198 replies to this topic

[verybad]

This may be a wild guess, but I'm betting the AC-20 and medium lasers aren't gonna have the same firing speed.

They've not in previous games, and there's no compelling reaosn to think they'll do that now. I trust the devs to have good heads on their shoulders. Making them exactly like AC-20s (as you describe) would be...less than optimum.

I think I can agree with you on this concern, however I'm simply not concerned, it has obvious problems in any game design theory to do what you describe, so I'm not gonna worry my pretty little head off re this.

Edited by verybad, 19 January 2012 - 05:57 PM.

[Graphite]

verybad, on 19 January 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

This may be a wild guess, but I'm betting the AC-20 and medium lasers aren't gonna have the same firing speed.

They've not in previous games, and there's no compelling reaosn to think they'll do that now. I trust the devs to have good heads on their shoulders. Making them exactly like AC-20s (as you describe) would be...less than optimum.

I think I can agree with you on this concern, however I'm simply not concerned, it has obvious problems in any game design theory to do what you describe, so I'm not gonna worry my pretty little head off re this.

Me??
Actually, it was the OP - in fact, the point of this thread: "Should the 4 MLas (alpha-fired) cause the same damage as an AC20 onto one spot?"


...and, of course, I already pointed out myself that the devs wouldn't do that - in post #134, that you replied to.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 07:07 PM.

[Gabriel Amarell]

I have been a fan of Battletech from the beginning in the early 80's when I picked up my 1st technical readout in a local comicbook shop (Battletech Technical Readout: 3026) and since those earliest days the AC 20 has always been discribed as a mechwarriors "ultimate weapon" The readouts discribe a large calibur cannon that fires in 20 round bursts with a very tight shot grouping, loaded with either armor piercing or "shotgun" type ammunition. The weapon is discribed as immensely heavy and bulky with limmited ammunition, but capable of destroying light mechs, crippling medium mechs and severly damaging heavy mechs in a single volly. I am aware that giving any weapon such immense firepower in a game would cause gameplay issues but I have always felt that mechwarrior needed ballancing in this area. I personally would like to see targeting become more of a focus. What do I mean by that? Take for instance the AC 20, a weapon which fires in 20 round bursts. Recoil would make getting all 20 shots on target difficult at best, especially approaching the weapons maximum range. I believe that at max range the AC 20 should reflect this. At close range where targeting is more forgiving the weapon should be devastating with or without computer aided weapons lock. When fired at max range for the weapon to be effective I would like to see a weapons lock required. Lock on would allow the mechs computer to compensate for the weapons recoil, without a weapons lock, or without a targeting computer the weapon would be considerably less effective at range because of the difficulty of getting all 20 rounds to hit the target.

What does this have to do with the topic, should 4 medium lasers be as effective as an AC 20, if your talking about point blank with all 20 rounds hitting one part of the opposing mech, absolutely not. If your talking about 400 meters away when only 1/2 of the autocannons shells find their mark, yes definitely. This is exactly the kind of update I am hoping for. In my opinion it should be the same with missiles. LRM's are supposed to have limmited tracking ability, even with lock on. If you fire an LRM 20 salvo, even without lock, point blank I think all 20 missiles should hit and damage should be devastating. If that same salvo is fired at 1400 meters with full lock against a lets say, at Locust moving at 130 kph I think only 4 or 5 of the missiles should hit and the damage should be proportionately less. The Artemis IV has always been equally significant. That system is described as vastly improving the accuracy of slaved missile systems. Perhaps a mech with an Artemis IV system, firing at that same 130 kph locust, with the same LRM 20 from 1400 meters would land 10-12 missiles, and against a slower target, lets say an Atlas (54 kph) maybe all 20 missiles hit. I believe that an AC 20's damage should be calculated based on 1 point of damage per round that hits, and that things like target speed, distance and weapons lock should modify how many rounds hit the target. If all 20 rounds find their mark then the weapon should be devastating, but if mitigating factors cause 15 of the 20 rounds to miss the dmg output should be proportionately less.

This is what I have always wanted to see implimented that no mechwarrior has ever done. LRM's with an artemis IV should be devastting, and AC 20 at point blank range, devastating, medium lasers in large groups (4 is a large group, to me) should cause heavy damage, but also high heat buildup (so they cant be spammed without overheating) Give me a mechwarrior where there are no worthless weapons.

[Graphite]

Gabriel Amarell, on 19 January 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

The readouts discribe a large calibur cannon that fires in 20 round bursts with a very tight shot grouping, loaded with either armor piercing or "shotgun" type ammunition.
...
Take for instance the AC 20, a weapon which fires in 20 round bursts. Recoil would make getting all 20 shots on target difficult at best, especially approaching the weapons maximum range.

Autocannons aren't always multiple shells. "Autocannon" is apparently a generic term to cover a large range of weapons.

The wiki says:

Quote

The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.[/color]

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower(possibly 1 shell), and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

Personally I think describing an AC20 as firing multiple shells to do 20 points is criminal

It's a cannon, it fires one big shell - and it looks like the MWO devs have got this right (see the trailer).

The reason for my opinion is simple: ACs don't use the cluster table that they would have to use if they fired multiple shells.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 07:44 PM.

[SpiralRazor]

The biggest difference in getting hit by 4Mlas and an AC 20 was the fact that the AC20 Knocked your mech around.


and thats what it should do via BT rules.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think the OP, from the questions was more interested in the damage caused to 1 hitbox. If you look at the poll, the majority don't agree that 4ML's should all hit at the same point, causing the damage to be applied to just one hitbox. In numerous threads involving targetting etc there has ben very vocal comments about "skill" and "I should hit what I aim at" which effectively. This has meant in previous games that all your weapons hit the same spot. Hence the comparison. In addition damage caused (20 points and over) "knocks" the mech - irrespective of what causes the damage. If you have customisation then the optimum thing to do is take out the AC20 and its ammo (capable of exploding if hit) and replace it with a number of ML's and additional heatsinks. You don't have to "lead" a target, it will produce more damage and you don't have to worry about running out of ammo.

What this means is that PGI will need to think about how ballistics and targetting are modelled in the game, assuming customisation, in order to make them worthwhile.

[MaddMaxx]

As with almost all the other games, the Tech required to make these 4ML's (or whatever) sets of weapons pin point accurate, was never made mandatory. The TC in BT/TT is heavy and takes up a "Boats" load of space (hehe).

So, if the Dev want to allow "Boats" to carry large sets of similiar weapons, and, have them mounted all over the Chassis, then also make it mandatory that a TC is required, one for each unit as per the BT/TT Rules, to have them be convergent. Hell even allow for multiple targets to be selectable via a add-on Module. That would be kinda cool.

Put the "Tech" back into the game. That is why the AC20's are not favorable when compared to the 4ML configs.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 January 2012 - 09:08 AM.

[Omigir]

Im going to just throw this out there, take it or leave it.

20 dmg over 10 seconds. (devide it up by time)

AC20: 10 dmg 5 seconds reload time. (if you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg every 10 seconds.
MLas: 2 dmg 1 second reload time. (If you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg over 10 seconds.
OR: 4 dmg 2 seconds reloadd time.

Really this problem is not hard. Yes, in reality, we dont move/operate/function in fractions of time. that is where math comes in. Simply devide!

The rest of it, how they fire, heat 'blah blah blah' Not worried about it. Balistics also do something lasers cant, knock a mech on its face. Knock a pilot around in his cockpit Etc Etc.

Edited by Omigir, 20 January 2012 - 10:43 AM.

[SpiralRazor]

Umm...lets get real here guys..

4 Mediums hit exactly where you shoot them at....everyone whos played the Mechwarrior games knows that...Only the pulse lasers splashed damage over multiple locations. The downside is that they both build up LOTS of heat, something that the ACs didnt.

ACs caused stagger and with enough of them, could cause your opponent to be unable to target anything as your cockpit constantly got rocked from the shells and often knocked you over. i NEVER saw knock over/cockpit rock effects from lasers, unless i got legged...i often saw it from the larger kinetic hit ie, gauss, missiles and ACs.

[MaddMaxx]

SpiralRazor, on 20 January 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

Umm...lets get real here guys..

4 Mediums hit exactly where you shoot them at....everyone whos played the Mechwarrior games knows that...Only the pulse lasers splashed damage over multiple locations. The downside is that they both build up LOTS of heat, something that the ACs didnt.

ACs caused stagger and with enough of them, could cause your opponent to be unable to target anything as your cockpit constantly got rocked from the shells and often knocked you over. i NEVER saw knock over/cockpit rock effects from lasers, unless i got legged...i often saw it from the larger kinetic hit ie, gauss, missiles and ACs.

OK, then how best do we defend against 6 ML's for 30pts all in one spot. How about 7ML's for 35pts? That Mech will tear off a section/Arm/Leg with pretty much every trigger pull. Where does it end?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 January 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[VYCanis]

instead of worrying about what is doing 20 damage, and what isn't

how about, ya know, make it balanced for the game by whatever means necessary. There's a lot more that goes into game balance than just damage and recycle time.

lasers, duration, recycle rate, heat, damage per second, any sort of firing delay, their instant hit nature, their accuracy, no ammo limit, their weight, space, range, how visible they make the firer, how likely damage is to drag across multiple locations

ACs, rate of fire, damage per shell, accuracy, projectile speed, drop, recoil, knock factor, weight, heat, space, ammo limits, danger of ammo fires, range, how long it can sustain fire, how easy it is to repeatedly land your shots on the mech, let alone the same location.

and over each of these, how responsive your mech is to your ability to aim, and how easy it is to get your aim messed up by external factors.

and probably a bunch of other stuff that i can't even begin to think of.

The whole argument of 4 medium lasers vs an ac20 is simplifying to the most basic level something that is very unlikely to be that simple.

the idea should be to stop looking at many of the original numbers as end all, be all, absolutes, and instead looking at what the relationships they were a part of represent, and use them as guidelines. The goal should be to preserve the balance and relationships and roles as much as possible, everything else should be secondary to that, even if it means ac20s are doing more or less than 20 damage every 10s

Edited by VYCanis, 20 January 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[Omigir]

MaddMaxx, on 20 January 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

OK, then how best do we defend against 6 ML's for 30pts all in one spot. How about 7ML's for 35pts? That Mech will tear off a section/Arm/Leg with pretty much every trigger pull. Where does it end?

Its MADNESS! No! Its MADDMAXXNESS!

Its a good point though, but that is comes down to boating and the issues it brings. having heat build up fast and bleed off slow like in the TT would help allot with this, also nurfing heatsinks (the ones you see in MW computer game series.) Lasers have a consiquence that previous instalations had just kinda ignored.

[Slyck]

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

20 dmg over 10 seconds. (devide it up by time)

AC20: 10 dmg 5 seconds reload time. (if you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg every 10 seconds.
MLas: 2 dmg 1 second reload time. (If you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg over 10 seconds.
OR: 4 dmg 2 seconds reloadd time.

+1
This is exactly what I what I was trying to describe a page or two back.

SpiralRazor said:

4 Mediums hit exactly where you shoot them at....everyone whos played the Mechwarrior games knows that...

This was a simplification that was introduced in the MW series because it was too complicated to do anything else at the time, and it has led to its own problems that many people want to fix.

[MaddMaxx]

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Its MADNESS! No! Its MADDMAXXNESS!

Its a good point though, but that is comes down to boating and the issues it brings. having heat build up fast and bleed off slow like in the TT would help allot with this, also nurfing heatsinks (the ones you see in MW computer game series.) Lasers have a consiquence that previous instalations had just kinda ignored.

Owww! I like it. MADDMAXXNESS. Has a nice ring to it. LOL

I hope that

Quote

"Lasers have a consequence that previous installations have just kinda ignored.

otherwise the 7ML boats, and their brethren ilk, will run rampant...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 January 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[Omigir]

Rightly so, Maddmaxxness! It is in my humble opinion customization has nothing to do lazer boats, but rather the niglect to consiquences of heat build up.

As for gun boats in genral.. well weight distrobution due to being able to strip armor is the soul perponant for that. If you couldnt strip armor then you couldnt meraculosly fit 5 guass onto your anhialator...

[Undead]

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Im going to just throw this out there, take it or leave it.

20 dmg over 10 seconds. (devide it up by time)

AC20: 10 dmg 5 seconds reload time. (if you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg every 10 seconds.
MLas: 2 dmg 1 second reload time. (If you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg over 10 seconds.
OR: 4 dmg 2 seconds reloadd time.

Really this problem is not hard. Yes, in reality, we dont move/operate/function in fractions of time. that is where math comes in. Simply devide!

The rest of it, how they fire, heat 'blah blah blah' Not worried about it. Balistics also do something lasers cant, knock a mech on its face. Knock a pilot around in his cockpit Etc Etc.

I don't get it. If 4 med lasers do the exact same dps as an AC20, plus have the advantage of never being at risk of running out of ammo, why on earth would anyone ever use an AC20? Of course you can say "lasers have more heat risk", but assuming we have the option to modify our mech and add heat sinks, I would think any competent pilot would make sure he has a decent enough amount of sinks to not be piloting a total deathtrap. If all weapons have their cycle times adjusted to do the exact same damage over 10 seconds, it would make ammo-intensive weapons effectively useless.

IMO, as I said earlier, autocannons should have higher dps and a higher rate of fire than lasers. Even w/ the additional heat involved from using lasers, never running out of ammo is a massive advantage. There has to be some reason to risk using an ammo-intensive weapon over a pile of lasers.

[Omigir]

Undead, on 20 January 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I don't get it. If 4 med lasers do the exact same dps as an AC20, plus have the advantage of never being at risk of running out of ammo, why on earth would anyone ever use an AC20? Of course you can say "lasers have more heat risk", but assuming we have the option to modify our mech and add heat sinks, I would think any competent pilot would make sure he has a decent enough amount of sinks to not be piloting a total deathtrap. If all weapons have their cycle times adjusted to do the exact same damage over 10 seconds, it would make ammo-intensive weapons effectively useless. IMO, as I said earlier, autocannons should have higher dps and a higher rate of fire than lasers. Even w/ the additional heat involved from using lasers, never running out of ammo is a massive advantage. There has to be some reason to risk using an ammo-intensive weapon over a pile of lasers.

That is all in good, but you wont hit every time as you fire multiple vollys over 10 seconds with lasers. Simple fact is, that is hard. Pluss lasers dont have that knock of an AC anything.

In the end, weilding an AC 20 will cut down an enemy mech far more quickly then widdling away at him 4 med lasers. As 20s tend to put all that dmage in to a relativly small area, where as if you tried to do that with Med lasers, you are not going to be able to hit a target that frequently in that small of a group. Trust me, I try all the time. On a cougar load out I have 3 Med lasers and an LBX AC 10, and time and time again, My LBX deals more DPS to one place as I cannot hit the same spot relyably with my 3 Med lasers.

so in short, one succesfll shot with an AC 20 is far more likely in a 10 second round then it is to land all your chances with a group of 4 Med Lasers.

[Zervziel]

VYCanis, on 20 January 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

instead of worrying about what is doing 20 damage, and what isn't

how about, ya know, make it balanced for the game by whatever means necessary. There's a lot more that goes into game balance than just damage and recycle time.

and over each of these, how responsive your mech is to your ability to aim, and how easy it is to get your aim messed up by external factors.

and probably a bunch of other stuff that i can't even begin to think of.

The whole argument of 4 medium lasers vs an ac20 is simplifying to the most basic level something that is very unlikely to be that simple.

the idea should be to stop looking at many of the original numbers as end all, be all, absolutes, and instead looking at what the relationships they were a part of represent, and use them as guidelines. The goal should be to preserve the balance and relationships and roles as much as possible, everything else should be secondary to that, even if it means ac20s are doing more or less than 20 damage every 10s

This needs to be quoted and posted each time people try to enforce TT stats on the video game.

[Omigir]

Zervziel, on 20 January 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

This needs to be quoted and posted each time people try to enforce TT stats on the video game.

You cant just abandon the Table top. You can modify it, ala my '10 second' break down. There are things you can do to make it functonal without discarding the table top.

Look at the '10 seconds' from the TT being a final snap shot or a photograph of what happend at the end of those 10 seconds. In mechwarrior, all you are doing is playing through that 10 seconds. instead or rolling dice you *ARE* the dice. Your skill comes into play vice the little 5/5/5 guy that adds into the equation. Its not that hard. Just have to open up the box and step outside of it.

No one needs to throw out anything. Just look at it upside downa nd backwards and then flip it over to get a diffrent look at it.

[Graphite]

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Im going to just throw this out there, take it or leave it.

20 dmg over 10 seconds. (devide it up by time)

AC20: 10 dmg 5 seconds reload time. (if you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg every 10 seconds.
4x MLas: 2 dmg 1 second reload time. (If you are a good shot) you do 20 dmg over 10 seconds.
OR: 4 dmg 2 seconds reloadd time.

I think something like this is the best way to fix the problem. (Put in the '4x' you left out Omigir!)
Personally I'd like to see the AC20 do 20 damage and have a 10 second reload though.

Undead, on 20 January 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I don't get it. If 4 med lasers do the exact same dps as an AC20, plus have the advantage of never being at risk of running out of ammo, why on earth would anyone ever use an AC20?

I would hate to see ballistic weapons become redundant too, but fortunately matching dps isn't going to do this. 10 shots at 2 damage is very different from 2 shots at 10 damage - the latter is far better at punching holes in armour at a single location.

Quote

IMO, as I said earlier, autocannons should have higher dps and a higher rate of fire than lasers. Even w/ the additional heat involved from using lasers, never running out of ammo is a massive advantage. There has to be some reason to risk using an ammo-intensive weapon over a pile of lasers.

For starters, that statement is way too broad. Second, ACs in MWO are "cannons" not big "machine guns" (if the trailer is anything to go by) - in other words they shoot big shells at a relatively low rate of fire.

Zervziel, on 20 January 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

This needs to be quoted and posted each time people try to enforce TT stats on the video game.

MW is a BT game in the BT universe using BT weapons. If it wasn't meant to be BT-like they would never have paid for a licence. Even now, BT still has a large fan following, and while you might not care, they do.
MW uses BT mech designs, which become screwed up if you change the weapon stats.

No realtime game ever has or will be a perfect implementation of BT, but they're all pretty close. Of course the devs will tweak things away from canon to work well in their game, but always while keeping BT in mind. The MWO devs were required to play TT BT for this project.


Everyone does realise that this thread is pointless (besides our own amusement of course) right? Decisions like this were made a long time ago. Only minor changes will happen now.

Edited by Graphite, 20 January 2012 - 02:47 PM.