253 replies to this topic

[Just wanna play]

Making ERPPCs more powerful with a scaling heat increase will actually make builds who rely on the weapon more powerful - by allowing PPC-heavy builds to be more flexible in their armaments, thus reducing their vulnerability to more balanced or counter-specialized builds (such as brawlers.) ERPPC heavy assault builds would still lose out to a specialized assault brawler, but your proposal would give these 'mechs spare tonnage with which to mount high-efficiency short-mid-range weaponry. This would make them much more difficult for heavies and mediums to take out than they already are - remember, they still have their ERPPC alpha strike for a finisher, even if they overheat for the kill. The net effect would be to make these weapons even more devastating, since a balanced or short-ranged build who has already taken damage just getting into optimal range must now contend with a secondary arsenal of short-ranged weaponry.

THATS THE POINT the ppc is suppose to be a devastating weapon, but in this game it is pretty pathetic, and i did say they should make it worth mixing in with other weapons instead of boating up a lot of them just to get their intended effect, think about it, awesome 8 q has 3 ppcs, in TT it was suppose to tear mechs limb from limb, but in this game its a medium range refrigerator with legs and the fire power of a medium that cat barely defend it self at close range, you might as well put laserz on it since you would get better range, damage, and heat for nearly the same tonnage (okay maybe not heat) :/


never said anything about making them lighter..... just said give them like a 20% damage boost and like a 30% heat boost, or do something to make them worth bringing along, right now they are just a bigger large pulse laser with more heat and better range, lights would probably be making the choice between mobility and using a ppc, idk whats wrong with that

and erppc stalkers hate caustic AND tourmaline

[oldradagast]

Lugh, on 01 May 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Wrong. But nice thought. There are plenty of ways to fight that map, but most of the ID10ts that pilot in this game are unwilling to be patient and workaround terrain under cover to get behind the other position. Taking an inferior position and attempting to out shoot the guys on the higher ground.

The map can easily be won by outflanking the other team. Few do it. And they charge for glory over a far too open stretch and die horribly.

I have no idea how I can be "wrong" by commenting on Alpine's poor design, but whatever. Everyone knows Alpine has problems - it's a well-hated map for a reason, and at least half of it goes unused, while the rest of the map turns into a dull sniper-fest that I suppose is interesting in coordinated teams at best, but that's it. If half my PUG "team" decides to die in the open, there's not much I can do against an opponent with 2+ mech advantage.

Edited by oldradagast, 01 May 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Just wanna play]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

I have no idea how I can be "wrong" by commenting on Alpine's poor design, but whatever. Everyone knows Alpine has problems - it's a well-hated map for a reason, and at least half of it goes unused, while the rest of the time turns into a dull sniper-fest that I suppose is interesting in coordinated teams at best, but that's it.

Thanks for the suggestions regarding flanking and using cover. I'm well aware of those, but if half my PUG "team" decides to die in the open, there's not much I can do against an opponent with 2+ mech advantage.

everyone may hate them, but 6 ppc stalkers sure are helpful in these circumstances, kinda help even the odds, so were lrm boats, but that has kinda changed......

[oldradagast]

Just wanna play, on 01 May 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

everyone may hate them, but 6 ppc stalkers sure are helpful in these circumstances, kinda help even the odds, so were lrm boats, but that has kinda changed......

I also miss when LRM's were a decent counter to snipers. Stand out in the open to take that shot, and you got missiles on the head. Now, i don't want to bring back the "rain of LRM" days, but a small buff to make them useful again might limit some of the overuse of snipers.

[Just wanna play]

oldradagast, on 01 May 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

I also miss when LRM's were a decent counter to snipers. Stand out in the open to take that shot, and you got missiles on the head. Now, i don't want to bring back the "rain of LRM" days, but a small buff to make them useful again might limit some of the overuse of snipers.

agreed, right now they are imo mainly to slow to hit and/or not powerful enough to make the few that do hit count, of course if you shoot a lot at once you can still teach them to stay the fk back

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...50d53174ca894e5
sure using 4 lrm 2s is better in almost every way, esp if you grab a tag with the weight savings, but thats beside the point
90 missiles in one large clump, not some groups of 20 one after the other, its EPICly underpowered.....
course it can only alpha 6 times before becoming a useless piece of tin on legs

stalker might do ppcs better then awesome, but at least it doesn't do lrms better then catapult

[Just wanna play]

no im determined to make that a viable lrm boat......

[Just wanna play]

this wouldn't explode the moment it fired all those lrm 15s right??
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...754b4527f92927e
this thing would become very good friends with tag and narc equipped lights

[Just wanna play]

oh i could put in an xl engine

[Void Angel]

Just wanna play, on 01 May 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Making ERPPCs more powerful with a scaling heat increase will actually make builds who rely on the weapon more powerful - by allowing PPC-heavy builds to be more flexible in their armaments, thus reducing their vulnerability to more balanced or counter-specialized builds (such as brawlers.) ERPPC heavy assault builds would still lose out to a specialized assault brawler, but your proposal would give these 'mechs spare tonnage with which to mount high-efficiency short-mid-range weaponry. This would make them much more difficult for heavies and mediums to take out than they already are - remember, they still have their ERPPC alpha strike for a finisher, even if they overheat for the kill. The net effect would be to make these weapons even more devastating, since a balanced or short-ranged build who has already taken damage just getting into optimal range must now contend with a secondary arsenal of short-ranged weaponry.

THATS THE POINT the ppc is suppose to be a devastating weapon, but in this game it is pretty pathetic, and i did say they should make it worth mixing in with other weapons instead of boating up a lot of them just to get their intended effect, think about it, awesome 8 q has 3 ppcs, in TT it was suppose to tear mechs limb from limb, but in this game its a medium range refrigerator with legs and the fire power of a medium that cat barely defend it self at close range, you might as well put laserz on it since you would get better range, damage, and heat for nearly the same tonnage (okay maybe not heat) :/


never said anything about making them lighter..... just said give them like a 20% damage boost and like a 30% heat boost, or do something to make them worth bringing along, right now they are just a bigger large pulse laser with more heat and better range, lights would probably be making the choice between mobility and using a ppc, idk whats wrong with that

and erppc stalkers hate caustic AND tourmaline

...
First-off, use the fracking quote function. The only reason I can tell what's mine and what's yours is because I wrote part of this quote.

Second, ERPPCs are the most devastating weapon in the game right now - the only difference in what you're advocating would be to make them even more a must-have weapon. You're really talking about making something that can both brawl and snipe at the same time. This is a Bad Idea, even if the brawling ability is somewhat less than a pure brawler.

Third, your diatribe about the Awesome demonstrates a total lack of knowledge concerning weapon balance. Lasers have more damage and range than a PPC?! The numbers you're using to support your opinion are wrong. This means that your opinion is wrong, and you need a new opinion - or at least to fix your argument. Also, PGI tried tabletop numbers, and it sucked - people just died to0 quickly with any weapon, so it would have been brutal just trying to learn to play, much less fine-tuning a build. Educate yourself as to how the game works - starting here. The ERPPC is currently the most powerful weapon in the game overall - it needs to be toned down (a bit, not a lot,) not buffed because "in tabletop, the Awesome could do this!"

Finally, you don't understand my objection, or the implications of your own suggestion. Energy armaments are limited by heat generation as much as by tonnage limitations and space. If you increase the heat and damage generation, most people are going to do one of two things, depending on their build: either they'll bring (roughly) 30% fewer PPCs to the party (and use tonnage freed to buy close-range weapons,) or else they'll giggle to themselves and keep right on stacking as many PPCs onto their Stalkers as they can carry - because overheating doesn't damage you unless you override the safety shutdown. Neither of these outcomes is good for the game - players who are going for sustained sniping power just got an extra arsenal of close-in weaponry to overcome what used to be a weakness of their build (long-range focus.) Meanwhile, the ShudownWarrior cheese builds get a boost of 20% damage to their already huge alpha strike.

PS: My drop buddy is using an ERPPC Stalker - he doesn't particularly love the heat levels on those maps, but the big, open areas do a lot to make up for that.

[Krubarax]

In this game, Item X used Tactic Y to beat my Item Z!
Please nerf Item X and/or tactic Y, so that I can play! Because I do not want to change MY Item and/or tactic to try to beat Item X and Tactic Y!
If I can not use my Item Z to beat all other Items and Tactics, I don´t wanna play anymore!

Boy, let me guess. You don´t have any siblings, right?

Reference Sheet:
Item X = Commando-2D, Spider-5D, Raven-3L, Jenner, Swayback, Jaegermech, Catapult K2, Atlas DDC, Stalker, Highlander

Tactic Y = Energy Boating, SRM Boating, Streak Boating, Pop-Tarting, Dual AC20, Using ECM, LRM Boating, Using Thermal Vision, Flanking, Shooting Flamer at your face, Gauss Sniping, PPC, ERPPC, Staying togeather as a team, UAC5 Boating, Capping the base, Circle Strafing, Legging, Running Cool, Using cover, Head Hunting, Targeting un-armored legs

Edited by GB Krubarax, 02 May 2013 - 03:00 AM.

[Mao of DC]

Helmstif, on 26 April 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

EDIT: for those Battletech TT veterans out there, has jump-sniping ever been an viable tactic in the TT/books?

Yes it was and actually the to hit penalty wasn't to bad either. Only a +3 to hit when jumping. A 2 hex size hill will provide complete cover for any mech so as long as the player only moves the mech those 2 hexes then there is no additional modifiers. Here is a link to the rules chart which gives the full breakdown of to hit modifiers. http://www.teuse.net...ech_charts.html

[Mao of DC]

Helmstif, on 26 April 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

I personally like the sound of it. It would also make Death From Above a much easier tactic when the collision is enabled again.

DFA was NEVER easy, in fact, it was and should be the hardest melee attack in the game. Think about it you have to land on a moving target. I'm sure some of you are thinking, but Mao Navy Aviators land on a moving target everyday, it is true that they do. Now landing is the most difficult part of any fight operation. Landing on an aircraft carrier is far and away the most difficult and dangerous type of landing. My main point is the Captain of the ship wants aircraft to land on the deck. So they order the ship to move in a nice straight line at a constant speed. A enemy MechWarrior shouldn't and most likely wouldn't be so accommodating.

[oldradagast]

The only time I've seen a Death From Above work so far (work = land on target, not crush them with damage) was if the target was moving slowly or not moving. That happens more than one might think, however. Even I've pulled it off - my nearly dead Highlander didn't have any weapons left, so I jumped and landed on the stalled enemy assault mech. I must have done a bit of damage since I got a kill assist. Sure, it was silly and not a viable tactic, but without any weapons, I had nothing to lose.

[Lord of All]

Mao of DC, on 02 May 2013 - 02:45 AM, said:

Yes it was and actually the to hit penalty wasn't to bad either. Only a +3 to hit when jumping. A 2 hex size hill will provide complete cover for any mech so as long as the player only moves the mech those 2 hexes then there is no additional modifiers. Here is a link to the rules chart which gives the full breakdown of to hit modifiers. http://www.teuse.net...ech_charts.html

Actually with the +3 it was not a viable tactic. If you used that against me you were done.

Mao of DC, on 02 May 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

DFA was NEVER easy, in fact, it was and should be the hardest melee attack in the game. Think about it you have to land on a moving target. I'm sure some of you are thinking, but Mao Navy Aviators land on a moving target everyday, it is true that they do. Now landing is the most difficult part of any fight operation. Landing on an aircraft carrier is far and away the most difficult and dangerous type of landing. My main point is the Captain of the ship wants aircraft to land on the deck. So they order the ship to move in a nice straight line at a constant speed. A enemy MechWarrior shouldn't and most likely wouldn't be so accommodating.

Very True.

Edited by Lord of All, 02 May 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[Void Angel]

GB Krubarax, on 02 May 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

In this game, Item X used Tactic Y to beat my Item Z!
Please nerf Item X and/or tactic Y, so that I can play! Because I do not want to change MY Item and/or tactic to try to beat Item X and Tactic Y!
If I can not use my Item Z to beat all other Items and Tactics, I don´t wanna play anymore!

Boy, let me guess. You don´t have any siblings, right?

So, who's the target for this straw man, ad hominem horse crap? Just curious, since it's totally invalid reasoning in the first place.

[Just wanna play]

Mao of DC, on 02 May 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

DFA was NEVER easy, in fact, it was and should be the hardest melee attack in the game. Think about it you have to land on a moving target. I'm sure some of you are thinking, but Mao Navy Aviators land on a moving target everyday, it is true that they do. Now landing is the most difficult part of any fight operation. Landing on an aircraft carrier is far and away the most difficult and dangerous type of landing. My main point is the Captain of the ship wants aircraft to land on the deck. So they order the ship to move in a nice straight line at a constant speed. A enemy MechWarrior shouldn't and most likely wouldn't be so accommodating.

and it should be able to one hit kill/severely damage every mech in game (except atlases)

[Mao of DC]

Just wanna play, on 02 May 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

and it should be able to one hit kill/severely damage every mech in game (except atlases)

I don't know about that. The only way in TT to one shot a mech with a DFA was to hit the head component. It was a 1 in 6 chance which is a much better chance to hit than a normal attack (1 in 12) Also you would have to do enough damage to the head and get a crit. Damage in melee attacks are based on tonnage of the mechs involved. The following come from this source page 36. http://www.battletec...ry_Rulebook.pdf
Damage to Target
To determine damage to the target from a death from
above attack, divide the weight of the attacking BattleMech
by 10 and multiply the result by 3, rounding up. For example, a
Jenner with a weight of 35 tons inflicts 11 points of damage.
Dive the damage into 5-point groups. Determine the
attack direction as though the attack had come from the attacking
BattleMech’s starting hex, then determine the hit location of
each group of damage by rolling 1D6 and consulting the ’Mech
Punch Location Table, p. 33.

Damage to Attacker

The attacker takes damage as if from a successful attack on
its legs. To determine the amount of damage, divide the attacker’s
weight by 5. Divide the result into 5-point groups, then roll
1D6 for each group of damage and consult the Front column of
the ’Mech Kick Location Table to find the location hit.


In TT the max armor you can put on the head is 9 points with 3 points in internal structure. So for a Jenner to kill a mech it would have to hit the head at least 2 times and hope that the cockpit get crited. Even if a the said Jenner DID hit the mech in the head all 3 times there is a good chance that no crit will happen at all. so the mech will still be standing. This chart comes from page 30 of the same source.

Determining Critical Hits Table
2D6 Roll Effect
2–7 No Critical Hit
8–9 Roll 1 Critical Hit Location
10–11 Roll 2 Critical Hit Locations
12 Head/Limb Blown Off/Roll 3
Critical Hit Locations*
* Roll 3 critical hit locations if the attack strikes the torso

Edited by Mao of DC, 02 May 2013 - 02:45 PM.

[Void Angel]

That is very interesting, and totally irrelevent to how this game works.

[Kapre]

Possible solution is a dancing fast moving Mech. Run, hide, don't go in the open and cap if had a chance. Don't stay in one place. Lot of patience.

[Void Angel]

My solution is an Atlas with an AC/20 and three ASRM6s. =)