LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 05 February 2014 - 10:24 AM
Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:
So long as a AC20 is listed as being a 203 mm round, I have my big hammer. Even if i have to bring the Tomodzuru Autocannon Type 20, which can strip one and a quarter tons of armor off an enemy 'Mech in a single blow.
A single blow is not a burst. and since the the fluff text you quoted used words like Most so a 30-90mm AC20 would have a huge burst of shells flying all over while the 203mm AC20 would be the One hit wonder weapon AC20s have felt like for decades.
You keep fighting for your front-loaded damage, Joe. Even in the face of facts. There is exactly one AC/20 that might be single-shot; the UAC/20 of the Cauldron-born A. All the others have been fluffed to be more than one shot.
Just to keep things in perspective though, while that 203mm shell might look big to you, to a 'mech they look about as big as a 20-40mm shell would look to you - and a 90mm would look like a 9mm, a 30mm would be about half the size of a .22.
A 'mech is about 5-10 times taller than a man, after all (9-18m), so those Big Shells? Not so big on a 'mech scale.
The AC20 on a Hunchback removes 1 1/4 tons of armor in a single shot, not burst. An Ultra 20 n the Ebon Jaguar would be firing twice as fast as the Tomodzuru Autocannon Type 20.
203mm Cannon
40mm Cannon
The difference would be obvious even on a Mech.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 05 February 2014 - 11:38 AM.
So, to lay the "canon" argument to rest, here's (part of) page 207 of the Tech Manual:
Please note that canon supports the arguments both for burst-fire autocannons ("gigantic machine guns"), and autocannons being grouped by damage output ("ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage").
I'd also make a note that it agrees pretty well with what sarna says - because it's where sarna got its text from, as it also clearly notes in its references.
You are my hero, StJobe. If you weren't already a saint, I'd nominate you for it, lol. Feel free to share more of those pages, as I haven't read those in decades!
Regarding Joe's BFG, I have already compromised and said that I am fine with the current implementation of the AC/20, which fires a howitzer type shell, so long as the range on autocannons is fixed to x2 and there are other normalized versions available of all the autocannons. If the weapon does 20 damage per 5 seconds, it should be an AC20 and the weight, size and range should be that of an AC20 as well, not the "well it shoots farther for less damage per shell, so it weighs less even though it is still doing the same amount of damage over 5 seconds" system they currently have.
I am really, really looking forward to CW and how manufacturers are implemented. So many hopes riding on that!
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 05 February 2014 - 01:34 PM
Cimarb, on 05 February 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:
Regarding Joe's BFG, I have already compromised
Yeah, but has he?
No, what he says is "you can have all the variants you want, as long as I still have a superior variant". Because that's what 20 damage in one hit is, it's superior in every way to anything that deals less in one hit. That's the whole point with this idea of burst-fire, to get away from a damage dealing mechanic that is clearly superior to all the others. As long as that 20-damage-in-one-hit variant stays, none of your suggested AC/20 variants will matter, because nobody will use them.
That's what Mallan can't seem to get through his thick skull, that his "I've played with ACs doing 20 damage per hit since forever"-reasons for wanting to still have 20 damage in a single hit isn't a slight adjustment of the idea of burst-fire ACs, it's a complete negation of it, making it pointless.
The lore fluff clearly says ACs should be "gigantic machine guns" firing "streams or bursts" - and while the length of the burst may vary, I find it hard to describe a single or a pair of shells as a "stream" or a "burst".
No, what he says is "you can have all the variants you want, as long as I still have a superior variant". Because that's what 20 damage in one hit is, it's superior in every way to anything that deals less in one hit. That's the whole point with this idea of burst-fire, to get away from a damage dealing mechanic that is clearly superior to all the others. As long as that 20-damage-in-one-hit variant stays, none of your suggested AC/20 variants will matter, because nobody will use them.
That's what Mallan can't seem to get through his thick skull, that his "I've played with ACs doing 20 damage per hit since forever"-reasons for wanting to still have 20 damage in a single hit isn't a slight adjustment of the idea of burst-fire ACs, it's a complete negation of it, making it pointless.
The lore fluff clearly says ACs should be "gigantic machine guns" firing "streams or bursts" - and while the length of the burst may vary, I find it hard to describe a single or a pair of shells as a "stream" or a "burst".
Ok let's just give everyone 1 MLAS and an AC2 that fires 15 rounds before requiring reload, with 3 grenades. If you get 5 kills in a row... you can call in an airstrike!
Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:
So players can have different ways to fight with their Giant robots? Gasp The Hel you say? I can have weapons that need to be kept on target, Taunting my enemy with my Brazen disregard of their return fire, Or I can be Willow swaying in the breeze making repetitive shots less likely to converge?
And we want to take away one of these basic styles why again?
Im not sure what your getting at.
Yes you can have a playstyle that focuses on dps, or you can have a more skill based one that focuses on quick turns and shots. Blocking and shooting. One is usually focused on range, where as the other is focused on brawling. Also thre is jump sniping weapons and generally harassing weapons. Each of the ones now has a fairly unique playstyle they fall into with the exception being the ac-10 currently as the relatively left out cousin.
If your wanting to remove one of these playstyles by changing this I would ask for what justification?
No, what he says is "you can have all the variants you want, as long as I still have a superior variant". Because that's what 20 damage in one hit is, it's superior in every way to anything that deals less in one hit. That's the whole point with this idea of burst-fire, to get away from a damage dealing mechanic that is clearly superior to all the others. As long as that 20-damage-in-one-hit variant stays, none of your suggested AC/20 variants will matter, because nobody will use them.
That's what Mallan can't seem to get through his thick skull, that his "I've played with ACs doing 20 damage per hit since forever"-reasons for wanting to still have 20 damage in a single hit isn't a slight adjustment of the idea of burst-fire ACs, it's a complete negation of it, making it pointless.
The lore fluff clearly says ACs should be "gigantic machine guns" firing "streams or bursts" - and while the length of the burst may vary, I find it hard to describe a single or a pair of shells as a "stream" or a "burst".
Very true, but I do believe in compromise, as it can be used to start a slippery slope towards better results. While we would still have competitive players using the BFG versions, that could then be used to illustrate that those of us arguing against FLD are right.
Currently, our only argument is subjective, saying that the AC20 is the issue and it should function like the AC2/5/10, and the counter-arguement being, "well, of course it's better, that's why it weighs more and takes up more space." If we instead have a full arsenal of AC20 variants, as well as the same selection of lower class ACs in each class, we can then compare the different implementations of each specific class to the other variants of that same class - apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.
On top of that, there are real world examples of auto-loading cannons that would be similar to an AC20 in its current state. The M1A1 tank cannon, for instance. I'm not sure it is completely automatic, as I have never been in one, but I assume that is the best basis for that type of weapon. I'm not saying that type of damage isn't a balance issue - it definitely is - but as long as those variants have a significant quirk that balances them against the faster shooting weapons, I am willing to compromise.
I agree to his shorter range for Ballistics, I agree that that we could right now make all ACs into AC20s in MW:O cause they do the same amount damage over the same period of time. The only difference is that AC2s, 5s, 10s & 20s have different weights!
Yes, I said we can all have the AC20 we each want. If you want a small caliber high rate of fire burp gun please do. My style of play is heavy hitting BFGs. As I get beaten from smaller weapons even when using BFGs it shows that even the heavy hitters have some weaknesses ie the slower rate of fire, the all or nothing results of one big slug vs multiple smaller ones.
I support variety, and allowing each player to choose the style of play they gravitate to. As an Assault player I don't like small fast lights who can dance the scars around me killing me with paper cuts. I don't however say you have to be slower cause it will extend my TTD (time to die) and shorten yours. I die knowing the better pilot with a better ride won the day... This time.
The Lore and the Fluff of the Hunchback clearly says 1 1/4 tons of armor is removed with a single shot, if it was using a rapid fire weapon the text would read in a single Burst! A 203 mm AC would be a slow cyclic auto reloading cannon and IS a part of Canon. Eventually we will have Heavy Gauss, 25 points of damage... one locations. Some AC20s do that now. And again the fluff for ACs say that MOST fire high speed streams or bursts. MOST, not some, Not all, MOST. that means there are those that do not fire streams OR bursts. That leaves my big honking weapons of destruction in all calibers (AC2/5/10 & 20)!
If your wanting to remove one of these playstyles by changing this I would ask for what justification?
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone wants to get rid of any particular playstyle completely, but most of us do want to make all playstyles roughly equal in competitiveness.
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone wants to get rid of any particular playstyle completely, but most of us do want to make all playstyles roughly equal in competitiveness.
On that I agree with.
It does however appear joseph wants to remove a playstyle, Unless I read his post incorrectly.
That said I still havent gotten an answer as to the different playstyles that do exist and how changing this may effect them. I think that is something that needs consideration... yes?
Yes you can have a playstyle that focuses on dps, or you can have a more skill based one that focuses on quick turns and shots. Blocking and shooting. One is usually focused on range, where as the other is focused on brawling. Also thre is jump sniping weapons and generally harassing weapons. Each of the ones now has a fairly unique playstyle they fall into with the exception being the ac-10 currently as the relatively left out cousin.
If your wanting to remove one of these playstyles by changing this I would ask for what justification?
Only thing I see in your post that I have a problem with is an AC10 is Medium Mech of the AC realm. Like Medium Mechs it can get the job done but is not as heavy hitting as an AC20 or have as fast a cyclic rate as 5s and 2s.
Other than that, I bring my hard hitting multi range War machine to the field an do my best to beat every type of player on it. And I do it My way, not StJobes (a unapologetic light pilot). His style of play is the exact opposite of mine, Fast moving slashing with lighter weapons that do their work over time. It's the Catch me if you can Whirling dervish of doom. I am that Hulking monster fighter in heavy armor, wielding a huge head splitting, two handed great sword of destruction. The next difference we have is I understand the need for a team to have both our skills an abilities & even add that third guy who is standing back 300-500 m from the frontline hammering the enemy with fireballs or Long Range Missiles. man when a team gets these three fighting styles working in harmony, they are hel to beat.
Sorry Varent... large slow fingers.
Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 February 2014 - 04:24 AM.
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 05 February 2014 - 02:15 PM
Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:
a unapologetic light pilot
Why would I need to be apologetic for being a light pilot, Joe?
In the end, it doesn't even matter whether there's any lore or fluff behind ACs being single-shot or burst-fire, or even continuous-fire - what matters is that instant full damage to a single point is a very much more effective way of dealing damage than any other in MWO, and that's why I believe it has to change.
It's not about play style, or personal preference, or being "an assault pilot" or "a light pilot"; it's about an unbalancing mechanic of delivering damage, and what can be done to alleviate the problems that mechanic entails.
If the ACs didn't have this advantage I wouldn't have a single issue with you having your Big Hammer, Joe. It's nothing personal against you, and it's not a personal crusade for me either; I just think MWO would become a better game if one class of weapons didn't have such a distinct damage as the ACs and PPCs currently have.
Edit:
I've looked up the Hunchback in the original TRO:3025, as well as the revised edition, and I believe that the "one and a quarter tons in a single blow" is a Sarna addition (unless you can point me to some fluff where it comes from?)
This is the original TRO:3025:
And this is the revised edition:
Both say exactly the same thing: "At medium ranges, its combined armament of two Ichiba 2000 medium lasers and its massive Tomodzuru Type 20 autocannon mount can rip through even the heaviest armour." - no mention of tonnage nor of a single blow.
Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 02:05 PM, said:
Only thing I see in your post that I have a problem with is an AC10 is Medium Mech of the AC realm. Like Medium Mechs it can get the job done but is not as heavy hitting as an AC20 or have as fast a cyclic rate as 5s and 2s.
Other than that, I bring my hard hitting multi range War machine to the field an do my best to beat every type of player on it. And I do it My way, not StJobes (a unapologetic light pilot). His style of play is the exact opposite of mine, Fast moving slashing with lighter weapons that do their work over time. It's the Catch me if you can Whirling dervish of doom. I am that Hulking monster fighter in heavy armor wearing, a huge head splitting, two handed great sword of destruction. The next difference we have is I understand the need for a team to have both our skills an abilities & even add that third guy who is standing back 300-500 m from the frontline hammering the enemy with fireballs or Long Range Missiles. man when a team gets these three fighting styles working in harmony, they are hel to beat.
Sorry Varent... large slow fingers.
...
truly .... i got really lost there during all that.
I will attempt to reformulate my thoughts so that maybe its easier at what im getting at.
I Think there is a few very distinctive rolls in mwo.
1) Long Range Direct Fire support. - ac2, ac5, ER Large laser, UAC5, PPC. Mostly mechs that use these tend to be medium-assault class. You can technically use them on a light mech but they tend to be less effective and ill get to that later.
2) Long Range Indirect Fire Support - LRM. Pretty self explanatory. Usually when your using them your boating so thats mostly what you have.
3) Flankers - SRM, Medium Laser, Large Laser, uac5, ac10, ac20, Machine Gun. Quick moving mechs, mediums or fast heavies that can bring alot of fire power to bear very quickly, hit and run. These mechs arent very durable and usually run xl engines.
4) Brawlers - SRM, Uac5, ac10, ac20, marchine gun, Medium laser, Large laser. Standard Engine using mechs with close in fire power that can hit hard and rely on torso twisting to disperse damage across there mechs. Usually slower then a flanker but more durable. A tradeoff.
5) Tanks - Weapons depend. Usually assualt or heavy mechs. Can bear any number of weapons, the important thing is they are using a standard engine and are absorbing damage and being the first through the breach for the team to follow up behind them. The atlas is one of the best at this. Most tanks prefer to use srm/ac20/ac10 so that they can fire a few rounds quickly them turn to absorb damage with there arms.
6) Jump Snipers - PPC, Ac20, ac10, ac5, Can range from medium to assault. Rely on torso twisting after firing to absorb damage and use cover with jump jets to avoid damage further. High FLD mech.
7) Objective Scouts - Use ER Large lasers or PPC on a light mech to snipe from a distance and then go for base caps. Dont tend to fight other mechs or flank. Usually rather squishy and die to harassment.
8) Harassing Scouts - Use medium lasers/Small Lasers and streaks. Fight other light mechs, flank assault mechs and serve as a wolf pack lance in groups.
Now with all this said. The weapons as they are currently have very unique feels and fall into these specific rolls quite nicely. If however you chance the ac2 by lowering the damage you take away form its true strength as a fire support weapon. Now I believe you stated you wanted one of these playstyles removed... explain?
Sidenote - I still dont see how this change will be a good thing as was stated above other then to make the ac20 king for no other reason then 'because'.
I agree with both Joe and StJobe. I want Joe to still have his BFG, but the current implementation of it needs fixing, because it is unbalancing. Not game-breaking, but unbalancing. I want to provide alternatives so we can see the differences between a single-slug AC20 and a Gatling-type AC20, with otherwise the exact same stats (weight, size, heat, range, etc), so we can definitively see HOW unbalancing it is and find a good fix for it. Shoot, with these alternatives in place, Joe and the people that agree with him may find that they love the Gatling-type version and switch to our side!
LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.
Posted 05 February 2014 - 02:57 PM
Cimarb, on 05 February 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:
I want Joe to still have his BFG
As do I - but as you say, with the current mechanic it is unbalancing the game, so therefore Joe can't have it. If he could stand having his AC/20 as four rapid 5-damage shots, everything would be peachy keen. But he doesn't seem to want to have that, and therefore I'm currently giving him a bit of a hard time - for which I again apologize; it's nothing personal, Joe, I like you well enough.
But the whole point is that with the current game mechanics, ACs and PPCs deal damage in a much more effective way than the other weapons, and that needs to change, for the betterment of the game.
PGI have already said they can't do anything about convergence due to HSR issues, and they don't dare do anything to pin-point accuracy due to player backlash. And since pin-point instant damage is just plain better than spread damage, something has to give. We can either re-adjust all the other weapons, or we can go after the least amount of change, which is the ACs/PPCs - with the added benefit of some actual lore support for that as well, as demonstrated above.
LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment
Posted 05 February 2014 - 03:39 PM
stjobe, on 05 February 2014 - 08:58 AM, said:
So, to lay the "canon" argument to rest, here's (part of) page 207 of the Tech Manual:
Please note that canon supports the arguments both for burst-fire autocannons ("gigantic machine guns"), and autocannons being grouped by damage output ("ACs are rated, based on their relative ballistic damage").
I'd also make a note that it agrees pretty well with what sarna says - because it's where sarna got its text from, as it also clearly notes in its references.
Thanks, excellent and very clear. This is a Wizkids product is it?
Does it also have a definitive description on Gauss as well?
@ Crimarb. Novels, like computer games and movies, have never fit the definition of canon. They are a person's (or company) interpretation of the universe.
LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment
Posted 05 February 2014 - 05:05 PM
While I am here.
I assume if we are saying that Canon says AC's are DPS therefore they should be DPS (insert arguments supporting) then we are also arguing by default that PPC's should become beams / streams (DPS) weapons, Lasers FLD (instant) as well?
I kinda like the idea of rapid fire (DPS) Gauss now, ammo of 4 cubic meters (1/2 per shot) weighing a ton is kinda on the extreme end I suspect and a silent "saw" gnawing a limb off at 600m+ I can get behind.
After all, we need to be consistent in our argument yes?
Craig Steele, on 05 February 2014 - 03:39 PM, said:
Thanks, excellent and very clear. This is a Wizkids product is it?
Does it also have a definitive description on Gauss as well?
@ Crimarb. Novels, like computer games and movies, have never fit the definition of canon. They are a person's (or company) interpretation of the universe.
Could you at least humor me and go read that link I posted for you earlier today? Novels ARE canon according to the person in charge of saying what IS canon. It doesn't get any more definitive than that. Edit: I just noticed the link was bad; here it is again: http://bg.battletech...php?topic=586.0
Craig Steele, on 05 February 2014 - 05:05 PM, said:
While I am here.
I assume if we are saying that Canon says AC's are DPS therefore they should be DPS (insert arguments supporting) then we are also arguing by default that PPC's should become beams / streams (DPS) weapons, Lasers FLD (instant) as well?
I kinda like the idea of rapid fire (DPS) Gauss now, ammo of 4 cubic meters (1/2 per shot) weighing a ton is kinda on the extreme end I suspect and a silent "saw" gnawing a limb off at 600m+ I can get behind.
After all, we need to be consistent in our argument yes?
Yes, PPCs should either be a "stream of ionized particles", per canon descriptions, or my recommendation to differentiate them from lasers is to have it be a small cone, energy-based LBX.
Lasers should remain as they are, though a tweak to the beam duration would be a great way to differentiate by manufacturer.
I don't care one way or the other about Gauss, but with the current charge mechanic, it needs something to offset that penalty, and being the only FLD weapon remaining would be a good one.
LocationCSR Mountbatton awaiting clearance for tactical deployment
Posted 05 February 2014 - 07:29 PM
Cimarb, on 05 February 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:
Could you at least humor me and go read that link I posted for you earlier today? Novels ARE canon according to the person in charge of saying what IS canon. It doesn't get any more definitive than that. Edit: I just noticed the link was bad; here it is again: http://bg.battletech...php?topic=586.0
Yes, PPCs should either be a "stream of ionized particles", per canon descriptions, or my recommendation to differentiate them from lasers is to have it be a small cone, energy-based LBX.
Lasers should remain as they are, though a tweak to the beam duration would be a great way to differentiate by manufacturer.
I don't care one way or the other about Gauss, but with the current charge mechanic, it needs something to offset that penalty, and being the only FLD weapon remaining would be a good one.
Yup, the link was bad. Nice that you assumed I was making your day difficult though
Funny that BT incorporates novels as Canon. Apart from 40k or commisioned pieces I haven't heard of that. I wonder if the writers are staff? Tick a box on learnt something today anyway. I do wonder why they specify the producers of the books line by line. Are some Novels perhaps produced outside of those? That would certainly explain why he needed to differeniate. Unless I tick off every book I'll only be guessing.
In any case, I'd still recommend you take care referencing Sarna. As much as you might wish otherwise, it is not a Canon source (see the list on your link) and subject to amendment by anyone (my original post's point).
Looking forward to your arguments for the other canon weapon intepretations.
5
Joseph Mallan, on 05 February 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:
