195 replies to this topic

[Craig Steele]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

This.

And apparently it is a terrible thing to some since they want to just be able to quote things to justify themselves as upposed to coming up with there own unique ideas that will help this game flourish.

I believe the term is being stuck in the past and unimaginitive.

Umm, yes and no. I'm a strong defender of the canon because I think it's a really solid and rich backdrop with lots of in built checks and balances.

On this instance though, the canon of the day was a little open to interpretation. I mean if the canon says different producers, different calibre, different ROF than I don't think it's unreasonable for people to draw a conculsion (with their other hints) that a single shot largecalibre weapon did exist.

But subsequently they have tightened it up and so we all move on. It is what it is now.

I shall simply assume that the Mechbuster no longer fires it's 4 round burst from its Zeus 75 (cause a round every 2.5 seconds is neither rapid fire nor machine gun) and the weapon has been upgraded.

Edited by Craig Steele, 20 February 2014 - 05:34 PM.

[Madw0lf]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

it currently only exists on the way up. On the way down it stops entirely. And My thought would be that you have to work for the shake. There are ways to do this such as forcing a mech to have an additional amount of jump jets to prevent the shake, or incur shake under more conditions while jumping, etc. Right now its TOO simple because on the way down its quite easy to aim and fire.

That said regarding again the other issue. It would slow down the game too much if your jsut staring at someone and would drastically change too many playstyles. This game needs to survive on its own as a shooter.

Since the jets are only active on ascent, it makes some sense, but I wouldnt mind seeing it active on descent as well.

Thats exactly what people want though, is to slow it down a little. were not talking about a lot here, probably less than a second to get to pinpoint accuracy.

xMEPHISTOx, on 20 February 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Warning...Nerf hounds in the area, dangerous to all, they do bite. They don't suck, this thing and that thing are OP...they don't suck, nerf it, nerf it all>!

Jump sniping = OP = NERF IT.
Alphas = OP = NERF IT.
convergance = OP = NERF IT.
Premades = OP = NERF IT.
Focus Fire = OP = NERF IT.
Jump Jets = OP = NERF IT.

http://mwomercs.com/...tk/page__st__20

While I might agree in sentiment against too much nerfing....please try to be constructive.

[xMEPHISTOx]

Madw0lf, on 20 February 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

While I might agree in sentiment against too much nerfing....please try to be constructive.

There is no point, been having to hear all this crap for months on end, no years on end and I simply tire of all the whining from baddies. It is simple, play the game and make the necessary adjustments to counter that which is giving you troubles, nerfs are bad and only hurt the game especially with clan tech on the way, as it is that is being nerfed as well, and of course it is as IS mechs have been nerfed numerous times which is going to directly effect clan tech and pervert it into something that will not really even be clan tech on release, just some crappy over nerfed version of clan tech as IS mechs being nerfed will make that essential for 'balance'.

[Varent]

Madw0lf, on 20 February 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

Since the jets are only active on ascent, it makes some sense, but I wouldnt mind seeing it active on descent as well.

Thats exactly what people want though, is to slow it down a little. were not talking about a lot here, probably less than a second to get to pinpoint accuracy.


While I might agree in sentiment against too much nerfing....please try to be constructive.

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.

[SweetJackal]

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.

[wanderer]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

flavor text by someone making a board/table top game =/= battletech. That said as well the gms can do whatever they please to create a balanced shooter. and SHOULD do whatever they need to to create a balanced shooter.

battletech feel is and should be secondary to making a functioning game that attracts the largest variety of gamers they can.

So basically, you've just said that the info on a weapon written by the people who make Battletech about Battletech, from the FRICKIN TECH BIBLE FOR THE GAME isn't equal to Battletech.

Could you tell me the medical dispensary from which you acquire your legal supply of cannibis? I wish to patronize it, CAUSE THAT HAS TO BE SOME SERIOUSLY GOOD STUFF YOU'RE SMOKING TO COME UP WITH THAT ONE.

[stjobe]

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

flavor text by someone making a board/table top game =/= battletech.

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

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

That said as well the gms can do whatever they please to create a balanced shooter. and SHOULD do whatever they need to to create a balanced shooter.

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

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

battletech feel is and should be secondary to making a functioning game that attracts the largest variety of gamers they can.

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.

Craig Steele, on 20 February 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

And yet in the 3026 TRO (1987) there are a couple of AC20 descriptions that suggest (without specifically saying) that they are single shots.
In the same book there are a couple of other examples talking about a very small number of shots (ie, 4 in a burst) which over 10 seconds is a laughable ROF, it would never be described as a 'machine gun'.

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).

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

The canon was very clear that at that time different producers used different calibres and rates of fire (hence why Thunder Rift has one description and there are others in other source books). There is no reason AT THAT TIME to think that a large calibre single shot weapon was not produced.

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.

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

The definitive definition from the rule book you have there was published significantly later.

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

Varent, on 20 February 2014 - 04:59 PM, said:

Is it really such a terrible thing that people could interpret their own version of a fantasy weapon from the grey area they left it as?

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.

[Craig Steele]

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

Totally wrong. Preserving a BattleTech feel to the game is paramount if you want to keep using the name "MechWarrior" (1) - 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" (2)? 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 (3) and not single-shot weapons.


Indeed, but the definition and descriptions that I quoted from Decision at Thunder Rift was published in 1986 (4).


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. (5)

(1) IDK about paramount, but its certainly good commercial sense. I pay to see a doctor, I take his advice. I might live ignoring him, but why did I pay for his advice if I'm not going to take it?

(2) M-16 fires single rounds too, you might want to pick a better example. The point is that the Mechbusters Zeus 75 weapon in no way comes close to the Thunder Rift description, and its canon and published after so therefore that should take precedence right?? I'm not really suggesting it should. I am pointing out that at that time the writers adopted different descriptions of AC fire WITHOUT a definitive description.

(3) And the canon also specified they were different. Again, is it so hard for you to accept that in the absence of a firm definition AND with them specifically saying that different producers have diferent calibres AND them leaving some larger calibres (like the 203mm) suggestive of single shot that some people come the conclusion that single shot AC weapons were part of the universe. You can't judge a history by the laws of tomorrow, you have to look at what was releveant on the day.

(4) and mine was 1987, but I have already conceded that the definition of the rule book is now firm, but that doesn't change that until that book was produced there was no firm consistent definition of what an AC looked like, even your two examples of AC 5's are different for heavens sake.

(5) Are you making the same argument for lasers to be FLD (instant) dmg, for PPC's to be streamed, for Gauss rifles to not have the charge up, for Mechs to have a chance of falling over if they take 20+ damage. For no firing while Jump Jets are activated. For ROF of all weapons to come back to dmg over 10 seconds equivilents. For Armour to be adjusted to TT ratio's. For customability of IS mechs to be removed, for only stock engine types in mechs. For pilots to only have one mech in their hanger if they do at all, maybe you're arguing for mechs to be randomly determined? Cause thats ALL Canon too.

[stjobe]

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

(2) M-16 fires single rounds too, you might want to pick a better example.

Did I say it exclusively fires three-round bursts? The point was that a burst-fire mechanic does not necessarily mean it spreads that burst out over the whole 10-second TT turn as needed for your "laughable RoF" argument.

Look e.g. at the Bofors 57mm naval gun. It has a RoF of 200-220 rpm, but it only has 40-120 rounds in the turret magazine; usually it fires bursts of 4-20 rounds.

Or look at the M1A1's 120mm gun; it has a max rate of fire of about 6 rpm (mainly due to not being auto-loaded).

A 3-round burst every 10 seconds is a RoF of 18 rpm; three times the M1A1's rate of fire.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

The point is that the Mechbusters Zeus 75 weapon in no way comes close to the Thunder Rift description

The Zeus 75 is described as a 4-round burst weapon, the GM Whirlwhind on the Marauder in Thunder Rift is described as a three-round burst weapon (see quotes above). How does that "in no way come close"?

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

(3) And the canon also specified they were different. Again, is it so hard for you to accept that in the absence of a firm definition AND with them specifically saying that different producers have diferent calibres AND them leaving some larger calibres (like the 203mm) suggestive of single shot that some people come the conclusion that single shot AC weapons were part of the universe. You can't judge a history by the laws of tomorrow, you have to look at what was releveant on the day.

Because no AC has ever been described as being single-shot, and ACs being single-shot is used to defend the pin-point instant damage they have in MWO, which in turn is seriously hampering weapon and game balance.

ACs are not, have never been, and should not ever be, single-shot.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

(4) and mine was 1987, but I have already conceded that the definition of the rule book is now firm, but that doesn't change that until that book was produced there was no firm consistent definition of what an AC looked like, even your two examples of AC 5's are different for heavens sake.

Yes? Different rates of burst fire and calibre doesn't imply there's non-burst fire versions around.

Craig Steele, on 21 February 2014 - 12:33 AM, said:

(5) Are you making the same argument for lasers to be FLD (instant) dmg, for PPC's to be streamed, for Gauss rifles to not have the charge up, for Mechs to have a chance of falling over if they take 20+ damage. For no firing while Jump Jets are activated. For ROF of all weapons to come back to dmg over 10 seconds equivilents. For Armour to be adjusted to TT ratio's. For customability of IS mechs to be removed, for only stock engine types in mechs. For pilots to only have one mech in their hanger if they do at all, maybe you're arguing for mechs to be randomly determined? Cause thats ALL Canon too.

While I'd love to make those arguments (and probably have, although not all at once), I usually refrain from doing so since these things do not necessarily make for a better game (although some or even most of them would actually do that).

Removing the instant damage delivery of the AC does make for a better, more easily balanced game, which is why I continue to argue for that - especially since the lore is rather unequivocal on the matter; ACs are burst-fire.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 20 February 2014 - 03:59 PM, said:

No. Let's put this silliness to rest once and for all.

Decision at Thunder Rift, the very first BattleTech novel, published in 1986, has this to say about autocannons:









Looks pretty cut-and-dried to me. And don't even think of saying that Decision at Thunder Rift isn't canon; it doesn't get more canon than that.

It even has the following text in the glossary:


Autocannons have ALWAYS been burst-fire in BattleTech. Always. They were simply made to have one to-hit roll in the TT game because nobody wants to roll to-hit dice for a 100-shot burst, but every description of an autocannon ever made in anything that's canon has them as burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Hell, here's the Tech Manual:



See that text there? "rapid-firing, auto-loading, heavy ballistic weaponry - gigantic machine guns"

That's autocannons in BattleTech.

They NEVER were single-shot weapons.

Edit: Fixed quotes, apparently you cannot have more than 10 quote tags...

Most if not all of Grayson's Autocannon fire was using AC5's IIRC from a Marauder and a Shadowhawk. The Smaller AC. And Our AC5s do fire at a fairly quick rate. 120mm and 80mm are medium to light ACs.

remember the Quoted rule book fluff says MOST Autocannons fire in High speed streams. Had it said ALL there would be no room for me to debate this with you.

A Skilled Trades teacher once told us that:
Some= All - Most
Most=All - Some
All= Some + Most

Until the rules say ALL ACs fire rapid fire streams of shells, We will be able to argue this. Now a RAC... fire 6x as fast and I love the idea of a 203mm RAC20!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 February 2014 - 02:20 AM.

[Craig Steele]

stjobe, on 21 February 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

Did I say it exclusively fires three-round bursts? The point was that a burst-fire mechanic does not necessarily mean it spreads that burst out over the whole 10-second TT turn as needed for your "laughable RoF" argument.

Look e.g. at the Bofors 57mm naval gun. It has a RoF of 200-220 rpm, but it only has 40-120 rounds in the turret magazine; usually it fires bursts of 4-20 rounds.

Or look at the M1A1's 120mm gun; it has a max rate of fire of about 6 rpm (mainly due to not being auto-loaded).

A 3-round burst every 10 seconds is a RoF of 18 rpm; three times the M1A1's rate of fire.


The Zeus 75 is described as a 4-round burst weapon, the GM Whirlwhind on the Marauder in Thunder Rift is described as a three-round burst weapon (see quotes above). How does that "in no way come close"?


Because no AC has ever been described as being single-shot, and ACs being single-shot is used to defend the pin-point instant damage they have in MWO, which in turn is seriously hampering weapon and game balance.

ACs are not, have never been, and should not ever be, single-shot.


Yes? Different rates of burst fire and calibre doesn't imply there's non-burst fire versions around.


While I'd love to make those arguments (and probably have, although not all at once), I usually refrain from doing so since these things do not necessarily make for a better game (although some or even most of them would actually do that).

Removing the instant damage delivery of the AC does make for a better, more easily balanced game, which is why I continue to argue for that - especially since the lore is rather unequivocal on the matter; ACs are burst-fire.

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.

OK, so I see now what sort of footing I'm on.

Here's my bottom line.

I don't disagree with you about AC fire being burst weapons. I've said it half a dozen times in various threads and even thanked you for improving my understanding of the canon.

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.

I maintain that canon has lots of failures, and I don't mind being corrected. I also can see why people can come to conclusions about canon cause some of the guff is all over the shop. I guess I'm just more forgiving than you that not everyone has the same love / interest in the BT canon and knows it as well as I (and presumably you) do.

For example, The novels describe the Khans assembling on the bridge of a Warship. They're standing around about to have a pow wow. An aerospace fighter comes in and crashed into the bridge, killing one Khan in particular. All canon right.

Except according to canon Warships in BT don't have artifical gravity, they have rotating grav decks. So how do the Khans 'stand' in a zero gravity environment.

Oh dear, a grey area? Maybe they wear magnetic sole shoes, maybe canon is open to intrepetation? Who knows. I prefer to think that artifical gravity is limited to key command areas but canon isn't specfic on the subject.

If someone wants to enhance my knowledge, great. show me the update cause I haven't seen it. If someone wants to criticise me because I came to a conclusion that satisfies me based on the information I have, well go take a jump.

And that's the point I have been trying to get across. That for a long time canon WAS NOT DEFINITIVE and so I understand WHY people might come to that conclusion. It was a conversion we had several times in our group and we left it up to pilot discretion, personally I was on the full feed 10 seconds of red hot spewing firepower, my autocannons didn't burp and cough, they roared and made big lines in the dirt when I missed (which was reasonably often)

But I was not the majority in our group.

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.

[Joseph Mallan]

Canon says MOST cannons are rapid fire. Most is not quite All.

[Fooooo]

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....

[Joseph Mallan]

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....

I take pause on one word Foooooo.
Intended.

If I put my rounds where I intended every time. A target would only have one small hole. If everything went as Intended at work I would NEVER scrap a prototype part! If everything went as intended I would be THE best MW:O player. Very little goes as we intend, and shooting weapons is in the 'lots of thing' side of the equation. Unless you are an Olympic/Sniper level shooter in real life. Are you?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 21 February 2014 - 03:06 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Except according to canon Warships in BT don't have artifical gravity, they have rotating grav decks. So how do the Khans 'stand' in a zero gravity environment.

Oh dear, a grey area? Maybe they wear magnetic sole shoes, maybe canon is open to intrepetation? Who knows. I prefer to think that artifical gravity is limited to key command areas but canon isn't specfic on the subject.

Actually, it is. They -do- wear those, it's not artificial gravity.

That's one of the nice things about a universe that's been fleshed out for decades- most of this knowhow is out there.

http://www.epubbud.c...67J747T&tocp=24 for an example.

And incidentally, you'd be -very- hard pressed to find an example of a single-round-per-shot AC, even in the AC/20 range. In fact, I can't think of one that explicitly says so below the -naval- grade AC's- which in the BT universe are the "single-shot" AC's you're thinking of. That's what the Tech Manual is referring to by "almost all"- 'Mech sized AC's fire in bursts, NAC's are single-shell firing, auto-loaded cannons. As a fun note, a full ton of naval armor is a whopping 1.6 points of protection...and the smallest NAC does ten points of damage to said armor, enough to core an Atlas in a single shot without even trying as it chews though 6.25 TONS of armor in a single hit. That's BIG dakka.

http://www.sarna.net...aval_Autocannon

Edited by wanderer, 21 February 2014 - 04:17 AM.

[Craig Steele]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

Actually, it is. They -do- wear those, it's not artificial gravity.

That's one of the nice things about a universe that's been fleshed out for decades- most of this knowhow is out there.

http://www.epubbud.c...67J747T&tocp=24 for an example.

And incidentally, you'd be -very- hard pressed to find an example of a single-round-per-shot AC, even in the AC/20 range. In fact, I can't think of one that explicitly says so below the -naval- grade AC's- which in the BT universe are the "single-shot" AC's you're thinking of. That's what the Tech Manual is referring to by "almost all"- 'Mech sized AC's fire in bursts, NAC's are single-shell firing, auto-loaded cannons. As a fun note, a full ton of naval armor is a whopping 1.6 points of protection...and the smallest NAC does ten points of damage to said armor, enough to core an Atlas in a single shot without even trying as it chews though 6.25 TONS of armor in a single hit. That's BIG dakka.

http://www.sarna.net...aval_Autocannon

So for 25 years I've had my way of thinking about it, now a novel comes out addressing it and its canon, thats cool. Now I know.

But anyone who thinks that before that novel came out that a different view 'could' have been possible is just closed being silly imo.

Thanks for the link Wanderer

Although it does a raise a question, when they hit the gas and go to 2.5 g's + , those shoes ain't gunna stop the red smears happening 2.5g's ain't nothing to sneeze at.

I have never said that there is a canon example on the AC. I have said that it hints (the 203mm and the 185mm are the ones that spring to mind) at it AND canon said (at that time) calibre, ROF etc is as varied as the manufacturer. On that basis, I can see how some people intepret their preference into that flexibility,

Having said that, Jospeh has pointed out (above) they've still left it open which I missed on first read. It's not gunna change my mind from where I am, but it's interesting that they still leave it open. Maybe they are waiting for something?? ha ha ha ha. i jest ofc.

[nehebkau]

Madw0lf, on 20 February 2014 - 09:27 AM, said:

This is true. Its an offputting idea and Im trying to suss out exactly why.

I mean, it doesnt make physical sense to me like I said, I just dont feel like my suspension can go so far as to accept something like that. No ofense meant to you of course.

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.

[wanderer]

Quote

So for 25 years I've had my way of thinking about it, now a novel comes out addressing it and its canon, thats cool. Now I know.

But anyone who thinks that before that novel came out that a different view 'could' have been possible is just closed being silly imo.

That was actually the first example that came to mind- and it was printed in 2002. There's earlier ones, but I figured a 12-year old reference was far enough back to show it's been addressed on a regular basis.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 21 February 2014 - 04:15 AM, said:

Actually, it is. They -do- wear those, it's not artificial gravity.

That's one of the nice things about a universe that's been fleshed out for decades- most of this knowhow is out there.

http://www.epubbud.c...67J747T&tocp=24 for an example.

And incidentally, you'd be -very- hard pressed to find an example of a single-round-per-shot AC, even in the AC/20 range. In fact, I can't think of one that explicitly says so below the -naval- grade AC's- which in the BT universe are the "single-shot" AC's you're thinking of. That's what the Tech Manual is referring to by "almost all"- 'Mech sized AC's fire in bursts, NAC's are single-shell firing, auto-loaded cannons. As a fun note, a full ton of naval armor is a whopping 1.6 points of protection...and the smallest NAC does ten points of damage to said armor, enough to core an Atlas in a single shot without even trying as it chews though 6.25 TONS of armor in a single hit. That's BIG dakka.

http://www.sarna.net...aval_Autocannon

No I am looking at the text for the Hunchback Not a Naval AC. AND TT AC20 does 0.2 points of Naval scale damage. So 1.6 points of Naval armor would absorb... 8 TT A2C0 shots. Over one ton of ammo to shoot though!

[MechWarrior849305]

Changes can be good, can be bad. IF there are any W8 and hope, maybe PGI will deal with meta, give us another meta or so whatever, IF ever...