721 replies to this topic

[Jack Lowe]

AndyHill, on 20 July 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

Ok, so at about 540m The CePCoF of the PPC would be a couple of meters, which is pretty bad for a modern weapon, but pretty consistent with the BTech idea of warfare. In practice this means that at a few hundred meters chances of you hitting the CT of a 'mech are pretty high - so at least for PPCs it would maintain a measure of pinpoint ability.so basically by group firing gauss or PPC you would be able to smack a lot of damage to a single location in one blow, a bit like what we have now?

One thing I'm apparently not following is the advantage of burst fire / dps over time weapons vs. single shot guns in close combat. Already in the current system digital hit scale weapons are markedly superior to time-on-target variants, which explains some of the popularity of gauss, AC/20 and PPC guns. It is probably true that if the vastly overheated balance of the MWO was brought closer to the tabletop figures, the weight and size of gauss and AC/20 would be more formidable balancing factors. However, if I understand correctly, in your system we would still be able to fire quite a lot of hurt into single locations at modest ranges (at least when using certain types of weapons)?

The main advantage is in sustainable fire, that's the primary difference between DPS and the single shot high alpha builds. I'll use the stalker as an example. I can actually get quite a bit more damage from it by not outfitting it with PPC's. It will hit harder with a mixture of 4 SRM6's 4 MLS and 2 LLS for an 86pt alpha. However that's not the full DPS story, heat is also a factor. I can hit that hard however I'll overheat quickly leaving me with no damage for the time I'm shut down plus in need to cool down afterward, more lost damage. The 6 PPC stalker suffers from the same problem.

A true DPS build is more like the currently popular Victor builds because it can sustain it's full damage or most of it over a long period of time. I am not even a good pilot, perhaps OK but I can attest that once u close range that build is a wrecking ball even against high alpha builds. It's mainly due to it's ability to sustain fire over time. It's armor and maneuverability help keep it in the fight long enough for it's fire power to matter. The only time you'll have a serious problem is if u get a crack shot pilot and then that is as it should be, the pilot is OP, not the build.

Burst fire weapons, I'm not sure to what your referring here but I will assume it's the autocannon change. If I'm in error please disregard. The auto cannon change helps to balance the weight/firepower issue somewhat as well as add diversity to the entire weapons line. It's not really even a change as the current types will still be available just additional options. With the standard AC's as we use them now it's either hit or miss nothing else. I shot at a mech with an AC/20 I hit it's a bad day for him, I miss I lose 20 pts of potential damage plus the 4 or 5 sec reload time. For mechs like the wang it means you'd better be damned accurate.

With an AC/20 with a 10 shot clip for example I get a little leeway I can cut the burst short saving part of my damage or I can use the previous shells to "track" the target like tracer rounds allowing me to get some of my damage at least to target. For larger easier to track mechs it doesn't mean alot other than they get rattled around a bit more. We might have to adjust cockpit shake somewhat to compensate. For light targets it can be a big difference maker. It might swing things to far against the little guys which is why each cannon type needs to have a different ROF for it's cassette. Larger gun slower ROF. There is still a reload time between cassettes so that MG's don't lose what bit of a niche they have.

As an aside I've seen some suggest a continuously firing AC. I don't think that's a good idea for two reasons.

One yes MG's are more or less a niche weapon, but they were put on mechs for anti personnel and soft targets, think Savannah Master and APC's. None of which are currently in the game. They are last ditch weapons for anti armor or usable once the armor is stripped. That said they put them in the game, they deserve their place and we shouldn't go stepping on toes. Not a great reason but not my primary one either.

Two if you make a normal AC behave in this fashion your basically creating the RAC AC line. We don't have that yet. We'll get there all in good time patience. You guys may not like it as much as u think it is well known to blow thru ammo like no tomorrow, a ton in 20 secs or something close to that.

Either way I'm not in favor of that option at this point. The others however I can only hope Santa is good to me this year.

Edited by Jack Lowe, 21 July 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[AndyHill]

I think you understood the burst fire issue correctly. First of all, I appreciate the difference between an alpha build and a dps build and concur that both have their places - if and only if it truly has significantly more DPS, which is a bit of an issue with the current MWO design in many cases, but yours would probably work better in that regard. The alpha build still has a lot of tactical advantages, however, and none of them mean anything if the DPS difference doesn't exist (like in two versions of AC/20 for example). This is probably getting a bit off topic, since it's a relatively minor part of your suggestion, but it's an interesting subject to me, so if you don't mind I'd like to clarify my views a bit.

I'm not a terribly good pilot myself, but this guy is: http://www.youtube.c...ZZQwkB94#t=481s

Go to 8 minutes mark to see some really impressive stuff by an ace Jenner pilot. While watching his work imagine his medium laser battery with the exact same DPS, but having to fire constantly to achieve it instead of the 1s he does now. Already to someone at my level the decision between instant one-shot strike and a burst is a no-brainer if efficiency is the goal and not for example getting a dose of heart-warming dakkadakka.

For example, I recently mastered the Boomjäger just to see what all the rage was about and that thing proved to be an insanely op hard hitter compared to any of my other builds - at least in certain conditions. This is entirely due to two things: their ability to blast a tremendous single shot of hurt into one spot and keep doing it for a while. I once deliberately challenged an assaults and a medium (I think it was Victor and Trebuchet) to a fight, made a total mess of it and still came out on top. I got a surprising amount of 4+ kills matches with it (I don't remember if I've ever had 7 kills before), but had real difficulties breaking 700 dmg with it and I don't know if I ever went over 800 - it was simply such an efficient killer that enemies would run out of intact CTs long before the Jäger would go over something like 1k dmg (didn't even have the ammo for it, but the lasers did their job in accumulating some damage as well).

If I had to fire possibly even several seconds' streams of bullets with it, it would've been completely useless compared to what it was with single shot guns. If you really want to be effective on the field, you can't choose your guns expecting to miss. Pick the one that will enable you to deliver as much pinpoint firepower as quickly as possible. For example, even though my gausspult may not have the greatest DPS, I can challenge bigger 'mechs very effectively, since I keep getting passing opportunities that are exploitable by the instantaneous damage ability of the dual gauss.

Often times the enemy doesn't even know I'm there. Due to me being able to do all the damage instantaneously I can pop up, hit him in the most vulnerable spot hard and be gone before he can even turn towards me. Even if we're face to face when we meet, I've done my job and fading away while his DPS laser beams and AC streams are still reaching out for me in vain. Even in the most extreme cases where we're brawling in a completely open space I often get the upper hand, since every time I face him he loses 30 points CT (plus 10 points of mlas shoved in the general direction), while during the gauss cooldown he has a view of every part of my 'mech including the behind until I'm ready to fire and show him my cockpit in exchange for another 30 off his CT.

If you have two weapons with same characteristics, but one deals all the damage in one shot and the other needs longer time to do it, I simply don't see any reason to use the latter. If I have trouble hitting, I need to practice more. If I meet a good player who has an instant strike weapon I won't even stand a chance with an equal burst fire gun, because my damage will unavoidably spread all over his 'mech whereas he will hit me hard where it hurts every single time. Even in reality tracers are not generally used for getting a burst of fire on target, but for correcting fire for the following bursts, so even in this regard I see no advantage for the burst fire weapon, since you can do the exact same thing with the gauss for example. Aim - fire - observe - correct works exactly the same when you're firing a burst fire AAA gun or a 120mm smoothbore cannon from a tank.

Well as I said I don't think this is a central part of your idea, but to me there's no choice at all if you're offering me a choice between a single shot weapon and a burst fire one with otherwise similar characteristics.

[AndyHill]

Just as a disclaimer: in my opinion high values of pinpoint damage are harmful for the BTech damage system and should be avoided at all costs. Most importantly, group fire has to go (enormous bursts of firepower in general are not good for the pacing of the game when the moving units are mostly slow), but also I don't think instant damage weapons such as gauss should exist at all. All the weapons should have some burst fire or other characteristics making it harder to put a lot of damage into single location.

[Jack Lowe]

Your position is well defended. I accept it and respect it. However your position may not be everyone's positon. Just as I don't expect mine to appeal to all. Your also right in that it wasn't particularly the central idea however it would be a nice addition IMO. I believe it makes this class of weapon a bit more forgiving for new players. It also has it's uses against smaller faster moving targets, remember MASC IS coming while retaining most of it's utility against larger targets. In addition remember cockpit shake I know if I hit an atlas in the shoulder with an AC20 shell the whole mech flinches. If the mech moves the reticle must move as well. Now get hammered with several of those over time and try and maintain your pinpoint aim. In fact if you alternated fire on your boomjager under those conditions you'd probably find u took less over all damage and against a large target STILL you'd put over 95% of your shots in one location.The main problem is range most DPS builds are limited by that, boomjager excluded. If you can do appreciable damage with your guassjager or PPC stalker before the enemy closes into range to return fire your at a distinct advantage. That just means your playing your mech well perhaps better than you think and as I said if your trashing mechs because your the superior pilot, relative to your opponent, well how is that wrong. In any case the main idea, in this small aside, is to allow greater variety based on play style. Also to give slightly greater utility to some builds. The wang could fit the criteria, it can still hit very hard but because of burst fire it can conserve limited ammo stocks and also have a bit better ability to defend against lights. Other builds could also benefit making them more viable in certain roles. Also as stated previously I think it will make things a little easier on newer players who haven't learned to walk yet let alone aim. See I'm not thinking of the arena style death match only game we have now I'm thinking of later when there will be many different objective types, multiple tactical considerations to meet them, more diverse and new roles to fill, and with that a greater variety of weapons required to meet those needs. It's why it's more of an aside, a nice idea to add at this point rather than a must have now. If the devs are still thinking big, this might be one idea they find worthy of considering in those long term plans.

[AndyHill]

Basically I'm all for variety and that's actually one of the reasons I'd like to see the single shot heavy hitters gone, since I believe they're absolutely superior to other forms of weapons. As for hitting lights, I found the Boomjäger to be extremely effective at that too. Compared to lasers that require you to track the targets and hose shots all over, the AC/40 needs just one good shot and the light is gone. You see him running at a wall, lead him a bit and BOOM-dead. He's making a run for it, turning to show you a solid straight shot at a target running directly away (or towards you) and BOOM-dead. He's focusing on someone else and slows down momentarily to stay in a blind spot and BOOM-dead.

To me one of the biggest advantages of the one-shot weapons is that you can spend so much effort on aiming. This is also why I feel it was a mistake to make the weapons fire so rapidly in MWO: because you only have a few seconds to prepare the next shot using several different kinds of weapons slows you RoF down because of aiming time and you're better off boating.

I actually have some RoF builds and they can be quite effective. The psychological impact of constant dakka is already quite hilarious, not to mention the continuous (and IMRO way too severe) shaking, but I don't feel they are as good as the alpha slammers - especially against good players. They are much more battletechy, however, tearing 'mechs apart piece by piece. That's what I'd personally like to see more of.

[Nutlink]

Gaan Cathal, on 21 July 2013 - 03:06 AM, said:

Good thing that there aren't any canon lights that use them paired, right? Right?

3=/=2

That's an extra 50% firepower, and the mechs that DO run 2 of them (Puma, for example) run rather hot. The Puma still has to make use of 2-1-2 volley firing when in use because of the heat. Pretty sure very few mechs use double PPCs and can keep up the fire rate that a triple PPC Hunchback can in this. It's out of character for the mech and the tonnage.

[Jack Lowe]

I agree with u Andy. Now I do tend to think that snipers and thus the weapons have their place. I don't think they have good counters. I don't necessarily mean other mechs when I say that. The recent changes to heat is an attempted counter. Altering convergence is another proposed type of counter. It's all an attempt to address the very issues you bring up. Another counter is variety in game modes which I've not seen mentioned not with the this idea in mind. However mission objectives that require a team to stay mobile and less static also can be a counter. As well as other perks. Really the entire idea of this thread is that greater variety equals greater balance at least to a point. That point being where a player can no longer distinguish themself thru skillful play. Part of that is knowing your mechs strengths and weaknesses. A light player wants to straight charge your boomjager and get's one shot for his trouble, well <shrugs>. That's really the main point, the AC thing is just a cool little side project that might give some extra use to the smaller cal. guns that tend to see a little less regular use and add some extra optional ways to use all AC's in general. It's up to the individual player to determine their worth to them personally.

[MustrumRidcully]

Andy, you summed up my position on why the AC/40, or the Quad PPC, or really any build with strong ballistic or PPC weapons work so well.

This 3.x seconds of torso twisting followed by a massive damage spike to the enemies CT is basically perfection in fighting. You can't make it more effective.

...

Random idea on Auto-Cannons as burst-fire weapons:

AC/2 fires one shot every 0.75 second for 2 damage and 0.75 heat. Damage drop off starts at 720m.
AC/10 fires 5 AC/2 shots over 0.5 seconds every 1.5 seconds. The AC/2 shots spread so that at a range of 450m, they will create a (predictable, well defined) 3m wide hexagon
AC/5 fires one shot every 1.5 seconds for 5 damage and 1 heat. Damage drop off starts at 540m.
AC/20 fires 4 AC/5 shots over 0.5 every 3.5. The AC/5 shots spread so that at a range of 270m, they will fall in a predictable, 3m wide square.
LBX-10 fires 10 bullets instantly every 2 seconds that spread in two pentagons, one 3m wide at 270m, the other 3m wide at 540m.
The MG fires 50 bullets over 0.5 seconds every 2 seconds for a DPS of 0.8.

That means AC/2 and AC/10 could share one type of ammo, and AC/5 and AC/20 also share one type of ammo. This gives better synergy between mixing certain weapon types, which gives more options than just boating weapons.
The AC/2 and AC/5 remain sniper-type weapons, but the AC/10 and AC/20 are inherently more "spready".
I picked 3m as a "reasonable number where damage might not be delivered to one hit location on most mechs. Maybe it's too low, maybe it's too high. Tweak as needed.
I picked the geometric shapes to make it clear that this is not random - the "divergence" is well-defined and predictable.

[Gaan Cathal]

BOTA49, on 21 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

3=/=2

That's an extra 50% firepower, and the mechs that DO run 2 of them (Puma, for example) run rather hot. The Puma still has to make use of 2-1-2 volley firing when in use because of the heat. Pretty sure very few mechs use double PPCs and can keep up the fire rate that a triple PPC Hunchback can in this. It's out of character for the mech and the tonnage.

My point was that it's not exactly out of the question for a Medium to be running seven tons more equipment than a Light. I agree that (ER)PPC could do with a heat boost, but there's nothing "inherently wrong" with a Hunchback running three of them. Mechwarrior =/= Classic Battletech.

[Nutlink]

Gaan Cathal, on 21 July 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

My point was that it's not exactly out of the question for a Medium to be running seven tons more equipment than a Light. I agree that (ER)PPC could do with a heat boost, but there's nothing "inherently wrong" with a Hunchback running three of them. Mechwarrior =/= Classic Battletech.

2 PPCs would be fine. Add in a third and the mech doesn't have the tonnage to add enough heat sinks to deal with it. It absolutely IS inherently wrong for a mech that size to pack that much firepower without serious heat issues. It's not just another 7 tons of equipment when you should be factoring in heat sinks as well. As for Mechwarrior =/= Classic Battletech, you're the one who brought canon into the argument.

[Gaan Cathal]

BOTA49, on 21 July 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

2 PPCs would be fine. Add in a third and the mech doesn't have the tonnage to add enough heat sinks to deal with it. It absolutely IS inherently wrong for a mech that size to pack that much firepower without serious heat issues. It's not just another 7 tons of equipment when you should be factoring in heat sinks as well. As for Mechwarrior =/= Classic Battletech, you're the one who brought canon into the argument.

I assumed the statement that it was 'wrong' for a HBK to carry 3 PPCs was based on CBT, since there's nothing inherent to Mechwarrior that makes it wrong.

[Nutlink]

No, it's "wrong" because it shouldn't be able to handle that level of heat. Instead they're allowed to fire with impunity and very little penalty in the same way that a 4PPC Stalker can. The heat scale is far too forgiving in allowing a mech like that to exist, much less actually be useful. You're making the mistake of assuming that 3 PPCs should be just fine with only 10 heat sinks, where as the source material (and every other MW) would make this type of thing useless.

[Sundervine]

Solaris fixed all this stuff along long long time ago. For some reason PGi and everyone else ignores it.

• A turn represents 2.5 seconds of real time (as opposed to 10 in the standard rules)
  
• The scale is four times smaller than the scale of the standard rules, changing the diameter the area a hex represents from 30 meters down to 7.5 meters and quadrupling weapon ranges accordingly.
  
• Weapons produce four times the heat of their standard values, creating heat spikes even where none could exist in the standard game the heat scale is adapted to this; heat sinks operate during each turn to match
  
• Most weapons require some time to recycle until they can be fired again, measured in rounds.
  
• Because of the limited time, a MechWarrior can perform only a certain number of actions per turn (e.g. walk, fire a single weapon, fire a Target Interlock Circuit, etc.)
  
• There are some advanced actions like evading, aiming or sprinting.
  
• A jump can last up to four turns and it is possible to change the course or to fire during a jump

Nice to see you again DarkJaguar

[MustrumRidcully]

But Solaris was also the game that turned the MG from a 2 damage per 10 seconds weapon into an 8 damage per 10 seconds weapon. So I don't really trust it further than I could throw the designer that wrote it, really.

[Sundervine]

It still was a close range only, at the moment in the meta would that really be all that bad? especially since in 10 seconds it would do 8 damage? thats almost what the next implementation will be anyway at the current buffing levels

[CeeKay Boques]

Just on the TT vs MWO tip... TT is not supposed to have so many 0/0 warriors. T/T is balanced around 3/3 warriors, if you play a game with all 0/0 warriors, you will get a similar game as MWO....

[Sundervine]

Not unless you used targetting computers, since the weapons still hit random locations.

That is also something most players seem to miss. They worked that out in TT as well. It was called a targeting computer. With one of those you could actually aim at certain points on a mech. Without one you would hit anything so it they are actually trying to make MWO a battletech sim, then they should make sure to subtract your avalable weight and space for the targeting computer or if you do not want to do such then make sure you have a COF the size of half and atlas with all weapons.

Also in the fluff somewhere, hand actuators on mechs without hands... Makes no sense right well they explained convergence in battletech as well. If a weapon did not have a hand actuator it fired straight line. No convergence other than a technician set range convergence. No change in combat at all. With a hand actuator you could change your convergence meaning more accuracy. Thus the mechs with no hand actuators could not aim their weapons as well as ones with. This of course means none of the weapons on your mechs should hit your crosshair at any range other than the one set by your technician in the mechbay without one. Convergence problem fixed with battletech rules fluff. Still nothing that battletech TT could not fix in this specific game. Written many many years ago as if they knew someone would make it. Then ignor it.

Battletech really did take care of every situation imaginable including real time combat. You just need to read ALL the rules to find them all.

Edited by Sundervine, 22 July 2013 - 02:04 PM.

[Pht]

Sundervine, on 22 July 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

Not unless you used targetting computers, since the weapons still hit random locations.

That is also something most players seem to miss. They worked that out in TT as well. It was called a targeting computer. With one of those you could actually aim at certain points on a mech. Without one you would hit anything...

Emphasis added, obviously.

No, you wouldn't "hit anything." Center front clusters on the torsos and fringes on the rest of the 'mech; left side covers the left, right the right, etc, called left/right or high/low narrows that down a LOT, aimed shot vs immobile targets allows for far more precise fire; and all of this without the advanced targeting computer.

Quote

If a weapon did not have a hand actuator it fired straight line. No convergence other than a technician set range convergence. No change in combat at all.

Actually, no.

We know for a fact that the 'mechs can and do aim each individual weapon: http://bg.battletech...7jh10#msg676374

Quote

Battletech really did take care of every situation imaginable including real time combat. You just need to read ALL the rules to find them all.

Since maxtech, very much so.

Edited by Pht, 22 July 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Multitallented]

Didn't vote cause the answers were lame.

[Pht]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 July 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

That is not the most important part of their combat performance.

If they were important, I'd expect the table top game to have more rules about how different mechs can handle their weapons. The hit location roll is pretty much static. Nothing about the mech affects the table for hit locations.

Either I wasn't clear enough or you may be equivocating...?

I wasn't talking about "specific battlemechs" - I was addressing them as an entire class.

Other than the pilots's gunnery modifier ALL of the to-hit rules and the hit-location tables (with one quasi-exception, the called shot hit location table) describe any battlemech's combat performance.

As far as the specific mechs, actually, they've added those to the offical set with strategic ops with the "quirks."

These quirks have been around as house rules built off of the fluff explanations for a long time: http://www.pryderock...h_abilities.zip

Quote

I also challenge it's is an important feature to model. The important part is to understand what you need to do to balance the game and armour values in a game where hit locations are not randomly determined on the TT table and all the values you got from the table top are based on the assumption they are.

The "random" in the TT is properly defined as "hit percentages" based upon knowable, predictable, and controllable factors; and the to-hit and hit-location mechanics use this form of hit percentage to model the 'mech's weapons handling performance.

Beyond that:

We agree somewhat - MWO is having balancing problems because they started with numbers designed for a combat system that balanced those numbers with a factor totally not present in MWO (excluding now the JJ shake).

If they wanted to use those numbers, they should have used the combat system they were built for, calculated in realtime.

If not, they shouldn't have even made reference to them; they should have instead scratch-built their own entire combat system and the numbers to work with it.

Edited by Pht, 22 July 2013 - 04:40 PM.