14 replies to this topic

[Skoll Lokeson]

BACKSEAT GAME DESIGN w/ S. Lokeson - Part 1

LB-10X Dual firing mode suggestion (it's been a while )

• Make the LB 10-X appear as two different weapons on the in game weapons menu: "LB 10-X Shell" and "LB 10-X Cluster".
  
• Give the "LB 10-X Shell" and "LB 10-X Cluster" shared cool down (based on the previous shot).
  
• If the "LB 10-X Shell" and "LB 10-X Shell" are placed in the same weapon group, then it fires in the default mode: Shell (firing a Shell at 50m is not as bad as firing a Cluster round at 400m).

LB 10-X Shell mode

• 540m range.
  
• Longer cool down and/or more heat than AC10.
  
• Uses regular AC10 ammo.

LB 10-X Cluster mode

• Works like current LB 10-X but with shorter cool down and/or heat than AC10/LB 10-X Shell.
  
• Uses LB 10-X (Cluster) ammo.

Balance: LB 10-X vs AC10

• Has longer effective range with standard AC10 ammo than the AC10, but also longer cool down and/or higher heat.
  
• Has higher rate of fire than AC10 and bonus to internal damage while firing Cluster munition, but the damage is spread over multiple locations beyond short range.
  
• Requires a minimum of two tons of ammo to allow dual firing modes. Also requires the player to properly balance ammo loadout to achieve optimal effectiveness.

Why?:

• Increases the in-game usefulness of the LB 10-X.
  
• Adheres better to Battletech canon.

[Foxfire]

This. Otherwise the LBX 10 will remain a weapon with a very limited amount of situations that it is actually useful in.

An LBX without the ability to fire slugs will always be lackluster.

[Corvus Antaka]

Foxfire, on 08 September 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

This. Otherwise the LBX 10 will remain a weapon with a very limited amount of situations that it is actually useful in.

An LBX without the ability to fire slugs will always be lackluster.

Maybe not. Dual lbx 10 is already very nasty. and they are much more forgiving and useful on lights and for critting or finishing.

giving the lbx slugs may well make the ac/10 obselete again.

[Foxfire]

Which is why you add penalties such as higher heat and longer reload.

Slugs with the LBX 10 shouldn't put it anywhere near as close to the level of the AC/10 but it should be there to make the LBX more useful than as a glorified crit seeker.

[Skoll Lokeson]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 08 September 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

giving the lbx slugs may well make the ac/10 obselete again.

As Foxfire points out, that's just a matter of making the the LB 10-X an under powered AC10 when it fires shells/slugs. That really shouldn't be a problem since we've already had that version of the AC10 for months.

Besides, I wouldn't consider mounting the (current) LB 10-X as long as I can get 2 MGs + another 9-10t of weapons/equipment for the same weight.

[Novawrecker]

Still think they should lower the amount of ammo/ton that for this weapon if they make it fire Dual modes.

Currently both AC10 and LB-10X carry 15 shots/ton of ammo. To balance the LB-10X shooting dual shells, have it carry 10 shots/per ton of ammo instead. This way there is still incentive to have the AC10 around.

You would then have a choice:

- AC10 that carries slug rounds at 15 shots/ton of ammo

or

- LB-10X that carries both slug and cluster rounds, but each ton of ammo only provides 10 shots/per ton. It has the advantage of different round types at the cost of lesser shots per ammo clips (call it a newly design chamber included in the LB-10X ammo clips to permit the rapid switching between ammo types or what ever other technical jargin that floats your boats). In addition, if codes permits this, have the LB produce 2 heat per Slug round fired (akin to the standard AC10), while still producing 1 per Cluster shot fired.

I think it adds the detriments to make you think about which gun to carry while not nerfing it hardcore enough to turn it into an over weighted pea shooter. But "eh", that's just my 2 cents.

Edited by Novawrecker, 04 October 2013 - 03:55 AM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Just...no. This is an FPS, not a psuedo-future-history-wargame. Redundant weapons are stupid, and shouldn't happen. Ergo LB-X cannot invalidate the standard AC of same calibre, which this would do.

The LB-X in MW:O is a shotgun weapon. It's going to stay a shotgun weapon, so get used to it being a shotgun weapon. It maybe needs a small damage increase (1.2 dmg/pellet I'm guessing) to be a decent shotgun weapon, but it's definitely not a lighter, smaller, longer ranged AC/10 that costs a few more easily earned space-pennies, thank god.

TL:DR - No.

[Zyllos]

I disagree with giving LBX any "slug" ammo.

But I do agree that the LBX needs to be extended range.

I would suggest making the LBX shoot a flak canister that explodes X meters from a solid object, releasing pellets like it does now. This will allow the LBX to utilize it's full range while still spreading damage out.

[Mechwarrior0311]

Why wouldnt you be able to load LBX10 slugs and LBX10 shot into the same weapon? I have a shotgun. I can load slugs and buckshot into it, staggered if I choose to.

What would prevent this from occurring in MWO? From what I understand, LBX10s DO have slugs and buckshot ammo in Battletech tabletop. I never played it, I am just going off of what friends of mine who did mentioned.

So wouldnt it make sense to introduce a new LBX 10 slug ammunition type, and give the weapon a select fire? It would just require the pilot to bring a mix of both kinds of ammo and it would be assumed that the weapon had the ability to load both based off of what fire it was set to.

[Novawrecker]

Gaan Cathal, on 04 October 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Just...no. This is an FPS, not a psuedo-future-history-wargame. Redundant weapons are stupid, and shouldn't happen. Ergo LB-X cannot invalidate the standard AC of same calibre, which this would do.

The LB-X in MW:O is a shotgun weapon. It's going to stay a shotgun weapon, so get used to it being a shotgun weapon ...

Huh? Re-read what you posted friend.

1) This game IS based off a pseudo-futuristic-history wargame
2) Some (if not most) modern, every day, common shotguns have the capacity to fire both slug and "cluster" rounds.
3) Plenty of FPS have/had multiple weapons some with multiple round types.

Although I agree redundant weapons are non-productive, the source from which this game is created from the LB pretty much outclassed the AC10 in all aspects until special munitions were created. Granted, I doubt we'll see that in this game soon (if at all), hence why people are throwing suggestions for balancing the LB to have the advantage of dual rounds while not out-shadowing the AC10.

So no, LB is not just a Shotgun and unless you're part of the design team and have an absolute say on what does and doesn't get approved for the game, the LB will not remain as a cluster round only weapon. With the exception that this has changed recently (I've been gone too long to know otherwise), they've already mentioned that having the LB use slug and cluster rounds is in the (apparently slow) works. I imagine to figure out just how to balance this particular issue out and (possibly) coding.

[Gaan Cathal]

Novawrecker, on 05 October 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Huh? Re-read what you posted friend.

1) This game IS based off a pseudo-futuristic-history wargame
2) Some (if not most) modern, every day, common shotguns have the capacity to fire both slug and "cluster" rounds.
3) Plenty of FPS have/had multiple weapons some with multiple round types.

1) Yup. That means it's based off that thing, not that it is that thing. There are things in CBT that make no sense for an FPS. Firing once every ten seconds, for example, or weapons that make other weapons entirely pointless.

2) And most modern day lasers have a range substantially longer that 270m. And modern day fully automatic 30m weapons (GAU-8) have a range longer than 180m). And modern fighters have a HUD that makes the one in MW:O look like a Virtual Boy test model. And modern day physics say an Atlas sinks into pavement. Welcome to fiction.

3) My objection isn't to multi-round weapons in an FPS, it's to making weapons in an FPS completely redundant by introducing a weapon better in every single aspect.

Novawrecker, on 05 October 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

Although I agree redundant weapons are non-productive, the source from which this game is created from the LB pretty much outclassed the AC10 in all aspects until special munitions were created. Granted, I doubt we'll see that in this game soon (if at all), hence why people are throwing suggestions for balancing the LB to have the advantage of dual rounds while not out-shadowing the AC10.

So no, LB is not just a Shotgun and unless you're part of the design team and have an absolute say on what does and doesn't get approved for the game, the LB will not remain as a cluster round only weapon. With the exception that this has changed recently (I've been gone too long to know otherwise), they've already mentioned that having the LB use slug and cluster rounds is in the (apparently slow) works. I imagine to figure out just how to balance this particular issue out and (possibly) coding.

I'll grant you, I was crediting the design team with a modicum of sense. I really, really don't care what the tabletop did - I started with MW2 and the closest I've come to CBT is the MW:T beta. Just because it did X in CBT doesn't mean it should do Y in MW:O, plenty of things that would be better if they used CBT rules (ECM) don't, so I see little value in obsessively sticking to TT rules in order to introduce an unnecessary change that will make the game worse.

[Stingray Productions]

i just want my clan lbx-20.

[Roland]

The needed fix for the lbx has Been known for ages now. Up the damage per pellet, and make it into a good infighting weapon.

[General Taskeen]

Not possible to make two different LB-X guns for the first suggestion, as it invalidates record sheets. Canon record sheet builds use ammo tonnage for both clusters and standard rounds on the same Mech. Meaning one gun can be switched to draw from each ammo type, the same way a Tank Driver in reality can choose to load an HE shell or an AP shell and fire from the same gun.

Example record sheet: ANH-2A - 2 Tons of Standard Rounds, 2 Tons of Cluster Rounds




The "fix" is actually a lot more simplistic and would hardly take much editing on part of the PGI programmers. The main thing to remember is that if the "cluster" programming were to be left in its current format, the LB 2-X and LB 5-X would suffer the most in terms of being totally useless.

The changes that need to occur:

LB-X (Any Caliber) - Pellet Damage Per Pellet somewhere between 1.2 and 1.4. (Slightly Increase Cool Down, Range still an advantage - i.e. clusters should reliably hit a target at its intended effective range - Fire slower, for more damage)
AC (Any Caliber) - Leave as is (adjust fire rates if necessary - fire faster than LB-X guns, for less damage)

Example:

LB 10-X ; 2.75 CD ; 1.2 Damage Per Pellet (10x1.2 = 12 Damage)
AC 10 ; 2.3 or 2.5 CD ; 10 Damage Per Round

Once that is done, then they can add in the ability for LB-X guns to use both ammunition types and then add perhaps balance in the additional ammo types of regular Autocannons. That way if someone is using an LB-X just to load standard rounds, they still fire slower compared to an AC-10, the trade off for the range advantage.

Edited by General Taskeen, 05 October 2013 - 01:08 PM.

[Novawrecker]

Gaan Cathal, on 05 October 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

1) Yup. That means it's based off that thing, not that it is that thing. There are things in CBT that make no sense for an FPS. Firing once every ten seconds, for example, or weapons that make other weapons entirely pointless.

2) And most modern day lasers have a range substantially longer that 270m. And modern day fully automatic 30m weapons (GAU-8) have a range longer than 180m). And modern fighters have a HUD that makes the one in MW:O look like a Virtual Boy test model. And modern day physics say an Atlas sinks into pavement. Welcome to fiction.

3) My objection isn't to multi-round weapons in an FPS, it's to making weapons in an FPS completely redundant by introducing a weapon better in every single aspect.

Funny how you mention that what good for the TT isn't good for the game, and then forget the FPS' ranges are shortened akin that of the TT hehe. Pardon, I have to disagree with you: It can work in the FPS almost as well as it did in TT. Btw, there have been plenty of weapons in FPS games that completely out classed another weapon (be them introduced early or later in that game).

Gaan Cathal, on 05 October 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

I'll grant you, I was crediting the design team with a modicum of sense. I really, really don't care what the tabletop did - I started with MW2 and the closest I've come to CBT is the MW:T beta. Just because it did X in CBT doesn't mean it should do Y in MW:O, plenty of things that would be better if they used CBT rules (ECM) don't, so I see little value in obsessively sticking to TT rules in order to introduce an unnecessary change that will make the game worse.

You should care what the TT did, you're playing the FPS version of it (haha). Granted, obsessively sticking to TT rules makes no sense, but getting it close as possible to capture the feel of the original system makes plenty of sense. As for LB-10X carrying both Cluster and Slug rounds in this FPS CAN be done, just needs serious weighing as to not complete out shine the AC10. Hence again, people providing ideas to help promote that along ...

Lowering the ammo count/ton is one idea. Shortening the range of Cluster rounds is another. Again it is a matter of balancing the weapon to not leave the AC10 out to dry and (possibly) coding.

I, for one, definitely look forward toward the day the LB performs to its true form, as well as see some of the newer, lv. 2 tech (such as MRMs).