524 replies to this topic

[Cimarb]

IS wouldn't have to be tighter, necessarily, but should lean towards having either tighter or bigger hits just for balance reasons. See my signature for some of the variations I think should be done, but really the options are endless.

As long as the DP5S (damage per 5 seconds) is balanced, with FLD versions being on the low end of the AC class' range and smaller caliber versions being on the high end, the exact specifics don't matter all that much.

[Livewyr]

I do not care half as much about Lore in the game, it merely adds nice fluff to the weapons. (In my opinion, gameplay > lore.)
---------
The only things I wish to take from Tabletop, for the sake of Tabletop, are the hard values of the weapons and mechs. (Weight, heat, stock loadouts, etc..)

Other things, such as beam duration, projectile speed, splash damage, firing arcs, (and now number of projectiles), etc... are the things I would use to balance for the sake of game-play.

In my opinion, medium and light mechs are too easily crippled by pinpoint front loaded damage. (I base that off of experience, but more importantly and more universally, numbers. Mediums lose 70-100% of the maximum armor on a single component with one 30pt alpha strike, with one click. Arguably, even if that does not kill them outright, it reduces their effectiveness to engage for the remainder of the match because the next hit from most anything else will likely kill or cripple them.

The two proposed solutions, Burst first and Arcing damage, mitigate that pinpoint crippling effect by either spreading all of the damage over/off of the mech or by radiating a fraction of the pinpoint damage to adjacent components, respectively.

Neither of these rules are affected by general table-top values as they only effect the MWO-transfere of mechanics; each in their own way. Fluff is/was a nice property of burst fire, but it should not be the main argument either for, or against mechanic changes. Numbers should.

Edited by Livewyr, 19 June 2014 - 07:16 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2014 - 07:13 PM, said:

I do not care half as much about Lore in the game, it merely adds nice fluff to the weapons. (In my opinion, gameplay > lore.)

That said:



Joe, you cannot cite "But FLD is part of BattleTech Games." without adding "So is random hit locations."
(To do so, is cherry picking, and providing a false implication.)

Or it is me assuming that the forums already understands that and I do not have to hold everyone's hand. Also Called shots using a targeting computer IS part of BattleTech and putting 40+ damage into one location was pretty easy if you Min/Max the P/G/targeting computer/Pulse lasers(Prior to Total Warfare)! Add to that Pulse Laser Specialist and dropping 50 damage into 52 points of armor was Easy Like Sunday Morning.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 19 June 2014 - 07:20 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Good god, is this still going?

Can we just settle it with pistols at 20 paces? Of course, ours will be FLD and yours DoT.........

(seriously, all salient point from both sides could fill a thimble...... the other 99% of posts on here.....it's like watching CSPAN.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Can we just settle it with pistols at 20 paces? Of course, ours will be FLD and yours DoT.........

You wouldn't be seeking to unbalance the duel would you?

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 19 June 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

You wouldn't be seeking to unbalance the duel would you?

would Clan Pistol vs IS be better? Post burst nerf?

[Livewyr]

Nerf dueling pistols.


(In retrospect, dueling pistols might as well have been from Battletech TT..)

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

would Clan Pistol vs IS be better? Post burst nerf?

I was just having a bit of fun with your suggested duel. Thus the . In light of 24 pages of this and your choosing the FLD. That would imply...oh nevermind, jeesh.

But if you want to be all serious, idk...what kind of performance characteristics do each of the pistols have?

[Bishop Steiner]

Spades Kincaid, on 19 June 2014 - 08:16 PM, said:

I was just having a bit of fun with your suggested duel. Thus the . In light of 24 pages of this and your choosing the FLD. That would imply...oh nevermind, jeesh.

But if you want to be all serious, idk...what kind of performance characteristics do each of the pistols have?

apparently one is going to be heavy with inferior range, and a short burst, the other is light, has longer range but a longer burst.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

apparently one is going to be heavy with inferior range, and a short burst, faster bullet, and faster cycle, the other is light, has longer range but a longer burst.

there we go.

[Spades Kincaid]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 08:42 PM, said:

apparently one is going to be heavy with inferior range, and a short burst, the other is light, has longer range but a longer burst.

Well then at 20 paces I'm going to take the former?

[Rampancy]

Okay, so back to the burst vs. FLD thing:

IMO burst would be fine as long as it is a BURST, like 3 shots in .1 seconds, to break up damage on moving targets at range etc. So nearly indistinguishable from a single shot for brawling purposes, but breaks up the damage at range without a slight adjustment. Not the clan-style series of shots "burst", but like a 3-round-burst from a rifle.

Would people find that to be a fair compromise?

[Livewyr]

RampancyTW, on 19 June 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

Okay, so back to the burst vs. FLD thing:

IMO burst would be fine as long as it is a BURST, like 3 shots in .1 seconds, to break up damage on moving targets at range etc. So nearly indistinguishable from a single shot for brawling purposes, but breaks up the damage at range without a slight adjustment. Not the clan-style series of shots "burst", but like a 3-round-burst from a rifle.

Would people find that to be a fair compromise?

They have not, thus far...

Edited by Livewyr, 19 June 2014 - 09:06 PM.

[Rampancy]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

They have not, thus far...

That hasn't really been the discussion thus far. I've been one of those people, and I think the lowest time I've seen you posit is a burst in, say, .3 seconds.

To be clear, I'm not saying to make the ACs DOT, the way the cACs are. Just a super-short burst to potentially break up some of the damage at range without tracking effort.

[Livewyr]

RampancyTW, on 19 June 2014 - 09:13 PM, said:

That hasn't really been the discussion thus far. I've been one of those people, and I think the lowest time I've seen you posit is a burst in, say, .3 seconds.

To be clear, I'm not saying to make the ACs DOT, the way the cACs are. Just a super-short burst to potentially break up some of the damage at range without tracking effort.

I said 0-0.3

(1 round for the AC2)
2 rounds in .1 second for AC5
2 rounds in .15 or .2 for AC10
3 rounds in .3 for the AC20.

[Bishop Steiner]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

They have not, thus far...

yes, because all sides have been sooooo open to compromise.

[Rampancy]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

I said 0-0.3

(1 round for the AC2)
2 rounds in .1 second for AC5
2 rounds in .15 or .2 for AC10
3 rounds in .3 for the AC20.

I'd rather see 3 round spits in .1 for all of them to be honest, the AC10 and AC20 especially I would hate to see that long of a delay in between rounds. There's no point in packing the heavier ballistic if it's significantly more difficult to keep it on target than the lighter ballistic.

[Bishop Steiner]

RampancyTW, on 19 June 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'd rather see 3 round spits in .1 for all of them to be honest, the AC10 and AC20 especially I would hate to see that long of a delay in between rounds. There's no point in packing the heavier ballistic if it's significantly more difficult to keep it on target than the lighter ballistic.

apparently weighing 12-14 tons and being ammo hogs is not a draw back. (Though funny how just a few months ago I was assured the ac10 was worthless and I was a BAD for using them, lol).

IDK, what will be, will be.

[Livewyr]

Bishop Steiner, on 19 June 2014 - 09:22 PM, said:

yes, because all sides have been sooooo open to compromise.

Yeah... it's too bad I never compromised for having 1 round with a damage arc... we might have gotten somewhere.

RampancyTW, on 19 June 2014 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'd rather see 3 round spits in .1 for all of them to be honest, the AC10 and AC20 especially I would hate to see that long of a delay in between rounds. There's no point in packing the heavier ballistic if it's significantly more difficult to keep it on target than the lighter ballistic.

My concern with a pure .1 is that it may not break up a damage concentration except \ the fastest mechs (130kph+).
(.1 is 1/6th the burn time for an IS MPL.)

[Rampancy]

Livewyr, on 19 June 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

Yeah... it's too bad I never compromised for having 1 round with a damage arc... we might have gotten somewhere.



My concern with a pure .1 is that it may not break up a damage concentration except \ the fastest mechs (130kph+).
(.1 is 1/6th the burn time for an IS MPL.)

Well, is that not sort of the point? Breaks up the damage vs. light mechs a bit without pilot compensation and requires a steady hand for the whole burst vs. slower mechs. Also makes it harder to poptart at range since there will be some height spread. Still maintains the "FLD" aspect of IS vs. Clan balance though.