950 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

I Zeratul I, on 04 May 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Aren't LBX considered short range "spray and pray" weaponry, though?

An atlas with 5 large lasers could be about as significant a threat? It may all balance out in the end. :T

Listen to NGNG's "'Mechs, Devs, & Beer #15" with Paul Inouye (the MWO Lead Designer); he explains that their current (as of the time of the recording) plan is to have Clan LB-X ACs be able to switch between slug (as in the equivalent of shotgun slug) rounds and cluster rounds (which already serve as the equivalent of shotshells), while the Clan UACs would be implemented as burst-fire weapons (such that a clan UAC/20, in stead of firing one large shell for 20 damage per salvo, might fire (for example) five shells that deal 4 damage apiece for a total of 20 damage per salvo).

Note that when Paul discusses the Clan LB-X ACs (from 40:40 to 42:48), he does not specifically indicate whether the Clan LB-X slug mode would also use a burst-fire implementation (like what's described for the Clan UACs) or if slugs would fire as single shells (like the IS Standard ACs), though some of his reasoning for denying ammo-switching for the IS LB 10-X (specifically, with regard to rendering the Standard AC/10 obsolete) implies the latter.

Additionally, note that Paul's discussion of Clan UACs (from 35:50 to 37:36) uses the 5x4 (burst of 5 shells @ 4 damage per shell) statement solely as an example ("...the [Ultra] Autocannon/20, for example - just throwing out some ideas here - is that it'll shoot a 5-round burst with every round doing 4 damage..."); the use of speculative language indicates that the 5x4 pattern was not set-in-stone as of the time of the recording - the CUAC/20 could ultimately end up firing in a 3x6.67 configuration (burst of 3 shells @ 6.67 damage per shell), or a 4x5 configuration, or a 6x3.33 configuration, and so on.

The other CUACs would probably follow the same pattern, IMO; a CUAC/10 could easily end up as 3x3.33 (burst of 3 shells @ 3.33 damage per shell, for a total of 10 damage per burst) or 4x2.5 or 5x2, while a CUAC/5 could be set up as 3x1.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 1.67 damage per shell, for a total of 5 damage per burst) or 4x1.25 or 5x1 & a CUAC/2 could be set up as 3x0.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 0.67 damage per shell, for a total of 2 damage per burst) or 4x0.50 or 5x0.40.

----------

Zack Esseth, on 04 May 2014 - 01:08 PM, said:

In reading your post I see I may have mixed some of the variants up. Also, didn't know that quad uac 2 variant had two in the torso, I thought they where in the arms on the B (B has four ballistics, not C, I have faltered). But still, the Dire Wolf wont have much trouble in the "I'm a walking battle ship" department.

Also, why clans no put alt config designations in order of build date. Having the Prime, A, B and W is confusing and I need a remarkably better source than Sarna.

The lettering order is, in part, a result of real-world publishing order - one set of variants might have been published in book A (set during the early stages of the Clan Invasion), with a later set published in Book B (set during the Great Refusal & the reborn SLDF destroying Clan Smoke Jaguar), then another even-later set published in Book C (set between Books A and B in-universe, and published after Book B in reality).

[Pariah Devalis]

Another option, since they said that the burst values are still open, is that we could see ultra 2's being unchanged, single slugs. Ultra 5's two shots at 2.5. 10's as 3 shots of 3.33. 20's as 4 shots of 5.

[Wintersdark]

Gryphorim, on 01 May 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

"It's probably the closest I will ever get to a Marauder in this game."

Yep, and with at least 1 ballistic in side torso, plus 2x energy in each arm....
I just hope the missile banks disappear if missile weapons removed.

...Imagine the coup. PGI removes the missile banks when no missiles are equipped, and instead mounts a high mounted autocannon/gauss rifle, should that be put there... But, it's not even called a Marauder! It just happens to look just like one, yet without using either the HG imagery or even the basic Marauder name. Purely coincidence.

[Koniving]

ssm, on 14 April 2014 - 03:09 AM, said:

And that's my entire point - mechs in BT universe, at least in earlier eras, are not visually differentiated along major factions (IS/Clans). They are organic/mechanical/streamlined/blocky designs all across the board, regardless if the are Clan or IS.

Agreed.

But, remember that MWO's designs are based more on BT 3100 art.








Or this..which largely inspired the Victor we have now.

[ThoR294]

I think the missile boxes on timber wolf need to have like missiles that stick out, and they disappear when fired... then when they are reloaded, they re-appear sticking out of the box. I also feel it is very tall compared to MW2/MW4.

As far as Dire Wolf goes, in MW2 it was super easy to get headshots on him with a mech that had JJs. He was a beast but his cockpit was very easy to hit

[DirePhoenix]

Cimarb, on 04 May 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

That could be explained by size. Much like hunting cats, HG isn't going to attack the strongest in the herd - they are going to look for the weakest to avoid any personal injury to themselves in the process. That means they attack PGI, who has cash flow, but little experience legally.

I'm pretty sure HG recently got into a bigger legal problem than they had expected, but can't remember who it was with - I think it had to do with GIJOE or Transformers toys, so maybe Hasbro or Mattel?...

That was with HASBRO in regards to their San Diego Comic Con exclusive "Jetfire" Transformers/GIJoe crossover toy, which uses the same appearance of an F14 Tomcat with external booster pods (Why isn't McDonnell-Douglas suing Harmony Gold?!? - aside from the fact that they probably know the entire thing is stupid).

However, what you described as HG "not going against the the strongest in the herd" is exactly the opposite of their tactic. They especially go after the big boys like HASBRO. Do you know why? Asking for a million dollar settlement from HASBRO means absolutely nothing to HASBRO, they'll pay it without even blinking an eye. Absolutely no sweat off their back. They don't even care if it's a just or unjust cause; "Here, just take some of my spare change and go away, you filthy beggar" is how the big boys see it.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 04 May 2014 - 02:00 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Strum Wealh, on 04 May 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Listen to NGNG's "'Mechs, Devs, & Beer #15" with Paul Inouye (the MWO Lead Designer); he explains that their current (as of the time of the recording) plan is to have Clan LB-X ACs be able to switch between slug (as in the equivalent of shotgun slug) rounds and cluster rounds (which already serve as the equivalent of shotshells), while the Clan UACs would be implemented as burst-fire weapons (such that a clan UAC/20, in stead of firing one large shell for 20 damage per salvo, might fire (for example) five shells that deal 4 damage apiece for a total of 20 damage per salvo).

Note that when Paul discusses the Clan LB-X ACs (from 40:40 to 42:48), he does not specifically indicate whether the Clan LB-X slug mode would also use a burst-fire implementation (like what's described for the Clan UACs) or if slugs would fire as single shells (like the IS Standard ACs), though some of his reasoning for denying ammo-switching for the IS LB 10-X (specifically, with regard to rendering the Standard AC/10 obsolete) implies the latter.

Additionally, note that Paul's discussion of Clan UACs (from 35:50 to 37:36) uses the 5x4 (burst of 5 shells @ 4 damage per shell) statement solely as an example ("...the [Ultra] Autocannon/20, for example - just throwing out some ideas here - is that it'll shoot a 5-round burst with every round doing 4 damage..."); the use of speculative language indicates that the 5x4 pattern was not set-in-stone as of the time of the recording - the CUAC/20 could ultimately end up firing in a 3x6.67 configuration (burst of 3 shells @ 6.67 damage per shell), or a 4x5 configuration, or a 6x3.33 configuration, and so on.

The other CUACs would probably follow the same pattern, IMO; a CUAC/10 could easily end up as 3x3.33 (burst of 3 shells @ 3.33 damage per shell, for a total of 10 damage per burst) or 4x2.5 or 5x2, while a CUAC/5 could be set up as 3x1.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 1.67 damage per shell, for a total of 5 damage per burst) or 4x1.25 or 5x1 & a CUAC/2 could be set up as 3x0.67 (burst of 3 shells @ 0.67 damage per shell, for a total of 2 damage per burst) or 4x0.50 or 5x0.40.

---------

I did listen to the NGNG podcast, surprisingly.

I think most have better accuracy with lasers than AC's.

My accuracy stats.

AC2: 45%
AC5: 47%
AC10: 33%
AC 20: 52%

Small Laser: 44%
Medium laser: 67%
Large Laser: 60%
ER Large Laser: 72%

A single slug ammo option does make it easier to focus damage in a single area. But overall its less accurate than lasers I'm thinking which may allow a large laser to deal near to equivalent damage with an AC5.

AC's are mostly good in scenarios where someone is standing still in front of you.

If they're a moving target its easier to hit them with lasers for the same reasons its easier to shoot a spider in the leg with a medium laser than it is with an AC20.

A burst fire option still wouldn't be as accurate as a laser due to the travel time of the shell being slower than a laser beam (giving then more time to torso twist or move out of the way) and the firing duration being lower leaving less margin for error.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 04 May 2014 - 02:16 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

Agreed.

But, remember that MWO's designs are based more on BT 3100 art.








Or this..which largely inspired the Victor we have now.

Interesting premise, but not likely. Falling Debris, AKA Alex Iglesias, makes art for both PGI's MWO, and the tabletop game produced by Catalyst.

The art in the tabletop sourcebooks belongs to Topps, Inc. and is licensed to Catalyst. PGI apparently doesn't have any such licensing deal to use Topp's art, even though they both employ the same artist for the same franchise. PGI cannot use any pre-existing art for use in MWO and as they have said before, all art in MWO has to be new art created for MWO. However, the deal apparently doesn't go both ways because Topps can use designs that were initially created for MWO.


**employ may be too strong of a term to use for Topps' means of acquiring Battletech art. More than likely it works something like this: Alex makes a bunch of art, and Topps decides to buy some of it (maybe with or without Catalyst's influence).

Edited by DirePhoenix, 04 May 2014 - 02:24 PM.

[Featherwood]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 01:56 PM, said:

...
Or this..which largely inspired the Victor we have now.

Wow, I haven't seen this, thx for posting. Does AI'13 stand for Alexander Iglesias, right? I would take this Victor design over current one any day. Impressive rides the impressiveness. Dat right arm...

[101011]

The thing about laser accuracy is that it does not measure actual accuracy, just if you can manage to graze the target at once.

[Koniving]

DirePhoenix, on 04 May 2014 - 02:20 PM, said:

**employ may be too strong of a term to use for Topps' means of acquiring Battletech art. More than likely it works something like this: Alex makes a bunch of art, and Topps decides to buy some of it (maybe with or without Catalyst's influence).

I'm aware, but you can see the huge influences (not to mention same artist). PGI hired him directly. The square, blocky nature strips the 1980s style art and puts in a more modern, 21st century spin on the old 20th century art.


That's 2 ER Medium Lasers and a Plasma Rifle btw. 20 ton Omnimech. Infantry nearby. Typical speed 86.4 kph. And in a balanced game, that'd be more than acceptable even on a 20 ton mech.

Featherwood, on 04 May 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Wow, I haven't seen this, thx for posting. Does AI'13 stand for Alexander Iglesias, right? I would take this Victor design over current one any day. Impressive rides the impressiveness. Dat right arm...

That's a Liao mech, Lu Wei Bing.

What I like is unlike the MWO models, Alex tends to have more sense of proportion for weapons and weapon variants.

For anyone interested in the process, check it out here.
I personally miss these days.

So quickly that got removed.

Edited by Koniving, 04 May 2014 - 02:40 PM.

[Kageru Ikazuchi]

101011, on 04 May 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

The thing about laser accuracy is that it does not measure actual accuracy, just if you can manage to graze the target at once.

Yep - a more acccurate metric for individual effectiveness with lasers is damage per shot (damage / fired).

[Koniving]

Featherwood, on 04 May 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Wow, I haven't seen this, thx for posting. Does AI'13 stand for Alexander Iglesias, right? I would take this Victor design over current one any day. Impressive rides the impressiveness. Dat right arm...

Also if you liked that one.. Here's the original Dragon design.


Sadly a TRO confusion has some listings as "Lower arm actuator" for both arms and no hand actuator for either arm, while some list (and the original TRO art shows) no right arm lower arm actuator and there is a hand actuator.

Meanwhile the Grand Dragon, does completely state hand actuator left side and lower arm actuator on both arms.

Whichever is officially true for the regular Dragon, in MWO we lose 1 crit slot as we get both the lower arm actuator right arm and the hand actuator...when TRO says it's one or the other.

Just imagine.

Dragon would be a lot cooler then. And a lot more used.

Edited by Koniving, 04 May 2014 - 02:49 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

101011, on 04 May 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

The thing about laser accuracy is that it does not measure actual accuracy, just if you can manage to graze the target at once.

Accuracy stats don't measure whether you hit what you were aiming for, either. Someone might've been aiming for at a center torso and hit their leg instead. That should probably count as a miss, even if credit is rendered for it.

Not that anyone here said the statistics used in game were absolutely perfect. /Offtopic subject.

If you would like to make a case for AC's being more accurate than lasers -- I'm sure people would be interested in listening to it.

A graze or half, even quarter damage damage laser hit, is still better than a complete miss with an AC round. Lasers are more accurate even if the statistics used are imperfect.

Full AC mechs also tend to be "sub nominal" against lights.

AC effectiveness is exaggerated at best.

Sorry to disappoint the resident autocannon fandom. But, your AC deity is overrated!

Edited by I Zeratul I, 04 May 2014 - 02:50 PM.

[Featherwood]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 02:46 PM, said:

Also if you liked that one.. Here's the original Dragon design.


Sadly a TRO confusion has some listings as "Lower arm actuator" for both arms and no hand actuator for either arm, while some list (and the original TRO art shows) no right arm lower arm actuator and there is a hand actuator.

Meanwhile the Grand Dragon, does completely state hand actuator left side and lower arm actuator on both arms.

Whichever is officially true for the regular Dragon, in MWO we lose 1 crit slot as we get both the lower arm actuator right arm and the hand actuator...when TRO says it's one or the other.

I saw this one, I can even recall first artwork for Dragon has similar right arm design, but it was replaced later. Thx anyway.

[DirePhoenix]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

What I like is unlike the MWO models, Alex tends to have more sense of proportion for weapons and weapon variants.

Unlike MWO models, art for a tabletop sourcebook doesn't have to take into account things like three-dimensional animation flexibility, and hitboxes balanced for fairness in a shooter game.

[Koniving]

DirePhoenix, on 04 May 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

Unlike MWO models, art for a tabletop sourcebook doesn't have to take into account things like three-dimensional animation flexibility, and hitboxes balanced for fairness in a shooter game.

So, a PPC gets to be smaller than a person on a small mech, but on the Awesome has to be larger than the light mech when it's still 7 tons? In this case, how come it is Smaller on a Shadowhawk than it is on a Kintaro, when both mechs are the same size?






For that matter, I wonder what MWO will do with Light PPCs? Snub-nosed PPCs? Or Heavy PPCs? Will a Heavy PPC on an Awesome or Atlas be larger than the mech? Will snub-nosed PPCs on the chest of a Blackjack be impossible to see (since they're pretty fat and snubbed anyway)? What about light PPCs when standard PPCs on light mechs are as small as laser ports?

In what way is that fair to anyone? That's not a design consideration at all. A design consideration is allowing stock-based armor limits for larger mechs (the Awesome is large because it has 80 to over 100 more points of armor than a Victor for example. The Dragon has nearly as much armor as most 70 ton mechs despite being a 60 tonner. The Thunderbolt, 65 tons, is literally a half a ton short of the Stalker's armor which is why it is 'big'.) That's a design consideration.

A design consideration is discouraging smaller mechs from using immensely powerful weapons by keeping their sizes consistent. For example discouraging AC/20 Blackjacks by having the AC/20 be the same size it is for every mech instead of a reduced profile.

For example.

Spoiler

and


Yet...

A proper design of a mech with a big gun has a mech with a big gun.



And you, not having armor sufficient enough to protect said big gun, should not want to throw that big gun on a Raven for some unfair advantage. That's a design consideration.

Edited by Koniving, 04 May 2014 - 03:19 PM.

[DirePhoenix]

Koniving, on 04 May 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

So, a PPC gets to be smaller than a person on a small mech, but on the Awesome has to be larger than the light mech when it's still 7 tons?

When they make the 3D models for a video game like this, they have to make the percentage of the volume that a hitbox takes fit within a certain range of the overall volume of a mech. So yes, the volume of a 80-ton mech's arm takes up more space than a 65-ton mech's arm.

To clarify, the tabletop's game rules are not directly tied to the art (and in some cases not tied at all). In a 3D video game, it is.

Edited by DirePhoenix, 04 May 2014 - 03:06 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

And now, to bring it back on-topic...

The Mad Cat uses all of Clan Endo Steel structure, Clan Ferro-Fibrous armor, a Clan XL Engine, and several Clan DHS within the Engine.

As such, the Mad Cat starts with 27.5 tons of pod space, but only has 7 criticals available in each side-torso (12 - 2 (for XL Engine) - 2 (for FF Armor) - 1 (for ES Structure)) & 8-9 criticals per arm (12 - 2 (for shoulder and upper-arm actuators) - 1 (for FF armor), potentially minus another one depending on whether the Lower Arm Actuator is present).
The Head crit-slot is filled with a (non-dynamic) FF critical, the legs are both filled with (non-dynamic) ES criticals, and one of the two CT crit-slots is filled with a (non-dynamic) ES critical.

• Head: 0 criticals open
  
• CT: 1 critical open
  
• LT: 7 criticals open
  
• RT: 7 criticals open
  
• LA: 8-9 criticals open
  
• RA: 8-9 criticals open
  
• LL: 0 criticals open
  
• RL: 0 criticals open

Thus, the significance of using the OmniMech limits is that is that it creates a pseudo hardpoint sizing system.
For example, the MG in the Mad Cat Prime's RT could be switched-out for a LB 2-X [3 crits], UAC/2 [2 crits], LB 5-X [4 crits], UAC/5 [3 crits], LB 10-X [5 crits], UAC/10 [4 crits], or even a Gauss Rifle [6 crits], but the MG in question could not be switched-out for a LB 20-X [9 crits] or a UAC/20 [8 crits], because the volumes (that is, required # of crits) of those weapons exceeds the volume available in that section [7 free crits per side-torso].
Additionally, none of the canon configurations carries any ballistic weapons in the Mad Cat's Left Arm, so only the Right Arm would have any ballistic hardpoints.

As of 3051, the available configurations for the Mad Cat (excluding character-specific "Hero 'Mechs") are the Prime, A, B, C, D, and S.
The Mad Cat Prime has at least one ballistic hardpoint in each of the CT and the RT, the Mad Cat B and Mad Cat C each has at least one ballistic hardpoint in the Right Arm, and the Mad Cat S has at least one ballistic hardpoint in each side-torso. Both the Mad Cat A and the Mad Cat D carry no ballistic weapons.

If the Mad Cat S & either the Mad Cat B or Mad Cat C are eventually implemented alongside the Mad Cat Prime, one could create a Mad Cat with four ballistic locations (Right Arm + all three torso locations).
However, the only location that could carry a class-20 AC (that is, either a LB 20-X or a UAC/20) is the Right Arm, the only currently-available ballistic weapon that would fit in the CT is the Machine Gun, and carrying more than two large ACs (or three mid-weight ACs) or twin Gauss Rifles becomes impractical with regard to ammunition supplies & secondary weapons... unless one is willing to sacrifice large percentages of armor to free up some weight (where each 1.0 tons represents 8.33% of the Mad Cat's armor load).

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

I Zeratul I, on 04 May 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Scoring a solid hit on the cockpit / side torsos of a timberwolf speed blurring its way through your crosshairs at 80 is completely different.

I played good shooters for a long time, and I'm one of the people that caused the head hitbox revamp. This game moves at a snails pace to me, as it does for many other pronounced players who are much more accustomed to this game than I and can articulate their actions in this game much better than I, so while I am bragging about my efficiency in ripping apart mechs there are still people who can do it even better than I


it is not difficult to hit a large moving target in this game if you have the proper spatial sense. It does not matter how fast you are moving unless you're in something small and fast enough it abuses the laggy hitboxes and takes advantage of varying terrain.


let me put it this way. doesn't matter how fast you're moving if i know the speed of my projectile, distance to you, your relative speed and direction, because I'll know exactly where you're going. The only counter to this is utilizing varied terrain and weaving to throw the geometry off just enough that I might just miss, but the bigger the target you are the wider the acceptable margin of error is.

if you want my advice, when you get this lumbering fast giant, don't use that speed to try and dodge fire and brawl it out. Use it to out maneuver your prey, utilizing hard cover to obscure their line of sight to you so you come up on their flanks, swinging the axe, and then disappearing again to use terrain to maneuver onto another blind flank. And do try to stay farther than the max range of seismic, they'll never see you coming. if you have ecm, this applies to ecm coverage as well. the hud won't alert them to you, seismic wont alert them to you, and if you're not blocking them with ecm they'll have absolutely no clue... and actually on that note, if you do this dont use ballistics or ppc's. the impulse will tip them off, unless you lock them and wait for them to start getting hit by missiles, then go crazy.

Edited by Battlecruiser, 04 May 2014 - 04:23 PM.