112 replies to this topic

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 28 September 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Similar strike capability maybe, but not as good because of velocity differentials and heat cost.

I don't see how the Clan version is any worse in these respects.

The Clan 'Mech will bring spare heat-sinks while the Inner Sphere version will have fewer to none, depending on the weight class. Both sides have issues with velocity on their 20-class ACs already.

Quote

I'm not necessarily disagreeing that, but that is mostly because very few can mount it with an XL, and we all know how important speed is in a brawl.

Right, but even with an XL, you need a perfect storm of hardpoint type, number, and 'Mech weight to really push it. We're talking eight energy and a ballistic in the arm at 55 tons, and even that would merely put you at parity with a Storm Crow. Alternatively, three missile racks and a single ballistic at 65/70 tons, but again you won't really be doing anything you can't do on an EBJ or TBR.

I think the most powerful isUAC/20 wielder would end up being the MAD-BH2 (75 strike with double tap) or the Firebrand (65); one is slow while the other is checked by the nature of isXL. Atlas would have a 92 strike, but has all the disadvantages of being an Atlaas.

LFEs would make building around IS 20s a lot easier.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

I don't see how the Clan version is any worse in these respects.

It isn't, but the point is you don't mix energy and ballistics because how important heat efficiency is to brawlers currently, you are much better off throwing on an SRM in place of those heat sinks and energy weapons.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Right, but even with an XL, you need a perfect storm of hardpoint type, number, and 'Mech weight to really push it. We're talking eight energy and a ballistic in the arm at 55 tons, and even that would merely put you at parity with a Storm Crow.

We are talking like the Storm Crow is really good with ballistics and a bunch of energy which hasn't been the case, at most you may put 4 ERSL on the Stormcrow just due to the heat and ammo requirements of the UAC20 and even then that isn't great. If the equipment of the IS and Clan had equal parity, the IS UAC20 would be much better than the Clan UAC20 despite being lighter because of how important that burst length is in a brawl.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

LFEs would make building around IS 20s a lot easier.

I don't disagree, that is the one strong point of the LFE is that it helps mechs with torso mounted 20s, but honestly this is why I wish we went the route of MW4 and just drop the TT critical system for a completely new one because of weird tech balance situations like that.

[Myantra]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

I don't disagree, that is the one strong point of the LFE is that it helps mechs with torso mounted 20s, but honestly this is why I wish we went the route of MW4 and just drop the TT critical system for a completely new one because of weird tech balance situations like that.

Referring to the sized hardpoints?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Myantra, on 29 September 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

Referring to the sized hardpoints?

In a way we already have them, they are just really large in most cases and/or dependent on the equipment you mount (the latter being one of the problems).

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

It isn't, but the point is you don't mix energy and ballistics because how important heat efficiency is to brawlers currently, you are much better off throwing on an SRM in place of those heat sinks and energy weapons.


We are talking like the Storm Crow is really good with ballistics and a bunch of energy which hasn't been the case, at most you may put 4 ERSL on the Stormcrow just due to the heat and ammo requirements of the UAC20 and even then that isn't great. If the equipment of the IS and Clan had equal parity, the IS UAC20 would be much better than the Clan UAC20 despite being lighter because of how important that burst length is in a brawl.

I think we have a bit of a disconnect, here. I am not really talking to the meta for a role, I am talking about pure capability. My point really is not that anything will be ideal for the meta, but rather that the options that exist for each side become dramatically closer to equivalent. Like, to the point where it is a fringe difference noticed only when pilot skill is extremely close. And that balance is dependent precisely on the equipment differences.

That being said, I do not see burst length being significantly different when the isUAC/20 will most likely be paired with isML. It's a nuker, not a brawler, just like the Clan equivalent. One of them has better syncing weapons and initial strike, but the other has superior speed and greater ability to follow-through after the initial strike.

Quote

I don't disagree, that is the one strong point of the LFE is that it helps mechs with torso mounted 20s, but honestly this is why I wish we went the route of MW4 and just drop the TT critical system for a completely new one because of weird tech balance situations like that.

Yeah. TBQH, though, I am with FupDup in that I think a new shooty stompy robots game with zero relation to BT would be a much preferred alternative.

[FupDup]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

Yeah. TBQH, though, I am with FupDup in that I think a new shooty stompy robots game with zero relation to BT would be a much preferred alternative.

I wouldn't call it "zero" relation...it would of course shamelessly ripoff several mechanics and stuff, like the overall art style (i.e. mechs as weapon platforms rather than "giant infantry" like Gundams). Entirely new lore and mech designs though, and whatever entirely new mechanics might be needed.

It would be funny to see people calling it a clone of BT when some of those same people say that MWO itself isn't even a BT game.

Edited by FupDup, 29 September 2016 - 09:33 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

That being said, I do not see burst length being significantly different when the isUAC/20 will most likely be paired with isML.

If they are pairing it with isMLs, they are doing it wrong, that is my point. I'd much rather have a CN9-AH with a UAC20 and maybe only two SRM4s since you are running the UAC20 instead of the AC20. Than a 4G/H with a UAC20 and lasers even if they could mount an XL with it simply because the lasers are less useful brawling weapons. It makes a bit more sense to combine the CUAC20 with lasers since the CUAC20 is going to have a rather long duration, it makes less sense on the IS side where the two shots are most likely separated by a half second. Sure if you are going to compare lasers-ballistic brawlers the Clans have it better off because you are going to be face staring anyway, but that's the difference between the IS UAC20 and the CUAC20, one doesn't require as much face staring so it can be combined with better things like SRMs.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 29 September 2016 - 09:43 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 29 September 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I wouldn't call it "zero" relation...it would of course shamelessly ripoff several mechanics and stuff, like the overall art style (i.e. mechs as weapon platforms rather than "giant infantry" like Gundams). Entirely new lore and mech designs though, and whatever entirely new mechanics might be needed.

It would be funny to see people calling it a clone of BT when some of those same people say that MWO itself isn't even a BT game.

I wouldn't mind if BT was just "rebooted" with more consistent lore and such that way you can use the same art and mechs as well as mechanics but also ditch some of the things that don't make sense for an FPS game.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

I wouldn't mind if BT was just "rebooted" with more consistent lore and such that way you can use the same art and mechs as well as mechanics but also ditch some of the things that don't make sense for an FPS game.

Purists might be an obstacle there though...

[TWIAFU]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

I think we have a bit of a disconnect, here. I am not really talking to the meta for a role, I am talking about pure capability. My point really is not that anything will be ideal for the meta, but rather that the options that exist for each side become dramatically closer to equivalent. Like, to the point where it is a fringe difference noticed only when pilot skill is extremely close. And that balance is dependent precisely on the equipment differences.

That being said, I do not see burst length being significantly different when the isUAC/20 will most likely be paired with isML. It's a nuker, not a brawler, just like the Clan equivalent. One of them has better syncing weapons and initial strike, but the other has superior speed and greater ability to follow-through after the initial strike.



Yeah. TBQH, though, I am with FupDup in that I think a new shooty stompy robots game with zero relation to BT would be a much preferred alternative.

There is/was one out there.

https://www.playhawken.com/

Go try that out for an hour, if you can even last that long in it.

You will end up thankful for MWO even with it's flaws.

[Mcgral18]

TWIAFU, on 29 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

There is/was one out there.

https://www.playhawken.com/

Go try that out for an hour, if you can even last that long in it.

You will end up thankful for MWO even with it's flaws.

I'd rather have access to the Dev tools in Private Matches, and make my own MWO how I want to.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

TWIAFU, on 29 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

There is/was one out there.

https://www.playhawken.com/

Go try that out for an hour, if you can even last that long in it.

You will end up thankful for MWO even with it's flaws.

This is you, missing the point.

[Y E O N N E]

TWIAFU, on 29 September 2016 - 09:50 AM, said:

There is/was one out there.

https://www.playhawken.com/

Go try that out for an hour, if you can even last that long in it.

You will end up thankful for MWO even with it's flaws.

What Quick said...

I was a part of the Hawken community from the earliest days; I am a long time veteran to that game. It was fantastic during closed beta and immediate launch, but has been made increasingly jumpy and streamlined since then with the removal of several features and mechanics and I am not a fan anymore. Hawken going downhill is why I came to MWO in the first place.

That said, I have no idea why people like you always throw Hawken up whenever somebody's poses the desire for a differentl 'Mech game. It was never the same type of game as MWO, for starters, and it was actually really good at what it was for a long time.

Second, when I say I want a different game, I am not digging at PGI so much as expressing my desire to ditch all of the baggage that comes with being a part of BattleTech. I like the core play of MWO, however I have zero appreciation for the history, fluff, or the plots of the setting and I have even less than that for the people that steadfastly cling to them to the detriment of improving the game and franchise as a whole.

TL;DR: I play MWO for MWO. BT can get bent.

[Myantra]

FupDup, on 29 September 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Purists might be an obstacle there though...

You are probably right. I hope the purists will be getting the game they want with BattleTech. Personally, I have always liked that MechWarrior games were willing to dispense with canon in the interest of making a better game. "Because lore" has never been a good reason to me for trying to square-peg/round-hole concepts developed for a TT game into an FPS shooter/simulator.

That said, my perspective comes from having never been remotely interested in the TT game. I was only introduced to MechWarrior when the ATI 3D Rage version of MechWarrior 2 was included with a computer bought in 1995, and have loved it since. I can understand why the purists are as passionate as they are about it though.

[MrVei]

clan UAS10 with the 3 round burst is my fav ac of all, just wish i could a IS ac10 that had it T_T it has that AC feel to it is does not have lol

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 09:41 AM, said:

If they are pairing it with isMLs, they are doing it wrong, that is my point. I'd much rather have a CN9-AH with a UAC20 and maybe only two SRM4s since you are running the UAC20 instead of the AC20. Than a 4G/H with a UAC20 and lasers even if they could mount an XL with it simply because the lasers are less useful brawling weapons. It makes a bit more sense to combine the CUAC20 with lasers since the CUAC20 is going to have a rather long duration, it makes less sense on the IS side where the two shots are most likely separated by a half second. Sure if you are going to compare lasers-ballistic brawlers the Clans have it better off because you are going to be face staring anyway, but that's the difference between the IS UAC20 and the CUAC20, one doesn't require as much face staring so it can be combined with better things like SRMs.

If they are pairing with isMLs they are not intending to brawl, though; they are intending to poke. Given sufficient tonnage, they are intending to smash. It's not really a brawl when you deliver 75 points to one spot. And with a potential 330 meters range after module, the isUAC/20 wouldn't necessarily need to brawl to be useful. Even at 400 meters, a double tap is still about 32 damage. The cUAC/20 operates in this smash mode as well, it's not really a brawling weapon. And as an example, the Nova with cSPL isn't really a brawler, but it still serves a purpose in that brawl because it can smash.


Speculatively, methinks a triplet of SRM2 would be a better fit for an isUAC/20-equipped CN9-AH; the cool-down lets you have it ready to fire at the half-way point for the 20's cool-down, so it's much easier to synchronize.

At worst, the cUAC/20 would need to lose a shell or have its shell interval cut by about 33%, but I don't really see the IS version becoming a bogeyman.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

If they are pairing with isMLs they are not intending to brawl, though; they are intending to poke.

I'll grant you that, but having that much extra firepower allows them to brawl because that is the whole reason AC20s suck at brawling, they don't do enough damage. I mean I suppose you could try and poke and then sure, the Clan variant definitely has an advantage since the fact the cERSL is basically an isML because PGI is goofy with balance.

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

I don't really see the IS version becoming a bogeyman.

It may not be a bogeyman per se, but it will be much more potent than the cUAC20 given the tonnage.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

because PGI is goofy with balance.

Yeah, that's really the big caveat. There are a million and one ways in which PGI can make the cUAC/20 firing bursts and the isAC/20 firing single rounds balance each other out, it's just a question of whether or not they will execute on them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Yeonne Greene, on 29 September 2016 - 04:04 PM, said:

Yeah, that's really the big caveat. There are a million and one ways in which PGI can make the cUAC/20 firing bursts and the isAC/20 firing single rounds balance each other out, it's just a question of whether or not they will execute on them.

Well it would help if either one were worth it in the current environment, but alas neither are.

[Y E O N N E]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 29 September 2016 - 04:06 PM, said:

Well it would help if either one were worth it in the current environment, but alas neither are.

Too much PPFLD with insane range flying around, honestly.

This is actually why I typically butt heads with you over projectile velocity. It's not a good thing that it is easy to quickly calculate deflection for your PPFLD on a target at 1,000 m out with weapons that will be prolific because certain 'Mechs allow them to be. It's not impressive, and never will be, to surprise somebody with a sudden component destruction from a distance that they can neither reasonably expect to get hit from nor retaliate at with the vast majority of the weapons in the game. The NGT and KDK are horrible for the game, turning every 'Mech into so much tissue paper. This is precisely why PGI is investigating a cap to alphas, and why I think there needs to be some sort of dynamic cool-down on energy-intensive weapons (which includes Gauss) that scales depending on how big the wad you just fired was.