Yes. You have to say "PGI, put the money down to be able to actually use your own coding in a competent manner, including finding the original coder and getting the work properly documented".
Otherwise, kludges will only increasingly mess with the game experience, as they already have broken parts of it.
Crit-splitting is required. Full stop. No exception. It's already ended up messing with the Nightstar, and it'll just get worse from there. Heck, it no-go'd the first 3050-era Catapult variant, because without it, no Arrow IV, no in-game arty other than the detested redsmoke trash.
WIth proper documentation, they can even fix the ammo-swap debacle and get us proper LB-Xs, that actually fit according to the rules. PGI can't break the crit/tonnage rules because otherwise, it becomes an impossible-to-build in TT and ruins the whole "everything is a valid build across the games" thing Catalyst desires.
Otherwise, the game's literal lostech coding will break down further and further in attempts to keep up, and the game will suffer even worse in the process.
as someone who has poked into poorly commented codebases, added features, recompiled it, and made it work, i think this 'we cant do it' bs is just that. any programmer that cant think in code cant really call themselves a programmer. they would see the code and immediately begin to decipher its intent. even poorly documented/maintained code should be readable to a coder.
i think its silly to go on scapegoating the 'coder that left' but really there is no reason that code should have been abandoned in its current state. someone should have been put on it immediately. the fact that they are able to do ui work means they have a coder. give that coder a solid month to familiarize themselves with and document the code.
There are several mechs that mount a LBX20 in the arm stock. Bushwacker, NightStar, Thanatos and so on. I would really like to run one in my victors and highlanders.
LBX20 needs 10 slots or crit splitting/ammo changing.
i think its silly to go on scapegoating the 'coder that left' but really there is no reason that code should have been abandoned in its current state. someone should have been put on it immediately. the fact that they are able to do ui work means they have a coder. give that coder a solid month to familiarize themselves with and document the code.
They've had multiple -years-. At the latest, the "we don't got no idea" was sometime around the Clan release, if not the original earlier 3050 IS tech release (when the LB-10X came out with no ammo swap mode).
That's pure incapacity on PGI's part to either get the original coder to give them functional understanding of MWO, or incompetence in having never hired someone else skilled enough to grind their way through the process.
Even if it were 8 slots and 3 tons less, it still wouldn't be worth it.
Come on PGI, arent lbx supposed to be better in Tabletop anyway? If you're not going to change weight, give us some incentive to take LB's over ac's/uac's. Because as a long time ballistics user, I can confirm with the rest that Uac's and AC's are just better. LB spread damage is counterproductive in a game where much of it is aiming for small, armored components. The crit stuff doesn't help much against heavy armor.
LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 06 August 2017 - 06:47 PM
Prosperity Park, on 05 August 2017 - 11:17 AM, said:
10-slot LBX/20, please.
It's not worth 11 slots.
Really, do I have to say more?
Even at 10 it is still not worth it, as now it is the same size as the AC/20, but lacks the pin point punch of the AC/20. At 9 crits it would at least give some options for mechs with LAA to take a class 20, even if it does give up the punch of the (U)AC/20.
Along those lines I'm also okay with the HGR being changed to 9 slots, with the caveat that a new hard point type is created for it, as well as being locked to ST's. This is due to several mechs that mount the HGR do so with IS XL engines.
I read that LBX-20 and just LBXs in general are larger than the normal AC and UAC was because it had the capability to choose ammo and had better range.
But since we don't have have the ability to choose ammo types, wouldn't it stand to reason to reduce the crit size to account for the lack of this feature.
The one thing that confuses the **** out of me about the LB2, LB5, Clan LB10, and LB20 is that, unlike the IS LB10 which actually gets the benefit of being lighter and smaller at the cost of spreading damage, the other LB-series autocannons are not only the same weight as their standard counterparts, but they take up an additional slot! How? Why? Why on earth would the first LB-X AC be lighter and smaller, and then every other LB-X version, including the superior Clantech versions, be worse than the bog standard IS lostech LB-10X? It makes no sense!
Also, I love the idea of crit splitting but this is PGI we're talking about here. The best possible solution, that would work the best and have the least amount of bugs and game-breaking nonsense, would be to just reduce weapons that had to be crit-split in TT down to 10 crit slots. It's the most reasonable option.
LocationNAIS College of Military Science OCS courses
Posted 07 August 2017 - 05:24 AM
Sidefire, on 07 August 2017 - 01:08 AM, said:
The one thing that confuses the **** out of me about the LB2, LB5, Clan LB10, and LB20 is that, unlike the IS LB10 which actually gets the benefit of being lighter and smaller at the cost of spreading damage, the other LB-series autocannons are not only the same weight as their standard counterparts, but they take up an additional slot! How? Why? Why on earth would the first LB-X AC be lighter and smaller, and then every other LB-X version, including the superior Clantech versions, be worse than the bog standard IS lostech LB-10X? It makes no sense!
Also, I love the idea of crit splitting but this is PGI we're talking about here. The best possible solution, that would work the best and have the least amount of bugs and game-breaking nonsense, would be to just reduce weapons that had to be crit-split in TT down to 10 crit slots. It's the most reasonable option.
Long story short, FASA found that the LB-10 out right replaced the AC/10 in actual play thanks to dual ammo types. So to avoid rendering the rest of the AC/s obsolete, they made the remaining LB/a larger. In TT there is Crit splitting, what this does is force the weapon to take the most restrictive firing arc. For example, the Bushwhacker L1 that has a LB-20X in the RA/RT has to use the firing arc of the RT. Another example is the Crusader 8S that mounts a HGR in the LT/CT thanks to using an isXL engine has to use the CT firing arc.
Battlemaster56, on 05 August 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:
What about crit splitting, what's stopping Pgi from implementing such a system? I doubt it require alot of time on it and it helps out alot mechs with ballistic arms.
This would be the solution I would go with. Doesn't interrupt the tabletop origins. In fact it compliments them.
The one thing that confuses the **** out of me about the LB2, LB5, Clan LB10, and LB20 is that, unlike the IS LB10 which actually gets the benefit of being lighter and smaller at the cost of spreading damage, the other LB-series autocannons are not only the same weight as their standard counterparts, but they take up an additional slot! How? Why? Why on earth would the first LB-X AC be lighter and smaller, and then every other LB-X version, including the superior Clantech versions, be worse than the bog standard IS lostech LB-10X? It makes no sense!
Lore.
The LB-10X that the Clan uses is the IS one but improved. All others are derivatives. Also the LB-10X uses a mixture of endo steel and ferro-fiberous (sp?) to produce the weapon. The other LBs use mostly ferro for the same reason on both sides, neither side has an abundance of it. Supposedly although this is an entirely optional detail and not a requirement, the LB-10X models are the hardest to repair and most expensive to repair. You would need access to endo steel, of which less than 12 plants exist and 6-to-8 of them are in Clan space with another two captured by the Clans by somewhere in the 3050s, though one of these two facilities gets destroyed.
Yes, the Clans have a lot of facilities, but who has control of them? There's at least 12 factions within the Clans, only 6 of which are active, previously four and technically around this time one of those factions is supposed to be wiped out or wiped out soon.
The legendary Timber Wolf has issues with getting replacement structure, making it harder and harder field them due to severely limited endo-steel supplies. Shipments from the homeworlds take between 6 months to a year, depending on the status of supply outpost run by Smoke Jaguar which in the 3060s the IS overtakes, so resupplies of endo steel from the homeworlds go back to taking a year. A year to wait to replace the damaged structure in your Timber Wolf, or any other mech using endo steel.
That was if you were lucky enough to be Clan (less if you were important enough and of the Clan faction that held sway over the one endo steel facility left in Clan control in IS space).
When it comes to repairing the LB-10X or the mechs, which do you think comes first to the Clans?
Think about this for a minute. Between 2 and 4 endo steel facilities left to the IS, and most factions don't have access to it. LB-10X is on the verge of being losttech for many factions. In comparison, the other LBs do NOT require endo steel and are easy to repair. Ferro-fiberous is in massive supply even if it is slightly more expensive than otherwise standard materials.
Side note: Through much debating and example exchanging... Some of the lore efficienados here have come to the conclusion that an LBX is a combination of an Autocannon (based on real world anti-air cannons similar to those found on naval ships, AAs and IFVs) and a Mech Rifle (based on real world tanks, which didn't go extinct but out of favor due to the hefty weight, limited ammo, etc). The LB fires heavier shells which either (and this is debatable as many examples exist doing both) burst open within the barrel or after leaving the barrel to deploy many explosive sub-munitions. Its standard ammois more expensive and has longer range than traditional AC rounds, though these are stated to be hefty slugs and though they can fire several in sequence the amount of them never compares with what ACs fire, even though the damage range is identical. Meaning these are heavier, harder hitting shells that compete with the sheer volume of fire from ACs...
Now.
AC.
Keep in mind, 30mm is the smallest AC size, and is used by both AC/2s and specific AC/20s, requiring 10 shots to get 2 damage and 100 to get 20.
This is a Mech Rifle.
The LB is something in between, its cluster shells do this.
Whether it begins separating after firing while in the barrel (which is goddamn stupid) or does so within a certain proximity of the enemy (which would explain a lot of things), at some point a LB-X shell 'splits open' to deploy these little ball-like sub-munitions.
which then go boom (supposedly on impact).
This of course means their standard shells are closer to Mech Rifles, due to being big enough for the cluster shells to hold little bombs.
Autocannons in Battletech PC Game, remember that Harebrained Scheme's head guy is FASA Co-founder and Battletech tabletop creator, Jordan Weisman.
When Jordan originally had something to do with the original Mechwarrior 5... High caliber Autocannon depiction...
Seem familiar?
1:50 in. Wait for the ACs. This is how ACs have always been depicted. PGI did something different because PGI.
To add the scale to things..
1985 Wolverine compared to an M1 (not A1, not A2) Abrams tank (54 tons, 60 short tons).
Shadowhawk 2D scale art by original novelist William H Keith Jr. (Note: The 5th gen Shadowhawks are bigger. The SHK 2D had a miniscule amount of armor similar to a Locust.)
Compared to MWO's Shadowhawk and said tank.
And artwork done to that original scale.
So uh.. Yeah. Big guns take a lot of space.
In Battletech, the Atlas is between 13 to 14 meters tall. The tallest mech is 14.4 meters tall (up until 3065-67). That is the Executioner.
MWO has the Vindicator at 14 meters tall and 45 tons, with many 35 tonners at 13+ meters tall. MWO's Atlas is 17.6 meters tall.
So uh. Yeah scales here are borked. BT scales are based on structure weight, which there's very little difference between two mechs 5 tons apart. Except with endo, endo mechs are quite a bit larger as are ferro mechs, due to adding bulk which in turn adds size. (Bring endo steel; become a bulkier target.)
Don't give me that "PGI will stick to lore" crap when PGI breaks it by putting an AC 20 instead of an LB20 in the arm of the Thanatos. If they are willing to break lore, because of lore, what is the point of giving us a mech that has to be broken to be released?
They are basically saying that they are willing to break the rules, but they wont break some of the rules.
Either follow it completely, or get rid of it all.
They also made the Nightstar-9SS specifically because they can't critsplit properly like the -9S requires.
Mind you, the change still results in a legal TT build, much like a few of the changes made to get around not having A-pods (or a reason to do so) in MWO. The answer is "PGI cannot into fixing their own coding much". The problems that result will continue to increase as PGI hits more such coding walls...I cringe at the possible issues with things like XL/Compact/HD gyros, small cockpits, etc. etc.
Long story short, FASA found that the LB-10 out right replaced the AC/10 in actual play thanks to dual ammo types. So to avoid rendering the rest of the AC/s obsolete, they made the remaining LB/a larger. In TT there is Crit splitting, what this does is force the weapon to take the most restrictive firing arc. For example, the Bushwhacker L1 that has a LB-20X in the RA/RT has to use the firing arc of the RT. Another example is the Crusader 8S that mounts a HGR in the LT/CT thanks to using an isXL engine has to use the CT firing arc.
Gotcha. Well, since we don't have ammo swapping in MWO PGI could probably drop that rule and make them function like the 10.
4
Andi Nagasia, on 05 August 2017 - 03:25 PM, said:
