524 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2014 - 12:35 PM, said:

Indeed he has. That doesn't take away the fact that some of us like hard hitting FLD. And have done so for at least a full generation or two.

This is the heat system.

It doesn't matter that your FLD is considerably better than anything else, as long as you can shoot it.


But this doesn't address FLD, this is only the heat sytem.

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry3442512

[Joseph Mallan]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

This is the heat system.

It doesn't matter that your FLD is considerably better than anything else, as long as you can shoot it.


But this doesn't address FLD, this is only the heat sytem.

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry3442512

Its not just MY front loaded damage. I face it with the same attitude as I use it. I respect it, like it, and NEVER want to see it go away. As to Koniving's latest take on heat... Another well written idea.

I would like to see more than Lip Service to MW:O being a "BattleTech Game" though. Fluff descriptions do not rules make folks and the passages being quoted from the TechManual and other sources are just that. Fluff. An Interesting description

I also Want some real heat penalties as that to is a BattleTech game Mechanic.

[B O O M E R A N G]

I use to love IS ultra weps, but now they feel like they are not shooting as much even with me clicking the crap out of it.... just going to use standard now and hold the button down.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

I would like to see more than Lip Service to MW:O being a "BattleTech Game" though.

I think most of us are aboard with that

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

Fluff descriptions do not rules make folks and the passages being quoted from the TechManual and other sources are just that. Fluff. An Interesting description

Here's where we differ; you want the TT rules implemented, I want the BT lore implemented. In TT rules, ACs were single-shot (due to it being a boardgame and nobody wants to roll 100 to-hit rolls for a single shot), but that was a simplification of the lore - where they always were burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Edit: In TT rules, lasers were single-shot FLD weapons too.

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2014 - 12:52 PM, said:

I also Want some real heat penalties as that to is a BattleTech game Mechanic.

No argument there

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

I think most of us are aboard with that


Here's where we differ; you want the TT rules implemented, I want the BT lore implemented. In TT rules, ACs were single-shot (due to it being a boardgame and nobody wants to roll 100 to-hit rolls for a single shot), but that was a simplification of the lore - where they always were burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Edit: In TT rules, lasers were single-shot FLD weapons too.


No argument there

The problem is Even in BattleTech, the Lore is not the Rules. That argument was hashed, over and over again. otherwise ACs would have had Burst damage spreading damage in some form of point burst. BattleTech games had RNG and FLD making Lasers broke from that but gave BEAM weapons a flavor that TT didn't have. Making Ballistics DoT weapons is a mistake, lower the damage per shell, extend the Cyclic for bigger bores. But FLD is part of BattleTech Games. In spite of the lore.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 June 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[stjobe]

Joseph Mallan, on 19 June 2014 - 01:06 PM, said:

The problem is Even in BattleTech, the Lore is not the Rules. That argument was hashed, over and over again. otherwise ACs would have had Burst damage spreading damage in some form of point burst. BattleTech games had RNG and FLD making Lasers broke from that but gave BEAM weapons a flavor that TT didn't have. Making Ballistics DoT weapons is a mistake, lower the damage per shell, extend the Cyclic for bigger bores. But FLD is part of BattleTech Games. In spite of the lore.

It's an optional rule, but it's still a TT rule:


(Tactical Operations, p.100)

How do you propose to walk your single shot?

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I think we're on roughly the same page when it comes to the heat system.

I did make this thread about the problems with the MWO heat system, as well as this nice little chart (in this thread):



See something missing from the MWO scales? Yup, heat penalties. Major, major part of BattleTech (both the Universe and the board game) that's simply missing from MWO.

I agree about penalties. Perhaps you have overlooked my many laments about the ones from CB being removed?

What I don't agree with is the number of heat threshold arguments that start on an incorrect premise about the 30 pt heat scale itself. Foundations built in quicksand, and what not.

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

It's an optional rule, but it's still a TT rule:


(Tactical Operations, p.100)

How do you propose to walk your single shot?

I tend to not base anything off of optional rules. Great for house rules, in game flavor, but if they were the "basis" of things, they would not be optional.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

I agree about penalties. Perhaps you have overlooked my many laments about the ones from CB being removed?

What I don't agree with is the number of heat threshold arguments that start on an incorrect premise about the 30 pt heat scale itself. Foundations built in quicksand, and what not.

As I said, I think we're on roughly the same page when it comes to the heat system; as you can see for yourself I don't make the "30 pt mistake"

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

I tend to not base anything off of optional rules. Great for house rules, in game flavor, but if they were the "basis" of things, they would not be optional.

They are optional, but the question remains: How could they even be optional with single-shot ACs?

[kapusta11]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I think we're on roughly the same page when it comes to the heat system.

I did make this thread about the problems with the MWO heat system, as well as this nice little chart (in this thread):



See something missing from the MWO scales? Yup, heat penalties. Major, major part of BattleTech (both the Universe and the board game) that's simply missing from MWO.

So twice as low rate of fire while near the heat cap is not enough heat penalty? OMFG.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mcgral18, on 19 June 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

Koniving's done some nice write ups on it. I'll see if I can dig one up.

http://mwomercs.com/...12#entry3442512

that is a way to keep things under an imposed 30 heat cap, my contention is that said cap itself, is not actually how TT worked. Of course, neither are our RoFs in MWO. My contention is that too often, even Kon, I believe, state the "Rule of 30" as a hard fact, when indeed, that is NOT how heat operated in TT. Because heat was figured at the end of the turn, and all your HS were counted first, thus leaving whatever was left, as "waste" in TT, HS do indeed increase your Heat Threshold.

Otherwise one would adjust heat on the scale, roll for any effects, and THEN remove heat based on number of operational heat sinks. Otherwise a AWS-9M firing an alpha with it's 3 ERPPCs would spike to 45 heat, automatically shut down, you would roll 3 times for ammo explosion, (I forget what the optional "extended heat scale" included, TBH) and have modifiers to hit and movement (added as each shot was taken, increasing the heat) and THEN the heat would be removed based on HS.

How it really worked, is the mech fires all 3 ppc, heat dissipation from the HS are counted, and the mech is left with a waste of 5 heat, not enough to cause any effects.

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

I think most of us are aboard with that


Here's where we differ; you want the TT rules implemented, I want the BT lore implemented. In TT rules, ACs were single-shot (due to it being a boardgame and nobody wants to roll 100 to-hit rolls for a single shot), but that was a simplification of the lore - where they always were burst- or continuous-fire weapons.

Edit: In TT rules, lasers were single-shot FLD weapons too.


No argument there

remove the hitscan nature of lasers, and I'm all for the being FLD. (because that whole hitscan vs projectile speed thing seems to get conveniently overlooked...as well as massive eight advantages)

[stjobe]

kapusta11, on 19 June 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

So twice as low rate of fire while near the heat cap is not enough heat penalty? OMFG.

BT heat penalties included movement penalties, aiming penalties, shutdown risks, and ammo explosion risks - and they started at what in MWO would be between 37.5% and 58% heat. They were also progressive and cumulative, i.e. they started out small and got worse as you got hotter.

So no, half the rate of fire is not enough.

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 01:28 PM, said:

How it really worked, is the mech fires all 3 ppc, heat dissipation from the HS are counted, and the mech is left with a waste of 5 heat, not enough to cause any effects.

As I noted in this post, tripling the dissipation rate (to match the increase in RoF) would make the AWS-8Q match the TT version near-perfectly.

[Bishop Steiner]

kapusta11, on 19 June 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

So twice as low rate of fire while near the heat cap is not enough heat penalty? OMFG.

Not even remotely the same thing.

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

BT heat penalties included movement penalties, aiming penalties, shutdown risks, and ammo explosion risks - and they started at what in MWO would be between 37.5% and 58% heat. They were also progressive and cumulative, i.e. they started out small and got worse as you got hotter.

So no, half the rate of fire is not enough.


As I noted in this post, tripling the dissipation rate (to match the increase in RoF) would make the AWS-8Q match the TT version near-perfectly.

And make the clans invincible. Moreso, I beleive than higher heat cap does. Since DHS mechs already dissipate heat remarkably fast even with "broken" 1.4 DHS. (sorry you liked it before my edit)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 19 June 2014 - 01:34 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

As I said, I think we're on roughly the same page when it comes to the heat system; as you can see for yourself I don't make the "30 pt mistake"


They are optional, but the question remains: How could they even be optional with single-shot ACs?

In lore, they had Grayson Carlyle snap shooting his medium laser on his Shadow Hawk repeatedly. By BTech rules, how is that possible?

Heck, half the lore rules make no sense in the first place (like CASE.... would work for heat induced ammo explosions..... but if you blow a hole in a mech and it touches off the ammo, it already has a lower resistance escape point than the case panels..... the bloody hole cored through the mech.). I get what you are saying, I am just saying since we all seem willing to "fudge" rules and fluff and lore for what we envision as "better game play" it doesn't exactly give any of us an unmovable perch to pontificate from .

[LordKnightFandragon]

Ok, I am not a fan of the burst firing Auto cannons, but after having had my warhawk friggin 1 shot by the Jager 40, I can see the wisdom in the mechanic.

If IS are supposed to have better FLD, then perhaps make the IS AC's burst fire but with less rounds, llike maybe 2, so the AC20 is split 10/10, AC10 is split 5/5. But adding a burst mechanic of sorts to IS weaponry would be nice.

As for PPC/GR dual boating, its ********, but saying it requires so much energy to fire those weapons that the mech is unable to fire or charge more than 1 at a time, and limit them to chain fire only for both sides.

Ofc this doesnt end boating 12 ER MLS, but the penalty for energy weapons is already in place through ghost heat. I dont dig ghost heat much, but again, I see its wisdom and it does kinda work towards stopping PPFLD of 100...lol.

[LordKnightFandragon]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

BT heat penalties included movement penalties, aiming penalties, shutdown risks, and ammo explosion risks - and they started at what in MWO would be between 37.5% and 58% heat. They were also progressive and cumulative, i.e. they started out small and got worse as you got hotter.

I would love to see all those penalties added in game. Would slow down firing, make the game more tactical and less FLD PP.

Isnt TT like 1 heat per movement point spent or something? Isnt there even heat just for having the mech turned on? Would be nice to see movment heat penalties and accuracy hits for high heat levels. maybe adding ret shake when were really hot and fuzzy screens and stuff.

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

And make the clans invincible. Moreso, I beleive than higher heat cap does. Since DHS mechs already dissipate heat remarkably fast even with "broken" 1.4 DHS. (sorry you liked it before my edit)

The Clans were designed to be invincible in TT; that's why I don't allow them in my BT Universe. At all.

For MWO though, it should be possible to use other factors to balance it out.

(as for the like, I generally like posts which make good points; I still think you made a good point with your first comment, so the like will stand )

[Bishop Steiner]

LordKnightFandragon, on 19 June 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Ok, I am not a fan of the burst firing Auto cannons, but after having had my warhawk friggin 1 shot by the Jager 40, I can see the wisdom in the mechanic.

If IS are supposed to have better FLD, then perhaps make the IS AC's burst fire but with less rounds, llike maybe 2, so the AC20 is split 10/10, AC10 is split 5/5. But adding a burst mechanic of sorts to IS weaponry would be nice.

As for PPC/GR dual boating, its ********, but saying it requires so much energy to fire those weapons that the mech is unable to fire or charge more than 1 at a time, and limit them to chain fire only for both sides.

Ofc this doesnt end boating 12 ER MLS, but the penalty for energy weapons is already in place through ghost heat. I dont dig ghost heat much, but again, I see its wisdom and it does kinda work towards stopping PPFLD of 100...lol.

I actually would be OK with the inability to group fire Gauss. That would IMO, also negate the need for certain nerfs to them, like the charge mechanism. Use a version of the current system for more than 2 Gauss, only instead of a charge, simply give it a 1-2second global cooldown before the next one fires.

PPCs are a bit more problematic, as I have little issue with 2 PPC being fired by themselves, it's all the attendant crap that gets paired with them. Possibly follow the example of Vlad's executioner in the Kerensky novels.... his GR used so much power the computer had to cycle his weapons. Maybe use that with PPCs that allow up to 2 to fire at a time, but that the computer locks out and cycles subsidiary weapon fire to ensure sufficient power for the pPCs. And any PPCs beyond 2 end up getting chained later, too?

[stjobe]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

PPCs are a bit more problematic, as I have little issue with 2 PPC being fired by themselves, it's all the attendant crap that gets paired with them. Possibly follow the example of Vlad's executioner in the Kerensky novels.... his GR used so much power the computer had to cycle his weapons. Maybe use that with PPCs that allow up to 2 to fire at a time, but that the computer locks out and cycles subsidiary weapon fire to ensure sufficient power for the pPCs. And any PPCs beyond 2 end up getting chained later, too?

And the Awesome will be sitting on the sidelines wondering WTH happened... Although to be fair, it's doing a lot of that already.

All this would be moot if we had slow convergence and/or non-perfect accuracy. There would be no need to limit combinations of weapons (same or different) if they didn't combine into one mega-weapon due to bad mechanics.

Alas, one can but dream...

Edited by stjobe, 19 June 2014 - 02:24 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:13 PM, said:

It's an optional rule, but it's still a TT rule:


(Tactical Operations, p.100)

How do you propose to walk your single shot?

I don't. Optional rules are just that, otherwise we would have MGs firing at accelerated fire rates that also generate heat, Three Legged Mechs, Super Heavy Mechs... And other Optional rules.

As to walking my Single Shot I wouldn't... but I would entertain glancing blows with them.

stjobe, on 19 June 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

The Clans were designed to be invincible in TT; that's why I don't allow them in my BT Universe. At all.

For MWO though, it should be possible to use other factors to balance it out.

(as for the like, I generally like posts which make good points; I still think you made a good point with your first comment, so the like will stand )

They didn't do that good a job to my game play. They were a tough opponent, but far from invincible.

[Statius]

If burst-fire were to be implemented for the IS, and multiple AC's within a class were to be used, how might the system play out? I think that all are agreed the IS burst-fire would have to be tighter. In which case, does anyone have an idea of how tight burst the engine could handle? We see tens of missiles fired at once, so it would seem that the bursts consisting of tens of of projectiles could work (here's lookin' at you low-caliber AC20!). Yet if such a burst were to be restricted to, say.5 seconds, could the engine handle it, particularly with the troubled the devs have had with multiple explosions.

Furthermore, should the balance be normalized across caliber? Should AC's of the same caliber share range and speed? Now if I've read the lore correctly, the difference in ranges in same-caliber autocannons was attributed to the larger number of projectiles. Even that could be implemented if a restricted cone of fire was applies to the latter-half of a burst (perhaps ramping up from the middle) to prevent the increased range of low-caliber burst weapons from having an excessive advantage, while still having something to balance out a presumably longer burst time.

Any thoughts?