61 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

Pht, on 22 February 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

So far, nobody's ported over the full penetrating hits system from the TT, much less the convergence model that underlies the rules and the story lore... so, of course small weapons have been less useful.

In mw4 the armor factor went through the roof because of pin-point precision (all weapons of the same velocity fired at once hitting the same point), and mw4 also ditched any thing like a robust penetrating hits system, so it already virtually has done the "get rid of small weapons and make only the bigger ones viable" ... and it didn't work well at all.

Explain this penetration system of TT please.

[Yeach]

Geist Null, on 22 February 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

the devs said that the maps are going to be huge. that makes the extreme range ac 2 a viable weapon with snipers as you could score several hits before a mech could get into long range. and i rather like small lazers and machine guns for soft targets and infantry

Only if there are wide open spaces.
AC2 haven't been too good in the previous mechwarrior games.

[Pht]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

Explain this penetration system of TT please.

http://home.windstre...tratinghits.txt

Right click and save; it's just a txt file; and no, this does not list out the full system. There is more that expands it to cover more things and makes it behave more "intuitively" in a real time format. This is just a really short, simple writeup of the rules.

Edited by Pht, 22 February 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

I'm not sure I follow you; going from 2 small lasers or from 2 machine guns to 1 medium laser actually give you one EXTRA critical space with the same tonnage.

Add or subtract armor 0.5 armor to make the weapon fit; its not like all light mechs are fully maxed out on armor.

Since I don't have a mech calculator why don't you give me an example of a mech that cannot do the modification I propose; as you seem to have a mech in-mind.

From sarna.net
STG-3G - The 3G Stinger traded the two Machine Guns for a second Medium Laser. While this variant increased the Stinger's lethality against other 'Mechs, it also made heat management a little more complicated for less experience.

Quote

The Stinger is one of the Unseen Mech designs.

I know its still listed on Sarna, but find a different one. I can't accept any of the Unseen as a viable example because it technically does not exist in the BT universe anymore, it unfortunately is not a reseen mech.

That Medium laser the mech has is being carried as a gun as well, this changes what you're trying to say because the medium laser isn't being restricted by the space of the mech's chassis.

If you go back to my 2 small laser vs 1 medium laser example, please tell me how you're going to fit a component that's 150% the size of 2 small lasers into that same space? Dropping half a ton of armor may or may not give that space.

[Yeach]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 22 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

That Medium laser the mech has is being carried as a gun as well, this changes what you're trying to say because the medium laser isn't being restricted by the space of the mech's chassis.

If you go back to my 2 small laser vs 1 medium laser example, please tell me how you're going to fit a component that's 150% the size of 2 small lasers into that same space? Dropping half a ton of armor may or may not give that space.

I am still not getting you.
2 SLasers = 2 crits and 1 ton
1 MLaser = 1 crit and 1 ton

I am not interested in matching the heat profile by adding heatsinks.

20 ton mech can carry 69 pts (4.5 tons of armor)
Not all 20 ton mechs carry 4.5 tons; some have 4 tons.
If the mech is at originally max armor; drop 0.5 tons and small laser for the medium laser (zero change in crit space)
If the mech is at 4 tons; add 0.5 tons armor and drop small laser (less one crit space)
Or are you saying that armor takes up critical space as well?

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I am still not getting you.
2 SLasers = 2 crits and 1 ton
1 MLaser = 1 crit and 1 ton

I am not interested in matching the heat profile by adding heatsinks.

20 ton mech can carry 69 pts (4.5 tons of armor)
Not all 20 ton mechs carry 4.5 tons; some have 4 tons.
If the mech is at originally max armor; drop 0.5 tons and small laser for the medium laser (zero change in crit space)
If the mech is at 4 tons; add 0.5 tons armor and drop small laser (less one crit space)
Or are you saying that armor takes up critical space as well?

I'm saying that its not feasible in the BT universe to all of a sudden take every mech that exists and change our their small lasers for mediums. It may happen on a small scale with certain pilots swapping out weapons, or event a variant being built by a specific factory/house, but taking away these weapons is exactly what people do NOT want to see in another MW game. 'Simplifying' things is exactly what's been done the entire history of the MW series and people are tired of it. They want to be able to use everything, even if its not 'the most effective' by your standards.

Plus, you're implying that everyone wants a mech with less armor for a slightly stronger weapon. What about the scouts who would rather live longer to provide intel to their lance mates? You've basically slapped them in the face, waved a finger at them, and said "No, you're gonna do it my way." Sure half a ton of armor may not SEEM like a lot, but when you get into a fight it matters, and it could be that 0.5 that would have saved your mech from going down long enough to get 1 more shot on the enemy who would have gone down with that shot.

Besides, it was only said that things like vehicles, infantry, battle armors, etc wouldn't be in the game at launch. If you leave them out now, they'll need to be added in when those are implemented, which means a harder time balancing them cause they have to be rebalanced with the weapons that were balanced without small weapons. Plus, if MWO has objective based missions like many are hoping, the Small Lasers and MGs will be useful.

Actually, now that I realize it, how the hell did you even think flamers are a 'small' and 'useless' weapon? I don't even remember how many mechs that I've shut down playing TT (using megamek) and in mechwarrior 4. Do you even know what overheating a mech does? First off, if they shut down they're sitting ducks, plain and simple. When they overheat their myomer muscles begin to strain (comparable to lactic acid buildup in human muscles) and cause everything to take more strain in moving.

I'm sorry, I'm done with this thread, and with you, you're just a troll in my opinion.

Here's a little parting thought, since you say we shouldn't have small lasers, and only keep medium. I'm gonna say, you can't play MWO, only MW4 and its predecessors. Is that fair? No. Are you going to listen and now play MWO? No, but that's exactly what you're trying to do with getting rid of the small end weapons, prevent people from playing what they want even though its an established weapon that has use. Just because you can't use it effectively, or got your *** handed to you by a broken mechlab system, does not mean you have the right to justify omitting the weapon entirely.

Edited by Mautty the Bobcat, 22 February 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[metro]

Remove smaller weapons (or make them weapon arrays)???


Thats why BT/MW has manuals,tro's etc etc

Every chassis has a specific set.

removing them or weapons arrays like the starship enterprise?? that is against all canon lore....ughhh it makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

[KaiserSoze]

LONG live the PIranha Mech and his 12 MGs.... CHEW AWAY MY LITTLE PET...LOL

[Yeach]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 22 February 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

*text

I'm sorry, I'm done with this thread, and with you, you're just a troll in my opinion.

*text

Good for you; You have your opinions and I have mine.

Mechcommander and the BattleTech card game worked without small lasers, machine guns or AC2 (for Mechcommander)
.
Also I should have clarified/emphasized in my first post that I was looking at specifically at the small laser, MG and AC2 and not the LRM, SRM or flamer. I am still on the fence with flamers as they do a "special" type of damage. If they did the regular 2 damage then you can them into the mix.

To summarize this thread;
-Smaller weapons do small damage and may not fit the idea as mech weapons to fight other mechs. (my opinion); these weapons were not used in multiplayer except during extreme (Clan weapon) boating (in MW3).
--weapons in BattleTech IMO can fit into three ranges (short/medium/long) with the break points of say 250m, 500m and 750. SL, MG and flamer are at 90 m which is bascially melee range. The window for using these weapons is small.
-SL, MG and flamers excel against infantry/battle armor; which will not be include in start up and with no uncertainty if they will ever be included.
-SL, MG work very well when boated due to their small weight and size;
-Light mechs can not carry much weaponry; to fit certain engine weight bracket with "full" armor, there is on occassion that you will have 0.5tons left over; some people did not like the idea of just removing 0.5ton armor and adding a medium laser to use up the tonnage.
-SL, MG work especially well against internal structure which TT rules have not been model well in the previous mechwarrior games.
-Range advantage of the AC2 maybe hampered by map terrain, getting consistent shots on target may or may not be possible;
-Smaller weapons do small damage and may not fit the idea as mech weapons to fight other mechs. (my opinion); these weapons were not used in multiplayer except during extreme (Clan weapon) boating (in MW3).
-Removing weapons from list allows for much easier balancing (less variables).

Other thoughts
-the AC5 and AC10 currently fit too closely in range;
Currently range of the ACs are
AC2- 24 hex -
AC5 18 hex
AC10 15 hex
AC20 9 hex
Difference between AC5 and AC10 is only 3 hexes (90m); Would like to see the AC5 increased by 3 hexes to 21 hexes (and if AC2 still there to be increased to 27 hexes); reasoning is to follow the pattern that the each AC calibre has an increase range of 6 hexes over the previous.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively they can leave the weapons in and most people will drop them for things that they consider more important in Mechlab, assuming we are able to do so. Then everyone is happy. I can see most Hunchback pilots dropping the SL for CASE as it greatly increases the survuvability of the mech. How PGI would consider that with regard to balance is another matter.
I like the idea of regularising the ranges. I can't see that it would mess balance up greatly as ballistics generally tend to have more con's than pro's.. If they include the Blackjack I can see it's proponents loving it
Personally I would like to see the Minimum range dropped for the AC2 & 5 as well.

[Jumbik]

Small weapons have their place, why would you remove them?

How would you equip Light mechs? One large laser and nothing else?
How would you equip vehicles or soldiers?
How would you fight with infantry and vehicles? PPC vs. 50 soldiers? Or AC20 vs howercraft?

I hope that this game will not be only about Mech vs. Mech combat but it will have all that Battletech can supply. Removing small weapons would criple the game in so many ways...

[MaddMaxx]

Changing the Weapons Ranges would invalidate all the Online (Sarna.net) info to a Moot status. Why would they ever do that?

Having to re-learn all the NEW ranges should be... un-required.

If the Dev simply convert 1 Hex = 30m which seems to be the current defacto standard for BT (the Ruleset from which they are deriving much of the games stats. (Y/N?)

It appears the Flamer has been designed already, 3 variants even, Flamer so now we are down to whether to remove the SL and MG.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 24 February 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[TimberJon]

YEACH! Whats up man! long time no talk in a forum. I have alot of catching up to do...

[Dlardrageth]

Yeach, on 23 February 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Good for you; You have your opinions and I have mine.

Mechcommander and the BattleTech card game worked without small lasers, machine guns or AC2 (for Mechcommander)

Yeah, and the BattleTech card game is for sure one of the most important factors with regards to MWO, right? Seriously? Additionally MechCommander had no direct control over the Mech at all, so that is a completely different kind of game you're talking about here. And that taking as proof why the small weapons are not neeeded... Could as well claim people would have to train skills for 1+ years before being allowed to pilot a Mech in MWO, because that is what canon indicates... Irrelevant and useless analogies FTW...

Quote

.
--weapons in BattleTech IMO can fit into three ranges (short/medium/long) with the break points of say 250m, 500m and 750. SL, MG and flamer are at 90 m which is bascially melee range. The window for using these weapons is small.

Idle speculation. You have no idea what the maps/terrain will look like you fight on in MWO. In a map of mostly ruined urban terrain 90m could be plenty in most situations.

Quote

-SL, MG work very well when boated due to their small weight and size;

Idle speculation, part 2. Unless you know already exactly which sort and degree of customization PGI will implement, you're talking rubbish here. Are you a PGI executive who can know for a fact that it will be possible to "boat" many small weapons? If not, this "argument" hold no credibility at all.

Quote

-SL, MG work especially well against internal structure which TT rules have not been model well in the previous mechwarrior games.

Idle speculation, part 3. Do you have foreknowledge of how exactly the damage modeling will be done in MWO? If PGI will even stick to the limited number of hitboxes from the TT? And what exactly the mechanism for internal structure hits will be? I don't, neither do most of the forum users, if you have some super-secret insider info, please share, otherwise a useless "argument" again.

Quote

-Removing weapons from list allows for much easier balancing (less variables).

Which would be a highly doubtable benefit. Easy = less variables = simple to balance != better for the game. Some people actually prefer somewhat more complex games, otherwise everybody would play only console games probably. And it could make balancing way more complicated if other units (even NPC) of non-Mech size like vehicles and infantry were included. As they have been in past MW games.

Still no compelling reason at all to do such a radical emasculation, especially with most arguments basing only on speculation and conjecture. Or, to be blunt, sort of useless suggestion to start with at current state of information.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 25 February 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[Lycan]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Only if there are wide open spaces.
AC2 haven't been too good in the previous mechwarrior games.

Which, I don't see why there wouldn't be.

I seriously doubt that they'll make every map a city map or dense forest map. And even then, what you seem to be forgetting is that light mechs, the mechs that tend to carry these "inferior" weapons would be able to perch on top of a building and take full advantage of the LOS and the range of his AC/2.

And just because a weapon, or group of weapons, hasn't been "good" in any of the previous versions of the game is no reason to exclude them from the game as there's no proof that they won't be "good" in this version.

The previous versions of the game were dealing with hardware and software limitations that just aren't here anymore with todays tech. It's why the previous versions of mechwarrior didn't allow for melee attacks. (Not saying that MWO will allow them to start but don't see why the wouldn't be implemented later).

[Naduk]

i like and want my small weapons

op may play the new mech assault when its ready

[Pht]

Yeach, on 23 February 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

-Smaller weapons do small damage and may not fit the idea as mech weapons to fight other mechs. (my opinion);

Well, let's see if we can't shed some light here; I suspect you might be missing a few things.

Smaller weapons; as has already been pointed out, make the light and medium classes viable as combat units.

Smaller weapons when used in groups (and not very large ones) have a good chance of getting penetrating hits, and once the damage is "inside" ... well, it only takes 1 pt of damage to trash almost anything inside of a 'mech.

Once you've stripped a section of armor, smaller weapons excel at blasting out the exposed stuff, because they can generate a lot of fire; where larger weapons generate a lower effective rate of fire. Six small lasers = six chances to blow stuff up: one gauss = 1 chance.

If at some point in the future they add in battle armor and vehicles and the other units, the small class weapons will gain even more effective use.

Quote

these weapons were not used in multiplayer except during extreme (Clan weapon) boating (in MW3).

MW3 was broken like this due to it's completely unrestricted "Factory style" mechlab, not because of the weapons.

Quote

--weapons in BattleTech IMO can fit into three ranges (short/medium/long) with the break points of say 250m, 500m and 750. SL, MG and flamer are at 90 m which is bascially melee range. The window for using these weapons is small.

Ever heard of extreme and LOS range? the small class weapons can use extreme range, that's, if memory serves, their medium range times 2, tacked on after "long range," and weapons that can hit out to 12 hex can use los range... if you can see it, you can try and shoot it.

The old days of the TT rules being short are gone.

Methinks you're being a bit narrow in your field of view.

Edited by Pht, 26 February 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Grey Weasel]

Yeach, on 19 February 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

That was the intention; simplifying the game and simplifying the balance of the game (which will be more involved when clan weapons are added.)
Less weapons equals less weapons to balance against each other. Just a suggestion.

A big part of the balance of this game is play style and tactics. The tacts of a short range mech are different from a missile (support fire) mech. Your simplification makes it easier for new players, sure, but takes away a lot of the depth of the game that draws the old-hat Mechwarrior fans.

[ManDaisy]

Did this really need to be necro'd?

[Spleenslitta]

Congrats to Yeach. You have gotten onto a very exclusive list. My ignore list that is.