28 replies to this topic

[Fluffshock]

polls are fun

i require these

Edited by Fluffshock, 24 April 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

15 years from now... sure.

Hell we can't even balance the weapons we DO have now, let alone the glut of Clan Tech getting dropped on us eventually... so yeah, let's further muddy things up.

[Keifomofutu]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 April 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

15 years from now... sure.

Hell we can't even balance the weapons we DO have now, let alone the glut of Clan Tech getting dropped on us eventually... so yeah, let's further muddy things up.

Can't get much worse. We might get a balanced new weapon by accident.

[Fluffshock]

uac/5 james at a 70+% rate for me lit 1-2 shots before jam almost 200 times over a few games

my longest time shooting was 7 ever

Edited by Fluffshock, 24 April 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[Sephlock]

I want Clan Hell's Horses' experimental Rotary Autocannon 20

Edited by Sephlock, 25 April 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[Keifomofutu]

Sephlock, on 25 April 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

I want Clan Hell's Horses' experimental Rotary Autocannon 20

Impossibru!

[Jess Hazen]

Keifomofutu, on 24 April 2013 - 05:42 PM, said:

Can't get much worse. We might get a balanced new weapon by accident.

Hell all the weapons might become balanced if more were introduced.

[Theodor Kling]

Fluffshock, on 24 April 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

uac/5 james at a 70+% rate for me lit 1-2 shots before jam almost 200 times over a few games

my longest time shooting was 7 ever

What lacks is the speed for fireing speed. UACs are supposed do be fireable at normal, double and quad rate, with the risk of jamming increased the faster you go. ( And normal ACs also can do double speed, but af far higher jamming risk then UAC)

[TOGSolid]

Theodor Kling, on 25 April 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

What lacks is the speed for fireing speed. UACs are supposed do be fireable at normal, double and quad rate, with the risk of jamming increased the faster you go. ( And normal ACs also can do double speed, but af far higher jamming risk then UAC)

Where are you getting any of that from?

I'm looking at Total Warfare page 303 right now and AC/2s do not have any double fire options whatsoever. I'm also assuming that you mean Rotary Autocannons and not UACs because UACs do not have that ability. UACs are all R/2 weapons meaning they can, at max, fire off two shots per round.
Rotaries also are not locked to a specific fire rate. They have a maximum amount of shots possible per round (6 in the case of the RAC/2 and RAC/5) and the chance to jam goes up for every two shots after the first one fired. It is up to the player to choose how many total shots they let rip that round. The big difference between RACs and UACs is that if a UAC jams it's supposed to be completely useless the rest of the match. With a RAC you can at least attempt to unjam it the next round.

[Demos]

There is an optional rule in Tactical Operations which make it possible for standard ACs to fire double rate (like UAC), but with an increased of jamming.
Statement for the UAC (quadruple fire rate) is nonsense.

[Theodor Kling]

My bad, maybe it is an optional, not realy canon rule.
we still need that switchfor the UACs though

Demos, on 26 April 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

There is an optional rule in Tactical Operations which make it possible for standard ACs to fire double rate (like UAC), but with an increased of jamming.
Statement for the UAC (quadruple fire rate) is nonsense.

Ah thanks. Where did I get that UAC 4x thing from... now that I look forit I can´t find it again, ah well, double is fast enough.

Edited by Theodor Kling, 26 April 2013 - 12:54 AM.

[TOGSolid]

Demos, on 26 April 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

There is an optional rule in Tactical Operations which make it possible for standard ACs to fire double rate (like UAC), but with an increased of jamming.
Statement for the UAC (quadruple fire rate) is nonsense.

Ah. I don't have that book (yet).

Funny thing, I don't actually play the TT game. I just like having the books on hand for research purposes for The Oosik website (the link is in my sig!) and so that I can properly discuss things with proper references. They are also just fun to read through since they tend to include some really lulzy fluff. I especially enjoy the entire section dedicated to the myth of Stackpole Explosions.

Edited by TOGSolid, 26 April 2013 - 02:29 AM.

[Ragor]

What really concerns me:
In one 'ask the devs' (25 or 26 IIRC) someone asked about burstfire for alternative autocannons.
The reply was ~'no, but we are testing burstfire for RAC and we really like it'.

And THIS really concerns me.
Burstfire for a RAC?!
These is crushes the whole concept and the idea of RACs in general.
RACs don't fire clips or mags, they are belt fed.
Their advantage is to fire a stream of bullets/shells, 100% controlled by the pilot.

For me this would be quite a no go, I honestly fear a crippled implementation of RACs.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

What really concerns me:
In one 'ask the devs' (25 or 26 IIRC) someone asked about burstfire for alternative autocannons.
The reply was ~'no, but we are testing burstfire for RAC and we really like it'.

And THIS really concerns me.
Burstfire for a RAC?!
These is crushes the whole concept and the idea of RACs in general.
RACs don't fire clips or mags, they are belt fed.
Their advantage is to fire a stream of bullets/shells, 100% controlled by the pilot.

For me this would be quite a no go, I honestly fear a crippled implementation of RACs.

RACs were fired single, up through 6 round burst on TT. The faster you shot the more chance of Jam. So teh pilot feathers the trigger to get single shot of squeeze and hold to get teh longer burst.

[Ragor]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

What really concerns me:
In one 'ask the devs' (25 or 26 IIRC) someone asked about burstfire for alternative autocannons.
The reply was ~'no, but we are testing burstfire for RAC and we really like it'.

And THIS really concerns me.
Burstfire for a RAC?!
These is crushes the whole concept and the idea of RACs in general.
RACs don't fire clips or mags, they are belt fed.
Their advantage is to fire a stream of bullets/shells, 100% controlled by the pilot.

For me this would be quite a no go, I honestly fear a crippled implementation of RACs.

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

RACs were fired single, up through 6 round burst on TT. The faster you shot the more chance of Jam. So teh pilot feathers the trigger to get single shot of squeeze and hold to get the longer burst.

Jup. This means it is player controlled. And not burstfire. The longer the pilot keeps the trigger pressed, the more shots he will fire. In one stream.
That's at least how I translate the turnbased TT rules into a realtime mechanic.

Spoiler

Example:
(for easier numbers I now just state that the TT turn is 6s for firing and 4s are always for... other stuff. So example is based on these 6s)

In TT, the pilot goes the save route:
He just fires 1s and takes 5s to let the weapon cooldown. No chance of a jam here.
Next turn he fires full 4s and only takes 2s to let the weapon cool down. Quite risky already.
Next turn he keeps the trigger pressed for the full turn, 6s of a constant stream of metal. But this way the weapon gets really hot and is likely to jam.

Translated into a real time system:

Every second a weapon is constantly firing the weapons gets hotter and increases the chance of getting a jam.
Just as example, for the first second the chance is at 0%, every successive second rises the chance by 10%, from the 4th second by 20%.

-> I can decide to (manually controlled!) burst fire to avoid any risk or go full attack and risk and pepper the enemy with all the weapon can push out.
-> I as a player have now the control what will happen. I decide, if I take the risk or not.

[General Taskeen]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:

What really concerns me:
In one 'ask the devs' (25 or 26 IIRC) someone asked about burstfire for alternative autocannons.
The reply was ~'no, but we are testing burstfire for RAC and we really like it'.

And THIS really concerns me.
Burstfire for a RAC?!
These is crushes the whole concept and the idea of RACs in general.
RACs don't fire clips or mags, they are belt fed.
Their advantage is to fire a stream of bullets/shells, 100% controlled by the pilot.

For me this would be quite a no go, I honestly fear a crippled implementation of RACs.

Because as far as I'm concerned the Devs need to take serious consideration for adopting the entire autocannon series that was made in MW:LL.

It is hands down, the best for all regular AC's, UAC's, and RAC's. And RAC's actually are rotary firing, belt fed in that game. Plus their 'jamming' mechanic is purely skill-based, which is another plus.

Edited by General Taskeen, 26 April 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

General Taskeen, on 26 April 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

Because as far as I'm concerned the Devs need to take serious consideration for adopting the entire autocannon series that was made in MW:LL.

It is hands down, the best for all regular AC's, UAC's, and RAC's. And RAC's actually are rotary firing, belt fed in that game. Plus their 'jamming' mechanic is purely skill-based, which is another plus.

Then it is a failure if it is "skill based". A weapon Jam happens because it happens. There is no skill to it!

[Theodor Kling]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Then it is a failure if it is "skill based". A weapon Jam happens because it happens. There is no skill to it!

Well a weapon jamms more likeley if it gets too hot, therby warping parts a bit, increasing risk of jamming. And not hitting **** with barrel warping, but we got pinpoint accuracy ingame, so that doesn´t matter.
So fireing in a controlled manner (skill) is reducing the risk of jamming /damaging the weapon.

But apart from RACs most ACs are supposed to be burst fire anyway. Only a few single shot models exist.

[Ragor]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Then it is a failure if it is "skill based". A weapon Jam happens because it happens. There is no skill to it!

I assume now you didn't play MWLL and did never experience yourself how it worked. (not attack here)

Yes, it was skill based. But better translate 'skill' into 'experience' in this case. The pilot had the control about how much risk he accepts for causing a jam. You could go the save route all day long or try to max out your dps. But the latter included the risk of jamming. And in the end it was about the players experience (aka skill), how far he can push the weapon.

Sidenote #1:
Here is aboslutely no reason to rage.

Sidenote #2:
Test something yourself first hand before you judge it.

Edited by Ragor, 26 April 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[Keifomofutu]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Then it is a failure if it is "skill based". A weapon Jam happens because it happens. There is no skill to it!

And then we remember that this is a videogame and not real life and completely random mechanics generally make a game worse. Hence why we aren't rolling dice to hit.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 26 April 2013 - 07:24 AM.