475 replies to this topic

[Kudzu]

UncleKulikov, on 17 November 2011 - 02:24 PM, said:

That is true (hunchback fan myself), but heat sinks plus medium lasers is a better heat to damage ratio for the tonnage.
Also taking ballistics means you can run out of ammunition, and that your ammunition can detonate. Both of which are very significant risks that energy weapons don't have an equivalent to, now if an energy weapon was destroyed by enemy fire and it exploded dealing damage to the mech, I would agree more readily.

And that doesn't take into account the ballistics; I've never heard people complain about Autocannon boats in previous Mechwarrior games.

Two big reasons why the med laser boats are unbalanced are the lack of scattering shot and the lack of a good BV system for balancing. If dropping the AC for medium lasers caused your damage to spread all over the target and boosted your BV then players would actually need to make a choice between the two rather than "oh, X is so much better, why would I ever use Y".

[Kudzu]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

That only really applies when you have crits and damage dispersal for single weapon systems. Also the ac/2 and ac/5 are really pointless in a double heatsink world. Its only the really big ballistics that mean anything post 3025 tech.

They're still sold weapons when you add in BV and range. If using an AC/5 instead of a PPC allows you to keep regular heat sinks instead of bumping your BV up with doubles it's a better trade off than it first looks. Let's not forget specialty ammo like flak and precision-- very useful in certain situations.

[Melissia]

Indeed. Thankfully, with biweekly patches or even weekly balance patches, we can see them attempt to adjust things based on how they're actually used in game, thus make each one just as useful-- something that si much harder to do for a tabletop gaming company most of the time.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Kudzu, on 17 November 2011 - 02:40 PM, said:

They're still sold weapons when you add in BV and range. If using an AC/5 instead of a PPC allows you to keep regular heat sinks instead of bumping your BV up with doubles it's a better trade off than it first looks. Let's not forget specialty ammo like flak and precision-- very useful in certain situations.

I might agree, but the possibility of having ammo explosions is a pretty big downside without enough upside currently I think. Specialty ammo is really the only saving grace. However I think double heat sinks are the single worst thing introduced into the game.

[Kudzu]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 November 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

I might agree, but the possibility of having ammo explosions is a pretty big downside without enough upside currently I think. Specialty ammo is really the only saving grace.

BV would take that negative into consideration as well.

[UncleKulikov]

Kudzu, on 17 November 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

BV would take that negative into consideration as well.

How? A mech with more ammo tons is better prepared for a longer engagement, but also risks more chance of ammo explosion and can't use that slot/ton for something like a medium laser. Ammo explosions can core a mech from the inside out if it's even half full.

Edited by UncleKulikov, 17 November 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[Kudzu]

UncleKulikov, on 17 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

How? A mech with more ammo tons is better prepared for a longer engagement, but also risks more chance of ammo explosion. Ammo explosions can core a mech from the inside out if it's even half full.

A baseline reduction on BV per damage done for ammo weapons over energy weapons could work, or just upping the BV costs of heatsinks (especially DHS).

[UncleKulikov]

Kudzu, on 17 November 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:

A baseline reduction on BV per damage done for ammo weapons over energy weapons could work, or just upping the BV costs of heatsinks (especially DHS).

Heh. That makes a lot of sense, I thought you meant adjusting the BV of ammunition bins and Autocannons. Making Heat Sinks heavy in value could be the best way to go, because it would hamper boating of all kinds.

[jlbdeath]

not sure how much like the table top battle tech or the role playing game you can get out of a video game sim. can i strap on 2 large lasers and some srm 6's? then why do i care if its like the dice game. which i love to play btw.if they can add even a little bit of the TT and role playing i'll be dang happy. if i miss with LRM20 that in my mind is a double roll of 1 and move on with the game and hope the random number gods are more kind on my next volly.

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 17 November 2011 - 10:58 AM, said:

In TT one ton of ammo of for an AC-20 will offer 50 seconds of sustained fire. In any MechWarrior game 5 shots of AC-20 ammo would never produce 50 seconds of sustained fire.

That 5 shots per ton works because you can only fire once every 10 seconds. In MWO, and past MW titles, rate-of-fires have always been a key balancing aspect in such a way that the boardgame isn't capable of portraying.

This is why many, many things have to be adjusted during play testing.

That AC-20 will do 120 points of damage per minute, 2 damage per second, 100 points of damage per ton, et cetera.

Basically, you're looking at a weapon that needs to sustain 2 DPS for 50s on a single ton of ammo.

I think it's pretty safe to say that no weapon in this game is going to have a 10s cooldown. That would make for a fantastically boring game when you're sitting there in real time.

You know, that's a legitimate point. Let's take a look at that in a little bit more detail.

That AC/20, which only has 5 salvos per ton of ammo, also produces 7 heat per salvo. In the HBK-4G Hunchback, with it's 13 standard heatsinks, just firing the AC/20 alone as quickly as you can would produce 35 points of heat to dissipate in those same 50 seconds. As you can dissipate 13 heat points every 10 seconds, that's not a problem.

However, if we cycled through the firing cycle as quickly as possible and emptied all five salvos in less than 10 seconds, you're looking at trying to dump 35 heat points in 1/5th the time, guaranteeing that you're going to have 22 points of waste heat built up with no where to go at the end of that 10 seconds. The phrase that you're looking for here is "thermally induced unintended firing", also known as a heat induced ammo explosion.

Can an autocannon salvo faster than once every 10 seconds? Sure, but you're going to be looking at some serious heat scale problems quick, fast and in a hurry. There are other ways to handle this issue, but heat is something that isn't going away unless you begin breaking the rules and then you're not in the Battletech Universe any longer.

[Energy Echo]

Why is anyone still even arguing like the TT rules have any real value? Did you folks catch the Q and A? It's over. The TT rules are defunct.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Not so - as far as I understood, it was a case of using them as the basis for everything with adaptation for gameplay - which is mostly what we've been arguing about.

[Red Beard]

guardiandashi, on 16 November 2011 - 10:12 PM, said:

red beard it IS a very biased reading

Nope. It isn't. I am right, as usual.

Quote

but oh wait you ARE very biased and come across as having a hate on for anything that isn't twitch based instant gratification "I Pw0n Y00z... N3wb" gameplay

Instant gratification has nothing to do with anything here. And, the ONLY reason that you say what you say is because you know that twitch players are going to kick the "s" out of you and other "strategy" players. Remember this. Strategy can be taught, learned, retained and used. Twitch reflexes are something you are born with. Fear the twitch players, slow minded insulters. Once a twitch player catches up to the strategy, it's over for you guys.

And the sad truth for you is, YOU KNOW IT!

Fast response play didn't exist in TT games or even in the slow playing mechanics of the original MW games. Now that the world of video games requires more than just five hours of thought before the next move, the old style players are pooping themselves. And besides, can you not realize that a real mech pilot would HAVE to have fast response skills on top of everything else?

U mad bro?

Edited by Red Beard, 17 November 2011 - 10:30 PM.

[Energy Echo]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 17 November 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

Not so - as far as I understood, it was a case of using them as the basis for everything with adaptation for gameplay - which is mostly what we've been arguing about.

Sounds like you are just clinging man. Give it up. Table top rules are for the TT games. I think that the devs responses, if anything, have a small twang of the old school feel, just to placate the TT guys. The rules for TT games can never work here. And, the parts that do fit in, only do because of their common sense factor, not because they are so bound to the universe. Stop while you are only this far behind people.

[Energy Echo]

Red Beard, on 17 November 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

Nope. It isn't. I am right, as usual.



Instant gratification has nothing to do with anything here. And, the ONLY reason that you say what you say is because you know that twitch players are going to kick the "s" out of you and other "strategy" players. Remember this. Strategy can be taught, learned, retained and used. Twitch reflexes are something you are born with. Fear the twitch players, slow minded insulters. Once a twitch player catches up to the strategy, it's over for you guys.

And the sad truth for you is, YOU KNOW IT!

Fast response play didn't exist in TT games or even in the slow playing mechanics of the original MW games. Now that the world of video games requires more than just five hours of thought before the next move, the old style players are pooping themselves. And besides, can you not realize that a real mech pilot would HAVE to have fast response skills on top of everything else?

U mad bro?

This.

[Bryan Ekman]

24 pages. . Time to put this one to rest.