195 replies to this topic

[Madw0lf]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Honestly, it'd work better- though looking at HSR for SRMs and even LB-X pellets, I'm worried about the kludgy system even handling THAT.



The only reason AC damage for /2-20 doesn't spread is simple- they didn't want you to have to roll dozens of hit locations per turn,AND each of those big ol' guns hit random locations anyway. The most times you'd roll for a single weapon is 6, for the SRM-6...and that was assuming you hit with all 6 missiles.

At higher fire rates or using cluster ammo, no AC is an all-or-nothing- they first roll to see if it's a hit, then how MUCH of the burst hit, then each part of the burst hits a random location on the target. And even a normal AC fired at a stationary target in TT would...you guessed it, hit a random location each time.

Battlemech damage doesn't work without distributing damage in some form across the 'Mech- if the engine can't handle it, then weapons cannot deal instant, frontloaded damage to a single location without breaking the damage system entirely.

HSR needs some tweaks in general, apparently, so assuming that is done, then this should work fine. If not, burst fire ACs are probably going to have the same problems.

So, in TT, an AC20 would have multiple rolls? Or are we talking ultras/RACs? And again, theres still a massive difference between MWO and lore/TT in that we can target precise locations

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Battlemech damage doesn't work without distributing damage in some form across the 'Mech- if the engine can't handle it, then weapons cannot deal instant, frontloaded damage to a single location without breaking the damage system entirely.

Which was the same rule for all weapons so if we are arguing this for AC's it applies equally to PPC's, Lasers, Pulse lasers, LRm's etc

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Tech Readout defines AC's as burst fire and Gauss as single-shot. There are gauss-style weapons (like the AP Gauss and HAG) that DO fire bursts of flechettes/multiple smaller projectiles instead, but the weapon MWO's is modeled after fires a single large shot per "round" with a Gauss Rifle. There IS a weapon called the Silver Bullet Gauss that fires a cluster round, but it's only resemblance is both fire a magnetically propelled round at the target. Unlike LB-X's,a Gauss can't swap ammo types.

So my comment was all books until Dark Age publications. I can only go by what I have in print in front of me and those books do not include ANY definitive outline as to how an AC (or a Gauss) interect with the world.

Someone (I can't recall now) put up a thread that clearly articulated AC's were a burst fire weapon which is fine, but I can UNDERSTAND why people have a different belief because for 20 odd years the universe did not define. I certainly did.

I'd be interested in the Gauss definition as single shot as none of my sources define it as anything more than 'slug' which is non descript in size. The picture of the weapon on Sarna (which I am not a fan of) shows a barrell and feed assembly with a lengthy articulated feed and comparitivly small round which SUGGESTS a rapid fire weapon and not a single shot. But I am aware of some novels which describe it as a single shot. If you have a source that is definaitve I'd be appreciative.

Back to AC's, the LBX was specifically indicated as a single shot or fletchette (pilot choice) in the orginal rules so I can understand why people related the 10 dmg single shot LBX round to a 10 dmg AC10 round.

Silver bullett is way into Jihad timelines and I know its outline, but its not part of my point

[Madw0lf]

Prezimonto, on 19 February 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I like the second approach a lot, as it encourages targeting to achieve best accuracy.

One thing that I'd like to see preserved is that single fired weapons should still go directly to the target. This keeps a method of doing exact damage, but rewards folks you can accurately hit the same location over and over.

I also like the idea of modifiers to accuracy on the move (as long as you can tweak it on a per-mech basis so lights and mediums aren't totally screwed).

Thats the idea is that they would be on a Mech by Mech basis, to help in balancing Mechs and their roles.

[lsp]

Cone of fire has already been suggested, and it's a terrible game mechanic(takes the skill outo f the hand of the player, and leaves it up to a shitty game mechanic). There's nothing wrong with the current "pinpoint" weapons, and there doesn't need to be a change.

[Nryrony]

The thing that really bathers me is that they implemented a "duration" for the laser because pinpoint was too powerful but somehow forgot about the higher dps lower heat ACs. They are still all single bullet weapons... Cherry on top is that fluff wise, it's the other way around.

Not the mention the perfect precision we have in these games. I recall a book where a Mechwarrior actually traded its larger AC10or20?! for an AC2 I think - because it had special ammo that allowed for a higher hit ratio... (I think it was „Imminent Crisis“)

In addition this game lacks negative hit modifiers that would come with the mechs movement speed, and its current heat.

Edited by Nryrony, 19 February 2014 - 08:54 AM.

[Madw0lf]

lsp, on 19 February 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Cone of fire has already been suggested, and it's a terrible game mechanic(takes the skill outo f the hand of the player, and leaves it up to a shitty game mechanic). There's nothing wrong with the current "pinpoint" weapons, and there doesn't need to be a change.

I agree with your sentiment of the current system being fine, what Im trying to do here is foster level headed thought and conversation, and bring in thoughts and ideas which may help mitigate any "insane" balancing ideas.

To cover your skill comment, both of my ideas are specifically mentionned to have greatly lowered effects after time, lower speed etc. So timing your shots, knowing when you need to slow down, or not move at all, becomes more important. In your eyes,would that not increase the skill required?

Nryrony, on 19 February 2014 - 08:48 AM, said:

Not the mention the perfect precision we have in these games. I recall a book where a Mechwarrior actually traded its larger AC for an AC2 I think - because it hat special ammo that allowed for a higher hit ratio... (I think it was „Imminent Crisis“)

In addition this game lacks negative hit modifiers that would come with the mechs movement speed, and its current heat.

This is exactly what I am trying to affect here, is to reduce instant precision, but still leave precision available if youre patient/play smart.

[Fut]

lsp, on 19 February 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Cone of fire has already been suggested, and it's a terrible game mechanic(takes the skill outo f the hand of the player, and leaves it up to a shitty game mechanic). There's nothing wrong with the current "pinpoint" weapons, and there doesn't need to be a change.

People talk about CoF "removing the skill" of the player like it's going to move shots by miles.
A properly implemented CoF would perhaps take a shot that was heading for the dead center of mass on your target (their CT) and at times make it hit slightly off (damaging the STs) - and this, from the suggestions of CoF that I've read, would only happen under certain circumstances (ie. Running at Max Speed, excessive shooting, high heat...etc), so if you are able to slow yourself down, and take a proper shot, you won't experience and CoF at all.

Shooting discipline is a much greater skill than "point and click", don't you think?

Furthermore, because this is a CoF, it's not a guarantee that your shot will even miss where you're aiming - if the exact center of your Cone is over the exact center of your target, there's a good chance you'll be hitting exactly where you want to anyhow.

Enough of the bullshit of CoF removing Skill - it's not as if anybody is suggesting that the cone have a 25m diameter or anything.

Edited by Fut, 19 February 2014 - 09:05 AM.

[Nryrony]

I agree, if the CoF is just "one" factor and would be very low (say 2-5m at 500 or 700m) and the weapon type (gauss/AC/PPC/Laser) might even have an influence on the CoF, it might work.

[wanderer]

Quote

So, in TT, an AC20 would have multiple rolls? Or are we talking ultras/RACs? And again, theres still a massive difference between MWO and lore/TT in that we can target precise locations

Single-shots from a normal AC are simplified to keep you from having to roll sixteen billion dice- because unlike MWO, they can't be precision fired and naturally scatter.

What people fail to notice is that standard AC's can be "walked" across multiple hexes, splitting their damage- AND double-fired like an Ultra, although at far higher jam odds. And yes, in both of these cases the location is random, and "double-tap" means you ALSO roll to see how much of the burst hit- and it hits two random locations even if the full burst hits the target. Being able to 2x, 4x, or even 6x a shot and have it all hit the same spot was considered grossly broken, thus longer bursts all 1) roll on the cluster hits table to see how much of the burst hits and 2) the damage hits multiple locations. Even on "single shot' mode, the standard (and later light AC's) AC is considered a "burst-fire" weapon in TT.

Again, Battletech was never designed to be able to accurately,repeatedly dump full weapons damage in the same spot over and over and any weapon that does so breaks the damage system at a fundamental level.

[Dirkdaring]

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

It's not a problem and the game is working fine. Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

[Fut]

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

Pinpoint damage is a problem because Battletech/Mechwarrior has always been a war of attrition - chipping away pieces of your opponent in long battles, trying to stay in the fight despite heavy damage on your Mech.

Receiving two shots to your Center Torso, and exploding does not work for a Battletech/Mechwarrior game. It completely breaks the feel of the game, and the feel of the game is one of the most important aspects. If a Mechwarrior game plays like a typical 1 or 2 shot FPS, the core fans of the game will migrate out of here.

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

It's not a problem and the game is working fine. Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

Such a lame argument.
Why not take a look at the missiles of today, some capable of flying hundreds of kilometers - guess MWO Missiles need some massive buffs, eh?

The problem that some people seem to be having, is knowing when realism should come into play, and when it's better to suspend it for the good old fashioned fun of the game.

Edited by Fut, 19 February 2014 - 09:17 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

It's not a problem and the game is working fine.

While I would agree that pinpoint damage capability itself is not a problem (the amount of that damage is when compared to other weapons), weapon balance is definitely NOT "working fine".

Quote

Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

Read BT books and you'll find out why fairly quickly.

[Madw0lf]

wanderer, on 19 February 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Single-shots from a normal AC are simplified to keep you from having to roll sixteen billion dice- because unlike MWO, they can't be precision fired and naturally scatter.

What people fail to notice is that standard AC's can be "walked" across multiple hexes, splitting their damage- AND double-fired like an Ultra, although at far higher jam odds. And yes, in both of these cases the location is random, and "double-tap" means you ALSO roll to see how much of the burst hit- and it hits two random locations even if the full burst hits the target. Being able to 2x, 4x, or even 6x a shot and have it all hit the same spot was considered grossly broken, thus longer bursts all 1) roll on the cluster hits table to see how much of the burst hits and 2) the damage hits multiple locations. Even on "single shot' mode, the standard (and later light AC's) AC is considered a "burst-fire" weapon in TT.

Again, Battletech was never designed to be able to accurately,repeatedly dump full weapons damage in the same spot over and over and any weapon that does so breaks the damage system at a fundamental level.

Accepted (seeing as Ive never played TT at all) though i still hold issue with burst fire ACs from a physical design and gameplay standpoint. Perhaps if we embraced the idea of chain fed as opposed to cassette fed? In that way you can fire when you want to, or hold it down to spray.

One more question, would you like to see a convergence type mechanic in he game? And if so, are my ideas acceptable?

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

Youll notice my very second sentence states that I feel the game is balanced, and in later replies I state that these ideas are to hopefully curb "worse" ones

[nehebkau]

I have an easy solution:

Make a single area only able to sustain a maximum amount of damage per second. For example, you can only do 20 damage per second to a CT (30 to a leg, 30 to an arm, 20 to a shoulder, 15 to a head), any more than that gets spread out to the torso etc. etc. Think of it as the, if you fire bullets at a target at an increasing rate, you eventually hit a point where the bullets hit other bullets rather than the target and bounce around and hit other areas. (or lasers interact with lasers).

It would eliminate the majority of the 1-shot stuff on all but some lights.

Edited by nehebkau, 19 February 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[Rokuzachi]

Wouldn't mind a CoF system. I think weapons that are slow-firing, hard hitting should be subject to scaling levels of inaccuracy depending on movement, and weapons that can be fire rapidly should be subject to scaling inaccuracy depending on how long successive fire goes on. I think I'd be fine with lasers being much less effected by such a system.

[Nryrony]

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

It's not a problem and the game is working fine. Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

Because the game isn't about true realism, its a Battlemech simulator and Battletech has its own kind of "realism". If you question that, then way play a game with unrealistic (and prob. very useless) things like Battlemechs or space-travel via jump ships in the first place?

[Joseph Mallan]

Dirkdaring, on 19 February 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

Your entire argument is flawed before you even begin to offer a solution.. because you're not explaining at all WHY you think pinpoint damage is a problem to begin with.

It's not a problem and the game is working fine. Look at the M1A1 Abrams tank of today. It can fire and hit a moving target while going 40+ mph. Fast forward to the future, where mechs are so advanced they have fusion reactors, gyroscopes, particle cannons, anti-missile systems... list goes on. And you think they have a worse fire control system than today exactly why again?

Does it have more than ONE 105mm Cannon? No? then we don't know how accurate an Abrams would be compared to a Mech firing 2-5 weapons at the same time.

Also I have never seen a U Tube of a battleship broadside hitting a 4' target without missing.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 February 2014 - 10:08 AM.

[Madw0lf]

nehebkau, on 19 February 2014 - 09:58 AM, said:

I have an easy solution:

Make a single area only able to sustain a maximum amount of damage per second. For example, you can only do 20 damage per second to a CT (30 to a leg, 30 to an arm, 20 to a shoulder, 15 to a head), any more than that gets spread out to the torso etc. etc. Think of it as the, if you fire bullets at a target at an increasing rate, you eventually hit a point where the bullets hit other bullets rather than the target and bounce around and hit other areas. (or lasers interact with lasers).

It would eliminate the majority of the 1-shot stuff on all but some lights.

Where this fails my tests, is that it really doesnt make sense, and would be confusing in general (Think ghost heat) Can you eplain this better to alleive these issues?

[TygerLily]

I don't think cone of fire jives with the skill based approach the devs have stated in the past. I do think a modicum of reticule "bounce" should be present while you run (and would be negligible if you move at 50% speed or less, or nonexistent if you are at 0%). At least a good shooter would then be able to account for the bounce and therefore it relies on skill.

I've also always thought that if they made arm weapons converge but torso weapons only fire straight forward, that would be cool.

For example, if you are on the trial grounds facing an enemy and fire two lasers mounted on your own L and R torsos...your RT laser would hit the enemy's LT, your LT hits their RT. BUT if you wanted to hit the enemy CT, it would take a little more piloting finesse to twist slightly right to hit with the LT mount, then twist slightly left to hit with the RT mount...

That would mean lasers, ACs, PPC, etc. in the torso would likely benefit from being chain fired while SRMs, LRMs, LBX, etc. could all be group fired (since they are "area affect" in a sense).

Also, it would give even greater accentuation to arm mounted (and actuator supported) weapons for precision work (with the cost of being in less armored locations). And as an added bonus, it would make variant with lots of weapons in the same torso mount (Hunchy?) benefit from having more/most weapons being pinpoint (with the obvious cost of being all in the same place).

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 19 February 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Im against cone of fire personally. Not being able to control where your weapons hit removes a lot of the decision making from the game. We should be able to target specific locations on mechs like arms/legs/side torsos/etc...

IMO what needs to change is how weapons distribute damage. Make PPCs do non-random splash damage. And make autocannons do burst fire. You still have complete control over where your weapons hit, but the amount of damage you can do all at once is reduced considerably. No more 30-40 point alphas.

Would it not just be so much easier to just Disable the Ability to Group Fire Weapons?