316 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

dwwolf, on 23 December 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

The fluff is completely FUBARRED with regards to the game mechanics however.

A shotgun mechanic in BT mechanics would have a smaller tohit bonus at close range with a bonus on the missile hit table. At longer range the tohit bonus would be bigger with a penalty on the missile hit table.

Instead we have a static to hit bonus and static missile table roll

LB-X cluster rounds should have worked that way (and the introduced-decades-later-IRL HAGs - essentially Gauss volley guns - do behave that way) - but, like a lot of things in BT, it was vastly over-simplified in order to allow for faster gameplay in the TT environment.
"Classic BattleTech is a game, not a detailed simulation. Therefore, the real world must take a back seat to game play - for simplicity, length of play, space required and simple enjoyment." - Total Warfare, pg. 36

Also, it should be noted that of the fragmenting AC munitions, only the LB-X cluster round actually uses the Cluster Hits Table.

• "For attacks made with cluster munitions, apply a -1 modifier to the to-hit number at all ranges. Resolve successful attacks as a cluster weapon. When firing cluster munitions, LB-X autocannons cannot make aimed shots, and they also lose the benefits of the firing unit’s targeting computer (if any)." - Total Warfare, pg. 141
  
• "Double the standard Damage Value against conventional infantry; half damage to all other units (round down). This damage is in addition to the doubling of damage against conventional infantry in a clear hex. In addition, double the standard damage against woods hexes." - Total Warfare, pg. 141
  
• "Flak ammunition provides an autocannon with the same number of shots per ton as an equivalent standard ammo bin. When fired, flak ammo generates the same heat and reaches the same ranges as a standard AC round, but only inflicts full damage when used to deliver a flak attack against airborne VTOLs and aerospace units, or when fired against conventional infantry. Against all other units - including battle armored infantry and grounded aerospace units - flak AC ammo inflicts half its normal rated damage." - Tactical Operations, pg. 352

Note that all three munitions can be used to make Flak Attacks (Total Warfare, pg. 114), which grants a -2 to-hit modifier against "airborne aerospace units or VTOLs and WiGEs", and that the -2 to-hit modifier is "in addition to any other modifiers such weapons might convey".
So, when used in an anti-air role, LB-X cluster rounds get (at least) a -3 to-hit modifier (the -2 modifier from the Flak Attack, plus the -1 modifier from being a cluster weapon) while the standard ACs' flak and flechette rounds (the former being a proximity-detonated Shrapnel-style round & the latter being another shotshell-like canister round) get only (at least) the -2 modifier from the Flak Attack.

By contrast, the specialized rounds fired by the Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle (described on pages 314-315 of Tactical Operations as "'splintering' slug types" and "prefragmented rounds") and the volleys fired by the HAGs (essentially, coilgun versions of weapons like the Mitrailleuse, the Nock Gun, and the MetalStorm system) do make use of the Cluster Hits Table.

• "The Silver Bullet Gauss Rifle operates under the same rules as an LB-X Autocannon using cluster munitions (using the 15 column of the Cluster Hits Table), including the ability to be used as a flak weapon and the inability to make use of a targeting computer. Unlike LB-X Autocannons, Silver Bullet Gauss rifles may not fire solid slug rounds." - Tactical Operations, pg. 315
  
• "When an HAG hits a target, roll on the appropriate column of the Cluster Hits Table, but apply a +2 modifier at short range and a –2 modifier at long range. Treat a result of less than 2 as 2, and a result of greater than 12 as 12. Once the Damage Value has been determined from the Cluster Hits Table, damage from an HAG is divided into 5-point Damage Value groupings (any remainder damage assigned to a final grouping), with each grouping assigned to a different location using the appropriate Damage Location Table (provided the target has separate locations)." - Total Warfare, pg. 136

The TT gameplay rules for multi-part munitions (the fragmenting AC munitions, the SBG splintering/fragmenting munition, and the HAG volleys) are a mess and kinda all-over-the-place, with regard to how the weapon types are represented in gameplay versus how they are described in the lore.

Though, none of that changes the point that Khobai is still wrong - the LB-X cluster rounds are not (and never were, and were never meant to be) a proximity-detonated munition; they are (and are meant to be) shotshell-style canister rounds that "behave like an anti-BattleMech shotgun".

[Bishop Steiner]

JC Daxion, on 23 December 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

interesting idea..


Another thought, instead of a cone, give it a diameter radius, that stays the same as it travels..


Point blank they aren't bad.. at long range they spread too much.. Make it one size i think the weapon would be lots better, and probably an easy job to code


It could also do more damage verse armor, than internals.. The idea is that it would mash a whole section of armor,, but not pin-point the part behind it. AKA, you are hitting the entire side of a torso.. But the weapon is only up high for example.. Shave off that armor, but not necessarily hit the weapon





You realize them's fighting words, about probably the best Pnp RPG's ever made... Back when race, class, and death meant something... and if you hit lvl 15 wizard you either were the luckiest man alive,,, or the smartest...

besides shields had other things they did, like bonus to arrows, and lets not forget magic bonuses or sheild type. Then again.. how many people today actually played The original Dungeons and Dragons from 76....

me?

And as someone who also heavy armor fought in the SCA, I can tell you that the Greeks were right... come home with your shield, or on it. No part of the armor system is more important than the shield.

[dwwolf]

You seem to operate under the impression that the BT board game is there to support the fluff, this is a false assumption. Fluff gets written to broaden the appeal of a game.

Rules come first then the fluff gets written. But in this case the fluff got FUBARed. Game companies survive by selling stuff. In this case game rules. So to expand sales they have to invent new rules.

To replicate LB AC behaviour a proximity fused round is the only thing that makes sense.
It trades both pinpoint and full damage ( an IS AC round ) for an easier shot. A proximity fused round has a greater spatial volume to intersect with a target( a sphere a few meters in diameter ) and inflict atleast some damage.

Edited by dwwolf, 23 December 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Bishop Steiner, on 21 December 2015 - 07:44 PM, said:

I'd point out the PvE versions of MW4 is the real MW4.....

The multiplayer side got so stale so fast, I admit to not really paying attention or caring.

I'd say that is somewhat subjective, I enjoyed playing MW4 multi more than MWO, but then again, I didn't start playing online until the NBT-HC league/mod went live which had a continuous development model similar to MWO which kept things from staying stale....until development fell off that is..

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 23 December 2015 - 10:40 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 December 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

I'd say that is somewhat subjective, I enjoyed playing MW4 multi more than MWO, but then again, I didn't start playing online until the NBT-HC league/mod went live which had a continuous development model similar to MWO which kept things from staying stale....until development fell off that is..

Not really subjective. MW4 was made as a PvE game and Multiplayer was an afterthought. By the MekTek days, of course, Online was the thing, but the game itself was always intended to be PvE, and as such, the "real" version.

[Strum Wealh]

dwwolf, on 23 December 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

You seem to operate under the impression that the BT board game is there to support the fluff, this is a false assumption. Fluff gets written to broaden the appeal of a game.

Rules come first then the fluff gets written. But in this case the fluff got FUBARed. Game companies survive by selling stuff. In this case game rules. So to expand sales they have to invent new rules.

To replicate LB AC behaviour a proximity fused round is the only thing that makes sense.
It trades both pinpoint and full damage ( an IS AC round ) for an easier shot. A proximity fused round has a greater spatial volume to intersect with a target( a sphere a few meters in diameter ) and inflict atleast some damage.

And the one and only munition that the BattleTech canon actually describes as a proximity-fuse-detonated fragmenting munition (the "flak" rounds used by standard ACs) has its behavior modeled in a completely different manner from the LB-X cluster rounds because...?

The BattleTech lore and the TT gameplay rules support one another, and neither supports the notion that LB-X cluster rounds are anything other than canister rounds (which fragment upon muzzle-exit, as opposed to proximity-detonated or timer-detonated munitions like Shrapnel shells) - they've always been "anti-BattleMech shotgun shells" in the lore and the basic descriptions included with the rules (yes, even the gameplay rulebooks call them shotguns).

The scattershot nature of the LB-X cluster rounds, as represented in the TT gameplay rules, is easily explained by means other than Shrapnel-style munitions. As proposed earlier, a variable-setting choke mechanism (like those used on real-world shotguns for close to a century) that is servo-actuated and slaved to the Mercury-IV fire control system (which is known to be a key component of the LB-X system since the weapon's introduction to the franchise in Technical Readout: 2750), which would in turn receive data from the 'Mech's primary targeting system, would be more than sufficient to account for the relative consistency of the weapon's spread across range bands (as represented by unmodified 2D6 roll result probabilities against the Cluster Hits Table).
It's just as plausible as the Shrapnel shell proposal, explains why the LB-X cannot share ammunition with standard ACs of the same caliber (as even standard-style LB-X "slug" rounds (which are actually HEAP/APHE shells rather than true slugs, but are referred to as such for the sake of remaining consistent with the shotgun analogy) would have to be specifically designed to accommodate the presence of the choke mechanism), and remains consistent with the long-established character of the LB-X as the 'Mech equivalent of a shotgun.

[Davegt27]

they probably wont go for it

to much work involved

they can buff or nerf any weapon real time so they probably wont see a need

IMHO that is

[Neput Z34]

Bump for justice!
Yes... yes, I know the date of the last post and i don't care if I am accused of "Necro-Posting"

The proposed LB-AC changes to make it function like an CERPPC, are good, but the are issues of hit detection with the said CERPPCs.

Currently LB-ACs are only marginal viable on the mechs that have -10% spread and a cool down/ rate of fire quirk. Example: CN9-D, ENF-5D, RFL-LK, etc.

Here is an idea that would require no new code, just changing the values of the existing weapons XML files.
Reduce optimal range by 1/3 ~ 1/2 and increase damage per pellet to 1.5 ~ 2.

Example: 2/3 range and 1.5 damage per pellet_|_____Example: 1/2 range and 2 damage per pellet_|

CLBX2______600m_____3 damage__________|_________________450m____4_damage

CLBX5______480m_____7.5 damage_________|________________360m____10_damage

C/LBX10____360m_____15 damage__________|________________270m____20_damage

CLBX20_____240m_____30 damage__________|_______________180m____40_damage

Before some one complains that CLBX20 will be OP, consider that 4 CSRM6+Artemis are 2 tons lighter and do 48 damage.

[Wintersdark]

Yeah, when all is said and done, there are only two potential ways to really fix LBX autocannons with reasonable levels of time to implement:

1) Pariah Devalis's idea to use the cERPPC spread code
Pros: Existing mechanic, so simple to implement and tune; allows proper (hit damage) crits, so the LBX can actually BE a crit weapon.
Cons: Loses cool "Shotgun" look and feel; though DOES allow for the "cannister" style also favoured in lore.

2) Raise per-pellet damage
Pros: Just XML edit; Keeps Shotgun look and feel; turns LBX into a standard "FPS style" Shotgun that does high damage at close range; improves criting (higher damage), but not as much as Pariah's idea above.
Cons: Still firing pellets, LBX remains virtually useless at long range (depends if this is actually viewed as a con or a pro)
Silly: Complaints that with 1.5 damage per pellet, an LBX10 would do 15 damage at close range (when all pellets hit). This is silly; the LBX10 fires 10 pellets. An SRM6 fires 6 missiles, for 12 damage. As well, in most circumstances an LBX10 currently will not do 10 damage, either because some pellets miss, or because some pellets crit and do more damage via the 15% carrythrough.

Basically, it just depends on what the designers want for the LBX: To be a lethal close range autocannon doing less damage at range, or a spreading cannister-style autocannon.

Either of these solutions fix the LBX line of autocannons completely and give them an interesting differentiating factor, while also being trivially easy to implement.

Edited by Wintersdark, 15 May 2016 - 06:12 AM.

[Richard Hazen]

I keep reading on Sarna that the LBX10 when introduced to the IS was meant to be an upgrade to the AC10 which is why mechs like the Orion M has one, I fail to see the benefit over the fact it can shoot it faster and has less heat but at range it's damage is spread which is a massive downside.

[Bishop Steiner]

Will Hawker, on 15 May 2016 - 06:22 AM, said:

I keep reading on Sarna that the LBX10 when introduced to the IS was meant to be an upgrade to the AC10 which is why mechs like the Orion M has one, I fail to see the benefit over the fact it can shoot it faster and has less heat but at range it's damage is spread which is a massive downside.

Because in TT it was switch ammo, so you had the standard shell, too.... with better range and lower heat.

PGI has consistently failed egregiously to make switch ammo weapons happen. And as such, the ONLY time the LB-X "makes sense" is if you lack the tonnage for a normal AC10.

Even then? It's pretty much junk, even with massive quirks. My CN9-D for example sacrifices 10% cooldown to use a normal AC10.... because it's an order of magnitude superior in actual damage.

[ScoutMaster]

LBX already does more damage (on structure, not counting double tapping UACs ) and does less heat. It's fine as it is. Not to mention you'll most likely be doing spread damage with clan UACs anyways, unless the guy is just standing there not moving like a potato of course.

[Bishop Steiner]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

LBX already does more damage (on structure, not counting double tapping UACs ) and does less heat. It's fine as it is. Not to mention you'll most likely be doing spread damage with clan UACs anyways, unless the guy is just standing there not moving like a potato of course.

or you have basic targeting skills.....

The C-UAC burst duration is on the longest, is the same approx, as their SPL (and that's for the double-tap).

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 May 2016 - 06:48 AM.

[Wintersdark]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

LBX already does more damage (on structure, not counting double tapping UACs ) and does less heat. It's fine as it is. Not to mention you'll most likely be doing spread damage with clan UACs anyways, unless the guy is just standing there not moving like a potato of course.

It doesn't, though. It does normal damage to structure, but because it can in some circumstances get more crits, it can do a tiny bit more damage to structure via the 15% carrythough. However, in reality, you'll almost never see a situation where 100% of pellets hit the same, stripped component, so while you get an extra point or two in damage to structure, because several pellets miss that component, you're still getting less that 10 structural damage there.

I've probably shown the math in this thread already - I've done it enough elsewhere - as things stand the LBX isn't even close to equal to an AC10; it's objectively worse in every situation and only arguably equal in one very, very specific and uncommon situation. This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

[Neput Z34]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 06:34 AM, said:

LBX already does more damage (on structure, not counting double tapping UACs ) and does less heat. It's fine as it is. Not to mention you'll most likely be doing spread damage with clan UACs anyways, unless the guy is just standing there not moving like a potato of course.

LBX has a higher chance to do more damage to structure then Ultras, before targeting computers are involved.

Honestly I would rather have CUAC with 1 less ton of ammo and a TC1, then an LBX with 1 more ton of ammo.

[ScoutMaster]

Wintersdark, on 15 May 2016 - 06:38 AM, said:

It doesn't, though. It does normal damage to structure, but because it can in some circumstances get more crits, it can do a tiny bit more damage to structure via the 15% carrythough. However, in reality, you'll almost never see a situation where 100% of pellets hit the same, stripped component, so while you get an extra point or two in damage to structure, because several pellets miss that component, you're still getting less that 10 structural damage there.

I've probably shown the math in this thread already - I've done it enough elsewhere - as things stand the LBX isn't even close to equal to an AC10; it's objectively worse in every situation and only arguably equal in one very, very specific and uncommon situation. This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

A LBX will crit more often and for double damage. - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

For example, a lbx-10 has a 19 dmg potential and a non lbx ac10 has a 14.5 dmg potential. - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

Wether you're hitting desired component or not, the LBX will do more damage on average. ( Not counting double tapping ) - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

Neput Z34, on 15 May 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

LBX has a higher chance to do more damage to structure then Ultras, before targeting computers are involved.

Honestly I would rather have CUAC with 1 less ton of ammo and a TC1, then an LBX with 1 more ton of ammo.

Wrong. The LBX has more chance to crit AND has double crit damage. Having a targeting computer doesn't even come close to matching the LBX's crit damage.

[Bishop Steiner]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

A LBX will crit more often and for double damage. - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

For example, a lbx-10 has a 19 dmg potential and a non lbx ac10 has a 14.5 dmg potential. - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

Wether you're hitting desired component or not, the LBX will do more damage on average. ( Not counting double tapping ) - This isn't opinion, it's hard, provable fact.

if you are close enough that every pellet hits the same location, which means face hugging at 150 meters or less. And On mechs Medium Sized and up.

Whereas the AC10 actually lays all it's damage in one location out to it's maximum range, every single time.

This isn't opinion, this is hard, provable fact.

But I'm OK with you buying into the placebo effect of "more critz", because it just makes another easier kill on the Opfor, I reckon.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 May 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

RIP inbox. On the other hand, I'm all for more conversation on this thread.

[ScoutMaster]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 May 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

if you are close enough that every pellet hits the same location, which means face hugging at 150 meters or less. And On mechs Medium Sized and up.

Whereas the AC10 actually lays all it's damage in one location out to it's maximum range, every single time.

This isn't opinion, this is hard, provable fact.

But I'm OK with you buying into the placebo effect of "more critz", because it just makes another easier kill on the Opfor, I reckon.

First of all, you don't need to be at 150 meters for the LBX to be tight, at 400M with a lbx10 you can hit all your pellets on the same component on most medium sized and up. Not to mention it's only 1 round as oposed to 3.

Now let me do a little switcharoo on your initial statement:

"If you are close enough that every 3 rounds of your C-UAC10 hits the same location, which means face hugging a sub 80KPH mech at 200 meters or less. And On mechs heavy Sized and up."

[Bishop Steiner]

ScoutMaster, on 15 May 2016 - 07:13 AM, said:

First of all, you don't need to be at 150 meters for the LBX to be tight, at 400M with a lbx10 you can hit all your pellets on the same component on most medium sized and up. Not to mention it's only 1 round as oposed to 3.

Now let me do a little switcharoo on your initial statement:

"If you are close enough that every 3 rounds of your C-UAC10 hits the same location, which means face hugging a sub 80KPH mech at 200 meters or less. And On mechs heavy Sized and up."

1) Nobody but an idiot uses C-ACs. With Clan UACs you get potentially twice the damage...for the same tonnage. And if you can't hold the 3 shot burst on one location the majority of the time? Stop using a joystick.

2) 400 meters? BULLCRAP. Even with the latest round of tightenings (unless one drops to LB2 or 5s)

3) For Clans the UAC-10 is considered better by the Comp Crowd for a reason, and is largely considered the best overall ballistics weapon, beside the Gauss. For the IS, the AC10 wins hands down, every time, also.