46 replies to this topic

[ManDaisy]

Laser:
Advantage: Greatest Accuracy, Instant Travel, Good at shooting down missiles due to "Duration" of fire
DrawBack: Heat, Hold on Target Damage Over Time, "very little" if at all any knocks

Is < Less Then

Bullets:

Advantage: Full Damage On Impact, Less Heat, Big Knocks
DrawBack: Recoil Inaccuracy, Shorter Range for Big Punchers, Bad at shooting down missiles "Duration of fire eats ammo"
Has travel Time, or burst fire needs better targeting .

Is < Less Then

Missiles

Advantage: Full Damage On Impact, Longest Range, Big Knocks, Homing
DrawBack: Ammo Limits, Hard to hit at short range, Can't shoot down other missiles.

Is < Less Then

Lasers, - shoot down missiles easiest.

Lasers< Bullets< Missiles< Lasers

Edited by ManDaisy, 11 February 2012 - 03:46 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

i dont like lasers as DOT. they should just spike heat and do the damage. even if you drag out the damage like that they are still OP with the ability to destroy incoming missles, not require ammo, they are lighter than AC, less critical spaces, and when linked they do more damage.the only advantage AC has ever had over lasers is the range.

[ManDaisy]

AC has never had a range advantage over energy. Damage advantage Yes. Heat advantage Yes. Range advantage? The Longer a AC's Range the less damage it does. Why use an AC 5and ac 2 when they weight so friggin much compared to a laser? Also No Energy can 1 shot in the vicinity on 20 damage on Table Top Rules. None. However an AC 20 can instantly. DOT lasers is the only way to give AC weapons a chance and to ensure laser boats aren't king. Or would you rather have 4 med lasers trumping an AC 20 and making ballistics obsolete? Because Unlike in table top we don't have to roll a separate hit location for each weapon. IF you want Instant damage lasers then where they hit will be where everything is going.

Also are you saying missiles should be invincible? It sounds a lot like you are. If you got an automatic weapon sure you may not hit on your first try, but spray and pray or trace either with bullets or energy should be able to hit something. Also AMS is a frigging machine gun. I'm not saying lasers are the only thing able to shoot down missiles, I'm saying they are the easiest thing to do it with due to their DOT nature.

Edited by ManDaisy, 11 February 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[FinnMcKool]

Machine guns dont do damage unless all armor is gone then it rips up internals like crazy??

Is there the thermal nuclear option? (every one loses)









always Sober (I learned my lessons well)

[Saurok]

ManDaisy, on 11 February 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

AC has never had a range advantage over energy. Damage advantage Yes. Heat advantage Yes. Range advantage? The Longer a AC's Range the less damage it does. Why use an AC 5and ac 2 when they weight so friggin much compared to a laser? Also No Energy can 1 shot in the vicinity on 20 damage on Table Top Rules. None. However an AC 20 can instantly. DOT lasers is the only way to give AC weapons a chance and to ensure laser boats aren't king. Or would you rather have 4 med lasers trumping an AC 20 and making ballistics obsolete? Because Unlike in table top we don't have to roll a separate hit location for each weapon. IF you want Instant damage lasers then where they hit will be where everything is going.

Heavy PPC with Capacitor can deliver 20pt punch up to 18 hexes on TT.

I wouldn't say that weapons should be 100% balanced. If you balance PPC and AC5 to be both as good on statistic level, PPC stops to be PPC as we know it or the AC5 is suddenly the weapon of choise, which is has never been.

[Sug]

We can shoot down missiles?

[Ravn]

Yes, but this works as well as you think it would for a missile traveling at mach 4 with the cross section of a softball... so like 0.0001% success rate.

Edited by Ravn, 12 February 2012 - 11:51 PM.

[autogyro]

Balance should be achieved through in-game performance, either by win/loss ratio, average XP earned or average 'Mechs destroyed, etc.

Not necessarily through weapons. I don't see why we need to use an RPS system for the different weapon types; also I believe AMS uses ballistics, not lasers, to shoot down missiles.

[Strum Wealh]

There are both ballistics-based AMS (rediscovered by the FedCom in 3040; never lost by the Clans) and laser-based AMS (developed in 3045 by Clan Wolf and 3054 by the FedCom).

There are, to the best of my knowledge, no 'Mech-scale "interceptor/anti-missile missiles", though there are Retro-Streak Warheads that serve as decoys against (only) Streak-system missiles.

As far as other weapons' effect on missiles: it's going to be hard enough to hit other 'Mechs, let alone a missile that's ~6-12 times faster than any 'Mech and several times smaller.
Also, this isn't Armored Core, where one can shoot down, out run, and even make artistic aerobatic displays with missiles.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

I really do not understand your desire to make weapons RPS. There is no good way to make it work. This is not a Harry Potter wizard duel or Pokemon battle where you "Use Fire" and the other guy counters with "Water." It is about total loadout and situation based, and not as black/white as laser/missile. In an Urban setting, yeah, they guy packing AC/20s is probably going to destroy the guy with LRMs. However you also have to factor in 'Mech chassis, which change everything. A 55 tonner with ACs probably is not going to beat a 75 tonner with energy weapons, just because of what type of weapon they are packing. Weapons will display differences based on pilot skill and the situation, along with their individual charicteristics.

[ManDaisy]

Ravn, on 12 February 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Yes, but this works as well as you think it would for a missile traveling at mach 4 with the cross section of a softball... so like 0.0001% success rate.

Yes I would like to see some missiles destroyed with weapons contact rather then the pas thru which happened in all other mechwarrior games. You you cant hit them fine, but if you do manage you should be rewarded for you efforts. Shooting and hitting missiles in all the other mechwarrior games to have absolutely no effect happen has left a bitter taste in my mouth,

Saurok, on 12 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Heavy PPC with Capacitor can deliver 20pt punch up to 18 hexes on TT.

I wouldn't say that weapons should be 100% balanced. If you balance PPC and AC5 to be both as good on statistic level, PPC stops to be PPC as we know it or the AC5 is suddenly the weapon of choise, which is has never been.

As for you, can we agree that ppcs are different then lasers? Heavy ppcs are also not in this time Line.

Also it is not my intention that weapons will auto trump each other no matter what the tonnage difference or weapons loadout. It is my intention that weapons give an edge advantage to player in certain situations and also suffer a disadvantage in other situations. This is all to give weapons each a distinct and diverse role, and also to avoid the problem of boating the best weapon type.

Edited by ManDaisy, 13 February 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Exilyth]

For Battletech, rock/paper/sciccors is equivalent to speed/armor/weapon loadout.

[Aegis Kleais]

I don't think that weapon types work in the same manner of Rock / Paper/ Scissors.

Weapons don't fight other weapons. Weapons fight armor.

instead, I propose 4 different types of armor: Reflective, Reactive, Reinforced and Ferro-Fibrous.

Reflective protects BEST against ENERGY weapons, though it is WORST against BALLISTICS
Reactive protects BEST against PROJECTILE weapons, though it is WORST against ENERGY
Reinforced protects BEST against BALLISTIC weapons, though it is WORST against PROJECTILES
Ferro-Fibrous is an average armor, not providing better than previously started protection against any one weapon type, but not having any notable susceptibility to one either.

GOOD protection could be like 25% increase in protect from.
WORST protection could be like 25% increase in damage from.

ie, 40 points of BALLISTIC damage = 50 PTS against REFLECTIVE, 30 PTS against REINFORCED, 40 PTS everything else.
ie, 60 points of PROJECTILE damage = 75 PTS against REINFORCED, 45 PTS against REACTIVE, 60 PTS everything else
ie, 30 points of ENERGY damage = 38 PTS against REACTIVE, 23 PTS against REFLECTIVE, 30 PTS everything else.

**ALSO** I'm not a proponent of being able to use anything other than L/AMS to shoot down missiles in flight. Regular onboard lasers should be for shooting Mechs, not in-flight weapons fire.

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 13 February 2012 - 09:32 AM.

[ManDaisy]

its not weapons vs weapons. Its weapons have advantages and disadvantages that other weapons don't, which makes them good for certain situations and worse for others.

For example a DOT Laser at extremely long range is easy to hit with because you can "paint" a target due to the fire time and because it travels at the speed of light, While a single burst of auto cannon fire has a larger chance of missing due to travel speed, and point impact nature.

A Dot laser will have a harder time doing full damage at close range because a mech will move out of your cone of fire that much faster at close range.

A single bust AC round does not have to worry about lock on.

Get it now?


As for everyone's weapons not being able to shoot down missiles, sure if your aiming for 1 missile in the thin blue sky with a rifle, its going to be hard BUT not impossible to hit it. But your neglecting to consider the fact that your shooting at a cloud/ stream of missiles, not 1, WITH FRIGGIN BATTLE MECH WEAPONS not with pistols or rifles. If you miss your missile target missiles would be close enough to have a good chance of hitting some other missile in the vicinity.

My arguement for lasers is that you can paint and super heat the air around the missiles hot enough to set them off. As for autocannons, if they are firing a spray, that spray should have a good random chance of hitting at least some missiles in their flight path. Point is Battle mech weapons, will have much large area of damage, then a rifle bullet which everyone seems to be thinking of. Considering the fact that AMS and Laser Ams are based on ballistics and Lasers, there is no reason why battlemech fire should Pass Thru missiles with no effect.

Edited by ManDaisy, 13 February 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[SilentObserver]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

I don't think that weapon types work in the same manner of Rock / Paper/ Scissors.

Weapons don't fight other weapons. Weapons fight armor.

instead, I propose 4 different types of armor: Reflective, Reactive, Reinforced and Ferro-Fibrous.

Reflective protects BEST against ENERGY weapons, though it is WORST against BALLISTICS
Reactive protects BEST against PROJECTILE weapons, though it is WORST against ENERGY
Reinforced protects BEST against BALLISTIC weapons, though it is WORST against PROJECTILES
Ferro-Fibrous is an average armor, not providing better than previously started protection against any one weapon type, but not having any notable susceptibility to one either.

...snip...

I'm confused as to whether ballistic or projectile are considered missiles.

Reactive Armor should work well against missles
Reinforced Armor should work well against Autocannons

so Projectile == missiles?

Also you forgot about Standard armor, which most of the mechs at launch will be equipped with.

Edited by SilentObserver, 13 February 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

ManDaisy, on 13 February 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

its not weapons vs weapons. Its weapons have advantages and disadvantages that other weapons don't, which makes them good for certain situations and worse for others.

Yeah. I think people find comfort if they know that no one particular weapon is better than another, but there just won't be any comfort in that regard. Weapons affect armor, there is a chance that better armor types are better against previous weapons, like in my explanation above, but the tactical mind knows that weapons have general pro/cons that don't have a thing to do with other weapons:

ENERGY
Pros:

• No need for ammo
  
• Instant Travel Time
  
• Doesn't lose potency with range
  
• Beam vs. Pulse for your needs

Cons:

• Requires extra heat management
  
• Certain model beam color indicates weapon potency
  
• Gives away location like a tracer

BALLISTICS
Pros:

• Quick reloading
  
• High damage output
  
• Generally low heat output
  
• Generally quick reload
  
• Some models support indirect fire

Cons:

• Short range
  
• Can jam
  
• Lower accuracy
  
• Limited by ammo

PROJECTILE
Pros:

• Long range
  
• Doesn't lose potency with range
  
• Fire and forget
  
• Some models support indirect fire

Cons:

• Requires extra heat management
  
• Gives away location due to smoke trails
  
• Long travel time
  
• Limited by ammo
  
• Can jam

[Aegis Kleais]

SilentObserver, on 13 February 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I'm confused as to whether ballistic or projectile are considered missiles.

Reactive Armor should work well against missles
Reinforced Armor should work well against Autocannons

so Projectile == missiles?

Also you forgot about Standard armor, which most of the mechs at launch will be equipped with.

Ballistics = Machine guns, Autocannon, Ultra Autocannon, Gauss, LBX, Artillery, etc.
Projectiles = S/M/L Range Missiles, ATM, Thunderbolts, etc.

Reactive Armor IS indicated as working well against missiles (projectiles)
Reinforced Armor IS indicated to work well against ballistics

As for standard, I was equating that to Ferro-Firbrous. that it wasn't better at protecting you against any 1 particular weapon type, but at least it wasn't weak to any one either.

If you know you're up against enemies who like using projectiles, go in with a reactive armor variant. It opens up a tactical side to armor/weapon strategies.

For extra clarification:

BALLISTIC - The fired ammo is a solid slug using the inertia of the initial propulsion for its entire flight.
PROJECTILE - The fired warhead is a self-contained explosive working in tandem with a self-housed propulsion system to deliver the payload to its target.

Projectiles support tracking onboard, ballistics would not. Ballistics could just benefit from a targeting computer's accuracy BEFORE it is fired. Once in flight, it's up to physics.

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 13 February 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Black Sunder]

Trying to break the weapons down into 3 groups doesn't work because each set has variations of themselves that are or can be better than the other groups at certain ranges.

[Strum Wealh]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 February 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

I don't think that weapon types work in the same manner of Rock / Paper/ Scissors.

Weapons don't fight other weapons. Weapons fight armor.

instead, I propose 4 different types of armor: Reflective, Reactive, Reinforced and Ferro-Fibrous.

Reflective protects BEST against ENERGY weapons, though it is WORST against BALLISTICS
Reactive protects BEST against PROJECTILE weapons, though it is WORST against ENERGY
Reinforced protects BEST against BALLISTIC weapons, though it is WORST against PROJECTILES
Ferro-Fibrous is an average armor, not providing better than previously started protection against any one weapon type, but not having any notable susceptibility to one either.

GOOD protection could be like 25% increase in protect from.
WORST protection could be like 25% increase in damage from.

ie, 40 points of BALLISTIC damage = 50 PTS against REFLECTIVE, 30 PTS against REINFORCED, 40 PTS everything else.
ie, 60 points of PROJECTILE damage = 75 PTS against REINFORCED, 45 PTS against REACTIVE, 60 PTS everything else
ie, 30 points of ENERGY damage = 38 PTS against REACTIVE, 23 PTS against REFLECTIVE, 30 PTS everything else.

**ALSO** I'm not a proponent of being able to use anything other than L/AMS to shoot down missiles in flight. Regular onboard lasers should be for shooting Mechs, not in-flight weapons fire.

The armor types that were developed at or prior to the game's start point (3049) are:
Ferro-Fibrous Armor - reintroduced to the IS by the Draconis Combine in 3040 (the Clans never lost the FF tech from 2571)
Hardened Armor - developed by the Federated Commonwealth in 3045-3047 (copied by Clan Ghost Bear during the invasion)
Primitive Armor - the original BattleMech armor used on the Mackie in 2439; essentially modern (non-Chobham) armor
Standard Armor - developed by the Terran Hegemony in 2470; maintained by IS and Clans since (essentially a very tough version of modern Chobham armor)

By contrast, a lot of the advanced armors come into being much later in the canon timeline:
Armored Components - developed by the Free Worlds League in 3059-3061
Ferro-Lamellor Armor - developed by Clan Snow Raven in 3070
Heavy FF Armor - developed by the Lyran Alliance in 3069
Laser Reflective/"Glazed"/"Reflec" Armor - developed by the Lyran Alliance in 3058 (copied by Clan Jade Falcon in 3061)
Light FF Armor - developed by the Free Worlds League in 3067
Reactive/"Blazer" Armor - developed by the Draconis Combine in 3063 (copied by Clan Ghost Bear in 3065)
Stealth Armor - developed by the Capellan Confederation in 3063

Then there're the Commercial- and Industrial-grade armors.

Also, there are apparently rules for mixing armor types on a single 'Mech via a "patchwork armor" system (the VTR-9K2 variant of the Victor uses a Standard/FF patchwork, for example), though I, personally, don't know the specifics of how the patchwork armor rules actually work.

Depending on how closely the Devs stick to the canon timeline in that regard, fancy armors are probably not going to be around for quite some time yet...

[Aegis Kleais]

Strum Wealh, on 13 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

The armor types that were developed at or prior to the game's start point (3049) are:
Ferro-Fibrous Armor - reintroduced to the IS by the Draconis Combine in 3040 (the Clans never lost the FF tech from 2571)
Hardened Armor - developed by the Federated Commonwealth in 3045-3047 (copied by Clan Ghost Bear during the invasion)
Primitive Armor - the original BattleMech armor used on the Mackie in 2439; essentially modern (non-Chobham) armor
Standard Armor - developed by the Terran Hegemony in 2470; maintained by IS and Clans since (essentially a very tough version of modern Chobham armor)

By contrast, a lot of the advanced armors come into being much later in the canon timeline:
Armored Components - developed by the Free Worlds League in 3059-3061
Ferro-Lamellor Armor - developed by Clan Snow Raven in 3070
Heavy FF Armor - developed by the Lyran Alliance in 3069
Laser Reflective/"Glazed"/"Reflec" Armor - developed by the Lyran Alliance in 3058 (copied by Clan Jade Falcon in 3061)
Light FF Armor - developed by the Free Worlds League in 3067
Reactive/"Blazer" Armor - developed by the Draconis Combine in 3063 (copied by Clan Ghost Bear in 3065)
Stealth Armor - developed by the Capellan Confederation in 3063

Then there're the Commercial- and Industrial-grade armors.

Also, there are apparently rules for mixing armor types on a single 'Mech via a "patchwork armor" system (the VTR-9K2 variant of the Victor uses a Standard/FF patchwork, for example), though I, personally, don't know the specifics of how the patchwork armor rules actually work.

Depending on how closely the Devs stick to the canon timeline in that regard, fancy armors are probably not going to be around for quite some time yet...

Wow. Didn't know so many armor variants were introduced.

I wonder if this is a case of the designer having the option to take creative freedom with the idea of better/worse armors for weapon types and just running with a more simplified version?