468 replies to this topic

[Xerxys]

CloaknDagger, on 27 March 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

What I think you're saying is that moving from TT to FPS messes with the RANGE modifiers.

You're saying that having a large laser arbitrarily getting a +4 to hit at a range to 15, while a medium laser gets a +4 to hit at a range of only 9 will be broken in the transition.

But that's just something that can be easily solved with a little testing.

For example, if a target is half the size at 15 hexes (450 meters) than it is at 9 hexes (270 meters), then make the Large laser's fire time (that is, how long it takes for the beam to fire) be half as much as the medium laser.

Then the two would have the modifier they're supposed to have.

Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

No, what I am saying is that the boardgame is made up of a compliment of rules and processes that function in concert with each other.

When you start replacing essential, core functions (like dice rolls) with a variable like a real pilot, the result is that those stats and functions become corrupted and are no longer practical for use.

Syllogy, please bash your head up against a brick wall and try to knock some sense into yourself. The range modifier Cloak was talking about is exactly what you're talking about here. The only thing to do what you're saying is to get people to realize that this isn't a FPS. Its a First Person Armored Combat Simulator and as such the weapons are going to be fired via the targeting computer within the mech. The part of making slight adjustments with damage and such is to try to counter the need to run it this way. Otherwise you may fire your weapons and the range would determine whether your targeting computers calculations proved true. You could have perfectly aimed on the mech and still missed. Is this what you're wanting? It's a mechanic that could be transferred over, but people would cry about missing perfectly aimed shots. People are crying about things such as the heat system, weapon balance and cheese builds for the most part and the way I suggested to make the changes initially would simply bring balance back to the game and eliminate these particular gripes.

[Xerxys]

Karl Streiger, on 25 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

While I like your post for the mosts, i have to disagree at this part.
You think ballistics are too powerful. I don't think so. I think based on actual heat system, weight and critical size the large laser is the best weapon in the game.
I can deal linear damage...when i have bad aiming skill the 1sec burst help me to find the target...i can also walk my fire into the head of an enemy - and unleash the other 3 lasers in the moment i found it.

That is the problem with balaning at all... how to make it challenging for the better one but not impossible for the new ones?
At least you need different leagues...with different stats to avoid a lot of those discussions.

The next problem is - what is allready pointed out - you can not take just one weapon and balance it...you have to take all of them and balance them to each other.

And I'm sorry to say...but TT balance was broken in the moment they brought StarLeague and ClanTech.
Only GaussRifles, and ER-Large Laser that are fun to use are the prototype ones.

I really would like the first mech simulator for home pcs. rather than pure arcade.

I'm trying to balance all weapons versus damage and heat generation. If all weapons followed my idea they would still work roughly the same as they do now, but the chance to miss would benefit everyone and help with dealing damage by making you have to fire more times to do the same damage as you on a 10 second round. The only thing to do, otherwise, to balance between really good aiming and just learning or not so great at it would be to take it completely out of the players' hands and have it work as canon, through targeting computers. I'm not talking about Large Lasers in that post, but Long Range Missiles.

[Xerxys]

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 guess I'd have to see you on the battlefield and we'll see how quickly I kill you and then decide the number. Or I guess that would be your ELO score, which is hidden to us all.

[Xerxys]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

But then, according to the Tabletop Canon that you so arduously adore would be violated, because an AC20 would no longer be an AC20, and the same goes for every other Autocannon.

Guess we could keep to canon with that weapon and one shot will give you 20 damage. You'll just have to wait 10 seconds until you could fire it again. Problem fixed

[Xerxys]

Syllogy, on 26 March 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

I'm starting to get the feeling that this is one of your childhood pictures.

[Karl Streiger]

Afar from all current discussion an attemp to clear the difference between dice rolling and real time combat:
First offtopic:

I will try to make a attemp.. 
 
do you know W40k and Dawn Of War...
 
first is has rounds - similar to tt and dice rolling
second has real time combat
 
how to transfer dice rolling in real time? They used a hitpoint system.
Example...Space Marine got hit by a Boltgun....chance to get wounded is dunno lets say: 32% -chance to miss the save roll is 32%. Means you have a chance of 9% that your Space Marine get killed. Means out of 10 shots one Space Marine dies.
 
So you say ok a Boltgun makes 20dmg and the SpaceMarine got Hitpoints of 200...or 160 to mirror the fact that mabye even the first hit can take out a Space Marine...
 
But we are still at shooting....a Plasma Gun no matter who is wielding can nearly kill a Space Marine on auto.
But you have different shooting skills...so you do this allong with the damage. For example a Space Marine Plasma Gun does 150dmg a Imperial Guard Plasma Gun does 100dmg and a Hero Plasma Gun does 200dmg.
 
So i have converted DiceRolling into real time combat - instead of different rolls i have a single hitpoint bar.
I hope that example is clear.

Now take a look at MWO and TT

I have dice rolling, with modificators for pilot, moving, hit location, range, and ablative armor.
All these things could pressed into a single hitpoint bar.
Moving - is gunnery skill...remove
Pilot -> is gunnery skill...remove
Hit Location plus armor value is just a factor how many hits a unit can take before it got critical -> could be pressed in a linear system
Range...that could be mirrored by damage.
What you ow get is a linear hitpoint system that says: a Awesome 8Q can take x hits before it is destroyed.
A Jenner F can take x hits before it is destroyed.
That is the foundament of all balancing issues.
When you need just a fraction of those numbers to score a kill your balance is borked.

[blinkin]

Karl Streiger, on 28 March 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Afar from all current discussion an attemp to clear the difference between dice rolling and real time combat:
First offtopic:

 
I will try to make a attemp..
 
do you know W40k and Dawn Of War...
 
first is has rounds - similar to tt and dice rolling
second has real time combat
 
how to transfer dice rolling in real time? They used a hitpoint system.
Example...Space Marine got hit by a Boltgun....chance to get wounded is dunno lets say: 32% -chance to miss the save roll is 32%. Means you have a chance of 9% that your Space Marine get killed. Means out of 10 shots one Space Marine dies.
 
So you say ok a Boltgun makes 20dmg and the SpaceMarine got Hitpoints of 200...or 160 to mirror the fact that mabye even the first hit can take out a Space Marine...
 
But we are still at shooting....a Plasma Gun no matter who is wielding can nearly kill a Space Marine on auto.
But you have different shooting skills...so you do this allong with the damage. For example a Space Marine Plasma Gun does 150dmg a Imperial Guard Plasma Gun does 100dmg and a Hero Plasma Gun does 200dmg.
 
So i have converted DiceRolling into real time combat - instead of different rolls i have a single hitpoint bar.
I hope that example is clear.

Now take a look at MWO and TT

I have dice rolling, with modificators for pilot, moving, hit location, range, and ablative armor.
All these things could pressed into a single hitpoint bar.
Moving - is gunnery skill...remove
Pilot -> is gunnery skill...remove
Hit Location plus armor value is just a factor how many hits a unit can take before it got critical -> could be pressed in a linear system
Range...that could be mirrored by damage.
What you ow get is a linear hitpoint system that says: a Awesome 8Q can take x hits before it is destroyed.
A Jenner F can take x hits before it is destroyed.
That is the foundament of all balancing issues.
When you need just a fraction of those numbers to score a kill your balance is borked.

RTS or any kind of strategy game like dawn of war are very bad examples. in those cases you can do direct dice rolling. plenty of dungeons and dragons games like "baldur's gate" do direct dice rolls because you have no more player interaction with the pieces than you did with table top or paper and pencil.

the issues come in when you replace all of the piloting skill rolls and aiming rolls with direct pilot interaction. (some) players are far more accurate than what is allowed by even the best dice modifiers, and direct components are aimed at. in table top BT you always randomly roll on the hit location table. when i hunt down a hunchback with my SRM cat i almost always hit the hunch. most of the time when i catch them from behind the first indication they have of my presence is the fact that they are now missing a torso section.

if we randomly rolled for hit locations gauss rifle headshots would not be the problem that they have been. people would not complain as much about PPC stalkers.

being able to aim changes things drastically. i know they recently fixed the ERPPC so i could effectively aim it at high speeds with my jenner.

[CloaknDagger]

blinkin, on 28 March 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

the issues come in when you replace all of the piloting skill rolls and aiming rolls with direct pilot interaction. (some) players are far more accurate than what is allowed by even the best dice modifiers, and direct components are aimed at. in table top BT you always randomly roll on the hit location table. when i hunt down a hunchback with my SRM cat i almost always hit the hunch. most of the time when i catch them from behind the first indication they have of my presence is the fact that they are now missing a torso section.

if we randomly rolled for hit locations gauss rifle headshots would not be the problem that they have been. people would not complain as much about PPC stalkers.

being able to aim changes things drastically. i know they recently fixed the ERPPC so i could effectively aim it at high speeds with my jenner.

Except that it isn't really a problem. Even in TT, you can aim high, low, left, or right. It's a little harder to hit, but if you aim high with a gauss rifle, there's a good chance of chopping someone's head off.

I don't see how that's any different from here.

[Serious Table]

Karl Streiger, on 28 March 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

Now take a look at MWO and TT

I have dice rolling, with modificators for pilot, moving, hit location, range, and ablative armor.
All these things could pressed into a single hitpoint bar.
Moving - is gunnery skill...remove
Pilot -> is gunnery skill...remove
Hit Location plus armor value is just a factor how many hits a unit can take before it got critical -> could be pressed in a linear system
Range...that could be mirrored by damage.
What you ow get is a linear hitpoint system that says: a Awesome 8Q can take x hits before it is destroyed.
A Jenner F can take x hits before it is destroyed.
That is the foundament of all balancing issues.
When you need just a fraction of those numbers to score a kill your balance is borked.

Except if you make it a linear thing, then you eliminate everything about it that makes it MechWarrior or even Battletech: the ability to destroy COMPONENTS of a BattleMech to disable it. Making it linear turns it into giant mech walking version of Call of Duty. And no one wants that.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 25 March 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

do i really need to prove the case that nothing is perfect? <-if your answer is yes then the insult is not baseless.

I have not said that the TT is perfect.

Quote

take a look at these two sets of enlarged text. now think about them... just a little.

I know exactly what I meant by the two.

"Fails/breaks at some point" means that all (which I good and well know applies to BT:TT, and have never assumed doesn't) gaming systems have to stop adding rules at some point - particularly in this discussion to in relation gaming combat systems - meaning it's impossible for a gaming system to truly recreate combat, or "life" (imagine how many rules there would have to be in the "game of life") or whatever other end any particular gaming system is pursuing.

and

"I have not posted that the TT is broken"

Even IF you had meant the same thing by "broken at some point" as I did above well ... yes ... and? Again, every gaming system suffers the exact same limitation.)

If you didn't mean the same thing (and your previous posts give a context seem to indicate that you didn't) than you have attributed to me that I had said that the TT combat system doesn't function (in part or in whole) as it was designed to function; or perhaps that it doesn't (in part or in whole) function as a combat gaming system - both meanings which I have never agreed with on these forums or anywhere else.

Quote

how about i don't answer your moronic questions ...

----

... and instead you carefully explain to me why table top battle tech is the most perfect game ever and has no flaws.

So, you make a positive claim, than you don't give anyone any reason to believe your claim beyond the fact that you said it, and than, when asked to back your claim up...

You name-call and refuse to give an answer?


----

Again; I have not claimed that the TT is perfect... never... not anywhere; or did you miss the phrase you bolded where I pointed out that every gaming system fails at some point?

Blinkin said:

it's a simulator then? it's not a flight sim, i have played a few of those. not a tank simulator, played those too.

I didn't say it was a flight sim or a tank sim.

Quote

simulator isn't a game play type. it defines a game as making a certain amount of effort to accurately represent how vehicles (mostly)

----

operate or would operate in real life.

----

table top makes a good effort but it deffinitely does not have enough dice rolls or rules to cover a simulation accurately.

If it's not a game play type than how can you than go on to explain how a simulator type game plays?

----

Simulation does not exclusively mean "a game in which things operate as they do in real life."

I have already pointed out that when I use the word simulation in relation to a video game genre all that I mean is that said genre is about imitating something... and to further clarify; also imitating what it is like to interact with some object, be that object fictional or "real."

----

The TT wasn't made to be like RL. It was made to be relatively easy to play while using a minimum of "rubber science." Besides which, the point of the TT and the BT lore at large isn't realism - they attempt to use just enough "believable" stuff to let people drop some of their disbelief - and they do so in an attempt to provide a bit of fun escapism.

Unlike, say, WH40K, where, if memory serves, certain of the ork constructs work because the orks "believe in them."

Seox, on 25 March 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

Don't bother, he keeps posting that it's a sim in other threads but backing off and saying it's not...

I have not used different meanings for the word "simulation" - I have been using the word the same way for years, and when people think that I'm using it to mean something I don't mean, I make sure to clarify what I mean - which I have just done in this thread and in this very post.

Your accusation is false.

[Pht]

Karl Streiger, on 25 March 2013 - 11:22 PM, said:

And I'm sorry to say...but TT balance was broken in the moment they brought StarLeague and ClanTech.

Only if you subscribe to the whack-a-mole version of game "balance," - that no weapon can really be better than any other for any given role, which ultimately results in inane leveling.

There's nothing wrong with the clan and lostech stuff; yes, it changed the game ... and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Besides which, as a meta-persistant game, it would be as easy as pie for PGI to make clantech and lostech rare, hard to replace when it gets busted, and expensive.

Elyam, on 26 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Much of the issue here can be represented by a line with two opposing poles (of course, it's more complex, but this is illustrative of our arguments at hand):

Concept A ) make the best competition multiplayer online game

Concept B ) ensure the game adheres to the established Battletech universe

C ) A Game in which the battlemechs perform as they do in the lore would BE a great game for online competition.

[Elyam]

Well that's what I mean, Pht...the center balance between A and B = C was the thrust of the post

[blinkin]

Pht, on 28 March 2013 - 04:27 PM, said:

I have not said that the TT is perfect.

I know exactly what I meant by the two.

"Fails/breaks at some point" means that all (which I good and well know applies to BT:TT, and have never assumed doesn't) gaming systems have to stop adding rules at some point - particularly in this discussion to in relation gaming combat systems - meaning it's impossible for a gaming system to truly recreate combat, or "life" (imagine how many rules there would have to be in the "game of life") or whatever other end any particular gaming system is pursuing.

and

"I have not posted that the TT is broken"

Even IF you had meant the same thing by "broken at some point" as I did above well ... yes ... and? Again, every gaming system suffers the exact same limitation.)

If you didn't mean the same thing (and your previous posts give a context seem to indicate that you didn't) than you have attributed to me that I had said that the TT combat system doesn't function (in part or in whole) as it was designed to function; or perhaps that it doesn't (in part or in whole) function as a combat gaming system - both meanings which I have never agreed with on these forums or anywhere else.

So, you make a positive claim, than you don't give anyone any reason to believe your claim beyond the fact that you said it, and than, when asked to back your claim up...

You name-call and refuse to give an answer?


----

Again; I have not claimed that the TT is perfect... never... not anywhere; or did you miss the phrase you bolded where I pointed out that every gaming system fails at some point?



I didn't say it was a flight sim or a tank sim.



If it's not a game play type than how can you than go on to explain how a simulator type game plays?

----

Simulation does not exclusively mean "a game in which things operate as they do in real life."

I have already pointed out that when I use the word simulation in relation to a video game genre all that I mean is that said genre is about imitating something... and to further clarify; also imitating what it is like to interact with some object, be that object fictional or "real."

----

The TT wasn't made to be like RL. It was made to be relatively easy to play while using a minimum of "rubber science." Besides which, the point of the TT and the BT lore at large isn't realism - they attempt to use just enough "believable" stuff to let people drop some of their disbelief - and they do so in an attempt to provide a bit of fun escapism.

Unlike, say, WH40K, where, if memory serves, certain of the ork constructs work because the orks "believe in them."

this vv

blinkin, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

the ignorant extremists on both ends make this debate awesome.

HIM: ALL THINGS MUST BE TABLE TOP RULES EVERYTHING ELSE IS BROKEN!!!11!!!!111!!1

YOU: ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH TABLE TOP RUINS THE GAME!!!!!111!!!!!!11!!!!1!!

this game is based on the original table top rules. all mechwarrior games have drawn from table top, some more than others.

BUT

table top is itself broken in many respects. my brother attempted to balance some of the issues with the game, and a friend of ours looked at the notebook my brother had been using. he described it as "the rantings of a mad man".



so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

was what originally started the mess. it was a vain attempt to call for reason, and end all of the absurd fanatical devotion to either side of the topic.

my premise that i have stated many times before (probably several times in this thread alone) is that table top is not perfect, but there are things that can be learned from it. you then demanded that i provide evidence that it is not perfect. <-i find this incredibly absurd.

so i came up with this CRAAAAZY notion that we should keep the parts that work well, but maybe, just maybe, not be afraid to throw out the parts that don't work.

no i do not have my brother's notebook nor will i make any effort to attain it. that was a simple story meant to drive the basic point home while adding a little more entertainment factor to the post. it was not necessary to the post. it was not a vital portion of my argument. IT WAS an anecdote thrown in to attract a little attention to the fact that battletech is not the holy grail of gaming. battletech is not a the pure perfect game that many describe.

so i will direct you to the primary point i was making, which i thought putting into a larger font would draw more attention to, but it is clear that wasn't enough for you so i will try a little harder this time.

so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 28 March 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

my premise that i have stated many times before (probably several times in this thread alone) is that table top is not perfect, but there are things that can be learned from it. you then demanded that i provide evidence that it is not perfect. <-i find this incredibly absurd.

I didn't demand evidence from you showing that the TT is not perfect.

You made this claim:

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

you have already admitted that there are parts of table top that are broken.

i have stated very explicitly that we should take the parts that work and abandon those that don't.

To which I asked you " WHAT parts are broken?" ... you quite obviously believe that some parts of it are. Even your post I'm replying to here backs this up.

I'd also like to know what parts you think "don't work" in a conversion to the MW genre (first person armored combat set in the BTU).

Quote

so i came up with this CRAAAAZY notion that we should keep the parts that work well, but maybe, just maybe, not be afraid to throw out the parts that don't work.

no i do not have my brother's notebook nor will i make any effort to attain it. that was a simple story meant to drive the basic point home while adding a little more entertainment factor to the post. it was not necessary to the post. it was not a vital portion of my argument. IT WAS an anecdote thrown in to attract a little attention to the fact that battletech is not the holy grail of gaming. battletech is not a the pure perfect game that many describe.

It seems you want everyone to take you at your word alone that the TT is "broken" in some parts (parts which you apparently now won't reveal to us), and that there are some parts that won't work in a MW video game... parts that, again, you apparently now won't reveal to us.

I bet you don't even know any parts of the TT that are "broken" that "don't/won't work" ... that you're just blowing smoke and hoping nobody calls your bluff.


...


That would be an engraved invitation.

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2013 - 09:10 PM.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 28 March 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

I didn't demand evidence from you showing that the TT is not perfect.

You made this claim:



To which I asked you " WHAT parts are broken?" ... you quite obviously believe that some parts of it are. Even your post I'm replying to here backs this up.

I'd also like to know what parts you think "don't work" in a conversion to the MW genre (first person armored combat set in the BTU).



It seems you want everyone to take you at your word alone that the TT is "broken" in some parts (parts which you apparently now won't reveal to us), and that there are some parts that won't work in a MW video game... parts that, again, you apparently now won't reveal to us.

I bet you don't even know any parts of the TT that are "broken" that "don't/won't work" ... that you're just blowing smoke and hoping nobody calls your bluff.


...


That would be an engraved invitation.

ya missed a little something vv
so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

Edited by blinkin, 28 March 2013 - 09:14 PM.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 28 March 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations...

I haven't been making any.

Quote

... and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't.

Again, which parts are broken such that they, in your words "Don't work?"

Quote

... and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

which I haven't been doing.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 28 March 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

I haven't been making any.



Again, which parts are broken such that they, in your words "Don't work?"



which I haven't been doing.

THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.THAT WAS MY PRIMARY POINT.

TABLETOP IS NOT PERFECT. NON-PERFECTION INHERENTLY IMPLIES THERE ARE PARTS THAT ARE BROKEN. I NEVER SAID THE WHOLE OF EVERYTHING TABLETOP IS BORKED.

BATTLETECH HAS MANY USEFUL APSECTS THAT CAN AND SHOULD BE DRAWN FROM TO ENHANCE THIS GAME BUT SLAVISH FANATICAL ADHERENCE TO ANY SINGULAR SYSTEM IS STUPID.

YOU ARE DEMANDING THAT I SHOW PROOF OF THE NON-PERFECTION OF TABLETOP. <-DO I REALLY HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE CREATORS OF THIS GAME WERE HUMAN AND MADE SOME MISTAKES??

DO ALL MECHS IN TABLETOP GET PLAYED IN ROUGHLY EQUAL NUMBERS? NO THEY DON'T BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF THEM THAT ARE OUTRIGHT JOKES IN THE COMMUNITY.

YOU WANT MORE PROOF? TWO WORDS: CLAN TECH.

AND HEY GUESS WHAT. I AM PRETTY SURE PILOT SKILL ROLES DON'T FIT INTO THE MWO SYSTEM. LAST I CHECKED WE DIDN'T ROLL FOR RANDOM DAMAGE LOCATIONS WHEN WE ARE WITHIN 100m.

i throw insults because you are arguing against the very definition of non-perfect. things that are not perfect have flaws. flaws are aspects that are somehow broken or hindering in some way. <-PARTS THAT DON'T WORK.

there i have proven the basic truism true. are you happy now?

[jakucha]

CloaknDagger, on 08 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Let's see MWO's.record on ignoring canon so far:

6. Streak SRMs always hit.

That must be why my SSRMs have a 64 hit percentage.

Edited by jakucha, 28 March 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[blinkin]

jakucha, on 28 March 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

That must be why my SSRMs have a 64 hit percentage.

that comes from firing at targets that are beyond 270m or that you don't have line of sight on. if you can maintain those two basic prerequisites then you will maintain a 100% hit rate. <-that is the problem.

no weapon can be made moron proof. (i know it doesn't sound quite right but the 'i' word gets censored)

[MustrumRidcully]

I know Battletech is old and so is some of its fanbase, but no need to scream, we can read the posts just fine.

---

Quote

Except that it isn't really a problem. Even in TT, you can aim high, low, left, or right. It's a little harder to hit, but if you aim high with a gauss rifle, there's a good chance of chopping someone's head off.

I am not familiar enough with the rules, but I believe the extra difficulty to hit makes the big difference. Mouse Aiming at most hit location isn't that hard. And the TT armour values were not designed for people to reliable hit people and determined locations. You can probably see that break down with targeting computers + pulse lasers + Clan pilots.

But that's not necessarily a problem. Adjust the armour ratios so that it becomes often more economical to leg or disarm mechs rather than try to core or behead them.