20517 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

Jay Leon Hart, on 26 December 2017 - 03:52 AM, said:

If only we had X-Pulse lasers & Coolant Pods, then the Juggernaut would be an option.

12B, 6E would break the game, though.

There's the original version, with regular pulse lasers instead of X-Pulse and SPLs in place of the Coolant Pods, however, that has a staggering 16B, 10E!

Solaris mechs are weird but wow, 16 machineguns! I don't know if that's stupid or a work of genius.

Anyway, that's the first time I would see a mech use the full 1 ton of machinegun ammo in TT (yep, TT has some big issues that inexplicably persist over the decades).

16 machineguns in MWO would be OP though. Heck, I'm telling the 12 machineguns in Piranha will be OP for ages - and unless PGI does some changes, like reducing the machinegun ammo count/ton, we will soon find out in January, 23rd.

[Odanan]

Talking about genius, the Juggernaut gave some inspiration to do the most ridiculous machinegun boat.

I give you: the Ermahgerd.

Clan level 2 tech, 100 tons
XL Engine 400 (64.8 km/h)
19 tons of standard armor ("full armor")
4 jumpjets (in an already fairly maneuverable mech)
38 Machineguns (2 tons of ammo, for a total 800 damage in 11 turns)
3 ER Large Lasers ("backup weapons" against those targets prudently enough to keep the distance)
16 DHS (you can fire 3 lasers in one turn and 2 in the other to keep heat neutral)



Who would dare to fight against me? I would install (and learn) Megamek just for this.

But no cheats! (targeting computer shenanigans)

[Metus regem]

FupDup, on 24 December 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

At least for the main variant, the Wasp is laser/missile while the Stinger is laser/ballistic.

Given my choice, I like the STG-3G over the 3R... two MLas gives it some actual sting....

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Anyway, that's the first time I would see a mech use the full 1 ton of machinegun ammo in TT (yep, TT has some big issues that inexplicably persist over the decades).

That's why the high ROF rule for MGs exists. I've seen a Koto burn it's full ammo load in one normal combat. With 2 MGs.

[Odanan]

Brain Cancer, on 26 December 2017 - 12:51 PM, said:

That's why the high ROF rule for MGs exists. I've seen a Koto burn it's full ammo load in one normal combat. With 2 MGs.

Is this the rule that you roll a dice for the damage and heat of each machinegun?

[Brain Cancer]

That's the one. Heck, there's even rules for double-tapping standard AC's.

[Bishop Steiner]

Juodas Varnas, on 24 December 2017 - 01:40 PM, said:

Stinger

Wasp

Stinger I dig but that Wasp looks super doofy... especially the head

[Odanan]

Brain Cancer, on 27 December 2017 - 01:47 PM, said:

That's the one. Heck, there's even rules for double-tapping standard AC's.

Those are rules that make sense. The double-tapping ACs actually do a good deal to help them (because except for the AC20, they suck).

Bishop Steiner, on 27 December 2017 - 02:31 PM, said:

Stinger I dig but that Wasp looks super doofy... especially the head

Oh, I like it. But I don't understand why they insist in draw the mech with the right hand actuator (that doesn't exist in the record sheet). :/

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 27 December 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

Those are rules that make sense. The double-tapping ACs actually do a good deal to help them (because except for the AC20, they suck).

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.... in TT the AC/10 is solid, especially in 3025.... could it be better, absolutely. It is not the steaming pile of reactor waste that is the AC/2 or 5 however.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 27 December 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.... in TT the AC/10 is solid, especially in 3025.... could it be better, absolutely. It is not the steaming pile of reactor waste that is the AC/2 or 5 however.

I would prefer a mech with 7 free tons than with an AC/2 (the ammo is more dangerous to the own mech than to the enemy), so it's really bad. About AC/10, it's not BAD, but let's compare it to a PPC, for instance:

PPC: 7 tons, 3 criticals, 10 heat, 10 damage, range 3-18.
AC/10: 13 tons (with 1 ammo), 8 criticals (with 1 ammo), 3 heat, 10 damage, range 0-15.

Even if you add 7 single heat sinks just for the gun, the PPC beats the AC/10 in almost everything, can shoot forever AND will never explode your mech because of heat or a critical hit. Maybe I am a little harsh comparing it with the PPC (great weapon), but imagine an UrbanMech with a PPC instead of an AC/10: much better mech, right? (could get a big engine with the extra tons)

This is greatly a fault of how carrying ammo is suicidal in Level 1 TT tech. Not only the missile or ballistic weapons in TT are larger and heavier than the corresponding energy weapons, but they are more of a liability because of the risk certainty of ammo explosion that will obliterate your mech.

[Brain Cancer]

Metus regem, on 27 December 2017 - 05:25 PM, said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.... in TT the AC/10 is solid, especially in 3025.... could it be better, absolutely. It is not the steaming pile of reactor waste that is the AC/2 or 5 however.

It literally gets outdated though the second TRO 2750 came along with the LB-10X. The standard AC is basically a gun for tanks that ends up getting updated in a zillion ways, though the AC/2 becomes in some ways a sniper gun for taking out soft targets once precision ammo comes along. The AC/5 gets nudged out in favor of the RAC/5 or LAC/5, of course. The reason it's bad is so it wouldn't be TOO good for the armored vehicles that originally mounted it as the go-to main gun.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 27 December 2017 - 05:16 PM, said:

Those are rules that make sense. The double-tapping ACs actually do a good deal to help them (because except for the AC20, they suck).


Oh, I like it. But I don't understand why they insist in draw the mech with the right hand actuator (that doesn't exist in the record sheet). :/

gotta disagree on both counts.

ACs need some help, but especially in a land of Single Heat SInks I find they do the job. And while I do think HBS ha them tuned about right, I never felt screwed except with the AC2. AC5 was situational, AC10 is good, though in a perfect world it would have had the LB-10X stats without the cluster shot and maybe the lower heat, from day one... with the LB-X adding cluster and less heat, being sufficient to separate (in fact IMO the LB-X should have the 15 range and the std AC10 the 18)

but could be better is not IMO, the same as crap.

Whereas that weird fishbowl head.. I think your preference for loadouts is coloring your opinion a little on this one.

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 December 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

gotta disagree on both counts.

ACs need some help, but especially in a land of Single Heat SInks I find they do the job. And while I do think HBS ha them tuned about right, I never felt screwed except with the AC2. AC5 was situational, AC10 is good, though in a perfect world it would have had the LB-10X stats without the cluster shot and maybe the lower heat, from day one... with the LB-X adding cluster and less heat, being sufficient to separate (in fact IMO the LB-X should have the 15 range and the std AC10 the 18)

If ACs had the stats of the LBXs, they would be much better, indeed.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 December 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

I think your preference for loadouts is coloring your opinion a little on this one.

I'm talking about the hand actuator. The mech looks much better with it, of course, but the actual record sheet shows the mech doesn't have one there. So, they need either to change the record sheet or the concept art.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 28 December 2017 - 02:17 AM, said:

If ACs had the stats of the LBXs, they would be much better, indeed.

I'm talking about the hand actuator. The mech looks much better with it, of course, but the actual record sheet shows the mech doesn't have one there. So, they need either to change the record sheet or the concept art.

I'm not referring to the hand actuator. I'm referring to the "glowing love" of the design aside from that. The Head is terrible, lazy and boring in design. As for the Record Sheets? As far as I know they have not released new RS's attached to these new art versions, have they?

[Ovion]

If you dropped AC2's to 4T, AC5's to 7T, bumped AC5's to 2 heat, and removed minimum range from both, that'd be a good start to making those more viable at least...

[Bishop Steiner]

Ovion, on 28 December 2017 - 08:43 AM, said:

If you dropped AC2's to 4T, AC5's to 7T, bumped AC5's to 2 heat, and removed minimum range from both, that'd be a good start to making those more viable at least...

and break tons of existing builds. Hence why HBS in their game in creased the damage values of the AC2/5/10, which breaks nothing to do, though obviously, being and ac4/8/12 doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly.

[Ovion]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 December 2017 - 08:49 AM, said:

and break tons of existing builds. Hence why HBS in their game in creased the damage values of the AC2/5/10, which breaks nothing to do, though obviously, being and ac4/8/12 doesn't roll off the tongue as smoothly.

Running underweight doesn't break the builds though. They just run underweight.
You could retcon that with heatsinks or something, but honestly - you get to a point where a 'new edition' or 'rework' of TT rules *needs* to make adjustments to help cut through the bloat.

[Brain Cancer]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 December 2017 - 09:07 PM, said:

gotta disagree on both counts.

ACs need some help, but especially in a land of Single Heat SInks I find they do the job.

Of course, that land was long ago crushed under the foot of TRO 3050/2750. On the other hand, it has a host of successors that are perfectly good guns, and even some standard ACs are salvageable with newtech ammo types.

Quote

And while I do think HBS ha them tuned about right, I never felt screwed except with the AC2. AC5 was situational, AC10 is good, though in a perfect world it would have had the LB-10X stats without the cluster shot and maybe the lower heat, from day one... with the LB-X adding cluster and less heat, being sufficient to separate (in fact IMO the LB-X should have the 15 range and the std AC10 the 18)

Funny thing about that, the LB-X was originally supposed to be the "Clantech" level of things, along with UACs. Thus, they were statted (modestly) better.

Of course, then we got actual Clantech, the fundamentally worst error Battletech ever made because someone had the horrid idea that we could just go maximum overdrive with a tech tree and nothing possibly could go wrong.

[Odanan]

Brain Cancer, on 28 December 2017 - 09:31 AM, said:

Funny thing about that, the LB-X was originally supposed to be the "Clantech" level of things, along with UACs. Thus, they were statted (modestly) better.

Of course, then we got actual Clantech, the fundamentally worst error Battletech ever made because someone had the horrid idea that we could just go maximum overdrive with a tech tree and nothing possibly could go wrong.

The game wasn't balanced already. IMHO, the most game breaking tech update in TT was the DHS.

Edited by Odanan, 28 December 2017 - 09:39 AM.

[Odanan]

BTW, 4 days to the next mech Fafnir!