45 replies to this topic

[armchairyoda]

FerrolupisXIII, on 01 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

Strig, on 01 March 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

At least I'm honest with you. See how easily offended your egos got when I put forth a dissenting opinion?

You resort to name calling and horribly broken arguments.

Strig, on 01 March 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Those mechs aren't in the game yet and when they are they will be designed to do what they do ...

Really? WELL THEN I AM PROVEN TO BE MISTAKEN. THANK YOU FOR SHOWING ME THE ERROR OF MY WAYS.

Bottom line: I disagree with your stance and posted my reasoning above. While you may not find my vernacular to your liking, if you read it carefully, you'll find that there is no cause for this dulled discourse.

PS- Arms are OP.
PPS- [REDACTED] my own post!

E- My empty quote powers are far superior.

Edited by armchairyoda, 01 March 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Strig]

@armchairyoda

My appologies. I certainly didn't mean to belittle your honesty. Iam not sure why you feel the arguments here are bad. They seemed reasonable. Even people who did not agree with them seemed to have reasonable reasons (usually along the lines of "a build I like would be altered by this suggested change". No one was crying for nerfs.

As to the blank quoting, I was implying that I was responding to your post as a whole. I will be more thorough here.

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Fine, I'll be the one to say this out loud:
THESE ARE ALL TERRIBLE IDEAS.

This is simply confrontational and unnecessary, probably the reason you received the responses you did.

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

After reading these posts (a true test of endurance), there is one common theme- Everybody in favor of this *feels* that this would limit builds that they consider too "not-canon"/"cheese"/"IWIN BUTTAN".

Sorry, but that makes it hard to justify a revamp of nearly every gundam in the game based on perception that these builds offend your sensibilities.

This is not the impression I received after reading the relatively short group of posts. You are clearly missing the point and no one is recommending a revamp of ANY "gundams" (in this game they are called battlemechs or just mechs). The suggestions are:

• to alter a game mechanic to limit launchers that fit a missile hardpoint based on the number of missile tubes present
  
• to provide an improvement to AMS
  
• possibly allow streaks to work at very close range against ECM mechs (I actually don't think this is necessary and would prefer to see a different resolution to the ECM/SSRM issue, but I have chosen not to comment on it thus far)

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

What about canon builds like... hmmm... the
Hollander?
Rifleman?
Jaegermech?
Bombardier?
Black Knight?

All of them were interchangeable from stock (what you'd term) "cheese", to custom "cheese".

Here you aren't actually making sense. You list mechs not in the game. You then imply that they are cheese to begin with and can be made into cheesey custom builds (I think?). While some people might agree that some of the listed mechs are "cheese" this isn't what this thread is about. Even if it was, they aren't in game. When the Jaegermech does enter the game, the "cheese" variant most people think of (dual-gauss w/JJs) will be very similar to the Cataphract builds with those weapons which very few people are "crying" about.

Again, not really sure what you are getting at here.

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Half the fun of BT was messing around with builds seeing what you could cram into them. MWO is already somewhat limiting this with the hardpoints they established, and you should REALLY be thankful for that.

I agree. But they are different games. You seem to imply that limits and restrictions are something to be thankful for ...

armchairyoda, on 01 March 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

Just imagine the /ragequits over the 4 AC/20 Atlas build that I'd run ALL THE TIME just to spite the spergy fanfic types here...

PGI GIVE ME MY 4 AC/20 ATLAS OR I WANT MAH MONIES BACK!

PS- Legs are OP.

So you agree ?

Again. Sorry for the snarky reply, but you do come across as a bit confrontational (and ya did like your own post )

[Gaan Cathal]

Lex Peregrine, on 28 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

each arm has 3 hard points, but the original loadout of this chassis' variant has an LRM15 in each arm, thats 15 launch tubes, so in my opinion, we should be allowed to use the 3 hard points until a maximun of 15 missiles, so we could use 3 SRM4 (=12) but not 3 SRM6 (=18). Get my point?

Are we saying a fitting limitation, or a firing limitation? I.e. if I were to fit two SRM6 and an SRM2, would I have an (effective) SRM15, or would it not let me fit the SRM2, due to lack of missile tubes?

Lex Peregrine, on 28 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

The Awesome 9M for instances has a sSRM2 in the arm, I notice when I put an SRM6 in it, it fires 2 missiles at a time to justify the ability to fire 6 missiles from 2 tubes. Thats just unrealistic, its like having an SRM2 with ultra fast reload rate. Instead it should limit to only SRM2 or NARC.

The 'problem' in my opinion isn't so much that you get ripple-fire on one launcher, it's that you don't on multiples. Three SRM6, for example, in an SRM4 hardpoint will fire a wave of 12, followed by a wave of 6. The issue around launcher stacking is the alpha-stacking, so if launchers were to cumulatively obey the ripple-fire law, then the above example would launch four waves of 4, and a wave of 2. It would also be subject to circumvention by applying the launchers as three weapon groups and firing in quick succession, which would essentially require the implementation of a hardpoint-specific compartment internal cooldown to prevent firing off missiles in the same compartment faster than the ripple-fire mechanic allows for.

However, that does serve to 'buff' LRM hardpoints being used for SRM builds, due to the lower missile counts (A1 would fire a wave of 15, followed by a wave of 3, from each arm - more or less no reduction).

The ideal solution here is deformable hardpoints, which we already see to a limited extent - for example RVN-series gun arms (sort of), K2 cattie arms (but, famously, not torsos). It's worth noting that despite, having less missile hardpoints than the A1, the C4 has noticeably bigger ears. Deformable hardpoints would definitely help in this case, although with variable loadout contents (technically an A1 arm can contain one LRM20 and two SRM6, or two LRM20) would make designing the system fairly formidable - essentially requiring a deformation option for every single legitimate combination of missiles in a given compartment (I make that 107 potential A1 arms on the back of an envelope, assuming SSRM2=SRM2 and including NARC).

The ideal solution, IMO, is to implement deformable hardpoints hooked to the largest launcher in the compartment, combined with the same internal-cooldown governed whole-compartment ripple-fire mechanic above. Ergo the most LRMs launched in a wave would be 20, the most SRMs 6. Actual damage applied would not really increase, but certain brawler builds would require more attention from the pilot, in order to keep their SRM volleys on target. The number of art assets per mech would be minimal, and coding wise it only requires converting the ripple-fire code to treat all launchers in a given compartment as one, and the implementation of a shared compartment-cooldown on missile hardpoints for X seconds, where X is the time between


N.B. It's not unrealistic at all, look for the Katyusha rocket launcher on youtube. Also, BTech =/= Realism.

Lex Peregrine, on 28 February 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

And I think its unfair to have streaks completely useless against ECM, perhaps allow them to work only at very close range, or increase drastically their lock on time, making it a pain to hit those pesky ravens.

The last thing Streaks need is a buff. One of the more awkward issues around ECM downtuning is that an SSRM fix needs to be implemented essentially simultaneously. Zero-effort fire-and-forget torso-seeking medium lasers are not a good thing for the game. They are the reason the cookie-cutter 3L (and to a lesser extent 2D) are broken at the moment and more or less compensate a pilot for artificially lagging themselves to gain a hitreg advantage (since SSRMs are unaffected).

[FerrolupisXIII]

maybe if you made a logical, well thought out post with legitimate reasons, i would refrain from calling you a troll. as it stands... i think i shall keep my comment as it stands.

[FerrolupisXIII]

Gaan Cathal, on 01 March 2013 - 03:05 PM, said:

Are we saying a fitting limitation, or a firing limitation? I.e. if I were to fit two SRM6 and an SRM2, would I have an (effective) SRM15, or would it not let me fit the SRM2, due to lack of missile tubes?



The 'problem' in my opinion isn't so much that you get ripple-fire on one launcher, it's that you don't on multiples. Three SRM6, for example, in an SRM4 hardpoint will fire a wave of 12, followed by a wave of 6. The issue around launcher stacking is the alpha-stacking, so if launchers were to cumulatively obey the ripple-fire law, then the above example would launch four waves of 4, and a wave of 2. It would also be subject to circumvention by applying the launchers as three weapon groups and firing in quick succession, which would essentially require the implementation of a hardpoint-specific compartment internal cooldown to prevent firing off missiles in the same compartment faster than the ripple-fire mechanic allows for.

However, that does serve to 'buff' LRM hardpoints being used for SRM builds, due to the lower missile counts (A1 would fire a wave of 15, followed by a wave of 3, from each arm - more or less no reduction).

The ideal solution here is deformable hardpoints, which we already see to a limited extent - for example RVN-series gun arms (sort of), K2 cattie arms (but, famously, not torsos). It's worth noting that despite, having less missile hardpoints than the A1, the C4 has noticeably bigger ears. Deformable hardpoints would definitely help in this case, although with variable loadout contents (technically an A1 arm can contain one LRM20 and two SRM6, or two LRM20) would make designing the system fairly formidable - essentially requiring a deformation option for every single legitimate combination of missiles in a given compartment (I make that 107 potential A1 arms on the back of an envelope, assuming SSRM2=SRM2 and including NARC).

The ideal solution, IMO, is to implement deformable hardpoints hooked to the largest launcher in the compartment, combined with the same internal-cooldown governed whole-compartment ripple-fire mechanic above. Ergo the most LRMs launched in a wave would be 20, the most SRMs 6. Actual damage applied would not really increase, but certain brawler builds would require more attention from the pilot, in order to keep their SRM volleys on target. The number of art assets per mech would be minimal, and coding wise it only requires converting the ripple-fire code to treat all launchers in a given compartment as one, and the implementation of a shared compartment-cooldown on missile hardpoints for X seconds, where X is the time between


N.B. It's not unrealistic at all, look for the Katyusha rocket launcher on youtube. Also, BTech =/= Realism.




The last thing Streaks need is a buff. One of the more awkward issues around ECM downtuning is that an SSRM fix needs to be implemented essentially simultaneously. Zero-effort fire-and-forget torso-seeking medium lasers are not a good thing for the game. They are the reason the cookie-cutter 3L (and to a lesser extent 2D) are broken at the moment and more or less compensate a pilot for artificially lagging themselves to gain a hitreg advantage (since SSRMs are unaffected).

this, is a well thought out point. not just telling us we're stupid.

Actually i like this one better in all reality. forcing the missiles to actually use the ripple fire mechanic instead of only sorting it per launcher. logical and still lets us use our fun lots of missile builds to the full extent. i believe something to this extent is in the works, because it is odd that they made a ripple fire mechanic then didn't apply it properly.

[Strig]

I can definitely see Gaan Cathal's point and I think his solution is also acceptable, although less impactful. For instance, the Raven 3L does not change its behavior at all under his suggested approach. One missile launcher fires 2 streaks at once and the other fires 2 one after the other in ripple fire; just as it does now. Not that this is necessarily bad, but it is not as strong a limitation as the original poster was suggesting (I believe).

I would prefer a "fitting limitation" based on tubes ... or at least a "max missiles fired limitation" based on tubes. So you could fit more launchers if you wanted but you would have to fire them sequentially to get all the missiles out. The "ripple fire" seems like we are giving missile users a way around a limitation and turning it into a potential tool, or at most a mildly irritating alteration to standard operation. Maybe this is by design. I can certainly live with it, but I think I'd prefer limits that make certain mechs better in certain situations.

Just my 2 cents