342 replies to this topic

[Gentleman Reaper]

Here's a technically lore-accurate HGR and iHGR:

Heavy Gauss Rifle (IS):
Mass: 18 tons
Slots: 11
Item health: 10
Explode on destruction: Yes
Explosion damage: 30
Charge to fire: disabled
Damage: 25
Cooldown: 6
DPS: 4.17
Heat: 2
Speed: 1200
Optimal range: 360 meters
Max range: 1200 meters
Ammo per ton: 8

Improved Heavy Gauss Rifle (IS):
Mass: 20 tons
Slots: 11
Item health: 10
Explode on destruction: Yes
Explosion damage: 30
Charge to fire: disabled
Damage: 22
Cooldown: 6
DPS: 3.67
Heat: 2
Speed: 1600
Optimal range: 600 meters
Max range: 1200 meters
Ammo per ton: 8

[Metus regem]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 January 2017 - 10:07 AM, said:

Or actually, it's very difficult to translate the HGR into MWO. In lore, the weapon starts its range drop-off at 180 meters, but keeps going until 600 meters. Since MWO uses the max TT range as the optimal range, with the max range being double that, this means the HGR should start its drop-off at 360 meters and go till 1200 meters, so my version is technically lore-accurate.

Also I had forgotten to update some aspects like the velocity due to a prior discussion.

Not quite...

For example:

MWO PPC: 90 - 540 optimal
TT PPC: 6/12/18 (S/M/L) 180m/360m/540m

PGI tends to use the long range as the optimal range, but the HGR is a funny weapon as it is the only weapon in TT with damage fall off built into it, as far as MWO would be concerned if they touch it, I suspect it would do the full 25 up to 180m (more damage than the AC/20), at 181-360m it would do 20 damage (now it out ranges the AC/20 for the same damage) between 361-600m it would be doing 10 damage (now it does more damage than the AC/10 does past the AC/10's optimal range of 450m) with finally hitting 0 damage at 1200m.

Edited by Metus regem, 16 January 2017 - 10:26 AM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Metus regem, on 16 January 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

Not quite...

For example:

MWO PPC: 90 - 540 optimal
TT PPC: 6/12/18 (S/M/L) 180m/360m/540m

PGI tends to use the long range as the optimal range, but the HGR is a funny weapon as it is the only weapon in TT with damage fall off built into it, as far as MWO would be concerned if they touch it, I suspect it would do the full 25 up to 180m (more damage than the AC/20), at 181-360m it would do 20 damage (now it out ranges the AC/20 for the same damage) between 361-600m it would be doing 10 damage (now it does more damage than the AC/10 does past the AC/10's optimal range of 450m) with finally hitting 0 damage at 1200m.

It's really hard to translate this into MWO since it uses the same mechanic the HGR has to all weapons. Having it go from 25 to 20 to 10 as it enters certain range brackets isn't realistic, so settling with a very long drop-off point seems like a fair trade-off between lore and realism.

[Metus regem]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 January 2017 - 10:38 AM, said:

It's really hard to translate this into MWO since it uses the same mechanic the HGR has to all weapons. Having it go from 25 to 20 to 10 as it enters certain range brackets isn't realistic, so settling with a very long drop-off point seems like a fair trade-off between lore and realism.

Not really MWO already has a damage drop off mechanic, it also used to have 3x max range on ballistic weapons. Right now the AC/20 works like this:

20 damage @ 270m
15 damage @ 337m
10 damage @ 405m
5 damage @ 472m
0 damage @ 540m

For the HGR it would just bleed down damage, meaning something akin to this:

25 damage @ 180m
22 damage @ 270m
20 damage @ 360m
15 damage @ 480m
10 damage @ 600m
5 damage @ 900m
0 damage @ 1200m

[Gentleman Reaper]

Metus regem, on 16 January 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

Not really MWO already has a damage drop off mechanic, it also used to have 3x max range on ballistic weapons. Right now the AC/20 works like this:

20 damage @ 270m
15 damage @ 337m
10 damage @ 405m
5 damage @ 472m
0 damage @ 540m

For the HGR it would just bleed down damage, meaning something akin to this:

25 damage @ 180m
22 damage @ 270m
20 damage @ 360m
15 damage @ 480m
10 damage @ 600m
5 damage @ 900m
0 damage @ 1200m

The problem with this is that the iHGR would be completely superior, since for 2 extra tons you get 22 damage up to 600 meters. And you're forgetting that MWO range profile are double that of TT, 20 hexes (600m) is the max range in TT, but would be 1200 meters in MWO, so why wouldn't the 25 damage range be doubled as well?

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 16 January 2017 - 11:31 AM.

[Metus regem]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 January 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

The problem with this is that the iHGR would be completely superior, since for 2 extra tons you get 22 damage up to 600 meters. And you're forgetting that MWO range profile are double that of TT, 20 hexes (600m) is the max range in TT, but would be 1200 meters in MWO, so why wouldn't the 25 damage range be doubled as well?

But it's not, MWO uses the TT long range as the optimal range, TT does have extreme range as well, but those are very, very rare cases that you would use those rules, or even attempt to shoot that far, for example:

MWO AC/10
Optimal Range:450m
Max range: 900m

TT AC/10
Short: 5 (150m) 0
Medium: 10 (300m) +2
Long: 15 (450m) +4
Extreme: 20 (600m) +I don't know, but not worth it

In my example you can see that the MWO optimal range is the same as the TT's long range, as to why PGI decided to go with that for the optimal range is beyond me, as generally speaking the average pilot (4 gunner for IS, 3 for Clanners) isn't going to want to take long range shots, as you get a pretty ugly target number just by walking.... (4+4+1 = 9 or better on 2d6 to hit, 8 or better for Clan pilots) and it only get worse once you factor in target movement... I've seen target number in excess of 15+.

As to why the 25 damage range wouldn't be doubled is the 25 damage long range in TT is 6 hexes (180m), the long range for the 20 damage shot becomes 13 hexes (390m) and the 10 damage shot gets a long range of 600m.

Keeping in mind how MWO treats long rage as the optimal range, the HGR is an unusual beast due to it's mechanics from TT, if I were heading things up in the weapon lab for PGI, I would just ignore the TT HGR, and put out the iHGR in it's place, easier to code and work with as it behaves like the rest of the weapons in MWO.

[Andi Nagasia]

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

I think its funny that you literally included a screen capture of interstellar operations but chose to organize yoir information like this. You literally have the book with all the dates and info you need

i dont have the Books readily available, but i did have that Picture already that i used in another topic,
the Topic in question was about adding the I-PPC as a weapon, bus as the I-PPC isnt on Sarna people say i made it up,
Hence why i have the Picture readily available to post,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Lets assume that the jump date is going to be 3060 exactly.

Lets assume that they will keep the current trend of only having official production tech in the game and not experimental tech (because if they did there would already be more weapons and such available).

With that in mind your actual list of whats coming looks like this

IS: all current IS versions of 3053 available clan weapons, light gauss, MRMs, and TSM.

Clan: heavy lasers, atm, micro pulse laser, er micro laser, improved clan ppc, light machine gun, heavy machine gun....

yup this is all true,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

No light engine, no heavy gauss, yeah. Mostly not a lot of that stuff. Now if they include experimental tech then the list of things available is actually significantly bigger then what you have listed here.....

im hoping they move past 3060, as they did say they where looking 3060+, not just 3060,
im almost certain we willl see LFEs & Heavy Gauss, because of this, having them will level alot of mech problems,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Xxl engines, xl gyros, hardened armor, reflective armor, all sorts of IS goodies. Even a few clan goodies like streak LRM and chemical lasers......but yeah, thats only if they also include experimental tech or they are saying a soft...very soft 3060 as most of your list didn't hit general production until 3061 or after.

not really most of my list is 3060 or before, only RAC2/5 & HeavyGauss are 3061-62,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Also not because it is related to your lost but in general reply to people bemoaning that cannons and rocket launchers arent in the game already.......

O? i know their are some weapons that should be added,
you can see, (and Vote) on them here(Weapon Invasion, New Intershere Weapon Options!)

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Cannons are outdated primitive tech that really only say use with pirates and in the periphery. Their damge/range/weight/ammo per ton ratio is garbage and they are outclasses by currently available ballistics weapons in nearly every way. Outside of someone choosing a super terrible option just "because" there is no reason to introduce them now.

you mean Rifles, Cannons are like the Thumper Artillery Cannon, or Sniper Artillery Cannon,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Rocket launchers.....are one shot people. They are used as weight fillers because the base TT game didn't have half tons of ammo. The rocket launchers10 weighs .5 tons, it shoots unguided nontargeted missles at just beyond SRM range. And honestly, again you never saw these on anything outside the periphery until the "dark ages" and the reintroduction of primitive tech as a viable option because of difficulties obtaining consistent regular tech.

Very True, but thats not a Future Tech discussion but a past Tech One,
also your missing Mech Mortors, Blazers, and acouple others,

Smell Da Glove, on 16 January 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

Neither needs to be in the game because 1)its a waste of development time and 2) they will then be included in supply catches which is poopjohn.

um why bring them up then shoot down why they are brought up,
i think they should be added to MWO, i think it could be Interesting,

[Andi Nagasia]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 January 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

The problem with this is that the iHGR would be completely superior, since for 2 extra tons you get 22 damage up to 600 meters. And you're forgetting that MWO range profile are double that of TT, 20 hexes (600m) is the max range in TT, but would be 1200 meters in MWO, so why wouldn't the 25 damage range be doubled as well?

Assuming both Heavy Gauss and Improved Heavy Gauss were added to the game they could be Balanced,
assuming both have a Charge as Normal Gauss has, to keep all Gauss weapons in line with each other,

Improved Heavy Gauss could have much better Range, but a much Longer Charge,
assuming normal Heavy Gauss has a 1sec Charge, Improved Heavy Gauss could have a 2sec Charge,
pushing it more into the Snipping Weapon Category, and decreasing its viability in Close Range,

[Y E O N N E]

Gentleman Reaper, on 16 January 2017 - 09:35 AM, said:

ERLL: That looks better, roughly the same HPS as the LL for much worse DPS, which is a fair tradeoff for the range increase, and makes the LL more attractive for mid-range brawling.

> Mid-range
> Brawling

Bruh...

Quote

MXPL: Still feel it's not worth the range increase over the MPL, that 1DPH is brutal considering the cMPL gets 2 more damage and still have much more efficient DPH, although I'm willing to go along with it to see if I can be proven wrong

It's an apex poke weapon, and as payment for being so apex it's not very flexible. It'll be very good on maps like Bog, HPG, and Mining but kind of lack-luster on others. I want to play with it in-game to see what I can do with it. It's pretty juicy on a STD-engine 'Mech with a lot of energy hard-points, I'm actually fighting slots more than tonnage.

Quote

HSL: That heat still seems too low given the insane damage, although again I need to bear in mind that range...

I'm not sure I'd call it insane damage, given the cERSL is only 1 point shy and has a fairly short duration on its own. It's not even doing that much more DPS than the cERSL. I'd call it niche for 'Mechs like the Arctic Cheetah, possibly the Fire Moth later.

Quote

BLC: Still don't know about this one, you increased the damage even further, making it more like 2LLs for one ton lighter but worse burn. I would lower the damage and DPH for burn time, since in lore its advantage over bringing 2LL is that it has better accuracy, but terrible heat efficiency.

I would try to go with 14 damage at 12-13 heat and trade it up for as much burn-time as you can, while that makes it closer to the LPL, the LPL is still a more close-range-optimized weapon with crit-seeking properties. The BLC ends up as a very high damage/tick weapon for that tonnage.

Still competing too much with the LXPL if we go that route. You are either going to get some overlap with the LL or some overlap with the LXPL. The LXPL is already somewhat niche, while the LL is going to be a staple of IS laser vomit and is therefore at less of a risk. With the BLC, your bread-and-butter IS laser vomit changes from 3xLL+5xERML to 1xBLC+1xLL+6xERML on heavies and to 2xBLC+6xERML on fast Assaults. It will always see some usage.

The LXPL, on the other hand, is going to be a rather niche, but also very powerful, weapon where you run 3xLXPL and nothing else. A scalpel for mid-long range combat, we've already seen the kind of damage it can do. If we make the BLC do what you posit, it is a case where it's either not quite good enough, too good, or identical. We can't have two weapons identical, because then we should just not include one of them. With the other two options, we have guns that simply aren't taken and then McGral18 gets on here to complain about moar LegacyTech™.

I simply do not think trying to cater to the accuracy part of the canon is going to take us far. Not unless we redefine the mechanics of pulse lasers. I'm game for that, but I doubt PGI is.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 16 January 2017 - 09:12 PM.

[Requiemking]

Hmmm, could would RACs be balanced if they functioned like LMGs in other games, you know, you can fire consistently for as long as your overheat bar isn't full. If it fills out, the weapon(RAC, in this instance) would automatically jam until the bar completely empties.

[Y E O N N E]

Requiemking, on 16 January 2017 - 06:07 PM, said:

Hmmm, could would RACs be balanced if they functioned like LMGs in other games, you know, you can fire consistently for as long as your overheat bar isn't full. If it fills out, the weapon(RAC, in this instance) would automatically jam until the bar completely empties.

Works for me. More crucial is the amount of DPS they can spit out, though. Like, a RAC/5 should probably offer slightly more DPS to a pair of cUAC/2 since they weigh the same but the former occupies more slots and has worse range and likely worse projectile velocity.

[Requiemking]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 January 2017 - 06:11 PM, said:

Works for me. More crucial is the amount of DPS they can spit out, though. Like, a RAC/5 should probably offer slightly more DPS to a pair of cUAC/2 since they weigh the same but the former occupies more slots and has worse range and likely worse projectile velocity.

Whatever works.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Much thx for compiling this thread, OP.

I haven't looked at it yet but will definitely check it out when I have time.

[Andi Nagasia]

was asked to update this Topic to 3068, will work on this Soon,
(Please Post any Weapons that come out 3060-3068 and ill get them added)
Thanks,

[Koniving]

Andi Nagasia, on 12 July 2015 - 07:13 PM, said:

well how i have them is that they become like 2 Lasers,
for the perpose of helping builds with few hardpoints,

What I'm going to say is unrelated to the copy/paste error.

The problem with this specific mentality is it doesn't include a simple factor:
Players with Lots of Hardpoints will stack them in and say "ZOMG ALPHA LASER VOMIT!!!"

There isn't any fighting something like this without say, sized hardpoints. So, with this in mind... you cannot design anything with the mentality that it serves as if it is two of something for those with few hardpoints. Not without some sort of control mechanism, of which there is none in MWO.

[MechaBattler]

Koniving, on 05 February 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

What I'm going to say is unrelated to the copy/paste error.

The problem with this specific mentality is it doesn't include a simple factor:
Players with Lots of Hardpoints will stack them in and say "ZOMG ALPHA LASER VOMIT!!!"

There isn't any fighting something like this without say, sized hardpoints. So, with this in mind... you cannot design anything with the mentality that it serves as if it is two of something for those with few hardpoints. Not without some sort of control mechanism, of which there is none in MWO.

And how hard would be to hit them with a low ghost heat cap and requisite high penalty? If they really wanted to make those weapons for low hard point mechs. They could give a penalty for firing two. Like they've already done with the AC20. So there is a precedent already.

Edited by MechaBattler, 05 February 2017 - 11:22 PM.

[Koniving]

MechaBattler, on 05 February 2017 - 11:21 PM, said:

And how hard would be to hit them with a low ghost heat cap and requisite high penalty? If they really wanted to make those weapons for low hard point mechs. They could give a penalty for firing two. Like they've already done with the AC20. So there is a precedent already.

If that's the case, why use them at all?
It's a single ton, has the heat of MWO's large laser, and would be doing greater damage if PGI hadn't inflated Large Laser damage.
In fact it has the same heat as a single AC/20.

Also, does ghost heat really do anything at all?
I mostly ignore ghost heat and do it anyway. At only 1 ton each, why wouldn't you just stack on as many heatsinks as you can and say 3 or 4 of these?

If ghost heat was practical and functional to the point of successfully curbing players, they wouldn't have dug into ghost heat 1.5, ghost heat 2.0, etc. Until then I just laugh at it and continue to exploit it, for so long as we can have an ever-increasing maximum heat threshold... we will have exploits to abuse the thermal mechanics. Ghost heat simply isn't enough.

[MechaBattler]

Koniving, on 05 February 2017 - 11:50 PM, said:

If that's the case, why use them at all?
It's a single ton, has the heat of MWO's large laser, and would be doing greater damage if PGI hadn't inflated Large Laser damage.
In fact it has the same heat as a single AC/20.

Also, does ghost heat really do anything at all?
I mostly ignore ghost heat and do it anyway. At only 1 ton each, why wouldn't you just stack on as many heatsinks as you can and say 3 or 4 of these?

If ghost heat was practical and functional to the point of successfully curbing players, they wouldn't have dug into ghost heat 1.5, ghost heat 2.0, etc. Until then I just laugh at it and continue to exploit it, for so long as we can have an ever-increasing maximum heat threshold... we will have exploits to abuse the thermal mechanics. Ghost heat simply isn't enough.

It's not really an exploit if you choose to take the heat penalty. You're just choosing to work with the extra heat. Unless someone is hacking, it's not really an exploit.

Sadly we probably won't get a rework on it any time soon. Since the playerbase is super against anything that messes with Alphawarrior Online.

[Andi Nagasia]

Koniving, on 05 February 2017 - 09:42 PM, said:

What I'm going to say is unrelated to the copy/paste error.

The problem with this specific mentality is it doesn't include a simple factor:
Players with Lots of Hardpoints will stack them in and say "ZOMG ALPHA LASER VOMIT!!!"

There isn't any fighting something like this without say, sized hardpoints. So, with this in mind... you cannot design anything with the mentality that it serves as if it is two of something for those with few hardpoints. Not without some sort of control mechanism, of which there is none in MWO.

well you could run 12 H-SL on a Nova, but that doesnt mean you will be able to Alpha everything,
i can gaurentee that all new weapons will have ghost heat in one way or another,

H-LL will likely be tied to the same GH as all Large Lasers, so fire more than 2 you get ghost heat,
also a C-LPL has 13Dam @10Heat @600mRange, my C-HLL would have 15Dam @11Heat @400mRange,
so your Trading +1Heat & -200mRange for +2Damage, but it would be no different than firing 2ERMLs,

the same goes for HML(which PGI could lock to a group of 3)
or HSL which PGI could lock to the same Group as ERSL & ERML, SPL & MPLs,

[Koniving]

Andi Nagasia, on 06 February 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

well you could run 12 H-SL on a Nova, but that doesnt mean you will be able to Alpha everything,
i can gaurentee that all new weapons will have ghost heat in one way or another,

H-LL will likely be tied to the same GH as all Large Lasers, so fire more than 2 you get ghost heat,
also a C-LPL has 13Dam @10Heat @600mRange, my C-HLL would have 15Dam @11Heat @400mRange,
so your Trading +1Heat & -200mRange for +2Damage, but it would be no different than firing 2ERMLs,

the same goes for HML(which PGI could lock to a group of 3)
or HSL which PGI could lock to the same Group as ERSL & ERML, SPL & MPLs,

If ghost heat was a real control mechanism, they wouldn't be trying to reinvent ghost heat as 1.5, 2.0, and if I'm mistaken they even tried a 3.0.

Or tying lasers to sensors...

Ghost heat is a joke that often is simply ignored. We have thresholds that can get so high that you can simply shrug your shoulders about accidentally tripping it several times in a row. Then there's the issue that you just split 0.5 seconds in between each... and it is like ghost heat doesn't even exist. So 12 * 6 damage for 3 heat each... make that 4 to make it consistent with PGI's treatment of small and medium laser heat... 12 * 4 = Hell... I could "semi-alpha" that in a stream of 6 then 6 for 48 heat with just 10 DHS. Then laugh it off some seconds later after completely decimating my enemy for 72 damage.

If you think the screaming and crying about Clan superiority is bad now... just wait til after that gets thrown onto a Arctic Cheetah or Nova or ANYTHING quirking energy heat to be reduced.

---------
Now, this said...

Just using the Nova as a perfect example..

The Prime arms contain 6 energy hardpoints.
The S arms contain 3 energy hardpoints.
then the A and some others contain 1 energy hardpoint.

When the quirk system was first introduced, the 3 had nothing going for it, the 6 had negative quirks, and the 1 had positive quirks.
Now? The 6 has positive quirks... and the others...really don't have much if anything. Why is that? Why has PGI gone astray from the original mission statement of Quirks? To give you reason to choose fewer hardpoints over many hardpoints?
Sure now the mission statement seems to be "keep it stock-ish to get quirks"... but even so the IS just shrugs and gets...quirks buffing the greatest number of hardpoints for the most part, encouraging you to abuse the system, to alpha everything, and to ignore ghost heat by significantly reducing all potential heat.

So consider this:
What if you had a Real Reason to choose those hardpoints?
What if... quirks actually were nice to them? (OMG original mission statement!)
What if... we really looked at those hardpoints?
On the Nova A, the Nova has only 1 hardpoint per arm because it has only 1 ER PPC per arm. The big guns.
The Nova Prime has 6 energy hardpoints, each being a medium laser.
The Nova S has only 3 hardpoints per arm, but this is because the medium pulse lasers weigh twice as much. Now, I don't believe I would split weapons based on this factor, However, imagine if this was the only set that could hold Heavy Medium Lasers? What if the Nova A and other single energy hardpoint arms were the only ones that could hold Heavy Large Lasers?

What if PGI had better control over what players could mix and match through a hardpoint system that actually does something other than just enable you like a Yes Man to some evil villian? What if the Dire Star could never be built in the first place? What if the 6 PPC Stalker couldn't exist? What if nothing could make quad AC/20?
What if a design like this would make ghost heat never need to exist in the first place?
What if different Mech variants were actually made unique through this method?
What if some critical thinking actually went into the game design beyond "should we inflate these hardpoints" and actually went into "Why doesn't this have more hardpoints? Wait, I know! It carries BIG GUNS while that one Does Not."
What if there was a real reason for the Urbanmech and the Hollander to exist? What if there was a real reason to choose a Panther over the Wolfhound? Like, I don't know, the Panther can carry PPCs and the Wolfhound can't?

Edited by Koniving, 06 February 2017 - 09:01 AM.