460 replies to this topic

[IraqiWalker]

WM Quicksilver, on 17 July 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Instant speed, at midrange maybe, but once you get 500+ it does have a noticeable speed especially when you compare it to lasers. It would also mess with the ability to make snapshots which is very important with any PPFLD weapon, good aim can almost overcome good twisting.
Basically you are messing with its combat capability, where as things like giving the IS Gauss higher health or lower explosion damage do not effect its combat ability yet still give a slight buff to things where the IS could benefit thanks to lack of CASE everywhere and Clan XLs.

Fair enough.

Gyrok, on 17 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Then, you also have to consider, at some point, the IS gets Light Gauss rifles...and a bunch of other stuff too.

Then what? How do you balance all the new tech the IS gets after you kept screwing with clans? Put them back arbitrarily to balance it out because the new IS tech is significantly stronger than even the SLDF tech?

Yes, because Light Gauss is SO OP. It's 8 damage with a charge, and a slightly longer max range than Gauss. Not even sure it will get the longer range. They might keep it at 750 meters.

You do understand that we have to work with what is in the game, and what KNOW will be in the game. Balancing over hypotheticals is silly. It's even sillier to leave something OP, because there's a glimmer of hope that something somewhere, might be added to the game, that could balance it.

Oh right. It will be 5 slots and 12 tons. The same investment a clan mech makes, in order to get 15 damage, instead of 8. Light gauss seems pretty balanced if inserted into the game right now. Just from checking it's stats.

Gyrok, on 17 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Might as well just drop it and see how bad PGI screws up the implementation of BV. Then you have something legitimate to rage about. B!tching about IS vs. Clan Gauss, when the 2 are arguably the most balanced weapons between the 2 groups...is a fool's errand.

They work the same. They are nowhere near balanced.

Gyrok, on 17 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

Remember...when it comes to weapons...crit slots and tonnage mean nothing for omnimechs versus battlemechs.

IICs...well...that is going to be what it is going to be...PGI let that cat out of the bag...so I would expect 3060 tech soon...personally...

Cool. In the meantime, we have to work with the game, not an imaginary version of it, and the C-Gauss, does deserve some tweaking. It is flat out superior to the IS one in almost every respect.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 17 July 2015 - 11:20 AM.

[Telmasa]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 05:11 AM, said:

lower muzzle velocity would also fit in with Clan Philosophy.
Or one could add a second of cooldown.

I don't agree - I don't think any rational Clan engineer would look at a Gauss Rifle and think, "Y'know, slowing this baby down, or making it shoot slower, than this thing we have from 400 years ago, would be an improvement."

(I do think though that balance-wise, PGI should increase the weapon cooldown of all Gauss rifles a wee bit.)

IraqiWalker, on 17 July 2015 - 09:35 AM, said:

The problem is that aside from the engines providing less power (clan mechs had serious problems firing two Gauss Rifles, many actually couldn't charge the capacitors), everything else about the tech is explained by simply saying "they improved the design" they didn't cut corners. They just refined the technique, and developed it more.

It's why their Endo, and Ferro take less space. It's why they don't use regular ACs, when their LB-Xs, and ultras made them obsolete. (even in the IS, if you could fit an LBX 10, you usually took it. Only downside to LBXs is the inability to fire specialized ammunition, which Ultras can do instead).

Honestly, if I wanted to balance C-Gauss against IS Gauss, I'd make the rifle fire two shells at a 0.08s or 0.09s (or maybe 0.11 like the UACs) rate of fire. That way it's slinging them a bit faster than the UACs, so the weapon is still powerful, even at long range, and torso twisting has an effect on it, but not too much that the weapon is considered bad.

Well, I did make that admission that it doesn't *quite* fit the canon explanations given in the tabletop game, but I don't see it quite so much as cutting corners as cutting what is perceived as 'dead weight' - clan 'Mechs aren't designed to be torn apart and keep kicking, they're designed to overwhelm their opponent from the getgo.
Ergo, sacrificing a bit of the structural integrity a.k.a. "module hitpoints", would fit the overall ethos.

No, it doesn't quite solve the issue with explaining the XL/endo/Ferro differences...*but* it does work for all of the weapon discrepancies.

Like the LBX/uAC thing: cutting down on the bulk dedicated to structural integrity, plus miniaturization, allowed the room for two options: ultra-auto cannons, or the ability to fire two different types of ammunition. (of course this hinges on PGI finally figuring out a way to make that happen as intended)

Hell, it even can explain why Clan LRMs come out in a stream as opposed to a single volley: the reduction in weight came at the cost of the structure/systems/control mechanisms (whatever you wanna label it, ok?) that enables the Clan-tech launcher to withstand a full simultaneous volley, whereas firing one-by-one in rapid succession allows the launcher to withstand the strain without any chances of failure.

Now, I admit, this last paragraph starts to smell like Stackpoling, but damnit, to the layman it'd make sense, right?!

Making the Gauss into an LBX-2-Gauss frankenweapon isn't an idea I can get behind.

Gyrok, on 17 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

You guys should seriously just stop circle jerking over this.
There are 2 rules here that will not be invalidated and no amount of forum warrioring will change that:
1.) Altering tonnage to weapons breaks stock mech builds...thus it will never happen
2.) Altering crit slots to weapons breaks stock mech builds...thus it will never happen

It's a good thing my idea here doesn't affect either of those things, innit!

Edited by Telmasa, 17 July 2015 - 03:00 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 17 July 2015 - 06:20 AM, said:

One could also assume that they use denser material and thus keeping the same number of shots. The use of this dense material is to give the projectile better armor piercing characteristic. This might be added to the weapon that cGauss can crit equipment even with armor on

I thought it was the heads of clan warriors made of denser materials......

[Bishop Steiner]

Telmasa, on 17 July 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

I don't agree - I don't think any rational Clan engineer would look at a Gauss Rifle and think, "Y'know, slowing this baby down, or making it shoot slower, than this thing we have from 400 years ago, would be an improvement."

(I do think though that balance-wise, PGI should increase the weapon cooldown of all Gauss rifles a wee bit.)




Well, I did make that admission that it doesn't *quite* fit the canon explanations given in the tabletop game, but I don't see it quite so much as cutting corners as cutting what is perceived as 'dead weight' - clan 'Mechs aren't designed to be torn apart and keep kicking, they're designed to overwhelm their opponent from the getgo.
Ergo, sacrificing a bit of the structural integrity a.k.a. "module hitpoints", would fit the overall ethos.

No, it doesn't quite solve the issue with explaining the XL/endo/Ferro differences...*but* it does work for all of the weapon discrepancies.

Like the LBX/uAC thing: cutting down on the bulk dedicated to structural integrity, plus miniaturization, allowed the room for two options: ultra-auto cannons, or the ability to fire two different types of ammunition. (of course this hinges on PGI finally figuring out a way to make that happen as intended)

Hell, it even can explain why Clan LRMs come out in a stream as opposed to a single volley: the reduction in weight came at the cost of the structure/systems/control mechanisms (whatever you wanna label it, ok?) that enables the Clan-tech launcher to withstand a full simultaneous volley, whereas firing one-by-one in rapid succession allows the launcher to withstand the strain without any chances of failure.

Now, I admit, this last paragraph starts to smell like Stackpoling, but damnit, to the layman it'd make sense, right?!

Making the Gauss into an LBX-2-Gauss frankenweapon isn't an idea I can get behind.




It's a good thing my idea here doesn't affect either of those things, innit!

First off, we aren't talking clan engineers, but weapons engineered for clan warfare mentality (what engineer worth their salt would waste time on totem mechs?). Which is why Randall Bills brought in things like Clan Heavy Lasers, because the super long range elegant fencing laser (ERLL) just didn't fit remotely with clan lore.

Also, if the design parameter was to deliver X damage, to Y range, for Z heat, and they could shave 3 tons off by using a shorter barrel and a lighter magnetic rail, but at the cost of some velocity? Why would they hesitate? To shave 20% off weight? Especially since for practical combat ranges the velocity made little difference, and since their Warrior Overlords preferred to fight at spitball distance anyhow?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 July 2015 - 03:36 PM.

[R Razor]

Blueduck, on 15 July 2015 - 08:39 PM, said:

Gauss hellbringer and gauss jaegar are the two best comparisions.

If, in your mind, the Gauss Jag (with it's XL engine that explodes when a side torso is lost and no ECM) is "the best" comparison to a Hellbringer, then congratulations, you are part of what is wrong with the game.

[Telmasa]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

First off, we aren't talking clan engineers, but weapons engineered for clan warfare mentality (what engineer worth their salt would waste time on totem mechs?). Which is why Randall Bills brought in things like Clan Heavy Lasers, because the super long range elegant fencing laser (ERLL) just didn't fit remotely with clan lore.

I just don't see it that way. Clan warfare mentality, as I see it, isn't about gimping yourself to have honorable and fair combat, it is about personal individual glory and overwhelming firepower. (As opposed to the IS ethos of numerical superiority and old-fashioned rugged durability - it might not be quite canon to source materials, I guess, but y'know?)

The (stock) Hunchback IIC is the Clan warfare mentality personified. It is clearly not a design meant to take alot of punishment - and it certainly doesn't alter the uAC/20s to be any less lethal.

(whereas I'd say the Orion and/or Centurion is the IS warfare mentality personified.)

Quote

Also, if the design parameter was to deliver X damage, to Y range, for Z heat, and they could shave 3 tons off by using a shorter barrel and a lighter magnetic rail, but at the cost of some velocity? Why would they hesitate? To shave 20% off weight? Especially since for practical combat ranges the velocity made little difference, and since their Warrior Overlords preferred to fight at spitball distance anyhow?

Shorter barrel and lighter magnetic rail? That's a Light Gauss, innit? You know, a weapon that does little more than half the damage of the regular Gauss Rifle?

I don't see how weight reduction would correlate to a lower velocity. Velocity, I believe, isn't quite connected to the barrel length or the weight of the magnetic rails.

It just doesn't make sense to me that they would conciously decide to reduce the velocity.

From a gameplay perspective too - who would really care? You'd have to make it a pretty darn drastic velocity reduction for it to be appreciable, which I don't think is wise; the crit health thing is alot easier to notice & manipulate without hitting a row of balance-issue-dominoes.

Edited by Telmasa, 17 July 2015 - 04:21 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Gyrok, on 17 July 2015 - 10:35 AM, said:

You guys should seriously just stop circle jerking over this.

There are 2 rules here that will not be invalidated and no amount of forum warrioring will change that:

1.) Altering tonnage to weapons breaks stock mech builds...thus it will never happen

2.) Altering crit slots to weapons breaks stock mech builds...thus it will never happen

Then, you also have to consider, at some point, the IS gets Light Gauss rifles...and a bunch of other stuff too.

Then what? How do you balance all the new tech the IS gets after you kept screwing with clans? Put them back arbitrarily to balance it out because the new IS tech is significantly stronger than even the SLDF tech?

Might as well just drop it and see how bad PGI screws up the implementation of BV. Then you have something legitimate to rage about. B!tching about IS vs. Clan Gauss, when the 2 are arguably the most balanced weapons between the 2 groups...is a fool's errand.

Remember...when it comes to weapons...crit slots and tonnage mean nothing for omnimechs versus battlemechs.

IICs...well...that is going to be what it is going to be...PGI let that cat out of the bag...so I would expect 3060 tech soon...personally...

I disagree with you a lot but IS vs Clan Gauss isn't one of them.

Crits/tonnage are balanced by locked internals on Clan mechs. It isn't about how much a CGauss weighs it's about how many can it carry and how much ammo, at what speed. I don't have an issue with it.

CXLs are still an issue - they are why Clan mechs are faster and more durable pretty much universally to IS mechs, or conversely carry significantly more firepower and durability in their tonnage range than IS mechs. It's an issue worth bitching about. Weapon balance with lasers and missiles.... less good but pretty close and one can reasonably argue they are offset by bad ballistics. I'm comfortable with Clan/IS weapon balance right now which includes Gauss (which I'd agree is in its way the best balanced, simply because it's identical. The weight/space difference is irrelevant due to locked internals).

We get a balance on CXLs and I'd flat out call it good. CGauss/Gauss isn't anything like an issue.

[Ultimax]

MischiefSC, on 17 July 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

We get a balance on CXLs and I'd flat out call it good. CGauss/Gauss isn't anything like an issue.

Of course it's an issue.

Gauss + Lasers is hands down one of the better mid-range builds in the current meta.

Clan mechs get to run theirs for much less tonnage than IS mechs do, while having better speed and better survivability and more heatsinks - and the clan versions even do more damage.


To run an effective version on an IS mech you need to invest 28 (33 point alpha) to 33 tons (42 point alpha) into just weapons and ammo.

To run an effective version on a Clan mech you need to invest 19 (43 point alpha) to 22 tons (57 point alpha) into just weapons and ammo, or you can run the Dire Wolf version with 50+ tons of Dual Gauss + a Timber's Wolf's entire payload of lasers.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 17 July 2015 - 04:42 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 17 July 2015 - 04:24 PM, said:

I disagree with you a lot but IS vs Clan Gauss isn't one of them.

Crits/tonnage are balanced by locked internals on Clan mechs. It isn't about how much a CGauss weighs it's about how many can it carry and how much ammo, at what speed. I don't have an issue with it.

CXLs are still an issue - they are why Clan mechs are faster and more durable pretty much universally to IS mechs, or conversely carry significantly more firepower and durability in their tonnage range than IS mechs. It's an issue worth bitching about. Weapon balance with lasers and missiles.... less good but pretty close and one can reasonably argue they are offset by bad ballistics. I'm comfortable with Clan/IS weapon balance right now which includes Gauss (which I'd agree is in its way the best balanced, simply because it's identical. The weight/space difference is irrelevant due to locked internals).

We get a balance on CXLs and I'd flat out call it good. CGauss/Gauss isn't anything like an issue.

if universally, every clan mech had the same issues, you might be right. They don't and won't. Which is why you don't' "balance the tech based on the chassis" because there is no way that the same issues hold true across the board.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 04:44 PM, said:

if universally, every clan mech had the same issues, you might be right. They don't and won't. Which is why you don't' "balance the tech based on the chassis" because there is no way that the same issues hold true across the board.

Which is also more reason that the omnis should have more unlocked, unless we really want to rely on quirks for that.

[InspectorG]

Ultimatum X, on 17 July 2015 - 04:39 PM, said:

Of course it's an issue.

Gauss + Lasers is hands down one of the better mid-range builds in the current meta.

IMO, i dont think its an issue. But the easiest fix...to me, is to de-synch the weapons groupings like x3 Gauss.
Just make it so you cant fire a Gauss until 1 full second before or after Laser beam starts or ends. So you have to alternate Gauss/energy/Gauss/energy/etc. Other ballistic or Missile can be used at will.

Meta will switch to Lazor+UAC which doesnt synch as nice and double tap likely has a big heat spike.

I agree with the school that thinks Clan XL is the overpowered part. It allows moar speed, MOAR internal DHS, and survivability. Not getting hit is better than any armor and mobility usually determines options.

IS 'Zombies' get 3 slots for CT/Head weapons. What? 1LPL+ML? Some SRM? Nice but not a valid tactic.

Far as 'lore' and 'game-feels', i think Clan should be a bit OP. Balanced by other means. Greater Cbill rewards/GXP for using T2/3 Clammers? There could be better avenues for Group and CW but Solo is kinda stuck.
Limiting numbers of Clan would likely funk up MM.

Current Rewards problems aside, Stock mechs should pay the most Cbill/XP/GXP, then upgraded mechs( DHS, endo, XL, Artemis, Ultra/LBX, in descending order). Trials should have better viable builds and skills already LEET. You only gotta grind your personal stable. Should help newbs. And scrubs.

Clans should reward MOST for Solo kills, individual acts. IS should get more bonus for player synergy. Clans should reward less overall.

I would have Clans have a cooldown on the best META mechs(holy trinity). Use a Timby or Scro and that chassis cant be used again for 1-2 hours or so. Fill the gaps with the other Clan 'supposed OP' mechs: Summoners, Gargles, Ice Boxes/etc. See how it balances out.

Clans should be high mobility/high alpha on average. Screams initiative and hit first. Aggro. Shoud favor comps with the skill sets to maximize them.
IS should be more durable, perhaps more DPS-centric, better rewarding, and favor newbs and bads who dont have all the comp skills.

Just a though...or three.

[Y E O N N E]

Lily from animove, on 17 July 2015 - 06:34 AM, said:

Yes this is the entire story of how to judge anythign very biased.
So you wanna judge a system objectively by a lost showing "utility" of a weapon which has its utility values given by also subjective judgement.

Of course it's biased, I'm only one person playing and I haven't polled anybody to rank the variables in order and magnitude of importance. But I'm not for or against Clans, I just want every weapon in the game to be as useful as the next. They don't have to be useful in exactly the same way, but if, for example, I take a Small Laser, I damn well better be able to wreck the ever-living crap out of anything taking Medium lasers if I get close enough, otherwise what is the point in handicapping the range so severely? Same story for an IS ML versus a C-ERML. The IS ML doesn't do better spike DPS, it doesn't do better cyclic DPS, it has worse range, and its only advantage is better heat. Those are facts. Cold hard numbers. They are not esoteric interpretations. That is, in fact, the story behind Clan and IS tech; the trade-offs made for the Clan advantages are not quite sufficient to obtain a "different but equal" type of game.

Quote

IS wepaons have a lot more heat efficiency, so who is in charge to say heat is only a 0.18 modifier?

It has that modifier because of the nature of fighting from cover, which in my experience is the style of play that is most prevalent. The heat is far less important when you can take cover and give yourself a chance to dissipate. That's also why cool-downs are weighted so low, because cyclic DPS is not anywhere near as important as spike DPS. Trying to take advantage of high cyclic DPS more often than not gets you killed. Still, at 18% the weight on heat is almost a fifth of the performance section. My current tables have heat as 20%, so exactly a fifth.

Updated table:

Spoiler

As for IS having more heat efficiency, they also can't fit the same number of heat-sinks in. If it weren't for the quirks, they'd be completely boned. You're talking about 'Mechs that require 14 slots for just one chassis upgrade, require 12 slots for XL, have larger DHS, have larger guns, and have heavier equipment. And after all that, they still don't usually even have the option of moving as fast with the same quantity and quality of firepower, forget durability.

And before you even think of trying to say it, locked slots and other hardware are there because Clan weapons are small and light and punchier, not the other way around.

Quote

CERLL are a good example, they suddenly get so much more "utility value" by their range, while in fact on many maps you can not even play this range, yet their heat is so much more, but this hardly effects the utility score. and 1.5 secons beamduration is a real ****** thing hence why everyone uses C-LPL if possible. Yet in this list they are considered of having less utility value. So the clan beamweapon thats said to be the worst, turns out in your list as the best. That alone shows how wrong the list is.

No, the C-ERLL is actually a terrible example. The CERLL's utility shot way up because it is a mere 1 slot and 4 tons; playing with the range and heat didn't really change it all that much without being insanely ridiculous, and neither did placing more emphasis on the weapon performance and less on the resource usage. Just bumping it to 2 slots would cut the delta between it and the IS ERLL by 35%; that's huge. The other major contributor was damage. Because the spike DPS is actually higher than the IS ERLL despite the longer duration, it creates a synergy that inflates the value of the weapon. You don't have to hold for 1.25 seconds to do 9 damage with the C-ERLL and you can do that 9 damage from much farther away than the IS option can.

I would also point out that nobody uses the IS ERLL all that much any more for pretty much the same reasons. The beam has worse spike DPS than the C-ERLL, it runs hot with big-arse IS DHS, and the range advantage isn't that great over quirked and moduled LL, which is often quite comparable to a C-LPL.

Finally, the C-ERLL isn't the worst, it's just the worst at what you and most are apparently trying to do with it. The C-ERLL is amazing when you use it properly as a long range sniping weapon. Thinking it would be great at a mid-close-range fight is the same mistake as thinking the Small Laser would be great at a mid-range fight. Same problem, different extreme. The utility value doesn't tell you in what way a weapon is useful, just that there exists a niche where it is as useful as any other weapon in the game would be within its respective niche. You can figure out what those niches are if you know how to apply and interpret the weapon traits.

Quote

The list may be an interesting way trying to compare the systems, but the judgement of the values weights is totally off.

You are welcome to come up with your own weights, and yours would be just as bad as mine, but I disagree. I think the weights are actually fairly close to reality, though I admit it isn't perfect. Without the IS future-tech, I actually don't even try to get the C-ERLL and C-LPL exactly into line with the rest precisely because I am fairly sure that the performance gap isn't as large as the number would have me believe and because my hands are tied by being unable to change weight, size, and damage. PGI has shown willingness to alter range, heat, duration, and cool-down all the time, but they rarely touch damage. But the gap between the rest of the lasers? Seems about spot-on.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 17 July 2015 - 11:06 PM.

[InspectorG]

Dimento Graven, on 15 July 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

The Clan tech is SUPPOSED to be OP, and the IS numbers are SUPPOSED to be overwhelming.

That's the dynamic we should be asking for.

But to support that in Solo drop at least Clan rewards should be like, 1/3rd rewards for IS.
Assuming 9 v 12 or 5 v 8 type of matchmaking is impossible.

PGI cant rock/paper/scissor their way out of this like Starcraft. Balances are gonna have to be non-tech far as i can tell.
Because what happens to Clan 'OP' tech when the Clans lose and IS catches up parity-wise?
Nerf the IS will hurt all the IS fanbois and the QQ will just be the mirror.

Make both techs the same and the game takes a hit lore-wise and likely strategy-wise. IS vs Clan merely becomes aesthetic.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 July 2015 - 03:34 PM, said:

...
Also, if the design parameter was to deliver X damage, to Y range, for Z heat, and they could shave 3 tons off by using a shorter barrel and a lighter magnetic rail, but at the cost of some velocity?
....

Shorter barrel means that the energy when the projectile leaves the barrel is lower (because of lower velocity like you said) and this also means that the potential damage the projectile can inflict is lower because generally, damage equals to energy delivered.

If we use "the same" projectile but with lower energy/velocity how could it deliver the same damage? One could assume that the Clan had superior knowledge of terminal ballistics and thus they designed their projectile to maximize the destruction when it impacts a BattleMech armor (kinda like what happen when a hollow-point round hit flesh).

But, I like my earlier suggestion better because it takes and gives something.

Telmasa, on 17 July 2015 - 04:15 PM, said:

...
I don't see how weight reduction would correlate to a lower velocity. Velocity, I believe, isn't quite connected to the barrel length or the weight of the magnetic rails.

It just doesn't make sense to me that they would conciously decide to reduce the velocity.
...

Barrel length does reduce velocity (with the same projectile) because the projectile is only accelerated when it's inside the barrel and the longer it's being accelerated, the higher its exit/muzzle velocity.

Actually, my follow up to Bishop's post earlier makes sense if you use heavier projectile made of denser material. It (the projectile) would have the same energy (a.k.a. potential damage) when it leaves the barrel but the higher mass results in lower velocity.

Denser projectile with the same cross section generally means that it penetrates objects better and in-game, this could mean that it has better crit chance to damage components (even with armor on - kinda like armor piercing bullet). This might not be necessary to be added but it gives reason for the lower speed.

[Johnny Z]

InspectorG, on 18 July 2015 - 08:46 PM, said:

But to support that in Solo drop at least Clan rewards should be like, 1/3rd rewards for IS.
Assuming 9 v 12 or 5 v 8 type of matchmaking is impossible.

PGI cant rock/paper/scissor their way out of this like Starcraft. Balances are gonna have to be non-tech far as i can tell.
Because what happens to Clan 'OP' tech when the Clans lose and IS catches up parity-wise?
Nerf the IS will hurt all the IS fanbois and the QQ will just be the mirror.

Make both techs the same and the game takes a hit lore-wise and likely strategy-wise. IS vs Clan merely becomes aesthetic.

Weakest arguement for an unbalanced game, and yet one of the Clan favourites. The character of the Clan and Inner Sphere mechs can be maintained without giving one side easy mode.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hit the Deck, on 18 July 2015 - 09:46 PM, said:

Shorter barrel means that the energy when the projectile leaves the barrel is lower (because of lower velocity like you said) and this also means that the potential damage the projectile can inflict is lower because generally, damage equals to energy delivered.

If we use "the same" projectile but with lower energy/velocity how could it deliver the same damage? One could assume that the Clan had superior knowledge of terminal ballistics and thus they designed their projectile to maximize the destruction when it impacts a BattleMech armor (kinda like what happen when a hollow-point round hit flesh).

But, I like my earlier suggestion better because it takes and gives something.


Barrel length does reduce velocity (with the same projectile) because the projectile is only accelerated when it's inside the barrel and the longer it's being accelerated, the higher its exit/muzzle velocity.

Actually, my follow up to Bishop's post earlier makes sense if you use heavier projectile made of denser material. It (the projectile) would have the same energy (a.k.a. potential damage) when it leaves the barrel but the higher mass results in lower velocity.

Denser projectile with the same cross section generally means that it penetrates objects better and in-game, this could mean that it has better crit chance to damage components (even with armor on - kinda like armor piercing bullet). This might not be necessary to be added but it gives reason for the lower speed.

I believe I already stated it would require a heavier projectile. Because it's a matter of mass and velocity. If one is reduced, the other can be raised to compensate.

I also believe I said it's a game solution, not trying to apply hard science to Battletech

[Khobai]

just change cgauss to do splash damage IMO. It weighs 3 tons less so it should be worse than IS gauss. making it do 10/2.5/2.5 splash damage like the CERPPC would be fine.

theres plenty of reasons splash damage can be explained... like the lighter projectile used by clans tends to break apart more and spiral through the target.

[Hit the Deck]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 July 2015 - 09:53 PM, said:

I believe I already stated it would require a heavier projectile. Because it's a matter of mass and velocity. If one is reduced, the other can be raised to compensate.

I also believe I said it's a game solution, not trying to apply hard science to Battletech

Ah, yes, I forgot that you said "heavier bullets but lower shots".

And it's not about science in game/BT - it's just better if something has a reason.

[InspectorG]

Johnny Z, on 18 July 2015 - 09:47 PM, said:

The character of the Clan and Inner Sphere mechs can be maintained without giving one side easy mode.

How? Aesthetics?

[Johnny Z]

InspectorG, on 19 July 2015 - 06:14 AM, said:

How? Aesthetics?

Among other factors, yes. Character isnt a quality that is determined by numbers any more than it is by appearance. Your argument defeats itself.

Edited by Johnny Z, 19 July 2015 - 09:37 AM.