675 replies to this topic

[Varent]

see I feel honestly thats where people are going wrong. Mostly since alot of high dps weapons reward multiple shots. These shots are usually scattered abit and not focused. many lower dps weapons are FLD heavy and allow you to get all your damage in one area. This obvioulsy is taking into account Torso twisting and movement. So what alot of people are missing is the Effective damage versus DPS. Not to say high DPS weapons dont have a roll, they do. But so so non high DPS weapons with high FLD. Its just different play styles taking effect there.

[Cimarb]

stjobe, on 07 March 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

Not at all.

Theorycrafting is enjoyable - trying to come up with something that works, within certain set rules and restrictions, is a good mental workout.

There are times that I enjoy arguing/discussing about things on the forums more than actually playing. I love the game, faults and all, but the theorycrafting and design aspects are what made me a fan of BattleTech to begin with.

Varent, on 07 March 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

Im avoiding calculating by DPS since I think its a bad way to compare items. Mostly just focusing on situational value as upposed to the dps. The DPS numbers Im sure will be wierd and funky and probly not balanced. But if you look at how the weapons are normally used and my notes, you will see im working towards making the weapons more set into a roll then anything else as well as allowing players more flexibility to make interesting build options.

I realize you don't like considering DPS, but it is the most important aspect of any weapon - in fact it is the entire purpose. I don't care what else it does, if a weapon doesn't have DPS, it is useless - look at flamers for an example, even after the buff, or NARCs.

It doesn't have to be exactly 2/5/10/20 damage you are getting out of each, but it should be "in the ballpark" so you can then determine the size/weight of the weapon. For instance, say we use the benchmark of a five second turn, where every existing weapon can fire at least once. Now, any autocannon that does 1-3 damage during that turn is classified as an AC2, 3-7 is an AC5, 7-14 is an AC10, and 14+ is an AC20. We can now set the weight and crit space for each autocannon based upon that classification and have free reign on all combinations of RoF, cooldown and caliber that fits those classifications.

Mirkk Defwode, on 07 March 2014 - 11:59 AM, said:

Still good to calculate the DPS and make sure even situationally they're niched into a certain bracketed space. If they're far outside of that what you'll find is general player distaste as a lot of folks. Even in specific roles or functions the damage values should be completely looked over as it'll be what people look to for balance.

Exactly. You will never get far without showing the damage value on a weapon.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Varent, on 07 March 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

see I feel honestly thats where people are going wrong. Mostly since alot of high dps weapons reward multiple shots. These shots are usually scattered abit and not focused. many lower dps weapons are FLD heavy and allow you to get all your damage in one area. This obvioulsy is taking into account Torso twisting and movement. So what alot of people are missing is the Effective damage versus DPS. Not to say high DPS weapons dont have a roll, they do. But so so non high DPS weapons with high FLD. Its just different play styles taking effect there.

I don't disagree, but it's within that acceptable marginal area that we should be looking at for balancing factors like a direct single shot weapon should do around 18 DPS for the AC20, and the Multishot weapon should vary for like 20 DPS for 2-3 Projectiles fire, and ~22 DPS for 5-6 Shells fired.

Also please be careful with the use of "Burst" I've made a post on this before, but when it comes to ballistic weapons a Mechanical Burst is a series of shots fired with one pull of the trigger, it means no matter what it will fire that many shells. I'd prefer the terms used are "Automatic" or "Sustained Burst" as those give the user control over their actions. If you're presenting a design to an engineer and say "Burst" they'll just make it a mechanical burst fire weapon for that number of shells.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 07 March 2014 - 12:08 PM, said:

see I feel honestly thats where people are going wrong. Mostly since alot of high dps weapons reward multiple shots. These shots are usually scattered abit and not focused. many lower dps weapons are FLD heavy and allow you to get all your damage in one area. This obvioulsy is taking into account Torso twisting and movement. So what alot of people are missing is the Effective damage versus DPS. Not to say high DPS weapons dont have a roll, they do. But so so non high DPS weapons with high FLD. Its just different play styles taking effect there.

I get that, but damage is still paramount. Balance them within the spectrum I detailed above, with the FLD versions on the low ends of each class. The more rounds involved in the burst, the higher the DPS within that class. So a BFG AC20 may do one 20 damage slug with a 6 second cooldown, giving it roughly 16.6 DPT (damage per turn), while my Gatling AC20 does 200 rounds in a 2 second burst and 2 second cooldown, giving it 25 DPT to offset its long duration.

EDIT for Mirkk: call it whatever you want, but in my example, the Gatling AC20 would fire at a rate of 20 shells per second for up to two seconds before having to cool down for the same amount of time.

Edited by Cimarb, 07 March 2014 - 12:23 PM.

[Varent]

Mirkk Defwode, on 07 March 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

I don't disagree, but it's within that acceptable marginal area that we should be looking at for balancing factors like a direct single shot weapon should do around 18 DPS for the AC20, and the Multishot weapon should vary for like 20 DPS for 2-3 Projectiles fire, and ~22 DPS for 5-6 Shells fired.

Also please be careful with the use of "Burst" I've made a post on this before, but when it comes to ballistic weapons a Mechanical Burst is a series of shots fired with one pull of the trigger, it means no matter what it will fire that many shells. I'd prefer the terms used are "Automatic" or "Sustained Burst" as those give the user control over their actions. If you're presenting a design to an engineer and say "Burst" they'll just make it a mechanical burst fire weapon for that number of shells.

I suppose an acceptable ballpark is fair when it comes to rough dps.

Cimarb, on 07 March 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

I get that, but damage is still paramount. Balance them within the spectrum I detailed above, with the FLD versions on the low ends of each class. The more rounds involved in the burst, the higher the DPS within that class. So a BFG AC20 may do one 20 damage slug with a 6 second cooldown, giving it roughly 16.6 DPT (damage per turn), while my Gatling AC20 does 200 rounds in a 2 second burst and 2 second cooldown, giving it 25 DPT to offset its long duration.

Ill go back and play with the numbers once ive gone through them. Working on Gause atm.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 07 March 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

I suppose an acceptable ballpark is fair when it comes to rough dps.

See, NOW we are getting somewhere! I knew you could come over to the Light Side eventually

Varent, on 07 March 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Ill go back and play with the numbers once ive gone through them. Working on Gause atm.

Oddly, this is what I would use for my BFG. I really like the sniper aspect of these, so would prefer the larger, slower shots like Joe likes, compared to some rapid-fire slug thrower. I'm interested to see your ideas, though.

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 07 March 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

See, NOW we are getting somewhere! I knew you could come over to the Light Side eventually


Oddly, this is what I would use for my BFG. I really like the sniper aspect of these, so would prefer the larger, slower shots like Joe likes, compared to some rapid-fire slug thrower. I'm interested to see your ideas, though.

As long as its not the focus im fine. I think it needs to be scaled outside of that, So if its falling with an acceptable range I think we can both agree on that.

Anyways heres the thoughts on gause so far. Im incoprating there charge system into it for now until some other system is decided to be outright better.

Gause Rifle

Grizzard - +2 Heat, +4 Cooldown. No charge time.
Manufactured by Yankee Weapon Systems on New Earth

Imerator Dragon’s Fire - +1 Heat, +2 Cooldown, Stays charged for 1 second longer.
Manufactured by Imperator Automatic Weaponary on Atreus

Inokuma - +2 Heat, +1 Cooldown, Stays Charged for .75 Seconds Longer.
Manufactured by Aldis Industries on Betelgeuse

Kali Yama Grand Slam - +1 Heat, +1 Cooldown, Stays Charged for .5 Seconds Longer.
Manufactured by Kali Yama Weapons Industries on Kendall

Oriente MagCoil Model M – Stays Charged for .75 Seconds longer. Explodes for 75 Damage when destroyed.
Manufactured by Starcorps Industries on Emris IV

Norse-Storm M-7D - +5 Heat, Stays charged for .5 seconds longer.
Manufactured by Norse-Storm Technologies Incorporated on Loxley

Poland Main – Normal Gause Rifle, No changes.
Manufactured by Johnston Industries on New Sytris
Manufactured by Defiance Industries on Hesperus II

Zeus Slingshot – Takes an additional .5 seconds to charge. Stays charged for 1 second longer.
Manufactured by Corean Enterprises on Stewart

Zhi-tong-yao – Stays charged for .5 seconds longer, Explodes for 60 Damage when destroyed.
Manufactured by Shengli Arms on Victoria

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cimarb, on 07 March 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

See, NOW we are getting somewhere! I knew you could come over to the Light Side eventually


Oddly, this is what I would use for my BFG. I really like the sniper aspect of these, so would prefer the larger, slower shots like Joe likes, compared to some rapid-fire slug thrower. I'm interested to see your ideas, though.

the technology surround guass weaponry divides into Rail Gun vs Coil Gun, and Rail gun technology is much better setup to be a single large projectile, while a coil gun could be used for rapid fire or a single large projectile easily. Depends on how big you want to build the electro magnetic rings.

Though if you're ever calculating velocity on these - it's gotta be fast, really really fast.

[Cimarb]

I like those ideas. It gives people with higher latencies more of a chance of getting shots off and gives slow people like me a reason to equip one.

[Mirkk Defwode]

Cimarb, on 07 March 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

[...]
EDIT for Mirkk: call it whatever you want, but in my example, the Gatling AC20 would fire at a rate of 20 shells per second for up to two seconds before having to cool down for the same amount of time.

Gatling implies Rotary. RACs aren't made yet...just saying.

You can have multi-barrel rapid fire autocannons though. A good example is old WW2 40mm BOFORS flak are autocannons with twin barrels.

[stjobe]

Mirkk Defwode, on 07 March 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

You can have multi-barrel rapid fire autocannons though. A good example is old WW2 40mm BOFORS flak are autocannons with twin barrels.

Well technically the Bofors (it's a name, not an acronym) 40mm is a single-barrel automatic cannon (still in use e.g. on the Swedish CV90 by the way*) that came in single-, dual-, quad-, and hexa-mounts.

Either way, the BT autocannons are explicitly fluffed as "firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels" (Tech Manual, p207).

*They had to mount it upside-down in the CV90 to make it fit - I don't know why these kinds of worthless facts get stuck in my mind, but they do - which made it a bit of a challenge to make the ammo feed work.

Edited by stjobe, 07 March 2014 - 03:02 PM.

[Cimarb]

Mirkk Defwode, on 07 March 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

Gatling implies Rotary. RACs aren't made yet...just saying.

You can have multi-barrel rapid fire autocannons though. A good example is old WW2 40mm BOFORS flak are autocannons with twin barrels.

Not implying rotary, but I like the name and like the affect of a gun like that

[Mirkk Defwode]

stjobe, on 07 March 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Well technically the Bofors (it's a name, not an acronym) 40mm is a single-barrel automatic cannon (still in use e.g. on the Swedish CV90 by the way*) that came in single-, dual-, quad-, and hexa-mounts.

Either way, the BT autocannons are explicitly fluffed as "firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels" (Tech Manual, p207).

*They had to mount it upside-down in the CV90 to make it fit - I don't know why these kinds of worthless facts get stuck in my mind, but they do - which made it a bit of a challenge to make the ammo feed work.

You're correct, though they could be setup on alternating fire system making them a linked weapon. Non the less weapons based on the Gast System would use a single feed to fire from two seperate barrels making multi-barrel operation possible without rotary action.

http://en.wikipedia..../Gast_principle

http://en.wikipedia....Shipunov_GSh-23

and since we've struggled so much with the defination of Autocannon I thought I'd go get the general term rather than refering to the Battletech one.

An autocannon or automatic cannon is a rapid-fire projectile weapon that fires armour piercing or explosive shells, as opposed to the bullet fired by a machine gun. Autocannons often have a larger calibre than a machine gun (e.g., 20 mm or greater). Usually, autocannons are smaller than a field gun or other artillery, and are mechanically loaded for a faster rate of fire. They can use a variety of ammunition: common shells include high-explosive dual-purpose types (HEDP), any variety of armour-piercing (AP) types, such as composite rigid (APCR) or discarding sabot types (APDS).

So we could see weapon design changed to reflect this, or are we goint to argue that because of the time difference the modern interperteration doesn't have merit? No matter how they're setup though, avoiding a Mechanical Burst is still the thing I'd fight for the most, if you can't control the shots in a new design there is no point in changing it.

Also after some reflection earlier. I realized the design is the way it is because no one has done it differently in any other digital/virtual battletech title to date. Even the Mechcommander's treat the autocannons as single (AC) or double (UAC) large single shots rather than trying to enforce some of the fluff descriptions. The merit behind that may be the simplicity in setting up those designs.

Hrmmm, I wonder if the Single shot behavior exhibited is meant to appear like a revolver cannon style feed mechanism versus a chain fed.

[Thorqemada]

ACs also better Missiles - 1 AC2 gives more lethal power than 3xSRM6 - maybe Artemis would change that, i dont know but then you still have to come in range and not get killed on the way to your target, with a gun you simply peek out and shot.

[SirLANsalot]

Foxfire, on 28 February 2014 - 06:31 PM, said:

Ballistics will remain better than beams until either beams have instant damage or ballistics have their shots broken up into smaller chunks.

Instant damage will always remain better than duration damage in a game of this nature for the simple fact that a duration based stream weapon like the Laser will give the defender the ability to distribute damage.

Going to point out here that Pulse Lasers are the cross between the two worlds.

In one hand you have Frontloaded damage from things like ballistics and PPC's
On the other hand you have Duration based weapons, like the Large Laser
Pulse lasers are the cross between the two. They are Duration Based Front Loaded beams, and is why the LPL is such a great gun along with the MPL. I can put down the damage, even on the DoT gun, before my enemy can react to what is happening to him. You basically almost have no time to "turn" while getting hit by a Pulse Laser, where as a normal laser you could feasibly negate some of the damage done.

A prime example is the 3 LPL I use on my Heavy Metal, and no I do not chainfire them, I can place 31.8 damage on your mech in .6 seconds from a single strike. That half second of time is not enough for even the perfect 0 ping of a person to react to it, much less something happening over the internet.

Note: I run my HM with a Guass and 3 LPL and a pair of SRM4's with 1-2 JJ depending on how little or how much armor I wish to take. I have gotten many 900+ damage games with said mech, and its as far from the "meta" as you can get. I do not poptart (maybe 1 or 2 shots if I am pinned down somewhere) and only use JJ to get over/on top of or around things (hence proper use of JJ).

Note 2: Ever try 5 MPL on a AWS 9M? its fun, XL385 ERPPC in the arm and 5 MPL's in the torso. You move fast (for a fat 80 ton mech) and can get in behind mechs (best maps for him is River City/Crimson Straits/HPG). Many who have no idea what happened to there mech as you quickly melt there rear armor and kill them.

[Andrinor Johnston]

Matches
Mech' Played Wins Losses Ratio Kills Deaths Ratio Damage Done XP Earned Time Played
CENTURION CN9-A 32 21 11 1.91 28 20 1.40 9,035 25,304 03:01:28
CENTURION CN9-AL 27 9 18 0.50 15 20 0.75 6,418 15,430 02:17:15

What a difference one ac makes vs one LL

[nimdabew]

stjobe, on 31 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

That sounds like a really low chance, especially for the bigger UACs. 10 seconds of fire until you have 50% chance of a jam? Auto-jam after 20 seconds?

I like your other ideas though, although with the current mechanics we'd see precious few Pontiac 100s and almost all AC/20s would be ChemJets. All damage to one location is just too good to trade away unless there's some other major benefit (which there doesn't seem to be in your system).

Which is why I want to remove it completely, much to Joe's chagrin

If the AC's had a certain amount of screen shake per shot, then this could simulate recoil. A higher recoiling round would be less accurate, but deliver fewer shots per burst which would translate into more DMG per round, but the "lighter" firing AC's would have less screen shake and be more accurate, but spread the 20 damage over more shots. This could get rid of any "cone of fire" but simulate real recoil. If the AC is on an arm, it would then have more of a torquing effect towards the AC while firing from the impulse whereas torso mounted AC's wouldn't have as much of an effect on the mech as part of the recoil impulse.

[Stardancer01]

We need some ammo supply problems as a random event
50% ammo due to supply problems on hot maps, for example
a few random events like this would reduce boating

[wanderer]

Quote

We need some ammo supply problems as a random event
50% ammo due to supply problems on hot maps, for example
a few random events like this would reduce boating

Because capriciously disabling someone's ride is "balanced" in every way possible, right?

[Cimarb]

wanderer, on 13 March 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

Because capriciously disabling someone's ride is "balanced" in every way possible, right?

Yeah, I'm all for varying objectives, such as they have alluded to about multi-objective matches, but any random or arbitrary system where I don't know what I am even going to start out with would be horrible.