107 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

Cavadus, on 12 December 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

That sounds terrible. All of it.

Really? Cause it's pretty much what every incarnation of the MW games have used, with variances using more armor/less damage from weapons to increase combat time. It's simple, it's easy to implement, doesn't take a lot of extra dev time to balance and make work, and it's rather intuitive and easy to figure out.

YOUR system..yeah..that's a LOT of extra dev time to balance and make work, and it's the EXACT same thing as either upping the armor, weakening the weapons OR doing both. And those are the things that helped kill the franchise in the first place, do we REALLY need to redo what didn't work?

Simple location system using external armor and internal structure with slots and critical hits, straight from TT. It's been done before, on the most successful of the MW series to date. Pin point aiming that's not static and is based on player set zero points for specific weapon groups at a specific range directly in front of the Mech, affected directly by movement or lack of, heat or lack of, TC or lack of, as well as placement of weapons on the actual physical structure of the Mech. Also, your targeting ret is NOT stationary, it's constantly in motion if your Mech is moving, heat is above a certain point, and so on..see the TT rules for what makes aiming easier/harder, very simple and easy to code. You have to actually take actions to STOP that movement of the ret.

Players set 'zero points' for their weapons groups, based on the actual ranges of those weapons and all on a center line as determined by the physical locations of the weapons on the Mech's body. Sounds complicated..but it's actually real simple to code. Target is outside of the zero point range, short or long, weapons will fire off from the ret based on their physical locations, simple and easy to code. MW2 did this,but it was automatic, players had no ability to set zero points, and you could see it by simply firing a group at nothing, you'd SEE where the weapons converged and that was the zero point for your group. Short or long of that point, weapons would hit 'wide' of the ret. This was done with MW2, so the coding isn't all that resource intensive, it's just simple math that's been used for a long time by real world militaries before they even HAD computers to do the math for them.

Without a TC, standing perfectly still for a few seconds(to allow all vibrations from moving that 20-100 ton machine around to stop), no heat to mess up your basic targeting systems, you can put all your weapons in a group into the same spot on a target if it's exactly(within 1m) of your zero point standing directly on the centerline of that group. With a TC, your variance of 1m changes to 10-30m depending upon the range of your zero point(longer ranges give more deviation per fraction of degree of aim), so short range weapons, like small lasers or AC20s, will never have more then 10m of zero point divergence, while PPCs or gauss will give up to 30m. Or..instead of allowing a longer variance in that zero range point, allow for less time required for the ret to stop moving around or making it move less when you have a TC, allowing for greater accuracy while moving or hot or whatever. Either system works for me, as the TC is just a device to improve your ability to put shots on target, it's not a tool that makes headshots possible with every trigger pull.

And they should allow for the stitching of rounds from certain weapon types across a target, like an AC firing at a moving target, first round of the shot will hit on the left arm, target is moving across to the left, so the next round hits the LT, then the CT, maybe all the way to the RT, due to how AC's work..a single 'shot' is actually a burst of rounds, same with MGs and Pulse Lasers. PPCs, Gauss and normal Lasers, no stitching, these are instant hit weapons with a relative 0 time on target, unlike the ACs/MGs and Pulse Lasers(yes, I know that's not really how a pulse laser works, but they DO have an extended time on target, so allowing them to stitch is aesthetically pleasing).

With this system, as used in MW2 but refined, there's no reason to dumb down damages or power up armor amounts. Mech combat is SUPPOSED to be quick and brutal and ugly, oddly enough, much like ANY real world combat where people are trying to actively kill each other. In the TT game, it might TAKE hours to play out a 1v1 Mech combat, but the actual TIME those 2 Mechs spent slugging it out is usually less then 1 minute. MW2 and 3 worked that way, might take a while to get TO the combat zone, but once there, once the firing started, someone would be dead inside a minute usually, and that's in just a 1v1, nevermind how fast you could take down a target with concentrated fire if you had 2v2 or better going on. This IS Mech Warrior we're talking about after all, based on the BattleTech system, which did NOT make Mechs these huge walking robots with weak weapons and enough armor to make combat last for 10 minutes. It's fast, it's ugly, it's brutal, and little Mechs don't try to solo big Mechs without some serious tricks up their sleeves or they end up as salvage..if they are lucky.

It's an easy to program system, easy to balance, and it's pretty simple for the players to learn and become good with. It gives players a reason to have twitch skills, but it does NOT remove the players who don't have those twitch skills from the game or even make it impossible for them to be top dog, same as it doesn't automatically make the best twitcher top dog. Skills, knowledge, and wisdom..the marks of a good MechWarrior according to canon..should these NOT be the things we should expect the players to have if they want to be good MechWarriors?

[Gaius Cavadus]

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 December 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

Really?

Really.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Cavadus, on 13 December 2011 - 06:51 AM, said:

Really.

Ok..I figured you MIGHT come back with something more then that but..I guess that's not to be. Ok, so noted, list gets a little longer...*shrug* better to learn em early right?

[Phades]

Cavadus, on 12 December 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

That's... not for me. Nearly every sentence made me cringe.

@ Paladin1:

Enough with the "power creep" funny business. The ACs are gimp and need a buff. Making them as attractive of an option as lasers requires that be they buffed (i.e. making them better). Making them commensurately powerful as lasers isn't "power creep".

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Certain ballistic weapons need adjustment, ala AC2 specifically. This can be handled in weapon behavior more than base attributes though. Most of the issue ends up emanating from the fact they occupy so many critical spaces and that the game made little distinction (on paper) between many weapon discharges and 1 point of heat build up. I'm not going to even bother with the double heat sink issue vs space, since that is worth a library of literature on its own.

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 December 2011 - 05:09 PM, said:

Really? Cause it's pretty much what every incarnation of the MW games have used, with variances using more armor/less damage from weapons to increase combat time. It's simple, it's easy to implement, doesn't take a lot of extra dev time to balance and make work, and it's rather intuitive and easy to figure out.

The issue you seem to miss entirely, either deliberately or not, is that players can and will work around any "simple" fix to the next best thing in short order in order to reproduce the single volley kills that permeated withing the previous iterations of the games. It was painfully easy in just about all of them. Making it harder to reproduce in general, without a simple "change the weapon values" is what is really needed here and something to simulate the pilot enacting effective defensive maneuvers that impact the outcome.

Edited by Phades, 14 December 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[Gorith]

While I do not like the penetration model you have outlined. call me a purist i would prefer to just have the game roll vs every hit per weapon (limiting it to say 1 roll per 5 seconds per weapon to prevent rapid fire from being op) to check crit hits. that being said This is very fine work and I do like the idea for more smaller hit boxes to solve the issue of mouse and keyboard being extremely accurate (atleast i think that was the intent). I would say I advocate a single hitbox for the action and just have the game roll the BT hit location table but that would inevitably enbup with people complaining that they can't target individual parts.

[VYCanis]

there is no reason why the critical hit system has to behave identical to how it does int he TT. It just needs to end up in roughly the same result. blown apart internals with certain internals and certain weapons affecting each other differently but in a balanced manner.

it was fine for the TT to have a specific number of crit hits to knock out systems because all weaponfire was neatly abstracted per turn and keeping track of the individual condition of weapons for normal play beyond broken and not broken would have been tedious beyond measure.

So instead of having invisible dicerolls going on to determine whether something goes pop. why not simply have certain weapons dealing portions of their damage directly to the nearest equipment components to the impact location when they penetrate armor. Each piece of equipment could have its own HP value. Equipment damage could scale up the closer the weapon impact is to actual components and taper off if the weapon is hitting empty space or already busted up stuff. Traditionally crit seeking weapons like lbxs and srms could deal more amounts of equipment damage than traditional hole punchers.

Stuff like engines and gyros would be rather robust and have high HP values. Weapons and other misc equipment could have moderate values, and stuff that can explode like ammo, coolant, and gauss rifles would have relatively low HP values.

as systems get more damaged they degrade in performance before finally going kaput.

overall i think something like that would be better suited to a game where rates of fire are gonna vary all over the place, and would allow for certain makes and models of equipment to be more reliable and robust than another models of the same class.

Edited by VYCanis, 14 December 2011 - 08:27 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Phades, on 14 December 2011 - 07:10 PM, said:

Certain ballistic weapons need adjustment, ala AC2 specifically. This can be handled in weapon behavior more than base attributes though. Most of the issue ends up emanating from the fact they occupy so many critical spaces and that the game made little distinction (on paper) between many weapon discharges and 1 point of heat build up. I'm not going to even bother with the double heat sink issue vs space, since that is worth a library of literature on its own.
The issue you seem to miss entirely, either deliberately or not, is that players can and will work around any "simple" fix to the next best thing in short order in order to reproduce the single volley kills that permeated withing the previous iterations of the games. It was painfully easy in just about all of them. Making it harder to reproduce in general, without a simple "change the weapon values" is what is really needed here and something to simulate the pilot enacting effective defensive maneuvers that impact the outcome.

What the OP has proposed is an overly complicated and totally pointless system that's been used already in a more simplified form, and it was a system that didn't go over well except with the arcade crowd, and even THEY complained about it. He's literally proposed nothing more then increasing armor/decreasing weapons damage, only his way of doing it requires a lot more work from the devs and would be a lot more resource intensive. Oh..and his armor penetration is just a way of making AC's more powerful, something he's not shy about saying is a must and something I really don't understand at all. And you..AC2s..uh..what? Why in the hell would a weapon designed to be used against aircraft, light vehicles and infantry be all that useful against Mechs? It's not designed to be an anti-Mech weapon, so complaining about it not doing that job is rather..well..silly. AC2/5s are designed for use against light armors, aircraft and infantry, NOT other Mechs. AC10s and 20s are for Mechs and tanks..and work pretty damn well against anything smaller I might add. Seriously, that's like complaining that the M2 Browning .50 needs to be reworked because you can't punch through an Abrams armor with it, do you realize that? All the weapons that can be mounted on a Mech work against other Mechs, true enough, but that doesn't mean that is their actual function.

As for that 'single volley kills'..hmm..I don't recall that happening much unless it was a Heavy/Assault vs a small Med/Light..and you know what..that is EXACTLY what should happen in that situation. That's like taking a Hummer up against an Abrams and complaining when the Hummer gets squashed flat. Light Mechs are NOT supposed to try and face down Heavy/Assault Mechs, even with Clan Tech, that's usually asking to get your *** handed to you. Otherwise..I never saw single volleys killing Mechs of similiar tonnage...unless there was a head shot in the mix. I used to do that all the time in MW2, put an ERPPC big blue ball of DOOM! into a Mech's head at 1km..which considering how slow those things moved and the lag we had, seriously 1 second pings were LOW!, my victims just had to feel like idiots when I did that..again and again and again..it was my claim to fame, just as my partner in crime's claim to fame was DFA's, Eph never missed those, and he would come out of nowhere to do them..totally awesome and I always felt a FAR better skill then my long shooting. Didn't happen so much in MW4 though, and Eph wasn't playing MW any longer by that time...but I never saw single volley kills in MW4 unless it was something like 3 or 4 Mechs firing at the same target at once..or a Light vs Assault. Combat in MW4 was usually a long laborious process, took a while to tear up another Mech usually, with the way they changed how it all worked so that combat WOULD last longer. Something that everyone complained about I might add..or did you all forget that? Guessing you did, judging from all the claims that it was awesome and MWO needs to be done that way...*sigh* How fickle the memory is for some people..ah well..eat more fish!

[Dustbunny]

hmm intersting for sure..likeable..i can see rounds penetrating and doing no damage to anything behind it but maybe internal structure.after all many pilots will design things different so items could be spaced out all over the mech if it can be held and if you didnt assign a componemt to that location then there is nothing there to damage...think of the detailing in repair costs and decisions as to hold to repair if you cant repair fully.

damage well there can be many ways but most weapons are already assigned a value and even the lowest should do something..even if it just chips away at armor..you may dump all your ac2 round or mg ammo before even patly damageing it but at least you damage it.

penetration could also be a factor of range maybe losing alittle ummppff over distance..then there are the pilots skills of reduceing damage by a smaller percentage to represent his/her ability to manuvuer it attack into a glanceing blow type..

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dustbunny, on 15 December 2011 - 12:31 AM, said:

hmm intersting for sure..likeable..i can see rounds penetrating and doing no damage to anything behind it but maybe internal structure.after all many pilots will design things different so items could be spaced out all over the mech if it can be held and if you didnt assign a componemt to that location then there is nothing there to damage...think of the detailing in repair costs and decisions as to hold to repair if you cant repair fully.

damage well there can be many ways but most weapons are already assigned a value and even the lowest should do something..even if it just chips away at armor..you may dump all your ac2 round or mg ammo before even patly damageing it but at least you damage it.

penetration could also be a factor of range maybe losing alittle ummppff over distance..then there are the pilots skills of reduceing damage by a smaller percentage to represent his/her ability to manuvuer it attack into a glanceing blow type..

If you look at the Mech sheets for the Stock Mechs, you'll find empty critical slots in almost every single Mech. I say almost because, to the best of my knowledge, and memory, up to 3050, there wasn't any stock Mech that used every single critical slot, but I can't speak about the Mechs that came AFTER that at all. The critical hit tables for each section clearly indicate which slots take damage when a crit happens, and if it's an empty slot, well, that empty slot gets detroyed, no real effect..wasted crits happen.

ANY weapon system found mounted on a Mech WILL damage another Mech, however, the type of weapon and what it was designed to be used on PRIMARILY, will determine if it's actually effective against a Mech.

Penetration is already built into the TT system, ranges and damage amounts. Keep in mind, the armor on a Mech is some seriously tough stuff, it can stop 200mm rounds for pity's sake! We don't have armor that strong NOW, so that should give you an idea of just how tough that stuff is. An AC20 used on an M1A2 Abrams would blow holes clean through it, but fire that thing at an Atlas and you'll need a few shots to get through that torso armor. That's multiple rounds per shot btw..so..really..this is some seriously tough stuff wrapped around a Mech. Does just as well against energy based weapons too. We discuss how backward the Tech in the IS is at this time frame..but..keep in mind, at ONE point, they invented all this stuff previously, the tech is really advanced, they just don't have a lot of it anymore nor do they understand how it works all the time And the game has simple rules on movement and how it effects aiming, on BOTH sides of the equation, firer and target, which replicates things like the target trying to avoid the incoming fire

And all of this is easy to simulate with a computer, it was done in MW1/2/3, not always as well as it could have been, but close enough for government work. PGI has the chance to do it full on. Games have had your targeting be affected by your movement for a while now, I know the CryTek engines support it That means, movement, heat, damage, Target Computers, ECM, BAP, C3(if it's around!) can all be used to influence just how well you can aim your weapons. And I know the engine will support them using the physical locations of the weapons on a Mech's chassis to determine points of convergence and spread pre/post convergence. So, the TT system will work quite well, complete with a seemingly random hit dispersal pattern that's not random at all, preventing pin point aiming without a LOT of effort on the part of the shooter..and no small amount of cooperation from the target Time to target for the weapons, and varying that by type of weapon/calibre within a class(AC2s will put a round on target faster then a AC20 for example, smaller rounds moving faster) can be used to further remove pin point targeting in all but the best of conditions, which again, sticks with the TT system without being a truely random factor. We CAN overcome these restrictions by taking actions to stabilize our aim, so that player skill actually means something..and I don't mean twitch skills, as fast movement will actually hamper aiming, but it WILL have it's place, such as close in brawls where aiming is pretty much a matter of simply pointing yourself at the target

[Raeven]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

What the OP has proposed is an overly complicated and totally pointless system that's been used already in a more simplified form, and it was a system that didn't go over well except with the arcade crowd, and even THEY complained about it.

No more overly complicated and totally pointless than CoD. MPBT Solaris did just fine with Canon armor values (head not included), weapon damage, and heat values using pin point accuracy. MPBT:3025 used the exact same combat engine to great success as well, in it's short lived beta experience.

Cavadus' idea would be awesome in a PPA system. It would reward real accuracy from players, increase the life of 'Mechs, and at the same time allow for each 'Mech to be a bit more unique from the others by more than just looks. When you know you can take out a Marauder 3R's AC ammo by stripping it's torso armor under the armpit and keep hitting that same SPOT (not just torso) you will try to aim for that location. Smart pilots will then manuever their 'Mechs to protect those vulnerable sections with their better armored sides.

What 90% of all these arguments over aiming methods boil down to is ways to fix the alpha strike in a system that allows min/max 'Mech customization. There are more ways to fix customization and alpha strikes than the method of aiming.

[Phades]

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

And you..AC2s..uh..what? Why in the hell would a weapon designed to be used against aircraft, light vehicles and infantry be all that useful against Mechs?

Why have the weapon exist at all then? Anything can be pointed at the same targets with a similar range and have better effect. If you really want to split the hairs, without being an excuse for just an overly obvious rant, simply state all AC of less than 10 and non-ultra versions be removed from the game since that is what they were meant to deal with and had game mechanics supporting their use against those targets, especially the LBX variety.

Kristov Kerensky, on 14 December 2011 - 09:07 PM, said:

As for that 'single volley kills'..hmm..I don't recall that happening much unless it was a Heavy/Assault vs a small Med/Light..and you know what..that is EXACTLY what should happen in that situation.

Ok so you have a chip on your shoulder, have little to no experience with the prior games, and you are bad at math. It is ok though, we understand. In MW2 and 4 it is painfully easy to core in a single volley, even assault mechs. In MW3 you didn't even have to, all you had to do was use a pulse laser to paint over a leg and when it took damage change weapon groups and blow the limb off removing the unit entirely. Drop mechs in seconds baring user error. Could really give a rat's behind if I overheat as a result of it, my opponent is dead.

You sir are not addressing the issue, you are obfuscating.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Phades, on 15 December 2011 - 05:57 PM, said:

Why have the weapon exist at all then? Anything can be pointed at the same targets with a similar range and have better effect. If you really want to split the hairs, without being an excuse for just an overly obvious rant, simply state all AC of less than 10 and non-ultra versions be removed from the game since that is what they were meant to deal with and had game mechanics supporting their use against those targets, especially the LBX variety.

Ok so you have a chip on your shoulder, have little to no experience with the prior games, and you are bad at math. It is ok though, we understand. In MW2 and 4 it is painfully easy to core in a single volley, even assault mechs. In MW3 you didn't even have to, all you had to do was use a pulse laser to paint over a leg and when it took damage change weapon groups and blow the limb off removing the unit entirely. Drop mechs in seconds baring user error. Could really give a rat's behind if I overheat as a result of it, my opponent is dead.

You sir are not addressing the issue, you are obfuscating.

Why keep the AC2/5, MG, SL, Flamer, SRM2/4? Simple, they are on the stock Mech configs, they give more options, and they do work on Mechs. They aren't real effective from the dps stand point, but since the BTech game isn't just about dps, their OTHER benefits, like low heat, causing heat on the target or long range, make them effective choices.

Nice shot at the insult, but I take no offense, you don't know me, you don't know my experience with the series, that's fine, it's been a long time since I was active in the community because..well..MS bought it and I left before the dead carcass started to bloat and stink. My experience..hmm..active in the Registry on AOL in 95 til it ended, Kali's Grand Council, helped create NBT in 96 and ran it until 97. Loremaster Clan Mongoose, co-leader of the New Oberon Confederacy, Primus ComStar, XO of Shadow Rat's Marauders, XO of House Steiner(aka SRM as a House). I spent quite a few hours in a Mech in MW, MW2, MW3, MW4 and even played MA with my kids quite a bit. I worked for Zipper as a tester when they did MW3 and MW3:PM. So..yeah..I'd say I've got a bit of experience with the series. Oh..yeah..played BTech since it was called Battle Droids, our house version of the Clan Invasion was a radically different history then FASA's version, the Clans were stopped long before Tukayyid in our game.

Now, alpha striking a Mech and out right killing it, already covered that, possible with a big bruiser facing a smaller Mech. Assault vs Assault..not so much, actually only possible with either a head shot(which isn't coring a Mech and doesn't require anything more then a single Clan Gauss/ERPPC), getting in the rear flank and shredding that almost non-existant rear armor, or..uhm...yeah, 1v1, you aren't coring an Assault with a single alpha unless you get crits and blow the engine out. 2 AC20s(go on, try and pack more on an Assault) won't even penetrate the CT on an Atlas with a single alpha, only 14 pts short of that..so add some more weapons to that alpha..uh..yeah, about that..you don't have the space to add enough weaponary to do it. Nice try, NEXT! Ok, gauss rifles! Only need 4 of them..oh..right..not happening either. Ok, ERPPCS! Only need 4 of them to breach the armor, but that's also not enough to actually take core the Mech..and you are in shutdown at this point, heat spike from 4 ERPPCs doesn't give you the option to avoid that, so now you've REALLY pissed off your target AND you are shut down..and the target..it ain't cored, still a lot of IS left there. You can go with 6 ERPPCs, still won't core that Assault, so move to 8..it can be done, did it myself on a Dire Wolf. THAT is enough damage to core an Assault with a single alpha strike! I know, I've done it..and promptly blew myself to hell in the process, heat spike is so high that you don't even get a warning message, you simply blow the hell up. So..yes, you CAN core any other Mech with a single alpha strike..provided you don't mind killing yourself at the exact same time. Ok..checking my numbers again, since I'm evidently no good at math according to you, and I think the numbers look good...coring an Assault with anything requires more damage/heat then any Mech can actually handle without self destructing in the process.

Now, taking the LIMB off a Mech with a single alpha..that's pretty easy, especially if you are in anything bigger then a Battlesuit, even Light Mechs can push enough damage to take a limb off another Light, even some Mediums and the occasional Heavy. This is rather by design, since the objective in BTech is NOT to destroy the opposing Mech but to CRIPPLE it so it's out of the fight and you can salvage it! Coring another Mech is a horrible waste, I've been demoted in BTech for that, chewed out people under my command for doing it, and cried when some ***** cored an Atlas after the pilot ejected...I didn't chew him out or demote him, I 'tripped' in my Mech and my fist hit his cockpit..just a really tragic and stupid accident...really was terrible, that cockpit wasn't cheap to replace.

*edit got some names wrong, looking at a Wolverine and typed that instead of Mongoose, etc*

Edited by Kristov Kerensky, 15 December 2011 - 08:19 PM.

[VYCanis]

If there are no other targets except for mechs, weapons like the ac2 and 5 definitely need a boost, Not drastic, but enough to stay competitive to other systems for their weight, otherwise people will either avoid variants that mount them or tear them out in the mechlab at first opportunity.

If there is the ability to shoot at either npc or player controlled non-mechs, then yeah, those popgun weapons can still be rather popgunny against mechs but be highly effective at their specialized roles enough to warrant mounting them. Sorta how MWLL gave small ACs and machineguns a damage boost vs hovercraft and aircraft

[Kristov Kerensky]

VYCanis, AC2/5 aren't the best options for the damage they do, true enough, but they are far from useless. People will undoubtedly do as they've always done in the MW games, swap them out for higher damage weapons. That doesn't mean they should be removed as a weapon option, especially since they are a fairly common stock Mech weapon. And..PGI has said they'd LIKE to give us some sort of PvE at some point..further down the road when MWO is a hit and making money So it'd be a good idea to leave in the weapons of this sort, might really want them in a year or two...

[Dlardrageth]

Still not sure a major chnage to the weapons (AC2/AC5) is what is needed for the port to a computer game. As much as I value the TT damage system for a TT... it could be tweaked for a computer game. Mind me, not in terms of dumbing it down, rather the other way round. Make it more complicated, enhance the total number of hitboxes (e.g. make upper and lower arms 2 different ones) so you could still emulate the TT's slot system somewhat without leading to a hitbox being so big a 4 year old can hit it with closed eyes.

All-in-all the weapons of BT don't need to be rebalanced if the damage system in the MW games doesn't blatantly favour high damage output over everything else. And that goes double for the assault vs. light Mech issue. Sure an assault should be able to one-shot a light Mech, BUT... it shouldn't be a regular thing to happen. Without any modification based on the target's size and speed (damage modeling matter again here), you'll either have to nerf the top-damage weapons or make speed scaling insanely high (basically making lights able to outrun shots) to keep lighter Mechs viable. And I think we can agree we don't need nor want a version of "Assault Mechs Online" instead of a balanced game.

So here'S again a boon for a way more detailed damage modeling. Instead of just introducing artificial to-hit-modifiers which seem kind of unwieldy in a real-time computer game. Because it isn't going to be round-based for sure. If that center torso that gives you a decent chance at oneshotting the enemy is made up of 5 instead of one hitbox and the one for the critical score is rather tiny, damage will still be afflicted, but not in a silly way. And it would make using a bunch of lower-damage weapons more viable as the number of chances for a critical hit multiply. Having said that, "big" weapons like the AC/20s and alike need a chance still to knock the enemy over. As do massive LRM/MRM volleys. It would make no sense at all if at some point your Mech can always just "tank" two hits from a UAC/20 and just walk on like nothing ever happened.

[Raeven]

The only 'Mech that should be able to one shot a light 'Mech is one carrying an AC/20.

We use to run swarm attacks in MPBT. 7 light 'Mechs vs. one assault 'Mech. My favorite 'Mech of choice for that was the Victor. I could climb up the side of a mountain with its jump jets, limiting the lights ability to run behind me and the AC 20 would tear them apart. A lot of people chose the Atlas and died because of it's lack of manueverability. It couldn't turn fast enough to keep up with the lights circling it and lack of jets meant it couldn't climb much of anything.

Oh, and to give the AC2 and 5 strength, just make them accurate. If you can hit at the extent of their range, they don't need tweaking.

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 12 December 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

Enough with the "power creep" funny business. The ACs are gimp and need a buff. Making them as attractive of an option as lasers requires that be they buffed (i.e. making them better). Making them commensurately powerful as lasers isn't "power creep".

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

I know power creep when I see it and it's obvious you don't so let me clue you in on it.

Ballistic weapons in general and autocannons in particular were designed as weapons which traded a lower maximum damage output for low heat output. They were balanced with heat, tonnage and damage all three in mind and were intended to be used (mostly) as secondary weapons to allow energy heavy `Mech designs a chance to keep up the pressure while cooling off. Take the MAD-3R Marauder for example. Twin PPCs over twin medium lasers backed up with an AC/5. The firing pattern for the MAD is PPC/PPC - PPC/AC - PPC/PPC and it keeps your `Mech from running extremely hot.

The problem comes in when you try to arbitrarily bump up the autocannon damage. That upsets the damage/heat/tonnage ratios and leads to other people wanting to bump up the damage on other ballistic weapons (as we've seen in this thread) such as LRMs, SRMs or Gauss Rifles, which leads to other people wanting to bump up the energy weapon damage, which leads us right back to where we were to begin with.

That IS power creep and that's what I really want to avoid at all costs.

[Baba Yogi]

Man, i was going to create a topic with similar views. It's cool that someone give a good thought about this and write a good wall of text. I always found it weird that in mw series when you got hit by a weapon in a location ie CT no matter which part of it got damaged, all of its armor gets reduced. It made no sense. Weapons only does damage to where they hit (yes that is so unless bullet has so much energy that it just rips through armor and create a big cavity).
Difference in what i'd like than op is there is no subsection. Armor points is divided by locations like in TT and when you get hit by a ppc for example only where you hit will get damaged (a hole in the armor will show in texture). In order to penetrate that armor you need to hit exact spot to further damage the armor. Now, 2 things that would accomplish,

1. Skilled shooters get rewarded by destroying the opponent faster(and it wont be so easy to get killing shots)
2. It'll give more endurance to mechs, they wont get owned instantly by long range alpha strikes(assuming devs liked the idea of cone fire)


I also think that how big a hole you punch in your enemy's armor should depend on your weapon. It is not logical to think that a medium laser should create same cavity as an AC/20 should do. That should also prevent weapons like medium laser overly effective because of their high damage/tonnage ratio and it gives more freedom for devs to balance weapons.(in case you dont understand it makes it easier to punch a hole in armor since you dont have to be too precise to achieve same result)

[Gaius Cavadus]

Paladin1, on 16 December 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

I know power creep when I see it and it's obvious you don't so let me clue you in on it.

No, you do not know the difference between a buff and power creep.

Power creep is the result of buffing X until Y is no longer useful/attractive and then Y must, in turn, be buffed back to usefulness.

ACs as per the TT stats are not attractive or useful. You'd think someone with so much TT experience would have gone to a few competitions and noticed the sea of laser boats used in them.

Why? Why are lasers wildly more popular than ACs in tournies?

Because lasers are lighter, do not require ammo, and depending on the rules don't catastrophically explode from heat and critical hits.

Quote

...and [autocannons] were intended to be used (mostly) as secondary weapons to allow energy heavy `Mech designs a chance to keep up the pressure while cooling off.

And here you go folks, all ballistic weapons are just a means to supplement energy weapon configs so that they can control their heat.

No wonder you don't want to buff ACs; you don't even consider them a main weapon platform.

Anyways, you're a TT purist that'll never give an inch so I will not be replying to your posts any longer.

Enjoy the last word.

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 21 December 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

No, you do not know the difference between a buff and power creep.

Power creep is the result of buffing X until Y is no longer useful/attractive and then Y must, in turn, be buffed back to usefulness.

ACs as per the TT stats are not attractive or useful. You'd think someone with so much TT experience would have gone to a few competitions and noticed the sea of laser boats used in them.

Why? Why are lasers wildly more popular than ACs in tournies?

Because lasers are lighter, do not require ammo, and depending on the rules don't catastrophically explode from heat and critical hits.

And here you prove your own ignorance of the situation. The only place where you see a massive "sea of laser boats" is among young players who don't know how to do anything beyond alpha strike. They're also, by and large, put out early in the tournaments by older, more experienced players who bring designs with a mixture of weapons. Most popular among ballistic weapons are those weapons which can be broken down into two separate catagories; hole punchers (Gauss Rifles, AC/10s and AC/20s) and crit seekers (LBX ACs, RACs and SRMs).

Quote

And here you go folks, all ballistic weapons are just a means to supplement energy weapon configs so that they can control their heat.

No wonder you don't want to buff ACs; you don't even consider them a main weapon platform.

Anyways, you're a TT purist that'll never give an inch so I will not be replying to your posts any longer.

Enjoy the last word.

So you take my word out of context (I didn't say all ballistics were supplemental weapons, just some in some instances), make a half-assed strawman out of it and then try to claim victory by saying I'm a TT purist that will never give an inch when that's demonstratively not true.

I do agree with you on one thing though, the time for talking is over. We need this game yesterday so your kind of elitism can be stomped out in combat. Some people just won't learn any other way.