468 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Damage vs. Armor, not Damage Over Time. I win.

Congratulations, you have beaten us all and win the internet.

Please enjoy your celebrations while we ... err... errr... do something else.

Guys, everyone wait until he's gone, then we can resume the topic.#

Spoiler

With the fluffed number of shells and caliber being specified, no Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire. Probable exceptions are the 185 mm ChemJet Gun Autocannon/20 mounted on the Demolisher combat vehicle and Monitor Surface vessel or the 203 mm Ultra Autocannon/20 on the Cauldron Born A BattleMech.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 27 March 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[CloaknDagger]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 27 March 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

unjammable UAC?
Do we play same game?

I was unclear.

In TT, if they jam, they stay jammed. You are completely screwed.

In MWO, you can unjam them once they are jammed.

[Syllogy]

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why Mustrum thinks that the 2 exceptions prove me wrong, or have anything to do with calculating AC power as Damage Over Time....

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why Mustrum thinks that the 2 exceptions prove me wrong, or have anything to do with calculating AC power as Damage Over Time....

20 Damage per 10 seconds
14 Tons
10 Critical Spaces
3/6/9 Range
50 seconds of shooting per ton of ammo

That is an AC20. All AC20s fit that description. Lots of other things can be different about the gun, but as long as it fits all of those thing, then it's an AC20. Period.

I don't see what you're trying to argue.

Edited by CloaknDagger, 27 March 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why Mustrum thinks that the 2 exceptions prove me wrong, or have anything to do with calculating AC power as Damage Over Time....

No no, you won. Just take your victory and leave us to our devices here, thank you.

But if you want to know:
The exceptions are: Only 2 weapons actually fire only one shel

Quote

No Autocannon has been specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire

How much damage does an AC/20 does against armour in the table top game? 20.

Yes no Autocannon - except the two exceptions - are reported to be specified to be one shell fired for each "round" or burst of fire. That

Quote

Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor.

Now I am trying to make a comprehension test:
What is loosely grouped according to their damage vs armour?
(1) calibers from 30mm up to 203mm
(2) Autocannons


If you take it all together:
Autocannons range in calibers from 30mm up to 203. Autocannons are grouped according to their damage vs armour (example: AC/20, AC/10, AC/5, AC/2). Except for two exceptions, auto-cannons ggenerally do fire more than one shell per "round" or burst of fire.

The consequence is that the damage per individual shell is not the same damage as dealt by the complete Auto-Cannon, as that would require each auto-cannon to fire one single shell per round.

[Tombstoner]

The caliber of weapon is an indirect indication of damage. larger is presumed to be more damaging, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Force = 1/2 mv^2 a high velocity 30mm round can have the same energy as a 203 mm round.

In BT Auto cannons are grouped into damage class. An ac-20 could be a single large round or a bunch of high velocity rounds. The same could be said of the ac-2

so yea damage can be averaged over the number of shells fired during an arbitrary length of time.
the number is kind of irrelevant since its an aggregate value per unit of time/ cycle time

Not sure how this fits into a discussion between different types of weapons energy/ ballistic.

Edited by Tombstoner, 27 March 2013 - 12:07 PM.

[Syllogy]

Straight from the Official Battletech TechManual:

Quote

For what amounts to one of the most basic combat systems on the modern battlefield, autocannons (often abbreviated as ACs) are a broadly varied class of rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry—gigantic machine guns, in other words. With calibers ranging from 30 to 90 millimeters at the lighter end, to as much as 203 millimeters or more at the heaviest, most autocannons deliver their damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels. While caliber and firing rate can vary greatly, four main classes have emerged over the centuries, setting the standards by which all other ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage. At the lightest end is the AC/2 class, followed by the long-time standard AC/5, then the heavy punch of the AC/10 class, and finally the brutal, close-in AC/20.

This indicates that with every trigger pull of an AC20, there is a potential of 20 points of damage vs. armor. (Regardless of AC's being fired as a single shell, or a volley of shells)

The defining factor is that this is not 20 points of damage within a given amount of time.

You can extrapolate this by looking at the Techmanual's description of the Ultra AC:

Quote

The advanced Ultra autocannon system (UAC for short) was first developed at the height of the original Star League by Kawabata Weapons, Inc. of the Terran Hegemony. Capable of higher sustained rates of fire than standard or LB-X autocannons, Ultra ACs could dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time. Unfortunately, these weapons are prone to occasional misfires and arming failures when pushing their maximum fire rates

Edited by Syllogy, 27 March 2013 - 12:39 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

This indicates that with every trigger pull of an AC20, there is a potential of 20 points of damage vs. armor. (Regardless of AC's being fired as a single shell, or a volley of shells)

The defining factor is that this is not 20 points of damage within a given amount of time.

Are you trying to say that autocannons are burst fire, not fully automatic or semi-automatic? Maybe, maybe not. An AC20 doesn't HAVE to fire all of it's rounds at the same time. Maybe it can get over 2 DPS, or lower than 2 DPS, but at the end of the 10 seconds, the fact the pilot fired bursts of full auto got him 20 damage.

You're trying to make specific claims about something that is specifically NONSPECIFIC.

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

You can extrapolate this by looking at the Techmanual's description of the Ultra AC:

Yes, in the same 10 seconds, a U/AC can do double the damage per second as a regular AC. That is true.

[Syllogy]

And real time Pilot Skill and Actions are not something that Tabletop can take into account.

Edited by Syllogy, 27 March 2013 - 01:06 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

And real time Pilot Skill and Actions are not something that Tabletop can take into account.

Piloting skill/Gunnery skill.

Better pilots aim better and can maneuver better.

Who knew?

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Piloting skill/Gunnery skill.

Better pilots aim better and can maneuver better.

Who knew?

Yes, because slapping a number modifier on a mech accounts for the skills of a real pilot.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Yes, because slapping a number modifier on a mech accounts for the skills of a real pilot.

Um...

Yeah.

Bad pilot = Misses a lot. Can't hope to do fancy tricks successfully.

Good pilot = Misses almost never, Does all kinds of weird things successfully.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

Um...

Yeah.

Bad pilot = Misses a lot. Can't hope to do fancy tricks successfully.

Good pilot = Misses almost never, Does all kinds of weird things successfully.

If slapping a modifier on a pilot is so easy, what is my modifier vs. yours?

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

If slapping a modifier on a pilot is so easy, what is my modifier vs. yours?

I don't know. This would be more like the RPG. There's all kinds of EXTRA modifiers people have. Some pilots suck at missiles, but are great at energy weapons. Other ones may as well be the assault class boxing champions of the galaxy, but they can't use jump jets if their lives depended on it.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

I don't know. This would be more like the RPG. There's all kinds of EXTRA modifiers people have. Some pilots suck at missiles, but are great at energy weapons. Other ones may as well be the assault class boxing champions of the galaxy, but they can't use jump jets if their lives depended on it.

So you are saying that a real pilot's skills can't be quantified with a few simple modifiers on a board game?

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

So you are saying that a real pilot's skills can't be quantified with a few simple modifiers on a board game?

I'm saying that they are quantified on a closely related board game. And the system still works there.*

*Except for infantry weapon ranges, but that's another bucket of fish.

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

I'm saying that they are quantified on a closely related board game. And the system still works there.*

And you are trying to bring the TT into MWO. Since Pilots in MWO are real people, and dice rolls have nothing to do with the skill that they bring to the table.

This principle in itself defeats the argument that TT rules are balanced when brought into a First Person Shooter.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

And you are trying to bring the TT into MWO. Since Pilots in MWO are real people, and dice rolls have nothing to do with the skill that they bring to the table.

Why is that?

What makes dice rolls incapable of accounting for better pilots being more accurate, or knowing how to use JJs correctly, or being better at gauss rifles than medium lasers?

[Syllogy]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Why is that?

What makes dice rolls incapable of accounting for better pilots being more accurate, or knowing how to use JJs correctly, or being better at gauss rifles than medium lasers?

So I have to fall back to my earlier argument. What is your pilot modifier vs. my pilot modifier?

Edited by Syllogy, 27 March 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[CloaknDagger]

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

So I have to fall back to my earlier argument. What is your pilot modifier vs. my pilot modifier?

I don't know. This would be more like the RPG. There's all kinds of EXTRA modifiers people have. Some pilots suck at missiles, but are great at energy weapons. Other ones may as well be the assault class boxing champions of the galaxy, but they can't use jump jets if their lives depended on it.

But what does our piloting or gunnery skills matter, anyway? That's sorted out in game. If you find that you hate missiles, you'll use them less. If I find I'm good with them, I'll use them more.

It's self-balancing.

Even the people that suck at aiming will end up with pulse lasers and SSRMs.