404 replies to this topic

[Zordicron]

Also, @ whoever said that changing AC would result in meta changing to SRM:

Good. SRM should be FLD, they dont actually pinpoint anyway, and they are supposed to be very power close range weapons limited by heat and ammo. Besides the crappy detection on them, SRM are pretty close to right in MWO. It is OK for them to wreck face, because they have a hard limit on range and are hot to run. They also require skill to aim, especially at higher speed flanking mechs.

So would the meta change to them? I doubt it, but even if they became more common or run by l33t meta superstars, there is a lot of drawbacks and ways to counter them. If changing AC like how I or others describe as burstfire makes SRM the premier brawling weapon, then something happened right.

[Varent]

Eldagore, on 06 March 2014 - 04:16 PM, said:

What you describe is the result of the heat scale being set up with a very high cap and low dissipation vs the other way around.

Go to youtube, search for some mechwarrior 3 clips of people playing. You will notice people go into the red on heat by fireing 2 LL off, but it comes down very quickly. Heh, really, the things people gripe about in MWO- they were all a non issue in MW3. I think that is part of why people can be grumpy about certain mechanics in MWO. Like the post a few back about expecting it to be a shooter vs battletech, and saying they dont want a boardgame.

It doesnt need to be a board game! HA, it has already been translated from board game to video game extremely well twice, and reasonably well once (twice if you count some of MekTek and Living Legends) and IMO, only mediocre in MWO so far.

Not sure what the deal is, any MW van would tell you the game mechanics of older games are why they are here. Certainly, alterations for the idea of PvP and new game engines etc need to happen. but core mechanics were balanced out and hashed out already, several times. It makes seeing the time to kill in MWO play like battlefield or CoD somewhat frustrating.

The problem is people are expecting game mechanics from a 12 year old game... to be implimented into a modern day shooter... people are focusing on the fact that it was a slow paced game... All other shooting games (for the most part) were slow paced....

Everything has sped up now. Gaming is ALOT faster and more intensive. So is the newest mechwarrior game.

[Zordicron]

Trauglodyte, on 06 March 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Well, I think you are both correct, Cmarb and Varent. Here is the kicker, though. ACs need to have their place when the mech is built around it. Mechs like the Hunchback 4G and the Victor 9S were both built to carry the AC20. The problem really comes when we shoe horn major weapons into slots not meant to carry them. It is a problem because you're still getting the major performance from a slot not built to hold it. That isn't to say that there isn't room in the mech to carry the weapon because all mechs have a plethora of space built in "just in case". *wink wink* The AC40 Jager is a prime example. The A came standard with AC2s while the DD and the S were built around the AC2 and the U/AC5. Yet, here we are with people running around with AC20s in those slots.

Now, some people want to keep ACs as FLD and that is fine. Others want them turned into burst/burp/sustained types of weapons and that is just fine as well. There is grey area there, though, I believe. It has been said before but I wonder if the missile tube count wouldn't solve the problem. If you take the mech that carries the appropriate weapon, or one that is smaller, you're fine and may keep the FLD. Take something that was built for something smaller and you have to deal with the repercussions.

On the flip side, we could just have PGI decide how our weapons act by implementing manufacturer quirks. Then again, people would just clammer to the weapons that are FDL which would lead us right back to where we are.

This guy gets it! That is the point of the "tube" type system entirely. It limits the l33t haxx chassis like silly ac40 jagers without actually removing the ability to build them that way while at the same time allowing a chassis to mount FLD type AC of intended size without any change in function(like AC5 on jager)

I always wondered how at initial design, someone decided it was bad to have no soft limitation on missile launchers, thus adding the tube counts, but perfectly acceptable to allow any AC to mount in any ballistic hardpoint. NOT OK to mount a LRM 20 where the NARC launcher was supposed to be(in so much as not ok to do it without functionality drawback), but totally fine to put AC20 or gauss where MG was( with no such drawback)

[Varent]

Trauglodyte, on 06 March 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

Well, I think you are both correct, Cmarb and Varent. Here is the kicker, though. ACs need to have their place when the mech is built around it. Mechs like the Hunchback 4G and the Victor 9S were both built to carry the AC20. The problem really comes when we shoe horn major weapons into slots not meant to carry them. It is a problem because you're still getting the major performance from a slot not built to hold it. That isn't to say that there isn't room in the mech to carry the weapon because all mechs have a plethora of space built in "just in case". *wink wink* The AC40 Jager is a prime example. The A came standard with AC2s while the DD and the S were built around the AC2 and the U/AC5. Yet, here we are with people running around with AC20s in those slots.

Now, some people want to keep ACs as FLD and that is fine. Others want them turned into burst/burp/sustained types of weapons and that is just fine as well. There is grey area there, though, I believe. It has been said before but I wonder if the missile tube count wouldn't solve the problem. If you take the mech that carries the appropriate weapon, or one that is smaller, you're fine and may keep the FLD. Take something that was built for something smaller and you have to deal with the repercussions.

On the flip side, we could just have PGI decide how our weapons act by implementing manufacturer quirks. Then again, people would just clammer to the weapons that are FDL which would lead us right back to where we are.

I would actually love to see an interesting choice in perhaps MANUFACTURER TYPE of ac that slots allow that could prove interesting. That way you wouldnt just tell someone they couldnt bring that ac but theyw ere limited to certain manufacturers wich might not be as desierable. This would also make some unused variants more desireable perhaps by allowing for more popular manufacturer types.

[Varent]

Eldagore, on 06 March 2014 - 04:23 PM, said:

Also, @ whoever said that changing AC would result in meta changing to SRM:

Good. SRM should be FLD, they dont actually pinpoint anyway, and they are supposed to be very power close range weapons limited by heat and ammo. Besides the crappy detection on them, SRM are pretty close to right in MWO. It is OK for them to wreck face, because they have a hard limit on range and are hot to run. They also require skill to aim, especially at higher speed flanking mechs.

So would the meta change to them? I doubt it, but even if they became more common or run by l33t meta superstars, there is a lot of drawbacks and ways to counter them. If changing AC like how I or others describe as burstfire makes SRM the premier brawling weapon, then something happened right.

that wasnt the point of the statement. The point of the statement was that the current trend is to cry over whatever is strongest no matter what. Wich is a simple hard fact.

[Zordicron]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

The problem is people are expecting game mechanics from a 12 year old game... to be implimented into a modern day shooter... people are focusing on the fact that it was a slow paced game... All other shooting games (for the most part) were slow paced....

Everything has sped up now. Gaming is ALOT faster and more intensive. So is the newest mechwarrior game.

I get where you are coming from, and like I said, I expect some changes to modernize the game a bit for new game engines and the fact it is basically all PvP instead of a solo campaign. However, the heatscale being similar to MW3 wouldnt reqire a slower pace game, non-pinpoint dmg wouldnt require it either. it would just make tactics a bit different, as poptarts would lose a lot of steam, people would be more inclined to you know, not hide behind rocks for fear of eating a 40 point alpha to their side torso, etc. Mechs could eat more dmg then they do now, and I think a lot of the hide and snipe mentality would recede a good bit. Chainfire weapons would become the norm instead of alpha->retreat like it is now.

Think of it this way, if you had a lower heat cap and higher dissipation, you would be fireing less weapons at once, but more often as you juggled heat, and diverse loadouts get rewarded more by having more options to use in that heat game.

I really dont want to swing this thread into a heat one though, so I will cut this thread jack off. suffice to say, i think burst fire or multishot AC fit with that theme also, more weapons fire more often and dmg spreading on your enemies and yourself. More like giant robots with tons of armor and less like BOOM, HEADSHOT. However, even without touching heat mechanics, I feel the multishot AC mechanic would benefit the game and have a solid effect on poptart play(along with the PPC/duration thing someone else mentioned earlier) and it would also validate weapons like SRM and LBX as potent brawling weapons with actual advantage in close combat, well advantage is too strong a word, maybe more like "more equal footing" with AC20 instead of AC20 by a landslide like it is now.

[wanderer]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

The problem is people are expecting game mechanics from a 12 year old game... to be implimented into a modern day shooter... people are focusing on the fact that it was a slow paced game... All other shooting games (for the most part) were slow paced....

Everything has sped up now. Gaming is ALOT faster and more intensive. So is the newest mechwarrior game.

And like most kinds of overclocking, too much of it overheats the system and causes failure.

I am -not- in the boat of reducing ROF to glacial levels- but firepower needs to scale. AC's should be scaling better from 2 -> 20 in terms of damage. Heat sinkage should scale better to increased heat generation. One weapon type should not kill everyone far faster than the others, when they supposedly are delivering the same amounts of damage per shot.

Scaling. Hell, even Battletech had rules that scaled to 4x the normal turn speed! Faster isn't bad- it's when part of the game moves out of sync with the others that a problem exists.

The AC is borked. Lighter ACs outperform heavier ones in virtually every statistic, limited only by ghost heat in the smallest sense of the word. Even heavier AC's outdo the same tonnage in similar non-ballistic weapons, and that's really, really dancing through the magical unicorn land of imbalance.

What, you say? There are no unicorns? Then the AC shouldn't be dancing around in there either!

[Zordicron]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 04:33 PM, said:

that wasnt the point of the statement. The point of the statement was that the current trend is to cry over whatever is strongest no matter what. Wich is a simple hard fact.

Thats fine, but you chose a sorta bad example then

[Varent]

wanderer, on 06 March 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

And like most kinds of overclocking, too much of it overheats the system and causes failure.

I am -not- in the boat of reducing ROF to glacial levels- but firepower needs to scale. AC's should be scaling better from 2 -> 20 in terms of damage. Heat sinkage should scale better to increased heat generation. One weapon type should not kill everyone far faster than the others, when they supposedly are delivering the same amounts of damage per shot.

Scaling. Hell, even Battletech had rules that scaled to 4x the normal turn speed! Faster isn't bad- it's when part of the game moves out of sync with the others that a problem exists.

The AC is borked. Lighter ACs outperform heavier ones in virtually every statistic, limited only by ghost heat in the smallest sense of the word. Even heavier AC's outdo the same tonnage in similar non-ballistic weapons, and that's really, really dancing through the magical unicorn land of imbalance.

What, you say? There are no unicorns? Then the AC shouldn't be dancing around in there either!

do you even read other forum threads at all, everything you listed... and I mean everything... has been brought up here or on another one of the common threads and worked through. With the exception of ghost heat, wich is a topic of much debate.

Eldagore, on 06 March 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:

Thats fine, but you chose a sorta bad example then

sue me.

[Cimarb]

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

no im really not.

Your basing your statistics of (every ac being the same) based off dps. Wich ive stated already is a horrible system because it doesnt take alot of other mechanics into play. The ac2 has alot of dps sure, but you have to hold on target, its fairly heat intensive and while your holding on target you cant Torso twist. The ac2 has great range but scatters rounds quite abit due to having to hold on target and has no significant "burst damage' or FLD . The the ac 5 are a great overall ranged weapon where as the uac5 is more of a brawling weapon with range capabilities. It has strength weaknesses. Both of them have a relatively small amount of damage to other weapon systems (only 5). The ac 20 is a great bruising weapon up close with a large amount of heat, huge size, huge weight and low ammo. It has a tremendous FLD but other draw backs. Each of these weapons has its use in different circles. As ive said I feel the ac10 is the left out ugly duckling.. .however ive had others defend it and I suppose it is a good go between if you want a good FLD weapon but still want more range then the ac20. Just depends I suppose.

That said the balance with those weapons is in there different uses with FLD being a premium based off weight and size. Which makes sense.

It's like talking to a brick wall, and I say it with the utmost respect even though I'm not sure how to express it that way...

The current AC lineup is what the AC20 with manufacturer variants SHOULD be. Every single one of them does the equivalent of 20 dps, which makes them Class/20 autocannons. As I have said many times, mostly in response to this same paragraph you have said over and over, normalizing the autocannons so they actually have different classes (2/5/10/20) and then making manufacturer variants based upon RoF, damage per shell, etc. would only increase the options available.

You say you want to stop people from eliminating play styles, but you are fighting against adding even more play styles with your incessant arguing about this.

Varent, on 06 March 2014 - 04:51 PM, said:

do you even read other forum threads at all, everything you listed... and I mean everything... has been brought up here or on another one of the common threads and worked through. With the exception of ghost heat, wich is a topic of much debate.

Everything you listed has been said as well, but you continue to say them, so why shouldn't he?

[Mirkk Defwode]

wanderer, on 05 March 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

MWO flat-out does autocannon fire wrong. While 'Mech-sized AC's vary in burst size from 3 to many, all of them fire bursts of shells, not a single shot. That the result is FLD in MWO that makes the weapon superior beyond all others that have damage spread built-in is icing on the cake that reads "FIX ME".

This greatly depends on where you read that. In the novels you'll have it refered to as a "burp of fire" and a "Rattling" and several other terms that mean multiple shots fired. But there are also references to a single blow fired.

At the same time the descriptions across tech manuals are often vague and describe relatively the same level of technology we have today when it comes to Autocannons. Sarnas Autocannon 20 description says it can be a singular shot or a rapid fire series. The previous General Autocannon description calls out a 100 shot burst that does 20 damage. Though that as a mechanical design is purely ludacrious.

So I'd like to direct you to modern real autocannons to base your damage scales on.

Which as a point of reference just means a "Cannon" that has an "Auto-Loader" This means everything from the 125mm main gun mounted on the Russian T-90 Main Battle Tank to the 25mm Chain-gun mounted on the U.S. Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle then there is the Norwegian Archer Artillery System.

Now it's a question of classifying those are you see fit into Battletech standards. Which if I recall correctly is based on the damage they're capable of doing within a 10 Second Window. As each turn is meant to represent 10 seconds of real time for gameplay purposes.

So in other words, Everyone is right, and the current mechanics only represent a very small part of the overall fluff and fiction. This is also true for All the weapon systems in the game right now. So can't we all just get a long and work on solutions, suggestions, and ideas through collaberation and honest critique rather than a ceaseless debate, or arguement in some case, over semantics.

Varent, on 05 March 2014 - 07:58 PM, said:

[...]

Cimarb, on 05 March 2014 - 08:48 PM, said:

[...]

Cimarb I made a response with a general proof of concept on how the magazine system would work into multi-shot auto cannons as a general idea

[Varent]

Cimarb, on 06 March 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

It's like talking to a brick wall, and I say it with the utmost respect even though I'm not sure how to express it that way...

The current AC lineup is what the AC20 with manufacturer variants SHOULD be. Every single one of them does the equivalent of 20 dps, which makes them Class/20 autocannons. As I have said many times, mostly in response to this same paragraph you have said over and over, normalizing the autocannons so they actually have different classes (2/5/10/20) and then making manufacturer variants based upon RoF, damage per shell, etc. would only increase the options available.

You say you want to stop people from eliminating play styles, but you are fighting against adding even more play styles with your incessant arguing about this.


Everything you listed has been said as well, but you continue to say them, so why shouldn't he?

I feel more playstyles can be added by simply adding different manufacturer types to the weapons. The last time I saw the normalization topic you have spoken of it rather drastically reduced damage of the overall weapon (in what I assume was a way to reduce FLD) Wich I am against. I feel people have a right to that damage and play style if they so choose since it should have its strengths and weaknesses. Also the damage lower to the ac2 was pretty ridiculous.

I feel that having burst fire options for the weapons, delayed fire options, different heat options, different cooldown options, durability, string fire, full auto fire can all be very interesting to impliment, But I feel they should be based off the model we have now.


In regards to repeating, I dont even know anymore. Its just getting annoying I suppose. And some days I have less patience for it then others. Though I am somewhat uplifted by the fact that JJ were changed, im almost wondering if my constant harping did any good there

[stjobe]

Mirkk Defwode, on 06 March 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

So I'd like to direct you to modern real autocannons to base your damage scales on.

Which as a point of reference just means a "Cannon" that has an "Auto-Loader"

And I'd like to direct you to the Sarna entry for the Rifle family of weapons:

Quote

The precursor to the modern Autocannon, the Rifle was based on the main guns used by tanks on pre-spaceflight Terra. The Light Rifle used heavier rounds and larger propellant loads to fire its shells. It was phased out of service with most major powers because it lacked stopping power against most battlefield units.

The BT autocannon isn't really a scaled-up Bushmaster. It's something that has evolved from modern-day tank guns into Rifles and then into Autocannons. It's 1000-year-in-the-future space-robot guns. And it's used because the guns that themselves evolved by improving on modern-day tank guns couldn't do damage to "most battlefield units".

I really don't know what that means for the physics or mechanical characteristics of the autocannons (or their targets), but I also don't care. There's 1,000 years of mechanical, materials, and structural engineering to do until we get to the them.

It's like an archer at the battle of Hastings saying the concept of an Assault Rifle is ludicrous - the materials or physics just isn't available in 1066.

[Joseph Mallan]

By the same rules a 203mm AC20 would rapid fire 8" shells Jobe. You think I wouldn't take one if It was available? And to Hi Jack your reasoning, We don't know it's possible cause it's physics are yet available to us.

And I know your next response is probably game fun related... to that I say Power gamers need love too.

[wanderer]

Again, there are no canonical AC/20's that fire a single shell per shot, in fluff or in rulebooks. There are larger AC's that DO fire single shells- these being the really, REALLY huge AC's carried on Dropships and warships- the "naval" autocannon.

Zero. None. Ditto with the AC/10, AC/5, and AC/2. The Mech-sized AC's, without fail are universally classified as "burst-fire" weapons, including their ability to hit multiple hexes with a single shot. They are written as firing multiple shells per shot in Battletech's fiction.

By contrast, the naval autocannon specficially states a single shell (and they're HUGE, with the smallest one being a fifth of a ton!). Light/medium/heavy rifles are single-shell per shot. Artillery cannons are single-shell per shot. 'Mech-sized AC's are not.

MWO is doing it wrong.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 07 March 2014 - 04:53 AM, said:

Again, there are no canonical AC/20's that fire a single shell per shot, in fluff or in rulebooks. There are larger AC's that DO fire single shells- these being the really, REALLY huge AC's carried on Dropships and warships- the "naval" autocannon.

Zero. None. Ditto with the AC/10, AC/5, and AC/2. The Mech-sized AC's, without fail are universally classified as "burst-fire" weapons, including their ability to hit multiple hexes with a single shot. They are written as firing multiple shells per shot in Battletech's fiction.

By contrast, the naval autocannon specficially states a single shell (and they're HUGE, with the smallest one being a fifth of a ton!). Light/medium/heavy rifles are single-shell per shot. Artillery cannons are single-shell per shot. 'Mech-sized AC's are not.

MWO is doing it wrong.

Wanderer the NAC fire shells that do 20 damage v Naval armor. That is 200 damage v a mech or Dropship.

So if you are wanting to have Burst fire ACs I will agree to it so long as I can have Burst firing 203mm AC20 that fire 8" shells in RAPID MODE.

Also StJobe Pasted the latest Rules interpretation of AC damage that quotes something to the effect that 200Kg of AC ammo does the same level of damage no matter the method of delivery. So all our ACs in MW:O are AC20s (well AC5s are AC15s since they do less damage in the same amount of time)

Quoting the TechManual about ACs:

Quote

most autocannons deliver their
damage by firing high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive,
armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels.

So Since Most by definition is not All, the BattleTech rulebooks support having more than just one style of AC.

All=Most+some
Most=All-Some
Some=All-most

Until the books say ALL ACs fire in just one fashion. You are technically wrong.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 March 2014 - 05:46 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

Until the books say ALL ACs fire in just one fashion. You are technically wrong.

Let's make this simple.

AC/2, AC/5, AC/10,and AC/20 are all in the rules as "burst-fire" weapons. So are Ultras and Rotary AC's, as indeed LB-X AC's are. A single round per shot is not a burst.

NAC's are not burst-fire weapons in the rules. They are specifically described as firing a single shell per shot, in fact.

Ergo, most autocannons are delivering their ammo via bursts of multiple shells per "shot" (as indeed the exact ones that are explicitly stated in the rules do), while NAC's, which happen to be very big autocannons, do not.

"Most AC's" refers to the light, standard, Ultra, Rotary, and LB-X types. The NAC is the exception. Each type is specifically given "burst-fire" or not to define which does and which does not. This is in the rulebook. As rules. How much tighter of a definition do you need?

Quote

So if you are wanting to have Burst fire ACs I will agree to it so long as I can have Burst firing 203mm AC20 that fire 8" shells in RAPID MODE.

Sure thing. 203mm, 4-round burst is roughly equivalent to the 180mm five-round burst from the Tomodzuru. And they're both AC/20's. How neat is that?

Edited by wanderer, 07 March 2014 - 06:49 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 07 March 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Let's make this simple.

AC/2, AC/5, AC/10,and AC/20 are all in the rules as "burst-fire" weapons. So are Ultras and Rotary AC's, as indeed LB-X AC's are. A single round per shot is not a burst.

NAC's are not burst-fire weapons in the rules. They are specifically described as firing a single shell per shot, in fact.

Ergo, most autocannons are delivering their ammo via bursts of multiple shells per "shot" (as indeed the exact ones that are explicitly stated in the rules do), while NAC's, which happen to be very big autocannons, do not.

"Most AC's" refers to the light, standard, Ultra, Rotary, and LB-X types. The NAC is the exception. Each type is specifically given "burst-fire" or not to define which does and which does not. This is in the rulebook. As rules. How much tighter of a definition do you need?

Naval ACs are not the same as a GroPo AC. Also as the Tech Manual does not cover Warship Construction it would not include Capital Scale ACs since at this level of Construction rules No NACs are allowed. I don't own the Rulebook that covers Naval Weapons, So I can't quote IT.

[wanderer]

Quote

Naval ACs are not the same as a GroPo AC.

That is correct. The listing in Tech Manual is talking about AC's in -general-, however...lest someone go "NUH-UH, it says here all AC's are burst fire! My NAC/10 always fires a hail of shells!" - which as we know is explicitly not the case.

Quote

Also as the Tech Manual does not cover Warship Construction it would not include Capital Scale ACs since at this level of Construction rules No NACs are allowed. I don't own the Rulebook that covers Naval Weapons, So I can't quote IT.

Tactical Operations, which also happens to have the notes on 'Mech sized AC's being able to split their bursts of fire between multiple hexes, along with explicitly describing the single-shot NAC.

[Joseph Mallan]

wanderer, on 07 March 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

That is correct. The listing in Tech Manual is talking about AC's in -general-, however...lest someone go "NUH-UH, it says here all AC's are burst fire! My NAC/10 always fires a hail of shells!" - which as we know is explicitly not the case.



Tactical Operations, which also happens to have the notes on 'Mech sized AC's being able to split their bursts of fire between multiple hexes, along with explicitly describing the single-shot NAC.

Tach Ops is advanced rules, and I do not have the tome. But the TechMan is specific for GroPo level games. Can ou give me a Pict of the rule from TacOps? I really would like to see it. I'm interested in how much damage each shell is doing in that scenario.

Mirkk, Sarna is a good quick reference, but it is not the final word. Wanderer and I are discussing the wording from the CBT rules specifically. Thank you for your contribution though
Oh that Archer system Cyclic rate is:

Quote

3 rounds in 8 seconds,
6 rounds in 25 seconds,

sustained 3 rpm for 20 minutes

Its interesting that it can fire 3 rounds faster than it can 6 rounds... But as it is around the Caliber of our AC10 and 20... Would you(in general not specific to just you Mirkk) be good being hit for 10 damage every 2.6-6 seconds... Oh wait we already do. AC10 cyclic rate is 2.5 so We are firing slightly FASTER than a real life 155 Auto loading Arty cannon!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 07 March 2014 - 07:41 AM.