344 replies to this topic

[MWHawke]

Terror Teddy, on 16 November 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

How unsporting.

47 critical slots. Take about 20 of them for MG's Take CASE, Take ammo.

Light up the night with firework...

[Chrithu]

Terror Teddy, on 16 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

None is unreasonable, but damn bizarre and funny.

Urbanmech: 70% of it's weight is on it's left arm - and it does not fall over.
Gaussraven: 48% of it's weight is ALSO on it's right arm and far more brittle platform with those dinky legs.

They work, but the logic behind the design is giving me a headache.

Or for that matter - how to safely transport my AC20 ammo from the legs to the right arm gun. While moving.

This is the greatest thing about games. They're fiction. And if it is fun it does not necessarily need to be logical or feasible in real world.

[MWHawke]

Terror Teddy, on 16 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

None is unreasonable, but damn bizarre and funny.

Urbanmech: 70% of it's weight is on it's left arm - and it does not fall over.
Gaussraven: 48% of it's weight is ALSO on it's right arm and far more brittle platform with those dinky legs.

They work, but the logic behind the design is giving me a headache.

Or for that matter - how to safely transport my AC20 ammo from the legs to the right arm gun. While moving.

The ammo are rubber-like till they feed into the chamber.. then they become solid..

[Terror Teddy]

MWHawke, on 16 November 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

The ammo are rubber-like till they feed into the chamber.. then they become solid..

Ammo transportation is a series of tubes...

Al Gore - Battletech Engineer

[Mike McSullivan]

Back in the TT days we had the rule, that ammo needs to be in the same or an adjacent part of the mech. "Legs" as ammo-storage for torso-weapons worked too. We just decided that the ammobox is somewhere at the hip of the mech.

topic: i think the rule of Hardpoints is restricitve enough.

[Dukarriope]

far as I'm concerned, the fact that we have a 'hardpoints' system is limitation enough.

[Melcyna]

Terror Teddy, on 16 November 2012 - 04:43 AM, said:

Spoiler

The 155mm Howitzer would most likely fit but it would no longer be an artillery piece but a direct fire cannon. They would have to modify the turret and the gun and we would essentially replace the 125mm smoothbore cannon and turn it into a 155mm cannon.

Would it require extensive remodelling? Most likely - but you'd be surprised what people manage to invent during war time with only a selection of smashed up vehicles to choose from.



Well, it DOES have a large hollow interior to use.

We would have to move the driver a bit to the side and add shock absorbers. Gonna be a bloody tight fit and you could only fire straight ahead.

It would become a hackjob version of this:
http://www.creativec....jpg?1274020072



Now you are talking about remodelling an actual GUN, not placing a weapon on a vehicle. Quite a difference.



Of course we can. It's like saying that there is no place to fit the 30mm vulcan in the A10.

Could we do it in a workshop in the field? That's a bit more problematic. Do we have any internal space we can move safely? Hardly.

We might have to sacrifice stability so we could most likely reinforce the area above the rear landing gears, remove the drop tanks and install a 40mm gun under each wing flush to the body above the landing gears.

But in this case we are also talking about an airframe and they are simply not as sturdy as a tank or mech.

Will the plane break itself apart when firing - hopefully not.

EDIT:
We used twin 40mm cannons in WW2

http://ram-home.com/...rricane-2d.html

Agreed, but just a few minor correction since i am hopelessly **** about details...

*Abrams like all western MBT uses 120mm smoothbore gun, Russian and warsaw pact nations are the ones who use 125mm gun.
*A-10 30mm gatling gun designation name is avenger, not vulcan... vulcan does not refer to a weapon type, vulcan is the designation name for M61 gatling gun.

incidentally if we modify our MBT to carry the 155mm howitzer, chances are we don't have to cut too much room because unlike the SPG, we won't be firing it in high elevation angle over extreme distance anyway...

as a direct fire weapon, the howitzer does not need a very long barrel... nor does the artillery shell need the massive separate charge normally loaded for artillery bombardment task since the target for direct fire shelling is much shorter in distance which facilitates much smaller charge similar to a conventional shell instead.

In this manner we can cut the size, weight, pressure requirement of the weapon mounted on the tank AND the ammunition... and this is why the howitzers mounted on the tank back in WW1 and WW2 are much smaller and lighter than the artillery version, and easier to load as well than the artillery version (a necessity given that the howitzer tanks original task was to engage in short range against fortifications).

These days though, no one uses howitzer tanks anymore.

Edited by Melcyna, 16 November 2012 - 06:45 PM.

[Tickdoff Tank]

The GAU-8 cannon on the A-10 is roughly the same weight as a MWO machine gun.

[Calon Farstar]

geop, on 13 November 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

customization is a must.

"If the Devs decide to allow "if it fits and you have the tonnage" rule then I say just remove all mechs from the game and give us basic empty chassis and design your own mech....................."

the chassis-design of the mechs are VERY important, so why would you wipe them and replace with a "standard" chassis?? my most mech config depents on this, it is not very smart to use the same weapons on different mechs. for example:

why would you put a xl engine into an hunchi? even the newest player automaticaly aims for your RT because of the large "HIT ME" design. but if you put an xl into a dragon the most ppl have problems to hit anything else than your CT.

there are many points which influence your complete mech loadout and the chassis is one of them. dont just watch for the hardpoints and heatsinks/tonnage.

I AGREE!

If IS mechs were 100% customizable then they would be OMNI mechs. Which will come later. Though I imagine there will still be hard point restrictions just not weapon type restrictions.

Having different chassis bring the variety to the game that makes it awesome. I do however think that some of the customizations go against laws of physics. like replacing a 1 critical machine gun with a 6 critical AC5ultra. What do these mechs have small black hole generators to fit in? I maybe just a bit OCD about this stuff. There are lots of other issues I coulg go on about. Like ranges of weapons that with today's technology are insanely short.

Ohh well back to playing and blowing things up.

[MWHawke]

Calon Farstar, on 23 November 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

I AGREE!

If IS mechs were 100% customizable then they would be OMNI mechs. Which will come later. Though I imagine there will still be hard point restrictions just not weapon type restrictions.

Having different chassis bring the variety to the game that makes it awesome. I do however think that some of the customizations go against laws of physics. like replacing a 1 critical machine gun with a 6 critical AC5ultra. What do these mechs have small black hole generators to fit in? I maybe just a bit OCD about this stuff. There are lots of other issues I coulg go on about. Like ranges of weapons that with today's technology are insanely short.

Ohh well back to playing and blowing things up.

WRONG! Omnimechs have the ability to fit ANY weapon type into the modules in that area of the mech. IS mechs right now do NOT have that ability. They are limited to the weapons class in that area AND in the limited numbers of weapons they were designed with.

[MajorLeeHung]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the

I had to stop right there. Hey guys dont mount 4 LL on your Atlas cus the CLAN VERSION OF THE RIFLEMAN has it already. Hey twit, IIC means its clan. ffs dont spew about cannon and all that crap when you VERY obviously know nothing.

[Thomas Covenant]

I think a size limitation is up for discussion. Putting a guass on a machine gun slot? It doesn't even visually change atm, which could be added.

[MWHawke]

Thomas Covenant, on 24 November 2012 - 02:08 AM, said:

I think a size limitation is up for discussion. Putting a guass on a machine gun slot? It doesn't even visually change atm, which could be added.

Not this again??!? We just went through a major discussion on this. Read above.

[Cmdr Harabec]

MWHawke, on 24 November 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

Not this again??!? We just went through a major discussion on this. Read above.

People will keep asking for this until the Gausscat is impossible or aesthetically makes sense. Not like it's the only thing that doesn't make sense, though. It has two huge PPC mounts up top, yet it or another variant are better off just mounting them in the torso because no size limitations. They're a useless mount, despite clearly showcasing large weapons are supposed to be larger looking mounts. Gauss/AC20 Catapult just ignores that idea at all. Not to mention the Catapult just being overly good to begin with, but being the best heavy ballistic weapons boat around with no appearance to support that...? Other mechs have limitations of not being able to mount an AC/20, yet the kitty gets to do it with no real troubles on an area harder as hard to hti as a Cicada's CT.

People'd complain about PPCs if PPCs were particularly useful in the current game, but they aren't, so no one has any problems to bring up with them except that they need to be better. They do follow suite, though. Large weapons need large mounts. I don't see a reason not to have a simple hardpoint size system in, or the more direct method of simply nerfing the Catapult. Ballistics to CT would make me a happy camper, but it's not addressing the real problem, just a singular problem of a single OP Mech's most standard OP loadout.

[Corvus Antaka]

what I dont like right now is the illogical cheese.

we cant mount an AC/20 on hardly any mechs arms due to arm/hand actuators.

but we can stick 2 gauss rifles into the machine gun ports of a K2 - turning it from a cool PPC flinging mech into an earless abomination that generates no heat.

or 4 ac 2's on a cataphract, which really makes me wonder what the point of the jaggermech will be in a way - and nevermind that that the 4X only has 1 ballistic node on each arm - denoting 1 point, not 2.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Terror Teddy, on 16 November 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

None is unreasonable, but damn bizarre and funny.

Urbanmech: 70% of it's weight is on it's left arm - and it does not fall over.
Gaussraven: 48% of it's weight is ALSO on it's right arm and far more brittle platform with those dinky legs.

They work, but the logic behind the design is giving me a headache.

Or for that matter - how to safely transport my AC20 ammo from the legs to the right arm gun. While moving.

Well limitations was in MW4 and it worked nice.But i am ok how it works in MWO and not any mech/config is OP.Every mech have weakness

Edited by JudgeDeathCZ, 24 November 2012 - 03:14 AM.

[Ricama]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 November 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

My first mech was a Battlemaster with an XL engine(we called em fission engines not XL), double sinks(double weight double crits), and no MGs. And this was before 3050 was published! The guy who introduced me to BattleTech had ERPPCs that did 15 heat and damage before the Clans. They weighed 10 tons.

What I am proving is not everyone played the same BattleTech, but modifying the Mechs is an art form not to be trifled with.

My first several mechs were custom built ... I only owned the Compendium. When I did start buying the mech books my reaction was "these designs suck ... and that looks a lot like something out of Robotech." It took me years to warm up to the stock designs and a major part of the fun of Battletech that keeps me coming back is the ability to customize, there are not many games with even MWO level of freedom and while things aren't perfectly balanced, they're balanced enough that there are several designs that are considered powerful, not just one or two.

[Melcyna]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 24 November 2012 - 03:03 AM, said:

what I dont like right now is the illogical cheese.

we cant mount an AC/20 on hardly any mechs arms due to arm/hand actuators.

but we can stick 2 gauss rifles into the machine gun ports of a K2 - turning it from a cool PPC flinging mech into an earless abomination that generates no heat.

or 4 ac 2's on a cataphract, which really makes me wonder what the point of the jaggermech will be in a way - and nevermind that that the 4X only has 1 ballistic node on each arm - denoting 1 point, not 2.

Cmdr Harabec, on 24 November 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

People will keep asking for this until the Gausscat is impossible or aesthetically makes sense. Not like it's the only thing that doesn't make sense, though. It has two huge PPC mounts up top, yet it or another variant are better off just mounting them in the torso because no size limitations. They're a useless mount, despite clearly showcasing large weapons are supposed to be larger looking mounts. Gauss/AC20 Catapult just ignores that idea at all. Not to mention the Catapult just being overly good to begin with, but being the best heavy ballistic weapons boat around with no appearance to support that...? Other mechs have limitations of not being able to mount an AC/20, yet the kitty gets to do it with no real troubles on an area harder as hard to hti as a Cicada's CT.

People'd complain about PPCs if PPCs were particularly useful in the current game, but they aren't, so no one has any problems to bring up with them except that they need to be better. They do follow suite, though. Large weapons need large mounts. I don't see a reason not to have a simple hardpoint size system in, or the more direct method of simply nerfing the Catapult. Ballistics to CT would make me a happy camper, but it's not addressing the real problem, just a singular problem of a single OP Mech's most standard OP loadout.

The solution to both technically is really simple... reduce the critical room available for the weapon on the torso and move it elsewhere or simply partition it such that the gauss can't fit the torso projectile slot...

IF the intention is to null gauss cat that is... personally i don't have a real problem with ppl modifying K2 into gauss carrier...

i DO HAVE A PROBLEM with gauss though being a remarkably effective weapon above all other projectile weapons.

edit:
to clarify what i mean:

Spoiler

imagine the side torso slot, let's say it has 15 crit slot free (each torso side)...

for each of them if the intention is to simply avoid being turned into a massive projectile slinging catapult, then all we have to do is modify the side torso crit slot room... say if it only have 6 crit slot that are free to be allocated for projectile weapon instead per side torso, voila no gauss (or AC-20 cat for that matter, but AC-10 and below can fit still).

but what about the 9 other crit slot the side torso is supposed to have?

2 obvious path to handle it...
A. move them elsewhere (a very bad idea overall since it creates new balance problem)
B. partition the side torso

in option B, we can for example partition the 15 crit slot free in the side torso onto 0-6 for projectile weapon maximum, and perhaps 0-6 for energy weapon, and whatever is not used for either, becomes free crit slot that can accommodate anything else (engine, equipment, heatsink, ammo and what not).

so how a player wants to mix it is up to his choice... perhaps he only allocate 2 crit slot for projectile weapon (an AC-2 for example), and 1 for energy weapon (a medium laser let's say), which then gives him 12 free crit slot to be used for anything else. He could also allocate none for projectile, 4 for a large laser and that will give him 11 free crit slot for anything else...

essentially, it still gives him the freedom to alter the loadout but with more restriction on the largest size weapon he can stick into the weapon port without actually reducing the available critical slot allocated on the parts.

Edited by Melcyna, 24 November 2012 - 04:02 AM.

[Cmdr Harabec]

Melcyna, on 24 November 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

The solution to both technically is really simple... reduce the critical room available for the weapon on the torso and move it elsewhere or simply partition it such that the gauss can't fit the torso projectile slot...

IF the intention is to null gauss cat that is... personally i don't have a real problem with ppl modifying K2 into gauss carrier...

i DO HAVE A PROBLEM with gauss though being a remarkably effective weapon above all other projectile weapons.

I don't see how people don't have a problem with Catapults. They're much better than most mechs by default, and the K2 is just a slap in the face to most other Heavies by allowing it to rock the heavy hitting ballistics when it's supposed to be a heavy-energy variant.

I do like the system you described, though, and have brought it up before. I think varying the critical slot space on areas of the mechs would be wonderful to reflect the size of the components - as long as you kept the total the same. That said, this system will make messing around with DHS weird on certain variants, but it does what I think should be done much more often in MWO as opposed to the tabletop: really diversify the different Mechs within the weight classes and, potentially, the variants within the Mechs within those weight classes!

Ultimately, though, I think a simple size system attached to each weapon hardpoint would be a bit simpler. Not an MW4 style system, but just an extra modifier. This ballistic hardpoint is small, so I can only mount AC/2s or machineguns. This energy hardpoint is medium, so I can mount a large laser or anything below that, but still only one of them.

Really, though - I'd be happy with either of these systems. They'd rearrange the limits to your customization, and prevent imbalanced combinations like the Dual Gauss/AC20 Cats.

As for what someone else said, yes, I'm baffled too why the 4x has four ballistic hardpoints, but then PGI seems to like mechs trampling on other mechs' territory. Catapult doing the Rifleman's job of potentially mounting dual AC/20s (or dual gauss, something the Cata shared with the rifleman, both in potentially hittable places on designs that also feature hittable side torsos to make an XL harder to run with less torso twist) and now Cataphract doing Rifleman's job of mounting quad AC/2s or AC/5s. I just don't see the point to it doing so when there's another Mech coming along that does just that legitimately, even if it won't be in the game for a while.

[Armorpiercer M82]

ok, there should be some borders... but we need huge ammount of additiinal upgrades,,, for each class.