there isn't any reason for ammo to be in the legs, besides making AC40/LRM70 a viable build.

Your mistake is thinking they are viable in higher level play (for PUGs, that may be the case).

[senaiboy]

Unfortunately a huge majority of the games are PUGs, and they may not be a good winning build, however they are a source of grief (especially to new players) due to the time they take to take down an individual mech.

Edited by senaiboy, 16 June 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[oldradagast]

Well, this makes more mechs non-viable at higher levels of play and would make it utterly impossible to put anything in the legs other than crit slots spent from Endosteel and Ferro-fibrous armor since double heat sinks are too big, no weapons are leg mounted, and nothing else can be placed in the legs based upon hardpoints... well, maybe a Beagle Probe, but that's it.

This would be a needless change that only makes the game worse - bad idea, IMHO.

[Deathlike]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

Unfortunately a huge majority of the games are PUGs, and they may not be a good winning build, however they are a source of grief (especially of new players) due to the time they take to take down an individual mech.

It's only a source of grief if you don't know how to get better.

[Lukoi Banacek]

senaiboy, on 16 June 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

I just thought there isn't any reason for ammo to be in the legs, besides making AC40/LRM70 a viable build.

This isn't correct to begin with. I just tinkered around and made an AC40 build that was clearly viable and didn't include any of its 6tons of ammo in the legs to begin with. Viability here is not predicated on the ammo being in the legs.

[FireSlade]

I do not see a point to making the ammo arm/torse dependent. The argument that it "makes no sense" makes no sense. Ammo in any location has to move from one point to another this is done by some mechanism. In fact we have these types of mechanisms today in the form of ammo belts. An example of this http://en.wikipedia....i/Belt_(firearm) and http://www.cavalrypi...s/kpammofd.html. These would be used in moving all types of ammo from the storage location to the weapon. As for using the system to counter boats it will not do much for the new guys and they are easily countered anyways. As someone gain skill and knowledge of this game they come to realize that boats are too specialized and easy to counter if you keep moving. The AC/40 is too ammo dependent and hard to aim at range making it not worth shooting until the enemy gets close and when 12vs12 comes you will see them less since they will not have the staying power. LRM boats are jokes; people think that more launchers = more damage when in reality all it means is faster damage. A LRM 60 boat and a mech with two LRM 15s will do the same damage (as long as they bring the same amount of ammo) with the possibility that the LRM 30 mech will get the advantage since less LRMs will go to waste. Better to save the tonnage that you would spend on that extra launcher for some more ammo and secondary weapons incase you A: run out of ammo or B: the enemy gets within the 180meter min range. SRM Boats just stay further than 270meters and you are safe. Energy boats well heat being the limiting factor are much harder to deal with since there is no telling how many shots they can get off before they over heat. Cool Shot never should have been added as a weight and crit space free "get out of jail card" that can be used. The PPC boats are not too bad if they carry too many ERPPCs (heat issues with not enough heatsinks) or you can get within the 90 meter safe zone of the reg. PPCs. Rather than suggesting features that would gimp balanced build and mildly annoy boating pilots suggest tactics to circumvent boats. The more holes that these boats are shown to have the less effective they become.

Edited by FireSlade, 16 June 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Strayed]

No because there is nothing funnier than watching a mech get legged and suddenly explode due to ammo explosions.

[BlacKcuD]

This will not really fix the ac40 "problem". It will severely limit most builds and make for less overall build variety. I do not like this idea.