26 replies to this topic

[Sereglach]

AngrySpartan, on 17 January 2017 - 04:30 AM, said:

Nice theory crafting, especially the treatment of MMLs and ATMs. Seriously, this topic requires some more attention, did you consider to repost it in the general discussion thread? That's waaay more populated than the suggestion's subforum.

Also worth noting:
1. ATMs have integral Artemis IV, thus their spread should at least match comparable existing launchers.
2. Clan Streak LRMs became available at 3057 (though still considered experimental tech that time). They weight twice more than regular C-LRMs (thus exactly the same as IS tech LRMs), not compatible with Artemis and can-not fire indirectly. Considering PGI won't bother fixing today's MWO LRMs, Streak-LRMs can have steeper missile trajectory and huge velocity, comparable to AC's, like 400-600m/s. Range should be reduced to TT 630m's though.

Thanks for the kind words. I generally avoid General Discussion like the plague. I realize there's merit to what you're saying, but I honestly don't care all that much about players seeing it as I do PGI. I'm hoping they take these suggestions into consideration when it comes time for them to implement new tech (of which we now know we're getting some of around this summer).

I didn't really think about commenting on the spread of the ATM's, so thanks for catching that. I agree that their spread should be comparable to Artemis equipped launchers.

Now for the Streak LRMs those do become a lot trickier, which is a reason I didn't include them in my lineup. MWO will always allow locks through others' targeting; and all missiles share the same locking system. Thusly making it so Streak-LRM's can't fire indirectly is a big issue to try to overcome. If it's easy for PGI to just say "If Line of Sight = NO, then SLRM Lock = NO" then I suppose it'd work, but you can already squeeze the trigger on SSRMs with indirect locks and uselessly fire your missiles into the terrain or air. Therefore I'm going to presume it's not very easy and that's why PGI has given all missiles the same locking system.

All of that said, Streak-LRMs look like they'd be a mess to try and bring into MWO. Granted, I'm not saying they're impossible and/or that we shouldn't want them . . . I'm just saying it won't be easy.

[WhyHelloDer]

I like your ideas, and my main focus is on the Rotary cannons haha. Dakka dakka dakka!!!

Anyway, I like your idea of using flamer mechanics, but lets take it a step further shall we? In addition to the bar filling up towards a guaranteed jam, why not make the weapon spin up to max fire rate as well? This way the weapon can maintain its max dps, but not be considered excessively broken as the target realizes "Oh $#!@, I'm getting shot at* move!". This way the dps is maintained and it could potentiall curb the power of the weapon.

In addition, I want to take some inspiration, not exact rulings, from TT. In TT, when you unjam a Rotary, you can't fire any other weapons. And I think this would make for a cool mechanic, and would allow you to repurpose the Gauss Rifle mechanics. When the RAC jams, have it not auto unjam like normal UACs, instead requiring you to do 2 things. 1)Hold down the fire button for n seconds to unjam the weapon, and 2)Not fire any other weapons during the procedure. This would also curb the OPness of the weapon to keep it from just cropping back up in the middle of a brawl, and also allows for on the spot decision making. Can I run away and unjam? Should I take the chance and unjam mid fight? Can I win if I only use my other weapons? It makes for an interesting dynamic and playstyle change, with just one weapon. And it works to reuse existing mechanics for minimal effot

Edited by WhyHelloDer, 17 January 2017 - 09:57 AM.

[Sereglach]

WhyHelloDer, on 17 January 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

*snip*

There are some interesting mechanics that you have listed. Thank you for the feedback. There are a few points I'm curious about and would like some more input on, if you don't mind:

- Spinning up: Right now I have the weapon firing controlled shots that are at a constant speed of fire; and therefore I don't have, nor need, any sort of spinning up mechanic. Why do you feel it's needed and how to do you see it working?

- Unjamming: Removing anyone's ability to fire ANY weapons during an unjam (especially since I have a jam lasting a total of 12 seconds) would ruin the weapon, as I see it. With penalties set up in a controlled fashion (burst . . . pause 2 seconds . . . allow for some cooldown . . . burst again; and undisciplined firing leads to a very costly jam) why is any sort of unjam mechanic needed? Also, one must be very careful on any sort of extra mechanical layers because 1: they need to be easily understood and explained to the average player and 2: we're aiming for ease of implementation, here, and such mechanics aren't conducive of that.

I think the RAC, as I've laid out, would allow for a distinct strategic weapon that promotes controlled bursts of fire and disciplined trigger control. Being sloppy in either aspect would merely lead to the severe penalties that come from a jam. Also, as mentioned, the way I have it set up affords simplicity and PGI utilizing game mechanics and programming/engineering that they already have.

However, as I said, I'd be fascinated to hear more of your logic and reason for suggesting such mechanics for the RAC weapons.

[WhyHelloDer]

Sereglach, on 17 January 2017 - 12:34 PM, said:

There are some interesting mechanics that you have listed. Thank you for the feedback. There are a few points I'm curious about and would like some more input on, if you don't mind:

- Spinning up: Right now I have the weapon firing controlled shots that are at a constant speed of fire; and therefore I don't have, nor need, any sort of spinning up mechanic. Why do you feel it's needed and how to do you see it working?

- Unjamming: Removing anyone's ability to fire ANY weapons during an unjam (especially since I have a jam lasting a total of 12 seconds) would ruin the weapon, as I see it. With penalties set up in a controlled fashion (burst . . . pause 2 seconds . . . allow for some cooldown . . . burst again; and undisciplined firing leads to a very costly jam) why is any sort of unjam mechanic needed? Also, one must be very careful on any sort of extra mechanical layers because 1: they need to be easily understood and explained to the average player and 2: we're aiming for ease of implementation, here, and such mechanics aren't conducive of that.

I think the RAC, as I've laid out, would allow for a distinct strategic weapon that promotes controlled bursts of fire and disciplined trigger control. Being sloppy in either aspect would merely lead to the severe penalties that come from a jam. Also, as mentioned, the way I have it set up affords simplicity and PGI utilizing game mechanics and programming/engineering that they already have.

However, as I said, I'd be fascinated to hear more of your logic and reason for suggesting such mechanics for the RAC weapons.

I'll address some of your questions on each point.

Spin-Up Time

Firstly, I think that it would be a very interesting and thematic design choice for the weapon and would cement it as very different from other weapons of its type. I mean, it's a Mech-Sized Gatling Gun so it would be pretty cool.

Secondly, this would allow the RAC to get to, at least what I consider, it's proper DPS output of 6 times the fire rate of a regular AC without being ridiculous. It would allow the RAC/2 to get to a rate of .12 and the RAC/5 to get to a fire rate of .28, making them equivalent to 6 times the fire rate of their corresponding Autocannon. However, that amount of firerate is rather insane, with the RAC/2 having a dps of 16.7 and the RAC/5 having a dps of 17.9, so a spin-up would serve 2 purposes. Limiting the amount of time in full speed mode and allow the target some warning that RACs are hitting it.

Unjamming

I think that changing the mechanics for unjamming the gun would make for a refreshing change compared to the manner in which the UACs function. I know it's not as minimal-effort friendly, but would be an interesting mechanic to play with. In addition, I'm not necessarily suggesting the numbers that you listed. Instead probably see something like 1.5-2 seconds to reach max fire rate through spin up, and the able to maintain said fire rate for 4.5-4 seconds before a guaranteed jam. If firing is stopped then the weapon would stop spinning and slow down, at about the same rate as it took to spin up, and then begin cooling down. So, if say you fire for .5 seconds less than necessary for a jam, that is a downtime of 7-7.5 seconds before the weapon is fresh again.

And then for unjamming times, since it is an Active unjam instead of a passive one, the timer could be decreased, to say 2-3 seconds of unjamming followed by the full 6 second cooldown of the weapon, for a total time of 8-9 seconds of unjamming, 2-3 seconds active and 6 seconds passive. And allow the Mech to fire secondary weapons during the passive unjamming period.


That kind of design would create a fairly interesting weapon in my opinion. But, five bucks says it happens in a way neither of us expects.

[Vanguard319]

Most of your suggestions are sound, though I would like to add a few things:

Hardened Armor should have a mobility penalty due to the increased mass, say a penalty that cancels out speed tweak and torso twist speed perks.

I would also like to add a few pieces of tech to the list:

Composite structure (IS) - same weight savings as Endo Steel, but requires no criticals, however, it takes twice the damage, essentially halving structure health.

Triple Strength Myomer (IS) - takes up 6 crits, the mech's top speed increases by 12% when heat threshold is over 33%. if melee is ever introduced, it also doubles melee dmg while active. Cannot be used on mechs equipped with MASC.

X-pulse lasers (IS) - Treated like an upgrade for pulse lasers. increases ranges to the following:
small - 150m optimal, 300m max
medium - 270m optimal, 540m max
large - 450m optimal, 900m max

Each laser generates more heat as a penalty however, and offers no increase in dmg.

Light Ferro-fibrous armor (IS) - takes 7 crits, armor value is 6% greater than standard

Heavy Ferro-Fibrous armor (IS) takes 21 crits, armor value is 24% greater than standard

Light Autocannon (IS) - Lighter ACs, with less bulk, but with less range
LAC2 - 4 tons, 1 crit, 2 dmg, 540m optimal, 1,080m max
LAC5 - 5 tons, 2 crits, 5 dmg, 450m optimal, 900m max

Ferro-Lamellor Armor (clan) - provides 88% armor coverage of standard armor (14 pts/ton vs. 16), but reduces dmg by 20%

Protomech Autocannons (clan) - same idea as light ACs
PAC2 - 3.5 tons, 2 crits, 2 dmg, 600 m optimal, 1200m max
PAC4 - 4.5 tons, 3 crits, 4 dmg, 450m optimal, 900m max
PAC8 - 5.5 tons, 4 crits, 8 dmg, 300m optimal, 600 max

Watchdog CEWS (clan) - 1.5 tons, 1 crit, acts as both an active probe and ECM, each function has about 2/3 range of the standalone versions.

Endo Composite Structure (both) - 25% weight savings, and takes up 7 crits (IS) or 4 crits (clan)

Light Machine guns (both) - longer range but less dmg
LMG - .5 t (IS), .25 t (clan), 1 crit, .5 dmg/s, 180m opt, 360m max

Heavy Machine guns (both) - more dmg, but less range
HMG - 1 t (IS), .5 t (Clan), 1 crit, 1.5 dmg/s, 60m opt, 120m max

Armored Components (both) - Omnimechs cannot armor fixed gear, but can armor pods (i.e. Shadowcat cannot armor it's MASC system as it is fixed, but could armor a gauss rifle, an Omni can have an armored engine if originally built with one) each critical slot of the component must be armored, and adds .5 t/crit to the weight of the component. Each armored slot can ignore one critical hit. cannot be fitted to ammo bins.

Edited by Vanguard319, 17 January 2017 - 06:07 PM.

[Sereglach]

WhyHelloDer, on 17 January 2017 - 04:02 PM, said:

*snip*
That kind of design would create a fairly interesting weapon in my opinion. But, five bucks says it happens in a way neither of us expects.

Ok, gotcha. It's a personal preference and vision on how you wish the weapon would be implemented. I figured you were taking what I had written up and throwing more layers on top of it. Granted, what you have is incredibly complex and would be difficult to explain to the average user (both via mechlab and HUD elements), but it would at least make for an interesting weapon. However, I can't say I agree with the concept, but it's still an interesting opinion and I appreciate the input.

I in no way ever see that happening. However, I think you're also probably right in that IF PGI implements the RAC series of weapons they may be done in a way that neither of us would expect. Maybe PGI will find some use on blending the two concepts in some way that's simple to implement and use.

[Sereglach]

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Hardened Armor should have a mobility penalty due to the increased mass, say a penalty that cancels out speed tweak and torso twist speed perks.

Can't say I agree with that, because you're already being forced to invest up to double the tonnage in armor. However, TT also has some pilot checks and other things associated with Hardened Armor, but I also see that as a cost for all of the bonus properties to Hardened Armor that we do NOT have in MWO (no AP munitions, TCMs, or Mech Tasers).

Remember that the Skill Tree is also being completely overhauled come February. Therefore having something reliant on skills is pointless; and especially shouldn't be done since the new skill system will not allow the pilot to have all options, so balancing off one specific skill won't work well at all.

On the other hand, possibly making Hardened Armor provide something like a small 5% agility penalty might not be too obscene. I think it would depend on how it plays out in MWO, since we can't replicate everything from TT perfectly.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Composite structure (IS) - same weight savings as Endo Steel, but requires no criticals, however, it takes twice the damage, essentially halving structure health.

Forgot about that. Good addition. Some might say DOA and useless, but maybe not. I could see it possibly being a viable choice for crit-starved mechs that need tonnage.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Triple Strength Myomer (IS) - takes up 6 crits, the mech's top speed increases by 12% when heat threshold is over 33%. if melee is ever introduced, it also doubles melee dmg while active. Cannot be used on mechs equipped with MASC.

Kicker here is you can't use straight TT conversions. Mechs' heat capacity varies based on how many heatsinks you have because of the heavily modified heat system MWO has. A mech with 20 DHS has a heat capacity of 60 (30 + 20x1.5), which means they'd need to consistently maintain 20 heat just to keep TSM active. On the other hand, only having 10 DHS lowers that capacity to 45; and the mech would only need to maintain 15 heat for it to be active. Then you can't forget the differing levels of cooling involved, which makes acquiring and staying at the "activation level" of TSM even harder to achieve and maintain. Other solutions would need to be formulated.

Honestly, unless Melee comes along, I don't see TSM being an easy win or wholly worth it to implement into MWO.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

X-pulse lasers (IS) - Treated like an upgrade for pulse lasers. increases ranges to the following:
small - 150m optimal, 300m max
medium - 270m optimal, 540m max
large - 450m optimal, 900m max

Each laser generates more heat as a penalty however, and offers no increase in dmg.

MWO has already tweaked ranges so much from TT, to achieve better balance and parity between IS and Clan forces, that X-Pulse lasers would need something more/different to set them apart. One could only hope that PGI would use it as an opportunity to actually implement something more of the energy machine gun that Pulse Lasers are described as being from lore.

I'm not saying I'm against their implementation. I'm just saying we'd need some way to really set them apart and make them a viable choice.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Light Ferro-fibrous armor (IS) - takes 7 crits, armor value is 6% greater than standard

Heavy Ferro-Fibrous armor (IS) takes 21 crits, armor value is 24% greater than standard

Endo Composite Structure (both) - 25% weight savings, and takes up 7 crits (IS) or 4 crits (clan)

Forgot about these, in all honesty. They're also necessary to implement some canon mechs and builds.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Light Autocannon (IS) - Lighter ACs, with less bulk, but with less range
LAC2 - 4 tons, 1 crit, 2 dmg, 540m optimal, 1,080m max
LAC5 - 5 tons, 2 crits, 5 dmg, 450m optimal, 900m max

They're almost a given no-brainer for implementation and the stats are easily cloned from TT or copied from the MWO standard versions. The only reason I hadn't included them originally is because their implementation is almost akin to merely filling out the rest of the standard autocannon family. I'd love to see them because they're more light ballistic options and open up a lot of build options.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Ferro-Lamellor Armor (clan) - provides 88% armor coverage of standard armor (14 pts/ton vs. 16), but reduces dmg by 20%

Right . . . forgot about this stuff . . . one of the reasons I don't like a lot of the later technology in Battletech. It's basically a "superior" Hardened Armor that can be used on Omnimechs with none of the drawbacks. Of course it really doesn't matter . . . much . . . for MWO that it can be used on Omnimechs because you can't change the armor type of an Omnimech. On the other hand it does allow the implementation of various Omnimech chassis down the line.

Probably the best way to balance this out would be if this armor was only available to the Clans and Hardened Armor was only available to the IS . . . but if they did that then Hardened Armor definitely shouldn't have any movement penalties for the sake of balance in a game like MWO.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Protomech Autocannons (clan) - same idea as light ACs
PAC2 - 3.5 tons, 2 crits, 2 dmg, 600 m optimal, 1200m max
PAC4 - 4.5 tons, 3 crits, 4 dmg, 450m optimal, 900m max
PAC8 - 5.5 tons, 4 crits, 8 dmg, 300m optimal, 600 max

Right, something else I forgot because I've never used Protomechs in TT. Given their light size and lower damage values, I could actually see these being the single-shot AC's of the Clans. That'd probably make them interesting and highly desirable for the Clans to have.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Watchdog CEWS (clan) - 1.5 tons, 1 crit, acts as both an active probe and ECM, each function has about 2/3 range of the standalone versions.

If they do put this in, then they BETTER unlock the active probe on the Koshi. Also, I'd still limit it to being an ECM hardpoint option only to prevent it from just being an OP addition to any mech.

On the other hand, this one might be tricky to implement, mechanically, without fixing the ECM "Magic Jesus Box" due to the way Probes and ECM interact currently. I'm not sure how PGI would balance this or make it function in MWO without basically just installing a seriously OP piece of equipment.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Light Machine guns (both) - longer range but less dmg
LMG - .5 t (IS), .25 t (clan), 1 crit, .5 dmg/s, 180m opt, 360m max

Heavy Machine guns (both) - more dmg, but less range
HMG - 1 t (IS), .5 t (Clan), 1 crit, 1.5 dmg/s, 60m opt, 120m max

Given the way that PGI has balanced MG's so far, the biggest reason that I didn't include them is because I couldn't think of any way that PGI could implement them in a way that even matters. The range difference on the LMG is so little to be useless when compared to the damage loss (a standard MG will basically be doing the same damage at the same ranges outside optimum); and the same goes for the HMG.

I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, I just think that with the way MG's are currently balanced that it wouldn't matter.

The same honestly goes for MG arrays. In TT they ensure that all MG's in the array hit the same place to inflict massive damage, for the tonnage investment, to one mech location. In MWO everything is already synced with pinpoint accuracy to your targeting reticle, so what's the point? I just don't see one.

Vanguard319, on 17 January 2017 - 06:04 PM, said:

Armored Components (both) - Omnimechs cannot armor fixed gear, but can armor pods (i.e. Shadowcat cannot armor it's MASC system as it is fixed, but could armor a gauss rifle, an Omni can have an armored engine if originally built with one) each critical slot of the component must be armored, and adds .5 t/crit to the weight of the component. Each armored slot can ignore one critical hit. cannot be fitted to ammo bins.

Hoo-boy. You want to talk about one of the biggest P.I.T.A. of any component for PGI to try to implement into the Mech Lab and the game as a whole? You just named it.

- First off, the TT system for this doesn't translate to MWO . . . AT ALL. Components don't suffer just damage or destruction from a Crit. Components have health. Saying that the first crit to a component is nullified but the armored component is gone? 1 MG Pellet or 1 PPC bolt . . . which would you rather have your armored component stop? Is that fair? Not hardly.

- Why armor an engine, gyro, or any other such component? Such things don't suffer crits in MWO. Unless PGI fixes that then it'd serve no purpose UNLESS they decide that it adds structure to the component, but then you have multiple types of armored components functioning in different ways.

- How do you even set that up in the Mech Lab? That would be a boatload of UI work and engineering just to be able to fit it to components in the mechlab. That's alone makes the viability of its implementation questionable, at best.

- In addition, you're not even talking about a component, but dynamically altering the properties of components on the fly. That'd be a whole other layer of engineering and design work to even attempt to make that function.

- Also, how would it look/function on the battlefield. Do you get to see an (A) next to any weapons or equipment when you target someone? Do people get to see anything? Do whole new UI elements or "Bitching Betty" recordings need to be made to tell you your component shielding just blew?

By the time all of this is looked at, are armored components really worth the effort for PGI to implement into MWO. Honestly, no, I'd much rather see the development effort placed elsewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless, a lot of really good stuff in there. Thanks for the feedback.

Edited by Sereglach, 18 January 2017 - 12:32 AM.