408 replies to this topic

[VanillaG]

Strum Wealh, on 22 November 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

How I, personally, would have liked to have seen it done:

• Machine Guns: continuous-fire "bullet hose" effect with varying bullet-per-second counts varying depending on MG make/model (but identical DPS between MG makes/models)
  
• Standard Autocannons: multi-shell "burst fire" effect (3-10 shells per burst, depending on AC make/model) for all munition types with additional effects for special munitions, with manual user toggle for munition feed switching
  
• LB-X Autocannons: multi-shell "burst fire" effect (3-10 shells per burst, depending on AC make/model) for standard/"slug" munitions plus single-shell muzzle-exit-fragmentation "canister shot"/"shotgun shell" effect for cluster munitions, with manual user toggle for munition feed switching
  
• Ultra Autocannons: multi-shell "burst fire" effect (3-10 shells per burst, depending on AC make/model) with "standard ROF mode" (with 0% likelihood of jamming) plus "double-tap" two-burst "Ultra ROF mode" (with X% chance of jamming, such that X ≥ 2.8) & manual user toggle for ROF mode switching
  
• Standard Gauss Rifle: single-slug firing with automatic capacitor charging active by default, with manual user toggle for automatic/manual charging (to allow for discharging to prevent explosion when ammunition is depleted)

For the Standard ACs and slug-firing LB-Xs, the burst duration would be the same across weapon classes (e.g. a 4-shell AC/20 burst would be of the same duration as a 10-shell AC/20 burst, while a 6-shell AC/10 burst is of the same duration as a 3-shell LB-X slug burst, and so on).

For UACs, the burst duration would be one-half that of the same-class Standard ACs and LB-Xs (e.g. the burst duration of a UAC/5 would be one-half that of the Standard AC/5).

If you are going to turn regular Autocannons into bullet hoses then you should turn LB-X into bullet buckets. Change the LB-X into a single shell with multiple projectiles all fired at once like it currently implemented. That way the LB-X is more of a snapshot weapon where the normal Autocannons need to held on target for duration for all shells to land.

[Strum Wealh]

VanillaG, on 22 November 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

If you are going to turn regular Autocannons into bullet hoses then you should turn LB-X into bullet buckets. Change the LB-X into a single shell with multiple projectiles all fired at once like it currently implemented. That way the LB-X is more of a snapshot weapon where the normal Autocannons need to held on target for duration for all shells to land.

What you're calling a "bullet bucket" is what canister shot (like the M1028 canister round used on the Abrams MBT & the LB-X cluster shells used in BattleTech and MechWarrior) is, and is what I've described.
Note, also, that canister shot (including the M1028, LB-X cluster shells, and shotgun shells) is a separate concept from a Shrapnel shell - the former (barring malfunction) fragments once the projectile exits the muzzle of the weapon, while the latter fragments significantly afterward due to an internal mechanism (a timed fuse, a proximity-sensitive detonator, etc).

Additionally, "bullet hose" refers to high-volume continuous fire (such that the bullets "flow" out of the gun much as water flows out of a hose - hence the name), which is an entirely separate concept from "burst fire" (wherein a small set of projectiles is fired, followed by a significant cooldown, followed by another small set of projectiles, followed by another significant cooldown, and so on); it is the latter I've described with the ACs, where you've incorrectly interpreted it as the former.

[Bors Mistral]

On a bit of a side note, does it seem to anyone else that somehow the UAC5 is jamming a good deal more often now, especially on the very first shot?

[VanillaG]

Strum Wealh, on 22 November 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

What you're calling a "bullet bucket" is what canister shot (like the M1028 canister round used on the Abrams MBT & the LB-X cluster shells used in BattleTech and MechWarrior) is, and is what I've described.
Note, also, that canister shot (including the M1028, LB-X cluster shells, and shotgun shells) is a separate concept from a Shrapnel shell - the former (barring malfunction) fragments once the projectile exits the muzzle of the weapon, while the latter fragments significantly afterward due to an internal mechanism (a timed fuse, a proximity-sensitive detonator, etc).

Additionally, "bullet hose" refers to high-volume continuous fire (such that the bullets "flow" out of the gun much as water flows out of a hose - hence the name), which is an entirely separate concept from "burst fire" (wherein a small set of projectiles is fired, followed by a significant cooldown, followed by another small set of projectiles, followed by another significant cooldown, and so on); it is the latter I've described with the ACs, where you've incorrectly interpreted it as the former.

Let me be a little more precise. You are proposing changing AC to multiple projectiles fired one after another for a fixed number of shots. Essentially, you must keep the muzzle of the AC on target for all projectiles in the burst to hit the target. Your description for LB-X is that is also fires a burst. What I am saying is that LB-X should be kept the same as it is currently implemented(single shot with multiple projectiles) instead of changing it into a burst fire weapon. That way an LB-X has a similar role as pulse lasers in that it allows for smaller duration on target compared to normal lasers.

[Strum Wealh]

VanillaG, on 22 November 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Let me be a little more precise. You are proposing changing AC to multiple projectiles fired one after another for a fixed number of shots. Essentially, you must keep the muzzle of the AC on target for all projectiles in the burst to hit the target. Your description for LB-X is that is also fires a burst. What I am saying is that LB-X should be kept the same as it is currently implemented(single shot with multiple projectiles) instead of changing it into a burst fire weapon. That way an LB-X has a similar role as pulse lasers in that it allows for smaller duration on target compared to normal lasers.

What I said the first time is that the LB-X (in line with the source material found in BattleTech) would be able to do both.

"LB-X Autocannons: multi-shell "burst fire" effect (3-10 shells per burst, depending on AC make/model) for standard/"slug" munitions plus single-shell muzzle-exit-fragmentation "canister shot"/"shotgun shell" effect for cluster munitions, with manual user toggle for munition feed switching"

To clarify:

• LB-X standard/slug shells: multi-shell "burst fire" effect (3-10 shells per burst, depending on AC make/model)
  
• LB-X cluster munitions: single-shell muzzle-exit-fragmentation "canister shot"/"shotgun shell" effect

LB-X cluster munitions would continue to behave as they do now - where a single shot (that is, a single iteration on the ammo counter) represents a single shell that fragments into a number of submunitions when the weapon is fired, thus (still) befitting the "anti-BattleMech shotgun" description so often used in BattleTech.

LB-X ACs would then also gain the ability to fire 3-10 shell bursts (with the shells fired sequentially, in the style of an assault rifle's burst fire mode) of standard/slug ammo (where a single shot - a single iteration on the ammo counter - represents a single cassette/magazine holding the multiple individual shells that make up the burst) in addition to the LB-X cluster rounds (which would still behave like shotgun shells)

Finally, there would be a player-controlled toggle to allow at-will switching between the two munition feeds - that is, the player could control whether the gun would be firing AR-style multi-shell bursts or the current shotgun-style clusters of submunitions with each pull of the trigger.

[Antarus]

Sephlock, on 30 October 2013 - 03:26 PM, said:

Please, I am begging you.

All of you.

Please, can't we just let weapons deal damage, and accept that sometimes our mechs will blow up?

Balance is certainly an issue, but the solution to balance issues is not to reduce the damage on every weapon until we're all firing pop guns and water pistols.

How about we make other things more lethal?

No, because right now there's only six mechs worth playing in the game ,and everything else is just sub-optimal hangar filler, and PGi is giving a giant middle finger to anyone who wants to run something that isn't one of these ******* Meta builds.

[Sephlock]

Antarus, on 22 November 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

No, because right now there's only six mechs worth playing in the game ,and everything else is just sub-optimal hangar filler, and PGi is giving a giant middle finger to anyone who wants to run something that isn't one of these ******* Meta builds.

Which six are on your list?

I'm guessing.

Spider, Jenner, Blackjack, Jagermech, Stalker, Highlander

??

I just threw the Blackjack in there because I like it ;P.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Sephlock, on 22 November 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

Which six are on your list?

I'm guessing.

Spider, Jenner, Blackjack, Jagermech, Stalker, Highlander

??

I just threw the Blackjack in there because I like it ;P.

lol, no to the stalker, since it has no ballistics (not including the Misery with 1)

[Sephlock]

Lupus Aurelius, on 23 November 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

lol, no to the stalker, since it has no ballistics (not including the Misery with 1)

Which then?!

[Wolfways]

Spider, Jenner, Blackjack, Jagermech, Highlander, Atlas.

Imo.

[MustrumRidcully]

The Black Jack? I dunno which Medium I'd qualify in the set of top mechs.

ANd I tend to believe the Atlas is on the list only because there's only one 100t assault mech in play at all. The hard points are not really optimal. No high positioned arms, no jump jets, and you must build a mixed weapon build. But it got those extra tonnage. Oh ,and ECM. That might also be a factor. (Especially since the DDC also has a fair amount of module slots for a mech so big.. Probably an artifact of it been stuck so long with that useless command console and ECM added after modules. Nowadays, it's hardly justified.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 November 2013 - 03:02 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

-Mediums more likely to be the ShadowHawk these days.

[Joseph Mallan]

Well I use Atlas cause I'm a Lyran. But I want a Battlemaster.

My Davion has a Jager an a Stalker.

My Kurita uses a Catapult-K an a Shadowhawk... Though I like the Treb-K The character is a long time Shadowhawk pilot.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 25 November 2013 - 05:47 AM.

[Garth Erlam]

Lupus Aurelius, on 30 October 2013 - 01:01 PM, said:

Low heat weapons win big, whereas the converse is true for high heat weapons.

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

[MnDragon]

You know...Meta changes and honestly, about 7 months ago, this list was "bottom tier". Balistics were garbage (except the Gauss) and everyone was boating PPCs. Back then it was all about the Stalker, Awesome and Hunchback boating as many PPCs as they could fit. Anything with jump jets was boating PPCs and gauss. 6 months before that we had LRMocolypse which made the Catapult, Stalker, and Highlanders supreme. Meta changes BECAUSE we get pissed at the current meta and PGI says, "have at it" and gives us what we want. Soon, Small Pulse lasers with be buffed and then we will see that as OP because you can fire 9 on a hunchback with neutral heat on single heat sinks and they will do 60 pts of damage per alpha. I find it completely unecessary and worthless to complain about the current meta because you will be complaining about something new in about 3-4 weeks anyway. And Honestly...the meta is the most stable its been since Open Beta started. I'm not complaining at all.

[MustrumRidcully]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

So, will you one day ever bother to actually discuss the topic and analyze the whole spectrum of the topic, or will be be limited to snippy one-liners like this one? It's nice to see you still post, but damnit, could PGI bother to really discuss about balance, the heat system and all that for once, or will we forever be damned to stay on this pathetic level of analysis?

Do you still remember Closed Beta, when we didn't have Ghost Heat but also no double Double Heat Sinks, no charging Gauss Rifles? Do you remember the love people developed for the K2 - you know, that Dual Gauss mech. Oh, wait, it's actually a Dual PPC mech, but few people still used it in that capacity, right? When exactly did you see that mech disappear from the battlefield?



On the fundamental level - heat became more expensive when you raised rate of fire but not dissipation. But you also altered the value or cost of heat by removing the concept of heat penalties, which is pretty critical to battletech. Heat isn't just supposed to be about a race to shutdown, it's about managing the drawbacks in the short term. A Battletech mech had to worry each turn about the consequences of the heat he'd produce for the next turn. Which is why the term "heat neutral" was actually relevant in Battletech. It's also what enabled balancing weapons. When you know that every point of heat can count next turn, you can treat each point of heat those weapons produce as equally valuable - as equal to the heat sink required to negate it.
Changing to a pure shutdown-limited heat system with a high shutdown limit makes things a lot more complicated.
At 8 heat and no ghost heat, PPCs beat alternatives like Gauss or AC/10s easily because they were much lighter, so you could install more, and your heat threshold would still allow you to fire 3-4 salvos, enough to cripple most mechs, and you also had the range to play a cover or jump sniper that could take some "vacation" to cool off.
Now you raised the heat to 10 per PPC, the math doesn't work out anymore.

And we haven't even talked about pinpoint precision and convergence yet.


But we never really will have a talk about this type of stuff, right?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 26 November 2013 - 11:43 PM.

[Galenit]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

Can you tell us, why the missiles have 1x, energy 2x and ballistics have 3x range?

This would aid the discussion a lot more then your oneliner.

[Urdasein]

IMHO

PGI went wrong balancing game toward brawl.

-> long range fire dont kill that much
-> brawl usually end by a death

The release of SHD, wich are very good mech at brawl will add more brawl...


I don't like to brawl, so my best answer to people sarching for brawl is AC40. Enough stopping power to kill before it goes to close combat.

But yeah, lowering the stopping power of weapons will just add more brawl in the game... On the other hand, highering stopping power will add static fights and poptarting... so... kind of balance that must be made (captain obvious inside)

Edited by loupgaroupoilu, 27 November 2013 - 03:40 AM.

[Lupus Aurelius]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

It's called the firing delay,which to most make it sub-optimal compare to other choices.

[Joseph Mallan]

Garth Erlam, on 26 November 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

[color=cyan]So that's why people are all using gauss rifles instead of PPC's, eh? [/color]

The sarcasm is strong in this one.