90 replies to this topic

[Supraluminal]

I had a thought about a possible mechanic for balancing weapons, particularly in terms of giving them more clearly-defined roles. How about different weapon types doing more or less damage to armor vs. internal structure?

I've particularly been thinking of it as a way to give ballistics a little love by buffing their damage vs. internal structure (and possibly nerfing it vs. armor). That would make rapid-fire ballistics like the AC/2 and AC/5 good choices to use against heavily-damaged targets, since their high rate of fire means lots of crit chances and boosted internal damage means you'd chew through the target faster, crits or no crits. (I'm assuming here that the lower-caliber ACs do in fact have a higher RoF than other weapons, and that critical hits are calculated on a per-hit basis - not in the beta so I don't know for sure if it's working exactly like that.)

It could be used more broadly, too. For example, maybe pulse lasers could be more effective against armor (consistent with how lasers actually work in real life, as a side bonus) but less so against internals. Then perhaps regular lasers and missiles stay in the middle ground, where they're average against both.

Something like this - in conjunction with proper balancing of all the other systems in play, of course, like range, heat, etc. - might help promote weapon diversity. You'd want pulses, PPCs, and high-caliber ACs to punch holes in heavy targets, and low-caliber ACs/MGs/missiles (useful in this role for multiple crit chances) to exploit those holes. LRMs would still be valued for their long-range indirect-fire capabilities, SRMs for heat efficiency, and regular lasers for their high size/weight-to-damage efficiency, which would make them suitable for filling out the last few tons on heavier 'Mechs or as the primary armament on lighter 'Mechs that don't have room for lots of different weapons.

Overall I like that this would help revive the crit-seeking concept from the tabletop, at least in a sense, giving a wider range of roles for weapons to fill. And more generally, it seems like it could be a useful tool in the larger balancing toolbox.

[Bluey]

Why everyone is thinking like an atlas gonna carry an A/C 5 and duke it out with a stalker
I'd like to see you fitting an A/C 20 on a 35 ton mech <.< There are other mech classes that cannot make use of heavy weapons.
Balancing can be made between similar items.You cannot balance a light category boxer with iron filled boxing gloves against a heavy boxer
but you know what they say all is fair in love and hand to hand combat so a smaller nimble unit can take down much larger opponent with never ending haress which is clearly shows game is already balanced cause light mechs and their lighter weapons always have speed advantage compared to bigger weapons and the mech that carried them.

Edited by Bluey, 06 July 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[ExAstris]

The general notion of having different weapon types do differing amounts of damage to particular targets is a solid one to have in mechwarrior. However, the implimentation of it being differentiated by armor and internal structure is problematic. The problem with taking current weapons and making them role specific to armor/internals is that every weapon is currently designed to have a role in terms of range/loadout/heat/mounting and to be equally effective against armor/internals. Making any weapon less effective against armor than its competators means it becomes a ueseless loadout option for the first 4/5th of a fight. The damage you lose by not mounting anti-armor weapons means your opponent will be shredding your internals before you puncture his armor.

In short, weapons already have roles in MW due to their range/damage/heat/loadout characteristics, and the nature of combat in MW makes damage buffs/nerfs to broad armor/internal damage difficult to make useful.

Something I think MW does lend itself too however is various armor types that modify incoming damage, the classic options being reactive and reflective (which may not be available in MWO due to timeline issues). These allow mechs to be extra well armored against certain types of weaponry, a concept that helps the mech customize its total role by modifying its proficiencies. I would even like to see more armor options, perhaps armor types that help against different size weapon impacts. For example armor that helps against heavy impacts would reduce damage done by autocannons, gauss rifles, and ppcs, while armor that helps against smaller impacts would reduce damage from lasers and LRMs.

[Spleenslitta]

ExAstris is right but you put a lot of thought into this Supraluminal so i'd like you to keep those suggestions coming.
Some people just throw out a suggestion without thinking or bothering to writte down a good explanation for their suggestion but you made the effort to convince us.

I'd like to hear more of your suggestions.

[Supraluminal]

ExAstris, on 06 July 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

The general notion of having different weapon types do differing amounts of damage to particular targets is a solid one to have in mechwarrior. However, the implimentation of it being differentiated by armor and internal structure is problematic. The problem with taking current weapons and making them role specific to armor/internals is that every weapon is currently designed to have a role in terms of range/loadout/heat/mounting and to be equally effective against armor/internals. Making any weapon less effective against armor than its competators means it becomes a ueseless loadout option for the first 4/5th of a fight. The damage you lose by not mounting anti-armor weapons means your opponent will be shredding your internals before you puncture his armor.

In short, weapons already have roles in MW due to their range/damage/heat/loadout characteristics, and the nature of combat in MW makes damage buffs/nerfs to broad armor/internal damage difficult to make useful.

Something I think MW does lend itself too however is various armor types that modify incoming damage, the classic options being reactive and reflective (which may not be available in MWO due to timeline issues). These allow mechs to be extra well armored against certain types of weaponry, a concept that helps the mech customize its total role by modifying its proficiencies. I would even like to see more armor options, perhaps armor types that help against different size weapon impacts. For example armor that helps against heavy impacts would reduce damage done by autocannons, gauss rifles, and ppcs, while armor that helps against smaller impacts would reduce damage from lasers and LRMs.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it would all come down to implementation (of this idea specifically and the rest of the combat model generally). For example, if you leaned more towards buffing/nerfing internal damage than altering armor damage, you would leave the formula for the opening salvos where everyone is fully armored largely unchanged while giving selected weapons an edge as finishers. And then again, a lot depends on how quickly you and your team can coordinate to strip armor off your targets - even with doubled armor, a couple of AC/20 rounds to any single location will pretty well open up anything short of an assault, yes? You could still be chewing through internals pretty early on in a fight if things go well.

As for roles based on range, heat, etc., sure, I'm not arguing for drastically changing any of that. It's just always seemed that certain weapons get marginalized while others dominate in the MW games when working only within that framework. Maybe that's something that can be fixed without recourse to new mechanics - if so, I suppose that's fine. Still seems like this idea could add some interest and variety to the proceedings even if that's the case.

Different armor types would be nice to see as well (or perhaps instead; they would admittedly fill a somewhat similar mechanical role), though as you note the careful adherence to the canon timeline might mean we won't see them anytime soon.

[Supraluminal]

Spleenslitta, on 06 July 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

ExAstris is right but you put a lot of thought into this Supraluminal so i'd like you to keep those suggestions coming.
Some people just throw out a suggestion without thinking or bothering to writte down a good explanation for their suggestion but you made the effort to convince us.

I'd like to hear more of your suggestions.

Thanks! If I come up with anything else high-concept like this I'll definitely mention it. I'd be happy to give more mundane detail-level feedback/advice about balancing and tweaking existing mechanics/systems, but it's hard to do that without access to the game.

[Fire for Effect]

lemme think,


uhm NO

[Daylen]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

lemme think,


uhm NO

Wow, with such scintillating wit and logical arguments against the merits of the original post you must be an excellent debater. Truly, you cut through all the shortcomings of this post with a thoughtful analysis of why it shouldn't be considered. If only all the other posters could match your skill...

[Fire for Effect]

Maybe I can give you more information:

read this:

http://www.amazon.co...41603956&sr=8-5
http://www.amazon.co...46&sr=8-2-spell
http://www.amazon.co...46&sr=8-1-spell


I just omitted the star league TRO but that is forgivable...

another must have:
http://www.amazon.co...63&sr=1-1-spell

and good old advaced rules collection
http://www.amazon.co...TF8&me=&seller=


anything not written in these will not make it and no not everything written in there will make it...


all this was expressed in:

NO

[Fyad]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Maybe I can give you more information:

read this:

http://www.amazon.co...41603956&sr=8-5
http://www.amazon.co...46&sr=8-2-spell
http://www.amazon.co...46&sr=8-1-spell


I just omitted the star league TRO but that is forgivable...

another must have:
http://www.amazon.co...63&sr=1-1-spell

and good old advaced rules collection
http://www.amazon.co...TF8&me=&seller=


anything not written in these will not make it and no not everything written in there will make it...


all this was expressed in:

NO

Cool so I'll put you down in favor of making damage application dice-based rather than this video game easymode anime crosshair nonsense

[Supraluminal]

Fyad, on 06 July 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Cool so I'll put you down in favor of making damage application dice-based rather than this video game easymode anime crosshair nonsense

Don't forget that every weapon will have the same 10-second rate of fire! Oh, also, you can only turn your 'Mech in 60-degree increments and move 30 meters at a time.

[Fire for Effect]

you forgot cover which is only in 6m steps...

[Nekki Basara]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

Maybe I can give you more information:

read this:

http://www.amazon.co...41603956&sr=8-5
http://www.amazon.co...46&sr=8-1-spell

You know TRO: 3039 is just TRO: 3025, TRO 3026 and TRO 2750's mechs , right?

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

all this was expressed in:

NO

It really wasn't. It's good that you posted MaxTech though, because the rules for Hardened Armour and Composite Structure are in there, and if you double laser damage is similar to what Supraluminal posted. Please continue to shoot down all ideas with terrible posts though, because that's really helpful.

Edited by Nekki Basara, 06 July 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[datonkallandor]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

anything not written in these will not make it and no not everything written in there will make it...


all this was expressed in:

NO

You're a ******* class A moron buddy.

This is not Tabletop.
This is a real time non-randomized aiming skill based Mechwarrior game. We've had a couple of those before - they've always had trouble with weapon balance, and it always came down to lasers being far too good and ACs being crappier lasers that can run out of ammo. According to everything that's "leaked" about the current state of MWO, this is true yet again.

The thread starter had a good idea on how to solve it.


You don't. So why don't you save your worthless, ill-thought-out replies and ****** off. Leave the big boys to talk about sensible ways to fix the aforementioned problems.

Edit: With all due respect.

Edited by datonkallandor, 06 July 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Fire for Effect]

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

You know TRO: 3039 is just TRO: 3025, TRO 3026 and TRO 2750's mechs , right?

its a shortened reedition of the the 3025 TRO with a bit "update as salt" but no not really star league TRO plus 3025

Nekki Basara, on 06 July 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

It really wasn't. It's good that you posted MaxTech though, because the rules for Hardened Armour and Composite Structure are in there, and if you double laser damage is similar to what Supraluminal posted. Please continue to shoot down all ideas with terrible posts though, because that's really helpful.

His ideas are nice but he is in the wrong game for that. Its like he has a great idea for a steak but talk at a vegetarian summit about this. Renegade legion would be perfect for these ideas. Here we stay what is successful and balance for 25 years. We do not need to invent something everything is already tried and tested.

[Nekki Basara]

You just said "balance" in a tabletop Battletech context. I'm not sure you're talking about the game I've been playing.

And seriously, go check the unit listing on the books.

[Fire for Effect]

datonkallandor, on 06 July 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

This is not Tabletop.

no but as close a transition as possible

datonkallandor, on 06 July 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

This is a real time non-randomized aiming skill based Mechwarrior game. We've had a couple of those before - they've always had trouble with weapon balance, and it always came down to lasers being far too good and ACs being crappier lasers that can run out of ammo.

the last MW was really terrible...

datonkallandor, on 06 July 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

The thread starter had a good idea on how to solve it.

Again his ideas are good in another game; if these are needed here we will see.

if you wish to insult me please use words that are not filtered...

[Supraluminal]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Its like he has a great idea for a steak but talk at a vegetarian summit about this.

Seems to me that it's more like we're all standing around a restaurant that's being built and arguing over whether it should serve meat or veggie burgers when it's done.

Or something. Anyway, as datonkallandor so colorfully noted above, this is MW, not BT. They're related but not identical. If it makes the game better, why not do it? BT is not a sacred text. It's fine as a starting point, but there's no reason to cling to a slavish interpretation of it if that isn't going to produce the best game possible.

(We could also get into an argument about whether BT is really so perfectly balanced in and of itself, but for all our sakes, let's not.)

Edited by Supraluminal, 06 July 2012 - 12:24 PM.

[Supraluminal]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

no but as close a transition as possible

Eh. I think you'd be better off with that argument over here: http://mwtactics.com/

[Nekki Basara]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

no but as close a transition as possible

Shall we start working out optimal skill packages or would you prefer lifepaths? While we're at it, dig out the Solaris box set dueling rules.