261 replies to this topic

[Pariah Devalis]

So far in the future, not that big a concern.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Strum Wealh, on 12 February 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

The Masakari Prime has always had the LRM-10 mounted in its Left Arm in BattleTech (despite the artwork implying that the LRM launcher was in the Left Torso) - it's the same issue, in reverse, as the Orion (SRM launcher in the Left torso in the TRO, while the original BT artwork showed it in the Left Arm), and PGI evidently made the same decision to have the MWO artwork reflect the TRO listing over the original BT artwork for such a conflict.

i always have a good laugh at that artwork here's another guy who didn't get the memo that there's no lrm 5 in the LT config.



lost configuration:

RA; CLPL, CER PPC

LA; CLPL, CER PPC

LT; CLRM5, CSSRM6

considering the only hero mech in the class is Tara's which is a prime minus the lrm launcher perhaps PGI could make hero mech TRO 3050, with a 2 hardpoint missle omnipod for the left torso?

btw one artist got the prime sorta right...



considering the battlemasters underslung gun got changed perhaps they'll rework the lrm location too.

edit; just realised i'm talking in a postive manner about things, back to doomsaying over the controdictory tweets of bryan ekman...

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 12 February 2014 - 10:47 PM.

[Vanguard319]

Cimarb, on 11 February 2014 - 08:24 AM, said:

Some examples of "upgraded" weapons that are not necessarily "better":

1. ERLL over LL. The ERLL is a technological advancement over the LL, but there is a reason you still see lots of people using the "lesser" LL. This same reasoning applies to the rest of the list.
2. UAC5 over AC5
3. Pulse Laser over standard Laser
4. LBX10 over AC10
5. Etc

I prefer the AC5 myself, due to them being more reliable in a brawl, even if the rate of fire is slower, at least they won't jam when I really need the firepower. As far as energy weapons go, I actually favor ER PPCs. I tend to practice good heat management, so the extra heat isn't a big deal to me in regards to the extra range and lack of minimum range. I also put pulse lasers on quite a few of my mechs The LB-X is a very good weapon, having enough of a spread to hit those pesky lights, while still being tight enough to do damage to larger targets. (multiple crits and longer range don't hurt either.)

[dwwolf]

Lbx ac= shotgun makes no sense. At range it would generate less hits compared to close up due to shot gun spread yet there is no modifier for range on the hits table.Time gated Proximity fused rounds is the only thing that make sense for the game rules.

Furthermore UAC are handled wrong currently; fast fire rate shot should have a recoil effect like jumping does now . TT rules 2nd shot only hits about 40% of the time.
UAC 20 are going to be crazy.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Pariah Devalis, on 12 February 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

An over the shoulder arrangement seems like a more logical placement for a weapon system that is capable of indirect fire.

But the Clans didn't go in for indirect fire - certainly not at first, anyway. Their LRM's were 'softeners' while charging into range of their other weapons, rather than suppression or artillery as in the IS.

[Vermaxx]

Everything about Clan mechs sounds worse and worse. I'm going to hope for some non omni Clan mechs just for models I like. Barring that, I'm just going to load up my IS mechs with the Clan tech that doesn't suck - Clan endo/ferro/HS...possibly some of the weapons.

Now, if they restrict all Clan tech to ONLY Clan mechs, I'm probably done playing and certainly never buying MC ever again.

[Widowmaker1981]

to everyone crying 'Canon'

Clan mechs HAVE to be balanced 1v1 vs IS mechs. not team vs team if you wish not to totally obsolete IS, and here is why: human psychology.

people will flock to whatever gives them the most individual feeling of power - if 8 clan mechs are equal in balance terms to 12 IS (for example) the clanners will have 50% more available armour points to smash, more points to gain, more kills to get, so if you make clan mechs individually stronger than IS mechs and balance on numbers (10v12, 8v12, whatever) far too many people will play clans, not enough will play IS, and the games will take forever to load. if you balance it on making clans MC only to keep the f2p only crowd on IS people will cry P2W (correctly), and balancing on ingame cost is obviously stupid, because once people have got enough money no one ever will play IS. no one is going to adhere to some sort of contrived honor system, so the only remaining option is to balance 1v1.

How you do that is an interesting challenge if you want to keep the feeling of diversity between IS and Clan, but it HAS to be done.

This might not apply to a few purist roleplayer types, but you have to accept that 90% of players are not purist roleplayer types, and the game therefore should not be balanced based on them.

Also, a FPS style human skill based game cannot, ever, take balance rules from a turn based, table top game that relies on luck for hits/ hit locations. TT mechs cannot skoot under a cliff when missiles are incoming, they cant aim for CT every time, etc. forget about TT rules other than for a basic feel, seriously.

On a side note based on how i understand it to work the Direwolf is going to be disgustingly OP - mess about with omni pods to get all the ballistic slots, run 5 or 6 UAC5 and melt everyone in 2 seconds flat. could be wrong there though since we havent seen the full options. (and it comes down to the fact that ballistics are too powerful compared to lasers/ppcs - regardless of tonnage/ammo etc since its practically impossible on any current mech to mount enough heatsinks to do anything other than snipe with a mech that does not mount any cannons. its not a coincidence that the most popular heavy/assault mechs are ALL ones that can mount at least twin UAC5. IMO either ACs need a large heat increase to prevent perma fire, or heat dissipation needs to be buffed hugely to allow energy to compete)

[Pariah Devalis]

Vermaxx, on 13 February 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

Everything about Clan mechs sounds worse and worse. I'm going to hope for some non omni Clan mechs just for models I like. Barring that, I'm just going to load up my IS mechs with the Clan tech that doesn't suck - Clan endo/ferro/HS...possibly some of the weapons.

Now, if they restrict all Clan tech to ONLY Clan mechs, I'm probably done playing and certainly never buying MC ever again.

Uh, yeah. They are restricting it to only Clan mechs. As per http://mwomercs.com/...d-construction/ under ADDITIONAL CLAN 'MECH RULES. There is literally, not figuratively, zero reason why PGI would break the game (further) by having unlimited reign on Clan tech. It creates the arms race they have clearly stated that they want to avoid and that has always existed in every other Mechwarrior title.

Also, please, and I am asking this sincerely since I honestly do not understand, why you or other people took one look at the first Clan tech overview, complained about how nerfed the Clans were (when, in fact, they were not compared to tabletop), then looked at the second Clan omnimech overview, which is actually better for us than the original version of the Clan rules, and make a statement like "everything about Clan mechs sounds worse and worse." Sounds like it is getting better and better to me.

If this perspective is based off of a prior incorrect grasp of what Clan technology brings to the table, you sincerely have my condolences. For a year now we have been discussing things in this subforum trying to figure out how Clan tech might make it into MWO and, honestly, they matched up fairly well with what we see. If the perspective is based on a desire for the easily abusable technology in totally unlimited customization basis, then either you fail to identify where BALANCE needs to supercede LORE for the sake of a playable, enjoyable game for everyone or, worse case scenario, you know that unlimited customization with Clan tech would be broken beyond all hope and just want the easy button. If a third possibility exists, I would love to know it, and love to be proved wrong.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 13 February 2014 - 05:04 AM.

[IS GunGrave]

Since Pariah replied, I have to make a quick comment on this entire thread:
ClanTech = BROKEN in MWO

Just forget TT and everything that had to do with the MW franchise and legacy, PGI knows best and its better not to argue with them...
I mean remember the bold statements no 3rd person view etc.
Promises for Founders.
Man this game is turning into a real life drama, only sad part I paid over 200 bucks for worthless mc's XD

Lets carry on happily just randomly hitting buttons and looking at pretty lasers because thats mwo right now


PS. GalaxyBluestar EPIC SIGNATURE made my visit to mwo forum worth it!!! THANKS MAN

Edited by IS GunGrave, 13 February 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

IS GunGrave, on 13 February 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

Just forget TT and everything that had to do with the MW franchise and legacy, PGI knows best and its better not to argue with them...

Ghost heat.

But, yes. They at PGI have a far better grasp of the big picture of their game then we do. For our part, we need to have some faith in them that they are building to something. Some sort of plan. Granted, they do not make it easy, what with the way they tend to over-buff/over-nerf things and leave them in those states for ages, or introduce entirely unnecessarily convoluted balancing schemes that do not even manage to stop root problems in the game....

[Strum Wealh]

dwwolf, on 13 February 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Lbx ac= shotgun makes no sense. At range it would generate less hits compared to close up due to shot gun spread yet there is no modifier for range on the hits table. Time gated Proximity fused rounds is the only thing that make sense for the game rules.

A variable/adjustable choke system (see here for a 1939 patent of one variation of such a device, or here & here for models from a company that has apparently been selling them for the better part of a century) that is servo-driven & slaved to the "Mercury-VII targeting system" mentioned in TRO 2750 (the book in which the LB-X was first mentioned in BattleTech, published in 1989) would fully account for the behavior of the LB-X ACs within the BattleTech gameplay rules (with the choke being set to "fully open" when firing LB-X slugs or when firing LB-X cluster rounds at extremely close range, being set to "full choke" when firing LB-X cluster rounds at long-range targets, having intermediate settings for targets at intermediate ranges, and automatically adjusting the choke setting based on the range-to-target as determined by the Mercury-VII) while still preserving the long-standing & canonical character & role of "LB-X as anti-BattleMech shotgun".

It also accounts for the larger LB-X ACs not needing a minimum range, which would necessarily be the case with a "Time gated Proximity fused round", as firing such a round at any target within the detonation proximity (where many suggestions for such rounds give a detonation proximity of 50 meters) would either cause the round to not fragment or cause the round to explode inside the weapon's barrel; this is a non-issue with a variable choke LB-X implementation.

dwwolf, on 13 February 2014 - 01:37 AM, said:

Furthermore UAC are handled wrong currently; fast fire rate shot should have a recoil effect like jumping does now . TT rules 2nd shot only hits about 40% of the time.
UAC 20 are going to be crazy.

Frankly, all of the ACs (and the Gauss Rifle, and the PPC, and all of the missile launchers) should be producing recoil.

[CyclonerM]

Strum Wealh, on 13 February 2014 - 06:04 AM, said:

A variable/adjustable choke system (see here for a 1939 patent of one variation of such a device, or here & here for models from a company that has apparently been selling them for the better part of a century) that is servo-driven & slaved to the "Mercury-VII targeting system" mentioned in TRO 2750 (the book in which the LB-X was first mentioned in BattleTech, published in 1989) would fully account for the behavior of the LB-X ACs within the BattleTech gameplay rules (with the choke being set to "fully open" when firing LB-X slugs or when firing LB-X cluster rounds at extremely close range, being set to "full choke" when firing LB-X cluster rounds at long-range targets, having intermediate settings for targets at intermediate ranges, and automatically adjusting the choke setting based on the range-to-target as determined by the Mercury-VII) while still preserving the long-standing & canonical character & role of "LB-X as anti-BattleMech shotgun".

It also accounts for the larger LB-X ACs not needing a minimum range, which would necessarily be the case with a "Time gated Proximity fused round", as firing such a round at any target within the detonation proximity (where many suggestions for such rounds give a detonation proximity of 50 meters) would either cause the round to not fragment or cause the round to explode inside the weapon's barrel; this is a non-issue with a variable choke LB-X implementation.

Frankly, all of the ACs (and the Gauss Rifle, and the PPC, and all of the missile launchers) should be producing recoil.

Probably the Gauss should not, i think.

[Pariah Devalis]

Still projecting a, well, projectile. For every action a reaction. It would likely generate recoil, just not through hot gas ejection. That said, I would be tickled pink if Gauss slugs and AC20s had a chance to knock light mechs on their butt on a successful hit.

[CyclonerM]

Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Still projecting a, well, projectile. For every action a reaction. It would likely generate recoil, just not through hot gas ejection. That said, I would be tickled pink if Gauss slugs and AC20s had a chance to knock light mechs on their butt on a successful hit.

Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Still projecting a, well, projectile. For every action a reaction. It would likely generate recoil, just not through hot gas ejection. That said, I would be tickled pink if Gauss slugs and AC20s had a chance to knock light mechs on their butt on a successful hit.

This^

However, i am sure i read somewhere the Gauss rifle has no recoil (while i suppose the ACs should have it).

After all, i remember seeing in a tv programme a new gun with almost no recoil. I suppose in the 2590 the engineers could have created an electromagnetic cannon with almost no recoil, if at all.

And i am not an engineer so i wonder how much an autocannon's recoil would affect a 'Mech.

[FlareHeart Devalis]

CyclonerM, on 13 February 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

After all, i remember seeing in a tv programme a new gun with almost no recoil. I suppose in the 2590 the engineers could have created an electromagnetic cannon with almost no recoil, if at all.

And i am not an engineer so i wonder how much an autocannon's recoil would affect a 'Mech.

If they can develop a recoil-less shotgun with today's 2014 tech, then I don't see why we can't have recoil-less weapons in 3050. I would recommend watching the entire video, but skip to 4:45 of this video here to see what I mean about near zero recoil. What tiny recoil is left over from any system could be absorbed easily by the mech's own weight.

Edited by FlareHeart, 13 February 2014 - 07:10 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

CyclonerM, on 13 February 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

Probably the Gauss should not, i think.

Yes, both coilguns (aka "Gauss guns") and railguns do produce recoil (see here and here).

See also, this video demonstration:


In fact, the normal/standard BT gameplay rules for the Heavy Gauss Rifle require a PSR to be made to keep the 'Mech upright after firing the weapon, due to the tremendous recoil!

Pariah Devalis, on 13 February 2014 - 06:22 AM, said:

Still projecting a, well, projectile. For every action a reaction. It would likely generate recoil, just not through hot gas ejection. That said, I would be tickled pink if Gauss slugs and AC20s had a chance to knock light mechs on their butt on a successful hit.

To be fair, recoil and knockback are two very separate things (though, both do depend on conservation and transfer of momentum & conservation and transfer of kinetic energy for non-penetrating weapons).

• "Though popularized in television and movies, and commonly referred to as "true stopping power" by novice or uneducated proponents of large powerful calibers such as .44 Magnum, the effect of knockback from a handgun and indeed most personal weapons is largely a myth. The momentum of the so-called "manstopper" .45 ACP bullet is approximately that of a 1 pound (0.45 kg) mass dropped from a height of 11.4 feet (3.5 m). Such a force is simply incapable of arresting a running target's forward momentum. In addition, bullets are designed to penetrate instead of strike a blunt force blow, because, in penetrating, more severe tissue damage is done. A bullet with sufficient energy to knock down an assailant, such as a high-speed rifle bullet, would be more likely to instead pass straight through, while not transferring the full energy (in fact only a very small percentage of the full energy) of the bullet to the victim."
  
• "Although knockback is not possible with a handgun bullet, it can be an actual effect occurring in reaction to being hit by a massive slug, such as a rubber bullet or sandbag fired from a shotgun. The dynamics of a slug round are quite different from penetrating bullets; the projectile is here designed not to penetrate but instead to strike a hard, blunt force blow, and as the momentum carried by a shotgun cartridge is greater than practically any production handgun cartridge, the force imparted is comparable to a hard punch and is capable, by physics, of affecting a person's forward motion. In any case, due to conservation of momentum, the gun's recoil is always larger than the bullet's knockback, as some momentum of the bullet is lost during flight, and if the bullet penetrates through the target it will not have imparted all its momentum into the target."

BT projectiles do not penetrate 'Mechs in the same way that IRL firearms penetrate soft targets like humans and game animals, and would work more along the lines of "blunt force blows" (which in turn cause BattleMech armor, which is ablative in nature, to vaporize and slough off) - and it's the latter effect (and the associated loss-of-mass) rather than momentum or KE transfer that is often cited as the cause behind why a given salvo (either from a single weapon, or a group of weapons) can cause a target 'Mech to fall (e.g. it's why one can knock down a 'Mech in BT with 3 Large Lasers, despite conventional knockback being effectively non-existent with laser weaponry).

CyclonerM, on 13 February 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

However, i am sure i read somewhere the Gauss rifle has no recoil (while i suppose the ACs should have it).

After all, i remember seeing in a tv programme a new gun with almost no recoil. I suppose in the 2590 the engineers could have created an electromagnetic cannon with almost no recoil, if at all.

And i am not an engineer so i wonder how much an autocannon's recoil would affect a 'Mech.

As noted above, BT weapons do have recoil (with the HGR being one particularly notable case).

There are weapons known as "recoilless rifles", but their method of operation is not reflective of what is depicted by BattleTech weaponry.

For an interesting debate on recoil in BT, see this thread (especially the posts between myself and Pht on the second and third pages).

Edited by Strum Wealh, 13 February 2014 - 07:33 AM.

[CyclonerM]

FlareHeart, on 13 February 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

If they can develop a recoil-less shotgun with today's 2014 tech, then I don't see why we can't have recoil-less weapons in 3050. I would recommend watching the entire video, but skip to 4:45 of this video here to see what I mean about near zero recoil. What tiny recoil is left over from any system could be absorbed easily by the mech's own weight.

Ah, i know FPSRussia. "Instructional programme" uh?

So this proves my point. Thank you Oathmaster

EDIT: nice post S.W.

I also know the loss of balance of a 'Mechs often is due to high mass of armor vaporized in a single strike or loss of a limb: in the novels often happens that the loss of an arm unbalances the 'Mech and the pilot has to quickly regain the balance or make it stay steady on its feet.

Well recoil and knockback would be nice in MWO. But we both know this game is too arcade..

Edited by CyclonerM, 13 February 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

FlareHeart, on 13 February 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

If they can develop a recoil-less shotgun with today's 2014 tech, then I don't see why we can't have recoil-less weapons in 3050. I would recommend watching the entire video, but skip to 4:45 of this video here to see what I mean about near zero recoil. What tiny recoil is left over from any system could be absorbed easily by the mech's own weight.

As a counterpoint, see this post with a list of counterexamples from BattleTech (including sources).

[wanderer]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 February 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

to everyone crying 'Canon'

Clan mechs HAVE to be balanced 1v1 vs IS mechs. not team vs team if you wish not to totally obsolete IS, and here is why: human psychology.

people will flock to whatever gives them the most individual feeling of power - if 8 clan mechs are equal in balance terms to 12 IS (for example) the clanners will have 50% more available armour points to smash, more points to gain, more kills to get, so if you make clan mechs individually stronger than IS mechs and balance on numbers (10v12, 8v12, whatever) far too many people will play clans, not enough will play IS, and the games will take forever to load. if you balance it on making clans MC only to keep the f2p only crowd on IS people will cry P2W (correctly), and balancing on ingame cost is obviously stupid, because once people have got enough money no one ever will play IS. no one is going to adhere to some sort of contrived honor system, so the only remaining option is to balance 1v1.

If that's the case, you end up with 12v12 Clan vs. IS....and no difference between the two in the process. The truth is, the "It's the biggest!" is one-THIRD of the options for players. The "Timmy", as CCG players would call it. It's not just those, it's the "Johnnies" and "Spikes" as well.

http://www.wizards.c...om/daily/mr220b

You make the Clanners into wanna be IS players, you've just killed options for two-thirds of the potential playerbase. There's nothing to prove if everyone's the same. The less unique the game becomes, the -worse- it becomes in the long run. We're on the road to pudding. Tapioca pudding and vanilla pudding, IS and Clan flavored.

Balancing strictly by effectively identical stats and numbers for two sides that were inherently NOT identical stats and numbers is the height of failure for Clan play.

They're going to put Clans into lances, balance them to be equivalent to a 3050-tech IS unit, and insert them into 12v12 games. While Russ backpedaled furiously on that, why the heck do you think it dropped on VLog #2 by the entire team sitting there?

You're not playing a Clan 'Mech at that point. You're playing an IS unit with a reskin and a couple of weapon modules slapped on randomly to your weapons for the lulz.

Quote

How you do that is an interesting challenge if you want to keep the feeling of diversity between IS and Clan, but it HAS to be done.

This might not apply to a few purist roleplayer types, but you have to accept that 90% of players are not purist roleplayer types, and the game therefore should not be balanced based on them.

Screw roleplaying. Starcraft didn't have me playing Terrans vs. Terrans vs. Terrans. That's what we're heading for here. I need to see my Terrans vs. Protoss or Protoss vs. Zerg. If I could figure out how to do it, I'd be frickin' delighted to see them slap a high-tech ComStar faction in later a few years for now so we can have three DIFFERENT tech-treed factions.

Quote

Also, a FPS style human skill based game cannot, ever, take balance rules from a turn based, table top game that relies on luck for hits/ hit locations. TT mechs cannot skoot under a cliff when missiles are incoming, they cant aim for CT every time, etc. forget about TT rules other than for a basic feel, seriously.

On a side note based on how i understand it to work the Direwolf is going to be disgustingly OP - mess about with omni pods to get all the ballistic slots, run 5 or 6 UAC5 and melt everyone in 2 seconds flat. could be wrong there though since we havent seen the full options. (and it comes down to the fact that ballistics are too powerful compared to lasers/ppcs - regardless of tonnage/ammo etc since its practically impossible on any current mech to mount enough heatsinks to do anything other than snipe with a mech that does not mount any cannons. its not a coincidence that the most popular heavy/assault mechs are ALL ones that can mount at least twin UAC5. IMO either ACs need a large heat increase to prevent perma fire, or heat dissipation needs to be buffed hugely to allow energy to compete)

On the other hand, you have the Dire Wolf with a limited turning speed and firing radius and it's upper structure means the torso is mauled by LRM missiles, and ghost heat is going to give it spasms, AC's cut it's lower/hand actuators out of the arms, meaning it should have the arm crosshairs of 'Mechs like the Catapult-K2 instead of broader fields of fire.

It's gonna be terrifying in it's front arc but vulnerable to more mobile units, weak at ridge-humping due to the underslung arm mounts, and unable to get more mobile than the 300-rated engine thanks to being an Omni. It's actually got worse mobility issues than a stock Atlas, and with PPC/AC mounts in the arms worse firing arcs to boot. Just don't stick around in front of one for long!

As for uber-ballistic builds? That's a problem with ballistics, period. Clantech just spotlights that, and if you look around on the Gameplay Balance board, you'll see me mentioning much the same. Lasers changed from the pinpoint, frontloaded model of earlier MW games because it didn't work. AC's are now the closest thing to oldschool MW lasers in their damage delivery, and that really, REALLY needs to change before June when the Clans are due in and bad ballistic mechanics can be abused to the utmost. Burst fire modes or bust.

Edited by wanderer, 13 February 2014 - 10:59 AM.

[Cimarb]

wanderer, on 13 February 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

We're on the road to pudding. Tapioca pudding and vanilla pudding, IS and Clan flavored.

I love tapioca pudding, and dislike vanilla pudding quite a bit. On the other hand, my wife wouldn't eat tapioca pudding if her life depended on it... There is actually quite a bit of difference between the two, so that may not have been the best example

wanderer, on 13 February 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

As for uber-ballistic builds? That's a problem with ballistics, period. Clantech just spotlights that, and if you look around on the Gameplay Balance board, you'll see me mentioning much the same. Lasers changed from the pinpoint, frontloaded model of earlier MW games because it didn't work. AC's are now the closest thing to oldschool MW lasers in their damage delivery, and that really, REALLY needs to change before June when the Clans are due in and bad ballistic mechanics can be abused to the utmost. Burst fire modes or bust.

100% agree. Normalize ballistics and make them burst-fire except for very special, unique exceptions (such as the Cauldron-born, possibly), and ballistics cease being the big bad balance issue.