68 replies to this topic

[Whoops]

For actual adapability, Kreman, you're absolutely right. However, you CAN get a basic overview by holding your mouse over the 'Mech's picture, and a pop-up screen will show you some of the 'Mech stats (how many of each weapon type [ballistic, energy, missile, AMS, and ECM] a given chassis has). It also shows things like jump jet distance and the angle your torso can adjust in that chassis.

What most people seem to want is the ability to free-build 'Mechs and test them in-game before making a purchase. I can see why this is reasonable. Heck...I want a multiplayer testing ground, myself. A place to coordinate teamwork before going out on the battlefield. Not likely to happen, though.

[Edustaja]

Cyron Zarva, on 27 March 2014 - 02:52 AM, said:

Heck...I want a multiplayer testing ground, myself. A place to coordinate teamwork before going out on the battlefield. Not likely to happen, though.

Well you'll have that option when the premium private matches launch soon™

[Whoops]

Shar Wolf, on 26 March 2014 - 08:40 PM, said:

I hadn't meant it in quite that manor....
LRM are rather bulky - but not quite as bulky as you seem to think - or perhaps some of them are - and others are not.
(IE: the Thug's PPC are described as 10% smaller than the Warhammer's)

Let me see if I can put it another way.... >.<

All we really know about the "size" of the LRM20 is that it takes 5 slots and weighs 10 tons- but how big is a slot?
Would a single slot on a Locust be the same size as the slot on the Atlas? In TT, the answer was yes - but that is silly, no?
After all, the Locust is only 20% the weight of the Atlas, and while weight and bulk (wrong term?) are not necessarily equal - that is a pretty massive difference.

That's true, Shar. However, when it comes to missiles, the size of the warhead matters, regardless of what she tells him.

In order to fit that launcher...that HUGE launcher that makes Catapults look like a deranged, Terminator-infused Mickey Mouse...into a small 'Mech by shrinking down the tube size and calling it a day...well, I think that's kind of silly, too. Smaller tubes would mean smaller missiles, which could not pack the same punch as the larger ones. If they could, everyone would be doing it and reducing the massive profile of the larger launchers for better survivability. You're right about how the tonnage and critical slots are all the game looks at, and if the weapon fits, wear it is the rule of the day.

On another note..."bulk" was the correct term, as you're talking about the size of the chassis.

Oh, and please stop posting 'Mech porn.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cyron Zarva, on 27 March 2014 - 08:12 AM, said:

Oh, and please stop posting 'Mech porn.

You did ask for it!

Smaller tubes would be part of it yes, but how big are the missiles anyways?
Following the crit-space mechanics, you could fit 900 missiles into the same space as 1 LRM20 launcher - just the launcher - so the missiles are probably not very big.
(Minor Edit) 1800 missiles for the weight!

Going back to the Catapult's ears - that was my point with the Thug/Warhammer bit - even among all PPC - they are not all the same physical size.
Who is to say all the LRM's are the same size?
TT worked is values based off of a 10second turn - there was only one AC/20 that did it's damage in one shot - and that was only ever mounted on tanks - the Pontiac-100 found on Yenlo and the Victor chassis fired a 100 round burst!
It could very well be that there were LRM out there that actually fired 30-40 or more missiles in one salvo - but were averaged out to the values in TT (and by connection MW) for simplification's sake.

(though for all the variations of different weapons Koniving has been digging up, I am not aware of missile variants, so I could very very easily be wrong about that)

Edited by Shar Wolf, 27 March 2014 - 10:14 AM.

[Whoops]

My point, though, extends to PPC and AC and all that. If smaller weaponry doesn't in fact change any of the mechanics (range, damage, etc), then why bother with the huge ones to begin with?



It's an asthetic thing, and I've strayed far from gameplay on this. Finding a gripe more on topic now.

Man, I hate sucking at hand/eye coordination with my mouse. Need to learn right handed piloting to let my left do the shooting.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cyron Zarva, on 27 March 2014 - 12:25 PM, said:

My point, though, extends to PPC and AC and all that. If smaller weaponry doesn't in fact change any of the mechanics (range, damage, etc), then why bother with the huge ones to begin with?

(note: I am actually enjoying this conversation somewhat)

Not sure what you what you mean that the smaller weaponry doesn't change the mechanics....
Could they be more different? Definitely!
Do they not change the mechanics? No.
Take an AC/2 into a fight against an AC/20:
The AC/20 has the twist advantage (4 seconds between firing to twist wherever he chooses which helps spread damage) heat and concentrated firepower advantages (10x the damage per shot - enough to blow out any single item once the armor is gone - the AC/20 itself having the most health at 18 points)
The AC/2 has the range (longest in the game!) weight, damage per ton of ammo, and knock-about advantage.
While both weapons do about the same DPS - there is already quite a bit of variation (with many strengths to both sides)

Ideally, I would hope to see the AC/20 come in all the variants it can (as well as the AC/2 and the other weapons)
But as that is a balancing nightmare (for all the good suggestions in the forums there are many many more bad ones - even the good ones that get noticed have serious issues with them) I would not expect to see that before MWO has run out of other things to actively be worked on (rather like how Blizzard waited until they had tied up the running major storylines before re-working the world itself in Cataclysm)

IE: I fully expect to see a lot more variation in our weapons... eventually - but far enough back that I am not holding my breath on it.

[Whoops]

Conversation is good, yes...but I don't seem to be typing my point clearly.

What I mean is this: Why does a PPC fired by an Atlas do the same as a PPC fired from, say...a Firestarter? There's like 70 tons of difference, and the physical barrel of the weapon on the smaller 'Mech should be smaller, changing the output of the weapon itself. The larger 'Mech should have more power able to go into the weapon's discharge, producing a higher damage potential. Yet the weapon systems have the same range and do the same damage regardless of the physical properties of the weapons.

AC/2 vs. AC/20 isn't quite what I meant, because those are different weapon systems and meant to do different things. The AC/2 is an annoyance weapon that personally I use to get a 'Mech's attention. Annoyed at getting swatted a few times, the 'Mech will usually come after me and I can try to set up an ambush. AC/20 is more of a "Okay, it's time to take off a few body parts" weapon (and one I'm not particularly good with), but requires a much closer personal touch.

[Alaskan Nobody]

Cyron Zarva, on 27 March 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

What I mean is this: Why does a PPC fired by an Atlas do the same as a PPC fired from, say...a Firestarter? There's like 70 tons of difference, and the physical barrel of the weapon on the smaller 'Mech should be smaller, changing the output of the weapon itself. The larger 'Mech should have more power able to go into the weapon's discharge, producing a higher damage potential. Yet the weapon systems have the same range and do the same damage regardless of the physical properties of the weapons.

I think you are getting your point across - but I seem to be failing at mine.

The weight of the chassis has nothing to do with the weapon itself - that would be like saying that mounting a 0.22 on a bike would cause it to cause less damage than mounting that same gun on a truck.
Yes the Atlas has a bigger engine - though even that would be debatable - perhaps using the Jenner or Raven as a comparison, as both could fit that 300 grade engine that the Atlas comes with.
Following that line of thought - the Atlas would be dedicating less from that 300 grade engine (xl or standard - only difference is the weight and bulk of the engine, not the power) to the weaponry - as it would be dedicating more toward simply moving itself around.

Keep in mind that the weapons are semi-standardized - they have stuff built in to keep from overcharging the weapon (the end result of your example there)
However - there were different brands of PPC - perhaps some of them cause less damage, but fire more often - but I doubt it.
Other than brand names (Magna Hellstar PPC for example) the only thing describing the difference between two PPC is that bit with the Thug/Warhammer.
Which rather implies that a PPC was just that - a PPC - regardless of who made it or what mech it was mounted on.

It could be debated on whether the AC/2 was meant as an "annoyance" - because even in TT they were quite deadly (ever face someone faster than you with longer range weapons than you had? I hated using Hunchbacks before MWO)
The lower damage ratio could be due to an (official or unofficial) agreement of some kind - not directly related, but modern day tanks have a fuse built into their shells that cause them to self-destruct after a certain distance, self limiting their range.
Could be similar issues with the damage values (stretching it a lot - I know the lower damage values on the AC/2 had other reasons, based off of balancing the TT game)

[Whoops]

You win this round...

I get the gist of what you're saying. A PPC is a PPC is a PPC. I get it...I just don't think it SHOULD be. The Hunch was built around that massive AC/20 in the shoulder. It's entire structure was designed to support that weight. If you were able to put that into a Cicada, though, the 'Mech should fall over from the weight of the weapon unbalancing the rest of it's chassis.

That 300XL engine on a Jenner makes it go so much faster because it has less weight to get going, while the same on an Atlas makes it go about half the speed. But if you pull that engine out of a Jenner and try to throw it into an assault 'Mech, it's gonna be pretty darn small inside that much larger bulk. The engines don't magically resize to fit the larger chassis (except in MW:O they do...), and since I don't have any assault 'Mechs, I can't even say whether or not a 300XL engine is the same weight between a Jenner and an Atlas.