195 replies to this topic

[Tombstoner]

#1 reason to use burst fire with auto cannons is that it looks very cool.
The way hits throw off sparks is very satisfying. I love the way the mech changes color when taking damage.
Touches like theses i think we can all agree that PGI deserves credit.

[wanderer]

Quote

No I am looking at the text for the Hunchback Not a Naval AC.

The Hunchback canonically fires a five-round burst from it's autocannon per trigger/shot. Sorry, not the "single-shot" wet dream AC you're looking for. Source: Era Report 3052. Or heck, here's a Hunchback in action.

http://www.epubbud.c...HJDQLN7&tocp=26

MWO is flat wrong on how a Battlemech-sized AC operates.

[Belorion]

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Cone of Fire

No.

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Simulated Convergence:

No.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 08:13 AM, said:

The Hunchback canonically fires a five-round burst from it's autocannon per trigger/shot. Sorry, not the "single-shot" wet dream AC you're looking for. Source: Era Report 3052. Or heck, here's a Hunchback in action.

http://www.epubbud.c...HJDQLN7&tocp=26

MWO is flat wrong on how a Battlemech-sized AC operates.

Again it does depend on the writer and that writer had a good hand.

I don't have that era report, It is newer than the 3050 TRO, so the Hunchback AC MAY be excluded from the single shot list. Still a 203 MM shell is still in the context. Sorry but until ALL AC20 have been disproved You are not 100% correct.

[Madw0lf]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

a second is a lifetime in a shooter.

What a few people complaining on the forums want, as upposed to what the community wants as a whole are two very different things.

keep in mind most people that like the game as is, have no reason to complain. Thusly your numbers on what you feel people want may be skewed.

I for one am happy with the speed of the game. Its slow enoughto feel mech like while fast enough to be exciting. My only major complaint is the prevalence of jump snipers as a meta.

A few people complaining can make a big change though. Again this thread is meant to try and influence any change that may be made.

SuckyJack, on 20 February 2014 - 06:22 PM, said:

I'm not a fan of Randomness in my Sim Games, Cone Of Fire is usually used on Hitscan weapons and I hate the way it affects games when it is applied to projectile weapons. Cone Of Fire pulls the skill away from aiming and pushes it toward other directions.

CoF tied to movement would be a harsh penalty to Lights who trade off firepower and armor for mobility and speed. A Heavy or Assault can afford to cut the throttle to fire a salvo, a Light cannot.

Any form of dynamic convergence isn't possible with the current Hit Reg issues that currently exist in the game. For technical reasons, either due to difficulties with the engine and netcode or PGI's own failings, Convergence has to be instant and pinpoint or fixed to a point, no changes at all.

So I favor mixing Instant Convergence with Fixed Convergence. Let arms with Lower Arm Actuators have the Instant Convergence we have in the game now and let all other mounted weapons have fixed firing lines, static convergence. Gives more depth to mech building, more differences between mechs, and places an emphasis on the player compensating for the different focus and starting points of the weapons. Adds more layers of skill that I feel fit more closely with a Simulation.

Anyways, my two digital cents.

Weve already discussed that any modifiers would provide a significantly lessened effect on lights (mostly) than heavies and assaults. Tweaking mediums that way may help boast their usage alot too actually...

As for your last paragraph, I like that a lot

Fooooo, on 21 February 2014 - 02:48 AM, said:

I don't mind the OP's second idea. Its an interesting take on it that I don't think I have ever seen anyone mention or bring up / think of before.

So it gets a nod from me in that sense. (IE i wouldn't mind trying it out on the PTR.......tho that will never happen unfortunately..)

The first one tho.....CoF is......no good imo.

The 3 main reasons I don't like CoF, especially ones based soley on movement is...

1. Its random. As in, once I click the button, the bullet may or may not go where I intended it to go even if the gun / arm etc is pointed exactly on target just because im moving.

2. Using movement means for the best shot you need to stand still............guess what that turns games into ? Camp fests.

3. There are better ways to do a "cof" spread without adding a dice roll.
IE physical recoil effects & a recticle that actually moves with the mech instead of being steady like its on a gyro. (that way you keep accuracy in that your shot will go where the recticle says it will, however......it may be hard to get your recticle ON target when moving quickly or over bad terrain etc.....) So in a way its the same as CoF really but not....

Id like to reiterate that the CoF has the exact same mechanics as the current JJ shake, where your reticle actually moves around. Maybe I should edit the first post to better reflect that, call it reticle shake instead of CoF.

I agree that it may turn the game more towards camping, unfortuantely.

nehebkau, on 21 February 2014 - 06:31 AM, said:

Take some cornstarch and put it in a metal bowl, add some water until you get a very very very thick paste -- then smash it. While the corn starch is liquid and flows like a liquid, smash it hard and it turns solid -- will even crack if you apply enough force (stab it with your finger and your finger penetrates). Changes in molecular structure as a result to force are, apparently common and we are just starting to understand this action. You can also think in terms of putting a blow torch to a piece of metal. Add a little heat and the metal will turn red, ad more heat and the red spot will expand as the material diffuses the heat and as you add more heat to that spot, the warmed metal gets a bit better at transmitting heat energy to the surrounding metal (to a point) that will continue unless you keep jacking up the heat to where the metal begins to change to a liquid. All you need to conceive of an armor that dissipates the energy of impacts (energy or ballistic) in the same way.

Non-Newtonian fluids, I understand the concept, but I think that in an armored fighting machine (esecially one that can survive many shots to un-armored sections) you would actually WANT to keep the damage more concentrated.

Tombstoner, on 21 February 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

#1 reason to use burst fire with auto cannons is that it looks very cool.
The way hits throw off sparks is very satisfying. I love the way the mech changes color when taking damage.
Touches like theses i think we can all agree that PGI deserves credit.

That does sound really cool.

Belorion, on 21 February 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

No.



No.

Care to elaborate on why?

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

Right, so in summary you're peeved with me cause you think I quote canon when it suits me but you're quite happy to put canon aside in the interest of gameplay.

No, I'm "peeved" with you because you get the canon wrong - and really, I'm not peeved with you specifically at all, it's more that enough's enough. Your post just happened to be a good starting point, but the "ACs are single-shot in canon" argument comes up all the time, and it's simply wrong.

As for setting things aside, I don't mind setting TT rules aside if it makes for a better game, that better matches lore - which making ACs burst-fire is a golden example of: They used a single to-hit roll in TT because it was a game designed to be played on a kitchen table with a few friends over a couple of hours, and rolling 3-100 to-hit rolls for each AC fired wouldn't have worked.

But now we have computers handling that, and for a computer to simulate burst-fire is easy; so why not implement it? Especially as instant damage is unbalancing the weapons, making those that have it simply more effective killers than those that don't have it. Lasers have beam duration, missiles have spread, MG has continuous-fire, and ALL of them are inferior to instant damage ACs and PPCs.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

I do have an issue with people quoting canon to support an argument 'cause it's canon' I'd rather a balanced game on canon principles.

Then we don't have an issue apart from you getting the lore wrong. I couldn't care less if PGI threw out each and every single TT rule, as long as the game stayed true to lore it would still be a BattleTech game. On the other hand, if it throws lore out the window it just becomes generic stompy robot game #532, and I don't want that.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

I maintain that canon has lots of failures, and I don't mind being corrected.

Oh I agree that canon has lots of failures (*cough* Tetatae *cough*), and while I consider myself well-read on pre-Clan lore as I've been reading and playing BattleTech for nigh on 30 years now, my Clan lore is quite weak. I just don't like Clans and in my BTU the Clan invasion will never happen.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 02:20 AM, said:

You want them full auto, go for it. I won't mind a bit. But I'll be a little more forgiving of those who question it on a 'canon' basis.

I have little hope PGI will actually ever change ACs and PPCs, but that will not stop me from setting people straight on what the lore says an autocannon is and is not. That particular argument needs to die in a fire - it's as stupid as the modern MG vs BattleTech MG argument.

[nehebkau]

Madw0lf, on 21 February 2014 - 09:36 AM, said:

Non-Newtonian fluids, I understand the concept, but I think that in an armored fighting machine (esecially one that can survive many shots to un-armored sections) you would actually WANT to keep the damage more concentrated.

Then why do you try to spread damage across your mech? Seems to me, if i were a space engineer, I'd try to make armor that would spread out damage across a larger area -- specially to my CT where a puncture to the reactor would be fatal.

Edited by nehebkau, 21 February 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Krasnovian]

So to step away from the A/C debate for a moment could we introduce a "flicker" into the HUD linked to heat level such that randomness is introduced only by player actions, if you keep your heat down you keep your perfect aim if you allow your heat level to rise your crosshair flickers more and more your shots still go to exactly the same place you just dont know where that will be (would also be a buff to beam weapons)

[Varent]

stjobe, on 20 February 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

You have a tendency to say stupid things Varent, but that was stupid even for you.


Agreed, although I tend to call them "devs" rather than "gms".


Totally wrong. Preserving a BattleTech feel to the game is paramount if you want to keep using the name "MechWarrior" - if they just want to do "a functioning game that attracts the largest variety of gamers they can", they can do so without pissing all over 30 years of lore and backstory.


So you wouldn't describe a M-16 firing three-round bursts as a "machine gun"? Burst-fire doesn't mean "spaced evenly over 10 seconds", it means "rapid-fire burst, then wait a bit for the next burst".

Funny how you guys can stick unquestionably to one part of BattleTech (in the case of the paragraph above, the 10-second turn), but blithely ignore others (like the friggin' lore and rule texts on autocannons).


Except if you read any of the fluff texts (in novels AND in the rule books), which were ALL describing rapid-firing weapons and not single-shot weapons.


Indeed, but the definition and descriptions that I quoted from Decision at Thunder Rift was published in 1986.


It's not; there's clearly differences in rate of fire and calibre: The Marauder's AC/5 is described as 120mm and firing three-round bursts, the Shadow Hawk's AC/5 is described as 80mm and firing a much longer burst.

What is a terrible thing is people ignoring all the lore that's been written for nigh on 30 years and saying "ACs are single-fire weapons. We only made one to-hit roll in TT, there's no justification for burst-fire ACs", which is not only wrong, it's actively hindering MWO game balance.

Apparently you have never worked for a publishing company or dont long writeups for a major corporation. I have.

you do realize many writers are given alot of lee-way to write there own flavor into things and as long as a corporation gives it a check mark in passing that becomes canon. This means that if a writer wants to describe something to make it look cool, he can put in whatever he feels will be appropriate. Now in relation to a machine gun. (wich btw is a description of a type of weapon fire, not an actual weapon). You are describing a usually inaccurate weapon that fires large amounts of ordinance with a large spread. Thats great except in battletech this is not the case whatsoever. If you want to go to the core of the game damage is applied from an ac to one section of a mech, not multiple sections.

Now that said as well. I dont even encourage the following of canon. Its ********. Why would you LIMIT the potential of a game based off of the rules within a book instead of making a game better and more interesting by using mechanics that make sense and promote a good shotter gameplay.

I wont stope to your level by slinging mud. Wich btw is very amusing. However I will say that you should probly keep in mind this game needs to have mechanics in it wich attract younger games who make up the vast majority of the community. Consider this.

[Foxfire]

Madw0lf, on 19 February 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

Is there something particular about the engine I may have missed aside from the load of calculating so many more weapon trajectories?

PGI didn't pay for the support from the engine developers that they would need to make dynamic convergence work.

IMO the easiest way to deal with it is to get rid of instantly applied damage. Either make weapons hitscan like lasers where appropriate or break the damage up into smaller components in the cases of projectiles. That way you get an inherent damage spread by having to maintain target for more than just the snap shot but you still allow skill to play into the picture.

[Noesis]

MWO uses Precidents from the TT rules, therefore it has fundamental design considerations that are inherent to the game. So whilst not strictly needing to adhere to those definitions in the most literal sense to make MWO a sensible simulation, it still has some relevance to understand how some aspects of the game interact.

The idea of burst fire then still being a relevant point from cannon that "could" be applied as a mechanic in MWO. But more so it could just be applied like a mechanic that is already included in other "shooting" games anyhow.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 21 February 2014 - 02:45 PM, said:

MWO uses Precidents from the TT rules, therefore it has fundamental design considerations that are inherent to the game. So whilst not strictly needing to adhere to those definitions in the most literal sense to make MWO a sensible simulation, it still has some relevance to understand how some aspects of the game interact.

The idea of burst fire then still being a relevant point from cannon that "could" be applied as a mechanic in MWO. But more so it could just be applied like a mechanic that is already included in other "shooting" games anyhow.

I would agree except many of the guns in the game already have a 'burst' feel to them. Like the uac5 and ac2 for example, the macgine gun is just a gone but functions similiarly as well. What I liked was actually an example that I cant remember who posted but the concept was coming up with different manufacturers that would make each weapon fire and behave differently. Though that would be more of a long term CW project.

But playing off thise you could actually have some of the FLD weapons have other peculiar characteristics to balance them while still allowing for different styles of play, strengths and weaknesses. Then again id also love to see that same ideal brought to the lasers and tweak with the beam duration.

thoughts?

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

What I liked was actually an example that I cant remember who posted but the concept was coming up with different manufacturers that would make each weapon fire and behave differently. Though that would be more of a long term CW project.

But playing off thise you could actually have some of the FLD weapons have other peculiar characteristics to balance them while still allowing for different styles of play, strengths and weaknesses. Then again id also love to see that same ideal brought to the lasers and tweak with the beam duration.

thoughts?

Exactly, having that type of variety should add to MWO, and I wonder how much the weapon mod ideas posted by the devs could tie into that also.

Here's one thread that has some examples: http://mwomercs.com/...n-modification/ And I tried a google search, it's been brought up a bunch, hopefully the devs will get to this once the major areas of CW are implemented and out of the way.

[Varent]

ya I saw that thread before. similiar ideas have been posted for lasers, ac....etc etc... It really would make for a delightful change and add more to the feel of this game being bigger BUT. Without a place to buy different weapons and have them limited...etc... depending where you are at... IE - community warfare.... its kinda pointless.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

No, I'm "peeved" with you because you get the canon wrong - and really, I'm not peeved with you specifically at all, it's more that enough's enough. Your post just happened to be a good starting point, but the "ACs are single-shot in canon" argument comes up all the time, and it's simply wrong.

As for setting things aside, I don't mind setting TT rules aside if it makes for a better game, that better matches lore - which making ACs burst-fire is a golden example of: They used a single to-hit roll in TT because it was a game designed to be played on a kitchen table with a few friends over a couple of hours, and rolling 3-100 to-hit rolls for each AC fired wouldn't have worked.

But now we have computers handling that, and for a computer to simulate burst-fire is easy; so why not implement it? Especially as instant damage is unbalancing the weapons, making those that have it simply more effective killers than those that don't have it. Lasers have beam duration, missiles have spread, MG has continuous-fire, and ALL of them are inferior to instant damage ACs and PPCs.


Then we don't have an issue apart from you getting the lore wrong. I couldn't care less if PGI threw out each and every single TT rule, as long as the game stayed true to lore it would still be a BattleTech game. On the other hand, if it throws lore out the window it just becomes generic stompy robot game #532, and I don't want that.


Oh I agree that canon has lots of failures (*cough* Tetatae *cough*), and while I consider myself well-read on pre-Clan lore as I've been reading and playing BattleTech for nigh on 30 years now, my Clan lore is quite weak. I just don't like Clans and in my BTU the Clan invasion will never happen.


I have little hope PGI will actually ever change ACs and PPCs, but that will not stop me from setting people straight on what the lore says an autocannon is and is not. That particular argument needs to die in a fire - it's as stupid as the modern MG vs BattleTech MG argument.

Well, I don't think I am wrong.

The Canon of the day specifically says that ROF and Calibre varies according to manufacturer.

The fluff for 203mm and 185mm suggests single shot.

You have shown canon descriptions of 2 very different AC5's in the very first novel.

So whilst in your preferred fantasy world every AC is a burst weapon, even the most current definition you have provided leaves the POSSIBILITY of a single shot open (ie, MOST).

That's the canon, as you have provided it. Now if you want to push that to one side in the interest of game play OK, no problem.

There are lots of weapon treatments which make this game different to TT, and lots of lore difference. I for example was horrified to find that the Raven / Catapult combo was freely available to all Houses. That wasn't canon and to me is a fundamental game play issue, that the houses have no 'flavour'.

But at the end of the day this is MW:O right, if it really bugs me I can go play something else. You're in the same boat I suppose, if the game doesn't match your desire for a canon experieince, they can't force you to log on can they?

[Varent]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 03:11 PM, said:

Well, I don't think I am wrong.

The Canon of the day specifically says that ROF and Calibre varies according to manufacturer.

The fluff for 203mm and 185mm suggests single shot.

You have shown canon descriptions of 2 very different AC5's in the very first novel.

So whilst in your preferred fantasy world every AC is a burst weapon, even the most current definition you have provided leaves the POSSIBILITY of a single shot open (ie, MOST).

That's the canon, as you have provided it. Now if you want to push that to one side in the interest of game play OK, no problem.

There are lots of weapon treatments which make this game different to TT, and lots of lore difference. I for example was horrified to find that the Raven / Catapult combo was freely available to all Houses. That wasn't canon and to me is a fundamental game play issue, that the houses have no 'flavour'.

But at the end of the day this is MW:O right, if it really bugs me I can go play something else. You're in the same boat I suppose, if the game doesn't match your desire for a canon experieince, they can't force you to log on can they?

How about your both right? canon supports both. Why not put both in the game.

[Craig Steele]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

How about your both right? canon supports both. Why not put both in the game.

LOL,

I was just thinking, the AC's we currently have ARE machine guns.

Over a 10 second timeframe, the current MW:O AC's fire multiple times. I can hold the target in my sights and finger on the trigger and see many rounds slam into a target.

It's not as rapid bursty style as Caryle found, but certainly not 'bam' wait 9.5 seconds and 'bam' again.

So we already have a rapid fire AC, I guess it's just not fast enough for some people?

[Belorion]

Quote

Reticle Shake

and No.

[Rokuzachi]

Varent, on 21 February 2014 - 03:17 PM, said:

How about your both right? canon supports both. Why not put both in the game.

I like the idea. If an AC20 fired a short burst of projectiles totaling its damage, it would help to alleviate the alpha-strike nonsense going on. If they all followed the same trajectory, you could still hit a stationary target in the same location with all of them but against moving targets they would probably get spread around. Or, if they had an LB-10X-style cone (but much, much tighter that the burst fired into) that would give a high chance of hitting two or more body locations at ranges beyond very close.

There's a variety of ways they could balance single vs burst fire types of the same caliber, and they'd all be pretty easy to implement.

[Mcgral18]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

LOL,

I was just thinking, the AC's we currently have ARE machine guns.

Over a 10 second timeframe, the current MW:O AC's fire multiple times. I can hold the target in my sights and finger on the trigger and see many rounds slam into a target.

It's not as rapid bursty style as Caryle found, but certainly not 'bam' wait 9.5 seconds and 'bam' again.

So we already have a rapid fire AC, I guess it's just not fast enough for some people?

The 6 ton AC2 is actually a 6 ton AC20 since it does ~40 damage in 10 seconds, so equivalent to a TT AC20. The 14 ton AC20 does 60 damage in 10 seconds, so a TT AC30. Not too bad, but the 20 frontloaded damage is what makes it shine.

From what I've read, indeed there are single shot AC20s, which mounted on an atlas a single unbraced shot will knock it on it's rear. A Jaegermech would have it's arm actuators severed, making use of that arm impossible. That seems like a poor way to balance, until we get the Heavy Gauss (which WILL knock you down in TT.)

For the most part, we have 2 AC20s in game, and an AC60. The AC5 is the only one a tad weaker, but it's still a very popular choice.

As for balance, we will never get any decent balance if frontloaded isn't looked at. I know Joseph doesn't want to get rid of his "I WIN!" AC60 since it HAS to do 20 damage EVERY time it fires. For balance, we need to get rid of that, and fix this broken heat system. If nothing else, JUST fix the heat system, so energy weapons can at least compete in a brawl.