46 replies to this topic

[NeoAres]

I support the idea of 10/6/6.

Ovion, on 19 February 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

I think we should have stuck with Missile tube counts, rather than have pretty much everything able to have 15-20 tubes.
It's a balancing thing that's gone away, being able to mount Launchers with more Missiles per volley than tubes tubes was fine, just make them volley fire in that instance.

We should also have chunkier ppcs, laser barrels, and all weapons the same size on all mechs.

I also support both these ideas. Having extra missile tubes sticking out everywhere from a mech's geometry is just plain ugly. Give a mech a set maximum number of tubes per component, regardless of the number of hardpoints. The Victor gets, say, 18 missile tubes. Any use of the hardpoints that exceeds that number automatically splits each volley into even (as much as possible) parts. So, if you have a VTR-9S and you have a LRM15 and two SRM6s on it, you'll actually only see 14 missile tubes appear (8+3+3) and each volley from each launcher will be halved.

Another example, just to create full understanding: Atlas DDC with 20 available tubes and 3 hardpoints in the LT wants to stick two LRM20s and a SRM6 there. Since halves would still exceed the 20 tubes (10+10+3=23), it'd use thirds instead (7+7+2=16) and 16 tubes would appear on the LT. A single LRM20, by contrast, would suffer no volley impairment at all, nor would two LRM10s or 3 SRM6s

And as far as gun chunk is concerned, I agree that gun bore should be standardized on all mechs. That being said, some mechs certainly do a better job of encapsulating their weapons than others do. Therefore, while the bore size of the weapons should remain unchanged, the length should be mech-specific (for example, the Gauss Rifle should not stick out of the Hunchback's RT like a big, unprotected thorn--the vast majority of the weapon should be presumed to be embedded inside the torso. I hate the "glued-on guns" look a lot of these mechs are sporting these days. A PPC on the arm of a light mech should replace the whole lower arm, not sit on the wrist like it's a little gundam. One mounted on the torso of a light mech should stick out of it like the Gauss sticks out of a Hollander. A Raven 4x with a Gauss or AC20 should look as ridiculous as this:

tl;dr?
1. Every weapon should have a set bore size, regardless of the mech carrying it.
2. Every weapon should look like it's an integrated part of the mech carrying it, rather than looking like its been glued on.
3. Weapon length should be dependent upon the mech using it and its placement on that mech.

Edited by NeoAres, 19 February 2015 - 09:14 AM.

[Ovion]

I think that the Hunchback should have set weapon sizes.
But its mount should be at the rear of the hunch, not the front.

[Pjwned]

NeoAres, on 19 February 2015 - 09:11 AM, said:

I support the idea of 10/6/6.


I also support both these ideas. Having extra missile tubes sticking out everywhere from a mech's geometry is just plain ugly. Give a mech a set maximum number of tubes per component, regardless of the number of hardpoints. The Victor gets, say, 18 missile tubes. Any use of the hardpoints that exceeds that number automatically splits each volley into even (as much as possible) parts. So, if you have a VTR-9S and you have a LRM15 and two SRM6s on it, you'll actually only see 14 missile tubes appear (8+3+3) and each volley from each launcher will be halved.

Another example, just to create full understanding: Atlas DDC with 20 available tubes and 3 hardpoints in the LT wants to stick two LRM20s and a SRM6 there. Since halves would still exceed the 20 tubes (10+10+3=23), it'd use thirds instead (7+7+2=16) and 16 tubes would appear on the LT. A single LRM20, by contrast, would suffer no volley impairment at all, nor would two LRM10s or 3 SRM6s

And as far as gun chunk is concerned, I agree that gun bore should be standardized on all mechs. That being said, some mechs certainly do a better job of encapsulating their weapons than others do. Therefore, while the bore size of the weapons should remain unchanged, the length should be mech-specific (for example, the Gauss Rifle should not stick out of the Hunchback's RT like a big, unprotected thorn--the vast majority of the weapon should be presumed to be embedded inside the torso. I hate the "glued-on guns" look a lot of these mechs are sporting these days. A PPC on the arm of a light mech should replace the whole lower arm, not sit on the wrist like it's a little gundam. One mounted on the torso of a light mech should stick out of it like the Gauss sticks out of a Hollander. A Raven 4x with a Gauss or AC20 should look as ridiculous as this:

tl;dr?
1. Every weapon should have a set bore size, regardless of the mech carrying it.
2. Every weapon should look like it's an integrated part of the mech carrying it, rather than looking like its been glued on.
3. Weapon length should be dependent upon the mech using it and its placement on that mech.

I think I understand the idea but the implementation sounds rather complicated, I would rather see those extra tubes extend mech hitboxes instead of creating some weird firing limit, much like how a 2nd missile launcher on a JR7-D will make an extra launcher that sticks out and counts as extra center torso area, or how head mounted SRMs on Shadowhawks do much the same thing.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 February 2015 - 09:34 AM.

[Ovion]

That's what we're saying shouldn't happen.

A fixed number of tube (like the pre-updated still have) and the missiles are spread between them and locked to that many a volley.

From memory, you couldn't have more missiles than tube in TT? (I forget, might have been something else).

[Pjwned]

Ovion, on 19 February 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

That's what we're saying shouldn't happen.

A fixed number of tube (like the pre-updated still have) and the missiles are spread between them and locked to that many a volley.

From memory, you couldn't have more missiles than tube in TT? (I forget, might have been something else).

I see, so then to clarify I guess what I'm saying is that I would like a compromise between the proposed idea and how it currently works. The way it works now is that, in the 2 examples I gave with the JR7-D and Shadowhawks, no matter how small the SRM launchers are you end up with extra geometry, but with a compromise you could have multiple launchers that are small enough to not cause that to happen.

As an example, let's say the JR7-D could fit 6 tubes in its center torso without extra geometry, so you could safely put in SRM2 + SRM4, but if you wanted 2x SRM4 for max missile firepower then it would create extra geometry like it does now; it would be different from how it is now because the extra geometry would not always be there automatically. The main reason I don't like the firing limit idea is because it's rather complicated, especially with that LRM40 + SRM6 Atlas example, meanwhile adding extra geometry for having too many missiles would still be a consequence but not nearly as complicated.

Edited by Pjwned, 19 February 2015 - 10:06 AM.

[NeoAres]

Pjwned, on 19 February 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

I see, so then to clarify I guess what I'm saying is that I would like a compromise between the proposed idea and how it currently works. The way it works now is that, in the 2 examples I gave with the JR7-D and Shadowhawks, no matter how small the SRM launchers are you end up with extra geometry, but with a compromise you could have multiple launchers that are small enough to not cause that to happen.

As an example, let's say the JR7-D could fit 6 tubes in its center torso without extra geometry, so you could safely put in SRM2 + SRM4, but if you wanted 2x SRM4 for max missile firepower then it would create extra geometry like it does now; it would be different from how it is now because the extra geometry would not always be there automatically. The main reason I don't like the firing limit idea is because it's rather complicated, especially with that LRM40 + SRM6 Atlas example, meanwhile adding extra geometry for having too many missiles would still be a consequence but not nearly as complicated.

I guess that's not a bad compromise for some mechs, but can you imagine how silly that Atlas would look with a second LRM 20 rack (perched presumably on the shoulder?) on it? Even the current system provides a limit to just how many extra tubes can be put on, despite the geometry increases (VTR is a perfect example)

[Aethon]

Kjudoon, on 17 February 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

Only one Zeus has 3 missile points, low mounted on the arms. Gonna be nasty and tricky to get used to.

If you pilot Clan mechs a lot, you will be used to it already; their hardpoints typically suck.

Ovion, on 19 February 2015 - 09:43 AM, said:

That's what we're saying shouldn't happen.

A fixed number of tube (like the pre-updated still have) and the missiles are spread between them and locked to that many a volley.

From memory, you couldn't have more missiles than tube in TT? (I forget, might have been something else).

There are no 'tubes' in tabletop. If you want to swap an SRM6 for an LRM10, go for it.