101 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Quote

So, instead of doing 2 damage, the AC2 is doing 40. Doubled armor makes it 20 damage by comparison. We have a 6 ton AC20.

An AC 20 does all of it's damage in a burst, you don't need to stand there facing your target for 10 full shots (5.2s) to do 20 damage - you're also unlikely to be hitting the same spot on the target unless they are asleep.

You only need to hit them once.

The AC 2 requires you to just stand there and continue firing, exposing yourself to return fire.

If you're in close combat, torso twisting to protect yourself also means the AC 2 user has to either lose out on that DPS or risk taking core shots to continue to fire.

There is a clear differentiation imo, and a single AC 20 has both higher burst (10x) and higher DPS than a single AC 2.

It's not until you can load 2x AC 2s that the two of them combined can provide higher DPS.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

This is only cause:

1) 10 seconds is way way to much time for what a combat turn is.

&

2) PGI made all our ACs AC20s

ACs should have broke down something more like

In a single Salvo (every 4 seconds)

AC20 puts out 20 damage

AC10 Puts out 10

AC5 puts out 5

and the AC2 puts out 2.

Now the actual numbers Under an AC20 can be tinkered with, BUT an AC20 should be around twice as powerful as an AC10 and so on.

I understand the mechanics behind that post and the reasoning, but those numbers would make some ACs worse at both burst and DPS than competing energy weapon options - while also being heavier, and requiring ammo.

Unless that is the goal?


From my perspective the AC 20 is already better than the AC 10 - at being a burst weapon.

It takes an AC 20 one second to deal 20 damage.

It takes an AC 10 five times as long to deal the same 20 damage.

It takes an AC 5 six times as long.

It takes an AC 2 ten times as long.





Just taking your numbers for a moment:

in a single Salvo (every 4 seconds)

AC20 puts out 20 damage = 5 DPS

AC10 Puts out 10 = 2.5 DPS

AC5 puts out 5 = 1.25 DPS

AC2 puts out 2 = 0.5 DPS


For a bit of perspective (and yes, the range is obviously awful) the current implementation of a Machine Gun has a DPS of 1.

Better than both the AC 2 and nearly as good as the AC 5. Since 1 AC 5 + 2 tons of ammo could get you 5 machine guns with 5 tons of ammo - I see that as a pretty huge nerf.

5 Machine guns btw, would provide as much DPS as your AC 20.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 08 April 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

This is only cause:

1) 10 seconds is way way to much time for what a combat turn is.

&

2) PGI made all our ACs AC20s

ACs should have broke down something more like

In a single Salvo (every 4 seconds)

AC20 puts out 20 damage

AC10 Puts out 10

AC5 puts out 5

and the AC2 puts out 2.

Now the actual numbers Under an AC20 can be tinkered with, BUT an AC20 should be around twice as powerful as an AC10 and so on.

That change cripples every AC except the 20. The AC/10 is already sub-par as it is, the AC/5 was pretty much useless even at 1.7 cooldown, and the AC/2 would become the objectively worst weapon in the game (just like it was in Tabletop).

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 08 April 2014 - 07:18 AM, said:

That change cripples every AC except the 20. The AC/10 is already sub-par as it is, the AC/5 was pretty much useless even at 1.7 cooldown, and the AC/2 would become the objectively worst weapon in the game (just like it was in Tabletop).

AC10 did me just fine last night Sir so I don't know what AC you have been firing. As it is right now all our ACs are AC20 with slower rates of fire the bigger you get. AC2 would be a LOOOOOOng range harassing weapon like it was in TT. AC 2 was and should be the equivalent of Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? but with Dakka!

[East Indy]

Add very brief delays, after an AC or PPC fires, before the next can fire.

It doesn't affect single weapons at all. It doesn't affect salvos from a 'Mech stopping to aim at a shut down or poorly maneuvering target at all. It does, however, require active tracking on intelligently moving/rolling targets -- and it proportionally affects boats. Best of all, it replaces heat scale for these weapon types.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

AC10 did me just fine last night Sir so I don't know what AC you have been firing. As it is right now all our ACs are AC20 with slower rates of fire the bigger you get. AC2 would be a LOOOOOOng range harassing weapon like it was in TT. AC 2 was and should be the equivalent of Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? but with Dakka!

How often does your enemy sit there and let you poke them at 2160 meters? How often do you even SEE the enemy from that far away? And even if you did, do you believe that sacrificing 6 or more tons on a 2-damage (actually a lot less than 2, at that range) would ever be worth the trade of?

PS: the AC/5 goes out 1700 meters, which is longer than you'd ever need even on Alpine. I know your first counter-question might be: "Why not reduce them to only 2x range instead of 3x?" Well, that would make the AC/5 extend out to "only" 1240 meters. That is still long enough for nearly all battles.

PPS: I can only WISH my AC/5 was an AC/20. I actually had one once on my Shadow Hawk but I couldn't stand how weak and anemic it felt. I had to swap it for an AC/10 and downgrade my LL to and ML to make room for it. My AC/10 and AC/2 builds also greatly wished they were an AC/20.

PPPS: The AC/2 was not "looooooooooong" range in TT. It had a range advantage of only 1 hex over LRMs, and many weapons after 3025 came to reach similar ranges or greater. Even in 3025, you could load up 3 LRM5 for the same tonnage as an AC/2, reach nearly the same range, and do more than SEVEN TIMES as much damage.

If you used an AC/2 in Tabletop, you were either:

• Drunk and/or high
  
• Forced to via stock loadout restricted games, and given no free will whatsoever to use other stock designs
  
• A noob

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[DaZur]

Mcgral18, on 08 April 2014 - 06:32 AM, said:

No offense OP but we as a community have to STOP trying to shoehorn TT numbers in to what amounts to a glorified first-person shooter.

It just doesn't work...

TT metrics, cannon , lore and novel "fluff" should all be points of reference only and a certain level of creative licencing is necessary to make all this stuff work in a live environment that is not governed by some arbitrary 10 second rule.

Mind you I'm a staunch defender of the TT, cannon, lore and fluff... I'm just not so myopic to believe that stuff is empirical.

Edited by DaZur, 08 April 2014 - 07:57 AM.

[Ultimax]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

AC10 did me just fine last night Sir so I don't know what AC you have been firing.

I don't think he's saying it's useless, the AC 10 is far from useless IMO.

It's just a tad subpar compared to other ACs - but IMO this isn't actually a damage issue this is more of a build economics issue.

For the tonnage required, I think it's too close to the AC 20 for the damage (half) that it deals.

Range is decent, but not spectacular.

I'd like to see it come down 1 ton in weight - putting it 3 tons heavier than the AC 5 and then 3 tons lighter than the AC 20 and maybe a range bump to 500m.

East Indy, on 08 April 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

Add very brief delays, after an AC or PPC fires, before the next can fire.

It doesn't affect single weapons at all. It doesn't affect salvos from a 'Mech stopping to aim at a shut down or poorly maneuvering target at all. It does, however, require active tracking on intelligently moving/rolling targets -- and it proportionally affects boats. Best of all, it replaces heat scale for these weapon types.

I think that's one idea I could get behind, nice write up.

It would force staggered fire, and would only penalize boating without being a disastrous nerf to builds with only 1 of any weapon on that list.



Best of all it makes sense to include the PPC as it is, technically, also a cannon!

Bravo!

Edited by Ultimatum X, 08 April 2014 - 08:07 AM.

[East Indy]

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

I think that's one idea I could get behind, nice write up.

It would force staggered fire, and would only penalize boating without being a disastrous nerf to builds with only 1 of any weapon on that list.

Thanks! Here's the beauty of it: the staggered fire would be almost unnoticeable -- 1/6, 1/5 and 1/4 of a second are very short to human perception, yet in 0.15 seconds a target moving laterally to the shooter at even 65 kph will shift hitboxes (or out of aim) without leading. The AC/20's half-second would be a little more palpable, but is no worse than the implied limit with heat scale.

Quote

Can you please tell me what the former velocities were?

The 10 was at 1,100 m/s (15% nerf) and the 20 was at 900 m/s (30% nerf).

[Mister Blastman]

Mazzyplz, on 07 April 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

i could probably adapt, but really - i think it's too complex and unrealistic.

right now in real life, in fact probably since 1992 - we got a helicopter that can shoot it's vulcan cannon wherever the pilot aims...



http://science.howst...helicopter5.htm

"Each pilot can aim the sensors by simply moving his or her head!"


SO - if this technology is 22 years old now... then why would a walking war machine in the year 3050 need a joystick without convergence?!?!? makes no sense!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! esp. when you realize the tracking gear already exists in the long range missile systems.
if the missiles can track then why not the lasers converge? seems just TOO silly


imo it's best to nerf the AC by rate of fire and increase the heat so they add to the PPC's heat (but leave the ppc heat alone)
then maaybe double internal hitpoints for all mechs.


it would be simpler, fair and more realistic in a real world sense.

Hehe that M230 chaingun is a single weapon, not several. It also isn't "easy" to aim. Have you ever used a helmet mounted sight slaved to your head? It isn't like you can move your eyeball to get precise aim.

No, the way it works is you move your entire head and line it up roughly with the target and then try and designated it with the TADS optical sensors. Depending on the noise around the target and if you are using FLIR or TV mode, it might be able to establish a pinpoint track. If it does, you can stop using your head and the chopper will do the rest within gimbal limits.

Oh, did I mention you also have to use the laser rangefinder once you designate the target so the gun knows how much elevation and windage to put into each shot?

Granted you only have to rangefind one time if you maintain similar distance and altitude to the target--but if you don't and move too suddenly, you have to do it again as the inertial navigation system has room for error.

So it isn't as "simple" as you make it sound. And that's for a single gun.

If you want to see how hard it is to optically designate a "slaved cannon" to a target, pick up a Track IR and fly some EECH + Mods (Enemy Engaged) or DCS: Black Shark 2. It isn't a perfect 1:1 comparison because most track IR users use sensitivity curves (since your monitor doesn't wrap around your head) but you'll get a rough idea.



Also... The Apache has 2.75 inch rockets. Yes, they do adjust slightly for a target. They aren't solid hardpoints like on a fixed-wing aircraft. They do have some slight leeway for vertical adjustment. They do not, however, converge horizontally. Think of them as "fixed" to the torso.

Lastly, I touched on something known as the INS, or Inertial Navigation System. This is essentially an enclosed gyroscope surrounded by sensors. When an aircraft is powered on, the INS must perform an "alignment" which takes several minutes. The longer your align it for, the more accurate it is. There still is room for small error. Unlike a battlemech, an aircraft is a relatively stable platform--not jostling up and down constantly. They do bounce around in clouds, but beyond that, their movement is relatively smooth. The INS has a backup system (well these days the INS itself is backup in some aircraft) through GPS. The planets we are attacking in Battletech don't have a GPS network setup around them.

How on earth is the Battlemech going to keep track of where it is? Without GPS there is... INS and perhaps accelerometers (which are less accurate).

It isn't simple stuff. We still struggle with it these days not due to technology, but due to the laws of physics.

I for one would only be comfortable with arm weapon convergence without a targeting computer. And even then, it should be slow, tedious convergence, not instantaneous. Torso weapons should be fixed unless a Targeting Computer is present and even then, the range of motion is small and slow.



NOTE: On the Radar equipped Apaches they don't have to use the laser rangefinder like the non-radar choppers unless they want extreme accuracy. Also, use of the radar will highlight your position to the enemy immediately if they have sensors which puts you in a bad position. Most radar use is limited to quadrants off your axis (aka 90 degrees to the right) in pulses rather than full-on active scanning. It takes time to perform a single sweep and if you do designate a single target (through the use of a button on the aircraft controls), it switches to active single scanning of that target which gives rapid range adjustments.

Not every Apache has radar, either. In fact, for a long time it was common to share the radome with multiple choppers and using datalink, update enemy position info to the entire package. The radar can be swapped between airframes and for a while, was. IF you are using datalink info, you'll have to laser designate as you don't have the radar on your own chopper.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 08 April 2014 - 08:40 AM.

[Ultimax]

East Indy, on 08 April 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

Thanks! Here's the beauty of it: the staggered fire would be almost unnoticeable -- 1/6, 1/5 and 1/4 of a second are very short to human perception, yet in 0.15 seconds a target moving laterally to the shooter at even 65 kph will shift hitboxes (or out of aim) without leading. The AC/20's half-second would be a little more palpable, but is no worse than the implied limit with heat scale.

Agreed, that's a nice clean solution.

East Indy, on 08 April 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

The 10 was at 1,100 m/s (15% nerf) and the 20 was at 900 m/s (30% nerf).

So that's why my AC 20 rounds feel like I'm shooting bowling balls at 400m...

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 08 April 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

1)How often does your enemy sit there and let you poke them at 2160 meters? 2)How often do you even SEE the enemy from that far away? 3)And even if you did, do you believe that sacrificing 6 or more tons on a 2-damage (actually a lot less than 2, at that range) would ever be worth the trade of?

PS: the AC/5 goes out 1700 meters, which is longer than you'd ever need even on Alpine. I know your first counter-question might be: "Why not reduce them to only 2x range instead of 3x?" Well, that would make the AC/5 extend out to "only" 1240 meters. That is still long enough for nearly all battles.

PPS: I can only WISH my AC/5 was an AC/20. I actually had one once on my Shadow Hawk but I couldn't stand how weak and anemic it felt. I had to swap it for an AC/10 and downgrade my LL to and ML to make room for it. My AC/10 and AC/2 builds also greatly wished they were an AC/20.

PPPS: 4)The AC/2 was not "looooooooooong" range in TT. It had a range advantage of only 1 hex over LRMs, and many weapons after 3025 came to reach similar ranges or greater. Even in 3025, you could load up 3 LRM5 for the same tonnage as an AC/2, reach nearly the same range, and do more than SEVEN TIMES as much damage.

If you used an AC/2 in Tabletop, you were either:*(se3 #3 below)

• Drunk and/or high
  
• Forced to via stock loadout restricted games, and given no free will whatsoever to use other stock designs
  
• A noob

1) Back when I used a Gauss and ERPPC combo... twice at most.
2) Often enough to have been accused of cheating!
3) Me?No... But I do know a guy who put 6 Clan Ultra 2s on a Banshee (IIRC)... Me I was the 3xGauss/2xERPPC on a Stone Rhino guy. Deadly... no matter where you went!

4) So one hex longer that LONG range Missiles isn't long enough? AC2 was/is the longest ranged weapon in the game

Oh and MW:O ballistics don't have a minimum range so they are usable at a brawl as well as at range, so they are perfectly usable as a brawling weapon. Its called versatile, a necessity when you are fighting in various terrains and climates.

[East Indy]

Ultimatum X, on 08 April 2014 - 08:34 AM, said:

So that's why my AC 20 rounds feel like I'm shooting bowling balls at 400m...

Nice. The best analogy I've read so far is "like a T-shirt cannon."

[Mcgral18]

DaZur, on 08 April 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

[/size]
No offense OP but we as a community have to STOP trying to shoehorn TT numbers in to what amounts to a glorified first-person shooter.

It just doesn't work...

You're right, but PGI tried to, and failed. Heatsinks are a fine example. Either equal, or nerfed compared to TT, but weapons generate for the most part 3 times as much heat. It just doesn't work.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

1) Back when I used a Gauss and ERPPC combo... twice at most.

Which is exactly my point. The AC/2's tonnage is always a drawback in every possible battle, but the ability to poke out to 2160 meters is almost never utilized because there aren't very many open spaces without cover that extend that far. Especially because a lot of other weapons can get fairly close to that range themselves.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

2) Often enough to have been accused of cheating!

Pics or it didn't happen.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

3) Me?No... But I do know a guy who put 6 Clan Ultra 2s on a Banshee (IIRC)... Me I was the 3xGauss/2xERPPC on a Stone Rhino guy. Deadly... no matter where you went!

That guy could swap those Ultra 2s for almost any other ranged weapons to deal a lot more damage. The Clan ERLL in particular is just 2 hexes shorter than the CUAC/2, but deals way more damage.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

4) So one hex longer that LONG range Missiles isn't long enough? AC2 was/is the longest ranged weapon in the game

No, it wasn't long enough, because you paid for that fairly small range advantage by sacrificing your ability to deal any level of threatening damage. You don't win battles by just poking the enemy on the shoulder, you win by murdering them. If your weapon cannot murder or at least somehow support some other weapon in murdering (i.e. TAG helps missiles, etc.), it's a waste of space.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Oh and MW:O ballistics don't have a minimum range so they are usable at a brawl as well as at range, so they are perfectly usable as a brawling weapon. Its called versatile, a necessity when you are fighting in various terrains and climates.

The majority of weapons in general don't have a min range.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 08 April 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

1) Which is exactly my point. The AC/2's tonnage is always a drawback in every possible battle, but the ability to poke out to 2160 meters is almost never utilized because there aren't very many open spaces without cover that extend that far. Especially because a lot of other weapons can get fairly close to that range themselves.



2)Pics or it didn't happen.


3)That guy could swap those Ultra 2s for almost any other ranged weapons to deal a lot more damage. The Clan ERLL in particular is just 2 hexes shorter than the CUAC/2, but deals way more damage.



3)No, it wasn't long enough, because you paid for that fairly small range advantage by sacrificing your ability to deal any level of threatening damage. You don't win battles by just poking the enemy on the shoulder, you win by murdering them. If your weapon cannot murder or at least somehow support some other weapon in murdering (i.e. TAG helps missiles, etc.), it's a waste of space.



4)The majority of weapons in general don't have a min range.

1)It was a Choice good or bad. It was a choice a government or military would have been willing to make. That you or I wouldn't isn't the point. The whole point of CBT was it was a game based on war and the explanations for why X was used or why the Charger was ever made made perfect sense from the perspective of corruption and bureaucracy. If you really want to play the game as it is meant you roll with the dumb shi cause it is how a government would do things.

2) Pics??? I was playing at 9 FpS... I was happy I had sound!

3) I know people who make the choice to have an AC2 instead of an LRM everytime.

4) That is in this game. I will use Long range weapons to kill players up close cause they can. Flexible weapons capable of multiple ranges are the way to go.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2014 - 09:49 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

1)It was a Choice good or bad. It was a choice a government or military would have been willing to make. That you or I wouldn't isn't the point. The whole point of CBT was it was a game based on war and the explanations for why X was used or why the Charger was ever made made perfect sense from the perspective of corruption and bureaucracy. If you really want to play the game as it is meant you roll with the dumb shi cause it is how a government would do things.

I'm fairly certain that a government that wanted to hit people from that range would use things like cruise missiles, drone strikes, howitzers, etc that inflict a heckuva lot more damage.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

3) I know people who make the choice to have an AC2 instead of an LRM everytime.

Well, those people are probably not sober then. Or they really just don't understand the meta of TT.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

4) That is in this game. I will use Long range weapons to kill players up close cause they can. Flexible weapons capable of multiple ranges are the way to go.

Which you can do with many other weapon systems, which have nearly the same range as the AC/2. And a lot more lethality up-close.

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2014 - 09:53 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 08 April 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

I'm fairly certain that a government that wanted to hit people from that range would use things like cruise missiles, drone strikes, howitzers, etc that inflict a heckuva lot more damage.



Well, those people are probably not sober then. Or they really just don't understand the meta of TT.



Which you can do with many other weapon systems, which have nearly the same range as the AC/2. And a lot more lethality up-close.

Howitzers

or

Howitzers

Which would they deploy?

Cruise Missiles???

Drones

or

Drones


2) The Meta of TT also include TAC, and using that as his basis he COULD cripple you before you got into your weapon range. I wasn't my best strategy... But I have TAC kills with the AC2 more than any other weapons in the game. Its not a solid bet by any means but some folks like the odds.

3) You and I think that Fup, but there are those who swear by the AC2 here and over on TT... Then again I have an AC2 only kill in every match I have been forced to have an AC2 on TT. I am *ucking lethal with that pea shooter!

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

[Trauglodyte]

Nothing suggested, not just here but other ideas, is simple, easy, quick, etc.

Edited by Trauglodyte, 08 April 2014 - 10:10 AM.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

Howitzers

or

Howitzers

Which would they deploy?

Cruise Missiles???

Drones

or

Drones

Any of those are better than an AC/2.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

2) The Meta of TT also include TAC, and using that as his basis he COULD cripple you before you got into your weapon range. I wasn't my best strategy... But I have TAC kills with the AC2 more than any other weapons in the game. Its not a solid bet by any means but some folks like the odds.

I've never been the type to place bets on things I don't have an almost guarantee of working. Here is a nice video that sort of explains it:


I like reliability.

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

3) You and I think that Fup, but there are those who swear by the AC2 here and over on TT... Then again I have an AC2 only kill in every match I have been forced to have an AC2 on TT. I am *ucking lethal with that pea shooter!

See above.

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2014 - 10:25 AM.

[wintersborn]

Why not just add pinpoint to every other weapon?

LRM 20 shooting one missile at a time and each able to strike the center torso with maybe a very small chance to hit the sides?

We have missiles now that do that so why not in a 1980's Robot game?