43 replies to this topic

[Alex Morgaine]

"Comstar stated that no new technology is needed, so we will continue to use trebuchets"
-Random Marik Commander

[Moldur]

Balance with current tech will never be achieved to everyone's liking. I think the haze has finally lifted and everyone is starting to realize that balancing the current tech before introducing new stuff is unachievable.

If perfect balance were to be achieved tomorrow, we would still have just as many people saying they would prefer the game balance to be this way or that way, with the same arguments and discussions this game has always had. Waiting for perfect balance before a tech jump is waiting for a train that never comes, and is not even connected to the pair of tracks we are waiting at.


New weapons should be able to be introduced any time now. It will not break the game any more or less than if they were implemented a month ago, or 2 years from now.

[kesmai]

It is a good thing to have new weapons.
It's a bad thing that pgi will make them.
Like solid slugs for clan lbx. (they are called clan ac's in game)

[Navid A1]

This game is in desparate need of new weapons

IS:
LBX 2/5/20
UAC 2/10/20
Heavy Gauss
Light PPCs
ER lasers
Streak 4/6
Blazers
etc..
etc.

Clans
Heavy lasers
ATMs
...


right now, the game is very boring... its like eating the same soup for 5 years... breakfast, lunch and dinner.

[Ryllen Kriel]

I've been waiting for light gauss, light ppcs and bombast lasers for the past few years. I really wish those would make an appearance...though it would require a speed up of the current timeline.

[Odanan]

Rodo, on 27 July 2016 - 02:56 PM, said:

So, i was wondering.
Why is so difficult to bring new weapons to the game?
Such as MRM, LightGauss, heavygauss, explosives, bombast laser, x pulse laser.
Also turn ferro fibrous, reactive and reflective armours usefull against each kind of weapon.

You are talking about MechWarrior 4 stuff. All this new tech is 5 to 10 years ahead the timeline.

Well, except the Arrow 4, which wouldn't be possible without completely changing the mechlab mechanics (the weapon is só big, it would take a whole arm and side torso).

But there are a few experimental or rare weapons that could be added (see my signature).

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 28 July 2016 - 04:45 AM, said:

You are talking about MechWarrior 4 stuff. All this new tech is 5 to 10 years ahead the timeline.

Well, except the Arrow 4, which wouldn't be possible without completely changing the mechlab mechanics (the weapon is só big, it would take a whole arm and side torso).

But there are a few experimental or rare weapons that could be added (see my signature).

There was actually a good suggestion for handling the arrow IV, spilt it into two compnents, a launcher that would use up an entire arm with out LAA, and guidance that has to be mounted in the adjacent torso.

Edited by Metus regem, 28 July 2016 - 04:56 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

kesmai, on 27 July 2016 - 10:59 PM, said:

It is a good thing to have new weapons.
It's a bad thing that pgi will make them.
Like solid slugs for clan lbx. (they are called clan ac's in game)

Solid slugs for LB-X is not a Clan thing, it's universal for all LB-X AC. Unfortunately for PGI, allowing it would also obsolete the standard IS AC/10.

[Metus regem]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 July 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

Solid slugs for LB-X is not a Clan thing, it's universal for all LB-X AC. Unfortunately for PGI, allowing it would also obsolete the standard IS AC/10.

Unless they do what TT did and give standard AC/s alternative ammo, such as precision, AP and tracer rounds...

Precision for MWO could have a higher speed.

AP for MWO could cause damage to structure through armour... Make it worth the half shots/ton that it gets....

Tracer for MWO could highlight a target for all members of the blue team when hit.

[El Bandito]

Metus regem, on 28 July 2016 - 05:18 AM, said:

Tracer for MWO could highlight a target for all members of the blue team when hit.

TAG can do the job.

[Metus regem]

El Bandito, on 28 July 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

TAG can do the job.

Yes, yes it can, with out doing any damage. But when I say highlight, I don't mean acting as a guidance system for missiles. I mean making a Mech more visible, either via a blinking light, a bright colour or just making it emit light on a night map.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Solid slugs for LB-X is not a Clan thing, it's universal for all LB-X AC. Unfortunately for PGI, allowing it would also obsolete the standard IS AC/10.

Because surely, there is no way to give the AC/10 better cooldown, tweak it's heat, or any number of other options to make it attractive vs. it's slightly lighter and more compact brother.

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 July 2016 - 04:42 PM, said:

Those aren't "timeline conforming," though. About 5 years out, though timeline is not something PGI is really following anymore. They just don't want to do new guns for some internal reason.

They fired Thomas a few years back, the weapon designer guy who loved to post "in character" and deliver weapon info as 'intel reports'.

His last post about a new weapon was a laser-based anti-missile system "waiting for the go-ahead."

Then poof. He go poof.

No new weapon systems since.

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 28 July 2016 - 05:08 AM, said:

Solid slugs for LB-X is not a Clan thing, it's universal for all LB-X AC. Unfortunately for PGI, allowing it would also obsolete the standard IS AC/10.

"Solid slugs" for LB-X is actually written as "standard autocannon ammunition". To avoid the confusion this means that the LB-X 10 wouldn't be dealing 10 damage in a single shot despite common belief, at least if based on Battletech's fluff.

If MWO's IS ACs were akin to the actual Battletech ACs of lore (rather than the FLD examples that the Tabletop has in the interest of summarizing and expediting the process of a pen-and-paper tabletop system), then we would not have any issues of the LB-X obsoleting the AC/10 or any other AC save for the weight-and-heat issue.

Countering for that is actually pretty easy, too. Give the LB-X smaller caliber "standard" rounds than the AC/10, so the AC/10 would still be more FLD than the LB-X.
Alternatively, keep them very similar and implement alternative AC ammo to make the AC/10 worth something.

But this requires PGI to actually have some forethought in designing things... something we know they lack as demonstrated by how often they have to bandage issues.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 28 July 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

"Solid slugs" for LB-X is actually written as "standard autocannon ammunition". To avoid the confusion this means that the LB-X 10 wouldn't be dealing 10 damage in a single shot despite common belief, at least if based on Battletech's fluff.

If MWO's IS ACs were akin to the actual Battletech ACs of lore (rather than the FLD examples that the Tabletop has in the interest of summarizing and expediting the process of a pen-and-paper tabletop system), then we would not have any issues of the LB-X obsoleting the AC/10 or any other AC save for the weight-and-heat issue.

Countering for that is actually pretty easy, too. Give the LB-X smaller caliber "standard" rounds than the AC/10, so the AC/10 would still be more FLD than the LB-X.
Alternatively, keep them very similar and implement alternative AC ammo to make the AC/10 worth something.

But this requires PGI to actually have some forethought in designing things... something we know they lack as demonstrated by how often they have to bandage issues.

Along those lines, how do you interpret the LB series, are they a canister shot (meaning a round that bursts into sub-munitions at a set range) or a true shot-gun (as show in MWO)?

Myself I go with that they should be a canister round, set to become sub-munitions 50-100m from the target.

Edited by Metus regem, 28 July 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[Koniving]

Metus regem, on 28 July 2016 - 12:55 PM, said:

Along those lines, how do you interpret the LB series, are they a canister shot (meaning a round that bursts into sub-munitions at a set range) or a true shot-gun (as show in MWO)?

Myself I go with that they should be a canister round, set to become sub-munitions 50-100m from the target.

You know I had some thoughts about that (we are referring to the Cluster ammunition and not the Standard AC ammunition, I assume?)

The Canister-method to me makes the most sense; however if you consider them to be using the Canister method, this means that in theory you wouldn't have enough firepower in a single canister to produce the damage of the full "use", and so you'd be firing multiple canisters which would burst into multiple series of sub-munitions and thus the end result would come from a series of shots splitting from canisters into sub-munitions. These could even be set to "explode" and launch the sub munitions within a certain range of the target which would explain why an LB-2X is actually able to be more accurate at long range than an AC/2.

(Note for MWO a single Canister would be more than sufficient; we know they prefer their Rifle ACs as opposed to 'Battletech' ACs)

I've personally pictured that different brands might have different varieties, and so you may have some 'pure shotgun' styles but all in all, I feel these would be highly disadvantaged.

Of interesting note:

Take note that the weapons supposedly do not deliver "equivalent" damage per shot. An AC/5 doesn't do the equivalent of tabletop's "5 damage" per shot, but can accumulate that 5 damage over time. It is an on-going trend with all the weapons, including lasers.
The exceptions are Gauss Rifles, Missiles, and PPCs -- the three FLD weapons of lore.

Also notice how the LRMs follow TAG around? That's a bit more of how "Homing" LRMs are supposed to work (Tag-enabled LRMs). Regular LRMs and TAG aren't supposed to mix.
------
But since I have your attention and I love swapping things back and forth, a certain Quadruped enthusiast wants me to make some Quads for the Battletech simulation I'm doing.

http://www.sarna.net...ion_(BattleMech)
Peer at the images.
While I'm using a mixture of mostly the SCP-10M and the SCP-12 bodies for the actual physical design, I'm wanting to include a few traits of the original "Unseen" design. Possibly to include the dual cockpit nature.

But more importantly, even if we ignore the additional barrel protruding from the driver's viewpoint, do you see the smoke launchers mounted on the sides? These are used on tanks to emit smoke screens and sometimes to launch anti-missile flares.
Are you thinking Smoke Screen? AM-Flares? Or the big craze of 1980s Battletech Lore [though it never got into the tabletop], Anti-Laser Aerosols (aka 'an anti-laser smokescreen')?

Also in a purely Battletech simulation where mechs do exist without torso twist and the like, should the cannon and/or launch be able to pivot up/down on its own or rely on the mech to adjust its body?

Edited by Koniving, 28 July 2016 - 01:29 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Canonically, it's a proximity-triggered blast of submunitions, which is why you can hit someone in TT with an LB-X cluster round at max range and still deal full damage. MWO's shotgun is basically an EZmode version.

It should really look a lot like Unreal Tournament's Flak Cannon- solid shot that fragments when triggered.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 28 July 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

You know I had some thoughts about that (we are referring to the Cluster ammunition and not the Standard AC ammunition, I assume?)

The Canister-method to me makes the most sense; however if you consider them to be using the Canister method, this means that in theory you wouldn't have enough firepower in a single canister to produce the damage of the full "use", and so you'd be firing multiple canisters which would burst into multiple series of sub-munitions and thus the end result would come from a series of shots splitting from canisters into sub-munitions. These could even be set to "explode" and launch the sub munitions within a certain range of the target which would explain why an LB-2X is actually able to be more accurate at long range than an AC/2.

(Note for MWO a single Canister would be more than sufficient; we know they prefer their Rifle ACs as opposed to 'Battletech' ACs)

I've personally pictured that different brands might have different varieties, and so you may have some 'pure shotgun' styles but all in all, I feel these would be highly disadvantaged.

Depends on what the sub-muntions are, if they are shaped charges of say MG rounds (the most powerful non nuclear explosive in Battle tech for some reason...), then it would only need to have 10, 1/2 MG rounds with in a LB-10X to deal 10 points in 1 point hits. but I think more realistically it would likely be shaped charges that are released from the canister, that detonate on contact.

[Koniving]

Metus regem, on 28 July 2016 - 01:49 PM, said:

Depends on what the sub-muntions are, if they are shaped charges of say MG rounds (the most powerful non nuclear explosive in Battle tech for some reason...), then it would only need to have 10, 1/2 MG rounds with in a LB-10X to deal 10 points in 1 point hits. but I think more realistically it would likely be shaped charges that are released from the canister, that detonate on contact.

Confusing.
10 "half MG" bullets that split to deal 10 units of 1 point hits.

You are aware that Battletech's MGs (and ACs) are actually front-loaded for simplicity, and fire hundreds to thousands of bullets per minute and the "200" ammunition is "200 ratings" of damage, right? Not individual bullets. Much like ACs.

Much like ACs.

ACs are akin to this at the low end of 20mm (the minimum size for LB-X and maximum size for standard MGs; note the measurements stated are girth not length)

This

And this


For how higher caliber ACs could be loaded and fired, refer to this video time skipped to the most important part video.
We are noting that AC/UAC/LBX 2s are calibers 20-90mm.
5s are 30-120mm.
10s are 'mostly' 80-120mm
and 20s are 30-203mm, and the 150mm Crusher Super Heavy Autocannon/20 is specified as a 10 shot per rating [20 damage] weapon and the 185mm Chemjet Gun AC/20 is specifically specified as a four-shot per rating [20 damage].

The AC elaborated in the text is a Whirlwind AC/5 which has a "staggeringly slow" firing rate of 3-4 shots per second at 120mm.

I'm just saying, these wouldn't be "machine gun bullets."
They would still be PGI's beloved huge bullets (though not 'as big').
They would be the bullets that would come out of PGI's "rescaled" smaller AC guns... that their current bullet models are too big for.

Also, above with the explanation of Battletech ACs, this is the reason I mentioned how MWO loves its "Rifle" ACs, as in Heavy Rifle aka cannons based on anti-tank weaponry rather than anti-aircraft weaponry. "Rifles" couldn't produce the firepower at the speeds needed for the battlefield despite their heavily front-loaded nature in comparison to later-developed autocannons with their DPS nature.

Sadly, Battletech Tabletop is a Summary, designed for expedited play and to keep battles within hours to play out 'minutes', as opposed to days or months to play out minutes if you seriously had to roll for every single bullet fired.

Edited by Koniving, 28 July 2016 - 02:13 PM.

[Metus regem]

Koniving, on 28 July 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

-stuff-

I'm well aware, trust me on that front. What I was doing was making a joke about how 1t of MG ammo is will cause more damage than any other ton of ammo in Battle Tech.

My personal experience with auto cannons comes from years spent as a pilot for a AH-64D Apache Long Bow during active conflict in Iraq. Along with being the pilot I was also rated to use the weapon systems including the M230E1 30mm Chain Gun.