25 replies to this topic

[FrostCollar]

So, I just had an idea about the current state of PPCs, Gausses, etc. I'm not sure about this myself, but I thought I'd float the idea on the forums to see what others think.

A little while ago, I mentioned the TT Gauss Rifle's minimum range in a thread as something ridiculous, but someone told me that it took the form of a to-hit penalty at close range to represent the unwieldly nature of such a large weapon. That gave me an idea.

What do you think of slowing down weapon convergence or slowing down torso-twisting and/or arm movement if larger weapons are equipped? It might make mediums and lights harder to hit with PPCs at close ranges where they're supposed to dominate against long range builds. For me, it's very preferable to adding weapons spread as some have suggested and I think it has a better chance of solving the current meta's issues than simply increasing PPC heat.

Edited by FrostCollar, 29 April 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[blinkin]

i like it.

anything to make the gauss rifle it's own weapon instead of just an AC15.

[Grondoval]

Im very much with the OP. This would give underused weapons like AC5 a new breath of life. But I would go a step further:

As more weapons are mounted in one hardpoint, the slower your torso twist / arm movement will be. Especially if you boated PPCs. This should cut your twist speed by at least 25%.

[blinkin]

Grondoval, on 29 April 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Im very much with the OP. This would give underused weapons like AC5 a new breath of life. But I would go a step further:

As more weapons are mounted in one hardpoint, the slower your torso twist / arm movement will be. Especially if you boated PPCs. This should cut your twist speed by at least 25%.

i don't think i agree with your number necessarily, but i think this is a good enough idea to warrant it's own thread. i would probably give it a yes vote.

[Hellcat420]

this is a bad idea. the only thing they should do with convergence is get rid of it altogether.

[FrostCollar]

Hellcat420, on 29 April 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

this is a bad idea. the only thing they should do with convergence is get rid of it altogether.

Could you explain why you want convergence removed?

Alternatively, had you considered the alternate suggestion - slower torso twist and/or arm movement?

[Hammerfinn]

The weight and size of the weapons is negligible compared to the weight and size of the component parts of the mech they are in. The torque from an engine of the sizes involved wouldn't be affected by something as paltry as 15 tons or so.

[blinkin]

FrostCollar, on 29 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Could you explain why you want convergence removed?

Alternatively, had you considered the alternate suggestion - slower torso twist and/or arm movement?

because i said i like it and he is possibly just following and trolling me.

[Hellcat420]

FrostCollar, on 29 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

Could you explain why you want convergence removed?

Alternatively, had you considered the alternate suggestion - slower torso twist and/or arm movement?

slower torso twist/arm movement is just a penalty for larger mechs. it wont help the situation. weapons on mechs are not articulated iirc. the arm mounted weapons might be slightly, but definatly any torso/shoulder mounted weapons should shoot straight forward, and arm mounted weapons should not be able to do much in the way of aiming on their own without any torso twist(maybe a couple degrees each direction). this way you have to actually put some thought into aiming and firing your weapons, and it would also reduce the effectiveness of alpha strikes, which should be a last resort action to begin with.

Edited by Hellcat420, 29 April 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[Inappropriate1191]

This still won't affect the 6 PPC stalker, though. It's not a good idea.
This community needs to think of better balancing ideas, other than, "Nerf this, nerf that" BS.

[Hellcat420]

Inappropriate1191, on 29 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

This still won't affect the 6 PPC stalker, though. It's not a good idea.
This community needs to think of better balancing ideas, other than, "Nerf this, nerf that" BS.

nothing will get rid of the 6pp stalker unless you give up some of your precious omnilab options. some of teh weapons are designed to be more powerful than others. that is the way they were made from the beginning and no tweaking of numbers will fix that. there is no way to balance them unless you throw them all away and have one weapon with abunch of different graphics/names. that is the only way to achieve the balance you are looking for. mechs were balanced around their roles on the battlefield, they did not have cod deathmatch style gameplay in mind when they designed battletech/mechwarrior. your suggested balance is teh same thing as telling them to balance an m16 and an m2. it cant be done because they were designed for different roles on the battlefield.

Edited by Hellcat420, 29 April 2013 - 06:01 PM.

[Wraith 1]

I like it. It'd help remove the ERPPC and gauss from the throne of master of all trades without making them worthless.

It could also promote taking more diverse loadouts, IE a CTF-4X with a gauss on one arm and 2 AC/2s on the other. If the gauss converges slower, then the ACs would become more desirable for faster targets.

[Solis Obscuri]

I'm not so sure about the twisting part, but I like the idea of a slight convergence delay for multiple large weapons. I have an idea along that line I've been meaning to put together into a Suggestion that's somewhat similar to this.

[silentD11]

We need more mechs is all.

When the Cataphracts were the new heavy it was 3Ds all over the place. That meta evaporated once the Jager mech came out and it was Jagers everywhere.

Now the new mech is the Highlander which was built to be a poptart, so it's poptarts all over the place. And since the most effective counter to them is also boating PPCs it's PPCs everywhere. What makes it worse is that PGI's contests are built to encourage this sort of behavior.

They need to release more mechs. Release a new heavy and assault, don't have a stupid tournament, and watch the current meta fly out the window.

[FrostCollar]

silentD11, on 30 April 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:

They need to release more mechs. Release a new heavy and assault, don't have a stupid tournament, and watch the current meta fly out the window.

This isn't a solution by itself, sadly. You don't see many K2s with dual Gausses or AC20s anymore, but that's only because the Jager can generally run that sort of build better. Same with the Highlander and the Cataphract 3D. Though many 3Ds are still around, I've seen fewer of that vanilla poptart compared to the Highlander's strawberry. Look at PPCs too - one of the few things the Awesome can do that the Atlas can't was boat PPCs, but they're rarer than ever now that the Stalker exists as a superior PPC platform.

Releases of new mechs can change the meta somewhat, but the underlying problems stay the same.

[Renthrak]

Hellcat420, on 29 April 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

weapons on mechs are not articulated iirc. the arm mounted weapons might be slightly, but definatly any torso/shoulder mounted weapons should shoot straight forward, and arm mounted weapons should not be able to do much in the way of aiming on their own without any torso twist(maybe a couple degrees each direction).

The official fiction contradicts this. The 'Mech's targeting computer adjusts the aim of weapons in any location without requiring the 'Mech to move its torso. It's slow, however.

[Terror Teddy]

http://mwomercs.com/...nce-suggestion/

Voted yes but suggests a different approach.

[FrostCollar]

Terror Teddy, on 31 May 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...nce-suggestion/

Voted yes but suggests a different approach.

Hey, I'm not particularly attached to the approach, I'm attached to the goal: make large weapons too unwieldly to compete with small weapons at close range. Your suggestion accomplishes that too, so it gets a thumbs up.

Also, it helps encourage the idea of equipping smaller defensive weapons on boats, a separate but still important issue.

[Pater Mors]

Hammerfinn, on 29 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

The weight and size of the weapons is negligible compared to the weight and size of the component parts of the mech they are in. The torque from an engine of the sizes involved wouldn't be affected by something as paltry as 15 tons or so.

This. I voted no.

I don't think mounting stuff on a chassis that was designed to have stuff mounted on it should give you penalties. I think the penalties should come in the form of inherent inaccuracy which is present in any weapon system.

No two rounds leaving a gun barrel are the same and having everything hitting the same exact spot no matter what range seems, to me, to be very 'arcade game'. At the very minimum ballistics (including PPC's) are going to be effected by simple physics even if lasers are not.

I compared it in another thread to mounting 3 machine guns on the front of your Jeep and then expecting to be able to shoot through a pinhole at 100m, 200m, 300m, and 472m while moving parallel at 120kph. Even if your guns are configured perfectly and on computer controlled gimbals it's still not going to happen.

Edited by Pater Mors, 01 June 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[blinkin]

Hammerfinn, on 29 April 2013 - 05:19 PM, said:

The weight and size of the weapons is negligible compared to the weight and size of the component parts of the mech they are in. The torque from an engine of the sizes involved wouldn't be affected by something as paltry as 15 tons or so.

even with something as large as an atlas that comes out to be a little more than 1/7th of the weight of the machine. the standard frame of an atlas weighs 10 tons for the whole machine (non-endosteel). on the most heavily armored portion of an atlas (center torso) the max amount of armor you can mount is slightly under 4 tons.

even with maxed out armor there isn't any component on any mech that comes even close to weighing as much as a PPC.