84 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

Now that I finally have time (and the "you have 5.5 tons thread" is temporarily on hold as that hard drive died...thanks to someone throwing a die [singular for dice] toward the table my computer was on...which hit said hard drive)....

...I will be working on the "So weapon variants again" thread. As part of it, I'll have a mini-design doc of how I plan on doing my mod in regards to weapons/customization/etc. Far as what to expect: More customization than MW5: Mercs from what we've heard. Significantly more in depth, though somewhat complex modification limitations going for a more realism-simulation approach.

(As a quick example: The CN9-A Centurion carries a Luxor-D class 10 Autocannon in the right arm. This is known to be 70mm with a firing rate of 10 shells-per-second according to William Keith Jr. (first Battletech novelist) in the BattleTechnology magazine. (1987)

In Ghost of Winter by Stephen Kenson it is 80mm... (1999)
I go by the oldest reference as a personal preference, plus 80mm ACs are very common in BT, 70mm not so much.

Bit of reference stuff to help out in visualizing it

Spoiler

Now, in real life we do not make 70mm autocannons, (can find cannons but not autocannons).
Here is one of each: 20mm, 25mm, and 30mm shells

So...as we progress to 70mm, they do get pretty hefty.
(note not all shells are equal as various 25mm and 37mm shells show us that even if something is 37mm, doesn't mean that another 37mm would also work...these are specifically world war II era shells.)

This is the barrel size of a 76mm Cannon that fires at 2 shells per second (120 shells per minute)

We could distribute damage all kinds of ways, but in the interest in a very...very brief look into this for our example, lets ignore the numbers and shift to customization and why this specific AC is relevant.

For starters, there is special mention of how the Luxor-D series autocannon is known for feeding system flaws. As such, there's also note that sometimes technicians flat out replace the AC, and that this is an arduous task due to its custom fit.

For me, I define the the Luxor-D autocannon as an arm-type cannon, akin to Highlander, Dragon, and Bushwhacker, each of these have an autocannon with a lower arm actuator. (I'm undecided as to make the distinction between lower-arm type and upper arm type). As such, you wouldn't be able to put it into a torso mount, for example. It's too long and not made for it. But, you could mount another lower-arm type. For a lore-specific example, Yen Lo Wang's Autocannon/20 is a Pontiac 100, taken out of a Victor which is another mech with a lower-arm-type AC. Or you could use the Enforcer's Federated AC/10, or Enfield's Defiance Distintegrator...and we could keep expanding it too.

This is a rough idea of how I would distinguish a variant's compatibility, with it being easier/quicker (with fewer to no problems) to do when supplying it to a mech that already had something similar, although I would also make it so that you could modify any lower-arm-without-hand-actuator to equip a Luxor-D or any other AC of that specific type of mount (so if you wanted to you could in theory mount any AC of that type into the arm of a Marauder for example if you didn't want to use default energy weapons).

I'm not limiting this to ACs, but its an easy point to focus on as artwork exists of these mounts for easy comparison.

And for the not-so-brief... / other examples.

Spoiler

Meanwhile there are ACs like the Wolverine's GM Whirlwind 5 (which I will make distinct from the Marauder's version). picture for reference

and the Battlemaster's version of the Donal PPC.


would have its own "external forearm-and-hand mount type" (potentially detachable, depending on game issues that may come up), as would your basic torso mounts and so on. (This feature while pointless in terms of standard combat, would be useful in melee combat should such be modded in by someone else). Atlas II's LBX and Atlas III's RAC are also of similar mounts.

A turret mount, such as the GM Whirlwind of the Marauder would be neat, but given how the Marauder is designed in MWO/MW5, it is unlikely I would need to account for it. If I did, I'd be sure to create a few variants that could potentially be found. Looking up the GM Whirlwind and following it around on google, it is often shipped to two specific planets as an alternative replacement for the Deleon 5 (Scorpion) and the Vedette's Armstrong J11, which on an unseen (and reseen retcon) Shadowhawk was (is) actually a pivoting shoulder-turret, all Predator style. (Unseen Armstrong J11 retracted). So if I did a turret type mount, there's an idea of some compatible variants, also have energy turrets from various mechs. Not sure if any missile turrets exist, but I could probably find some if I dig hard enough, such as a Scorpion (mech)'s launcher, which depending on the Scorpion model/art, some have the 'suggestion' of being able to pivot.

(Zomg TL;DR!)
But the basic gist is in a customization mod I have planned: instead of hardpoints you'd have softpoints^1 with weapon variations locked by "mount types" as well as distinguishing interchangeable sizes. So instead of being locked to only energy hardpoints in your Marauder's arms, you could in theory mount any lower-arm-no-hand mount type weapon...be it energy, missile, or ballistic. Part of the control for this (to keep it somewhat realistic) is a change across actual weapon types (ballistic/missile/energy) combined with size difference associated with it compared to what you start with can have varying levels of difficulty...up to and including impossible for your current tech.
^1

Spoiler

Battletech (Mechwarrior actually) RPG actually has an existing "softpoint" system [this isn't the name they use] limited by weapon type and size...which allows for positive modifier for making the customization increasing the quality of the outcome/reducing the time/money lost doing it and risk associated with it.

For example, an LRM-5, an SRM-4, Mech Mortar/1 are all compatible softpoint types and sizes.

MRM-10, SRM-6 are compatible softpoint types and sizes.

MRM-20, LRM-10 and Mech Mortar/2...etc.

In truth, the RPG only accomodates the missile type with any real depth in the softpoint system.
Basically I'd be taking the concept and mixing with sized hardpoints / BT's "create a gundam" open-nature and just adding some realistic restrictions.

In a way, it'd be more customizeable than what is possible in MWO....and in a way, less customizeable than what is possible in MWO (as you can't just put a weapon anywhere and if it can't accomodate the size of what weapon you want to use, perhaps you need a variant of the mech that can). (My size restriction is less about AC/5 is bigger than AC/2, and more fluff-variant related, so while X-size softpoint can't accomodate a Y-size PPC, it could handle an X-size PPC without issue. (Example being Lord's Light PPC and the Aberdovey Mk XXX ER PPC, which are both very small IS PPCs. Now they're not Light PPCs, just physically small ones)

So while you might have a weapon in your inventory and a want to use it, you might be unable to because it doesn't "fit" in your 'Mech or isn't made for where you want such a weapon...adding a degree of realism without being as restrictive as Mw5 is described to be.

(I would also be modifying the game to include the ability to find new techs although from what I understand he's pretty hardset into the game due to all the voiced dialog... as such what I might do to get around it is mod in unique astechs to get the results I seek... I once saw the quote "there's too many chiefs and not enough indians", and have heard a "leader's performance is directly affected by the quality of those that follow." Starting with few to no astechs and steadily acquiring them at varying degrees of experience and confidence [which could build up of course] should work.)

(Completely random side note: have you ever heard an Irish man speaking Russian... Something you can never unhear once you do...)

Edited by Koniving, 15 March 2019 - 12:48 AM.

[MechaBattler]

Karl Streiger, on 14 March 2019 - 12:38 PM, said:

Not?
Its not different to all those Battlefield Clones a M4A1 is not much different to a M16A3 or AK and still people prefer on or the other. For me it's the M16A3 for the Burst and the G3 of nostalgia interims of AC5a clearly GM Whirlwind or Armstrong. But this will be mod-terrain.
Unfortunately like BattleTech (and I'm backer of the first hour) not from me - don't see a new rig within the next half year for me.

I feel like that depends on if we'll see functional differences between manufacturers. Or just straight power creep with 'rarer' manufacturers having plain better stats.

Edited by MechaBattler, 15 March 2019 - 03:42 PM.

[Steel Raven]

I'm more worried it will be like Boaderlands; you have over dozen different Shotguns but only 2 are not crap.

I get the logic but Mech Lab has been a defining aspect of the game for awhile.

[Koniving]

In Borderlands, only 2 are not crap because 1) enemies are bullet sponges. 2) somehow I have the feeling that those two seriously outperform the rest by some means [I haven't beat Borderlands; stopped playing it when my friend did], and 3) as shotguns, there isn't a whole lot of variety between them.

I think MW5's LBX is gonna have a similar issue.
Then again...

This is an LBX on an Atlas II (NOT to be confused with a Rotary cannon on an Atlas III)

So a bit of creativity can create some truly interesting weapon variants, even for "shotguns." Especially since the shell fragments after leaving the barrel and "flak-shell" comparisons in addition to the term "cluster munitions" suggesting a projectile that shreds its wall and deploys numerous small bombs into the air.

Of course we'll see nothing like that in MW5 Mercs natively...but that's among my plans.

(Side note, is it me...or does the Atlas II also remind you of a Kodiak...just a little bit?)

Edited by Koniving, 15 March 2019 - 08:25 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Nah the Atlas 2 is just the "retconed" bridge between the Atlas and the Atlas 3. With the exception of mods even a ugly miniature.
Don't know why the Atlas2 doesn't get a Rotary but this is mainly because there are no rotarys in the sldf era. And the Atlas 3 got the rotary because it was the look of cool for dark age.
Same for the Dark Age Partisan - does are not LBX- in fact a lot of Dark Age Mechs and vehicles are redefined in CBT by their look (similar to the original robotech - and we know that those were clearly not the best options. (The MAD for example should have got 4 ACs in the Arm and a PPC in the swivel unfortunately there were no Light ACs)

I've started with my weapon hardpoint mod - and the first step is to correct all those "broken" layouts.
Atlas:
Light gauss in the arms, laser in the head. Energy and ballistic in the rt, I can understand the missiles in both sides, ballistic in the LT
Worst of all Banshee
Or the ankward inability of the RS maker to differ left from right (Thunderbolt, Tempest...)

[Koniving]

I'm not sure how a broken layout...leads to Light Gauss Rifles in the arms, laser in the head, energy and ballistic in the right torso and ballistic in LT... of an Atlas.

Actually...no idea how anything leads to whatever the heck that is...

To me, a broken layout might be:

the Scorpion... which frequently is shown as having weapons it simply does not have.
Which in virtually every image short of 10M and 12S images, the loadout it actually has is not what is depicted.
For example in the image above, it clearly has a twin set of ball turrets (this is actually common in the various artwork) which it never uses...because it never has a weapon there.

Also frequent are counter measures of some sort, whether smoke launchers, anti-laser aerosols, etc... they are never mentioned.
The 12C has a NARC...on a turret...but no turret mount in the given ruleset in a time when the game very clearly has it in the ruleset...or even mentioning the design quirk that gives you a free turret???

and again has a very small gun-like apparatus in the same general area as the ball turrets of the Blizzard Gunner it is based on.

In the SCP-10 image shown on Sarna it actually has 7 missile tubes.

On the SCP-10M, the image appears to actually have some kind of energy-mortar, and a butt-mounted LRM-10 launcher aiming at the sky capable of firing with the intention of hitting targets in literally any direction around it...

That's a broken loadout.

I have...absolutely no idea what the basis you are using for the Atlas's loadout as it doesn't fit any image I've ever seen, any fluff I've ever seen, or really...anything I've ever seen.

Far as Partisan...

Depicted is supposed to be 4 AC/5s, which makes sense given that ACs are based not on cannons but on AA guns, and as such...its literally a quad-barrel AA tank. The art has an issue with perspective (so the farther ones appear thicker than the closer ones). The two MGs are on two small forward facing ball turrets in a completely nonsensical position its true.. But while the art is reused frequently because its cheap, it isn't meant to show what the LBX version looks like.
(This said, Imperator Code Red has appeared as a multi-barrel spinning arrangement inside the arms of the Emperor in Illusions of Victory, with each barrel releasing 80mm shells that shred their casing mid air to unleash "cluster munitions" as well as standard rounds on Solaris VII.)

[TheLuc]

On first page, Zaccheus told about the AMAs and what was explained regarding the Mech Lab. a Medium Laser can only be swapped for a better quality Medium Laser and that is it, so in the end we don't get a Mech Lab at all. Thats the Granular buzz word, which means you get nothing.

Already so much people are saying that mods will save it, I do think that the modding will be so much work that for building an actual Mech Lab from scratch it will be half done and unusable. PGI is forcing stock mode on everyone with this upcoming product.

PGI decision makers have really no clue what they are doing.

[ImperialKnight]

no customisation, no buy. customisation has always been a staple of MW games. Those who want to run stock are free to run stock. those who want to experiment can experiment. HBS did it on Battletech, why not MW5.

Just another case of lazy PGI at work again? How hard is it to rip off the mech lab in their own game (MWO)? Yes, it's a different engine, but the mechs' 3D models are all there already, and they can't even be bothered to adapt those for the new engine? How much of an asset flip do they want MW5 to be, than it already is?

HARD. PASS.

[Steel Raven]

Don't think it's lazy rather than the developers having particular idea on how to reflect the the Tabletop in MW.

Again, I get the logic as the BT Table Top community has a loud 'no fan/custom builds' clique who believes canon designs should be played for their existing strengths and niches (something you rarely see in the MW games) and we all have seen horrible builds that only exist because it gains gains on a particular game mechanic (the Machine Gun Mad Dog in MW2) but it's already evident that many will feel like the game is loosing something.

PGI is going to have to make sure that their are no glaring flaws in the game mechanics like weapon convergence for arm mounted weapons that hamper stock builds (Warhammer) for this to work. Otherwise allot of chassis will come off as duds.

As is, I'll need to invest in a new game mouse as my current two button wireless mouse wont work for stock Thunderbolt TDR-5S and Stalker STK-3F. I simple make sure to build 2-3 weapon bracket builds in MWO, that will be allot harder with Stock builds.

[Caladan Nix]

Suddenly, I'm glad I didn't pre-order.

MechLab has been part of Mechwarrior as a game series even as far back as the first one.

Removing it without even putting in a reasonable compromise system like MW4, HareBrained Scheme's BATTLETECH, or even PGI's own MWO... is just baffling.

[Rando Slim]

Yea if I can't put what weapons I want on a mech I'm not gonna enjoy MW5 much, sorry. I'm far too used to being able to do whatever the hell I want in the mechlab over the last 5 years and I'm not going back. I don't want to run some stupid mechdad build with a single non-artemis lrm-10 with medium lasers and single srm-4 type crap because someone thought "gee, I really need this mech to be a jack-of-all-trades lore mech that covers all engagement ranges very badly". Making things more modular is always more fun and always the better way to go in anything ever, period. That way the people who want to lore-play with their mechdad shadowhawk can do so, and the rest of us can make our purpose-built but less adaptable high-efficiency killer if we want. I do like the idea of different manufacturer weapons having different traits and I'm completely down for more elements of realism in terms of salvaging and repair costs.......but I see absolutely zero reason you can't do that AND maintain the existing levels of customization between weapon and engine types. A large amount of fun in the game is seeing what kind of sensible-yet-not-exactly-meta builds you can put on mechs that you wouldn't think of right away. It allows you to really take ownership of a mech. And besides.....its a SINGLE PLAYER game......who the hell cares if we make some broken builds? Humans fundamentally enjoy breaking stuff and bending the limits of any given thing as far as they will go. Why not embrace that, tabletop lore be damned, make it fun. Fun is all that matters in games, not people's romanticized view of what a brand should be. Thinking like that is what holds brands back and kills them off unless the product itself is some sort of highly-inelastic luxury good (which video games super aren't). All that will happen in this system is that I will be annoyed as all hell constantly thinking of how I can make my mech better but not being able to until maybe I get lucky and salvage some mech that just happens to have an intelligent stock loadout by default because someone back in the day 30 years ago in a tech readout manual arbitrarily happened to not dream it up like a total idiot.

EDIT:.......and unless you are talking about a grand strategy game like the total war series or something.........having to say "well mods will save it".......is a bad sign. It means deep down you already know the game isn't gonna be what you want and from there you have to hope the company makes the game mod friendly enough, which they have very little incentive to do most times. And you won't truly know until it is too late. And then of course you will have to wait 6-12 months for good samaritans to spawn in the universe somewhere, make the mods, go through some patches, get broken again by vanilla game patches, get fixed again.....and all that good stuff. I don't want to buy games that have to have mods to save them.

Edited by Rando Slim, 16 March 2019 - 03:42 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Koniving, on 16 March 2019 - 02:41 AM, said:

I'mI have...absolutely no idea what the basis you are using for the Atlas's loadout as it doesn't fit any image I've ever seen, any fluff I've ever seen, or really...anything I've ever seen.

Far as Partisan...

Depicted is supposed to be 4 AC/5s,

Wrong vehicle:

---

Well there a couple of Atlas versions that seem to break the initial design of an Atlas. A Atlas is not an Omni Mech. Some stuff is acceptable like jury-rigged additional medium laser on the arms (Danielle). Maybe even to add PPCs into the arms (Samsonov)

On base of the AS7-D the RS like Samsonov variant might be acceptable when you have compact large laser.

However the AS7 Jedra hero or the AS7-K2 or the Jurn break the chassis. Its subjective of course (but the AS7K2 moves the Gauss from right to left. The Jedra has LGRs in the arm- and energy weapons in head and sides. Those are obviously extreme changes, I know that refit rules would allow it - but some stuff like adding ammunition based weapon into a Crab / Wolfhound or putting heavy ballistics into the spot of light energy weapons is nothing I want to accept.

There are swaps that are problematic like the Zeus-X of the Wolf Dragons- the HPPC in the right arm is wrong although the LBX in the left arm might be ok. But when you say it's based on a 9T then its obvious that energy coupling - cabling and other stuff support the PPC in the left and the ammunition feed in the right.

Tldr, broken layouts is only a subjective opinion based on interpretation of artwork

Edited by Karl Streiger, 17 March 2019 - 11:07 PM.

[Rando Slim]

If you are a developer and before your game even hits a closed beta phase and the community is already breaking out into intense discussion on how to mod your game.....shouldn't that be a red-flag to you that maybe just maybe you are doing it wrong and perhaps you should put those things in the game to begin with because clearly that is what the community actually wants?

[Karl Streiger]

Rando Slim, on 17 March 2019 - 02:18 PM, said:

If you are a developer and before your game even hits a closed beta phase and the community is already breaking out into intense discussion on how to mod your game.....shouldn't that be a red-flag to you that maybe just maybe you are doing it wrong and perhaps you should put those things in the game to begin with because clearly that is what the community actually wants?

You are absolutely correct - my main issue is that if PGI missed almost every good opportunity to turn MWO in a better game by sticking a little bit more to the lore, or at least tell people why they don't (Unit Camouflage, Golden Khan Mech instead of ultra Khan Clan Pattern - or even exclusive omni pods, ... CW that allowed Clans vs Clan or IS vs IS with no deep - or added Nuclear Ammunition for the Artillery) S7, FedCom there were dozens of chances and it did hurt to see them missing them all.

So when they don't care for simple stuff like CamoPattern why should they care for a adequate mission?
For PGI there is a clear advantage in keeping the MechLab - first and foremost - a source of income. When you can create your own SHD-2K in the MechLab you don't buy the "For the Dragon" MechPack DLC.
When you don't have a MechLab you create the feeling of tactical depth in your campagin.
Although the issue might be the lack of balance.... (example MW3 - the most effective way to play the campaign was to add some pulse lasers and cut off the enemy stock mechs legs (ebon jaguar was in most cases a 1shot) - you only get some campaign dept by sticking to stock loadouts - then you had challenging missions with maybe just 4 shots for the LBX.

I now as usually I sound like a *****, to turn BT tabletop into a challenging BT FPS is challenging and to keep it alive for 7 years (almost 8 since the Forum started) is a success on its own. But I clearly know that PGI/maybe not even any other company can deliver the MechWarrior I want to play.

[Koniving]

Karl Streiger, on 16 March 2019 - 10:54 PM, said:

Wrong vehicle:

I see what you mean. To be fair, Wizkidz made the original design, and we know what wizkidz knows about guns.


But this said, it is actually kinda consistent with a few established things.
* Atlas II has a rotary-cannon-like LBX-10 (and these are not the only two examples)
* The Defiance Shredder LBX-2 as depicted in that image is also mentioned in Fortress Republic [mounted on a Catapult K2 as a modification] is a 20mm rapid fire multi-barrel revolving LBX-2. The small shells release a relatively weak explosive flak-like material better suited to damage the ferro-aluminum armor of aircraft than mechs but pumps them out fast enough that in a volley can be reasonably effective against lighter mechs.
*And finally autocannons are known to be both single and multi-barrel depending on individual indentity.

In the weapon variant plan I have, I would make this using:

Barrel: Multiple; Rotating
Chamber: Belt-fed OR Revolving Chamber cassette fed OR a hybrid of the two. Given its nature, probably gonna stick with belt-fed.
The system appears well insulated and has excessive mass around barrels, so
I would call it an insulated system, doubt the barrels will be melting from pushing it.
Book says it fires over a dozen shots which then unleash an exploding cluster. So in a breakdown of damage at just standard autocannon damage and shells on my list, a dozen shots would be 1.2 damage so 2 clusters would be 2.4 damage. It has a little bit of an edge in that sense to make up for how small the shots are (as the next smallest AC is 30mm), and the explodies I'd have them total 0.11 per shell's little pellet-bombs, so a 12 shot exploding cluster might do 1.32 so the double 12 shot salvo to get its rating might do 2.64 damage.

Course that damage is gonna spread all over creation (my first thought was a total of 0.15 damage per shell's pellet bombs, which is 1.8, which for rating would net 3.6 and I worry that might be excessive...one could argue the damage isn't focused, but unlike MWO LBX, I don't plan on my 'shotgun shells' to fragment until within 50 to 100 meters of the target.

Would have to actually play with it and test it before deciding, but by the numbers 'pushing it' should be hit at 3 salvos, so if 2 salvos of 12 is considered the standard, the third salvo (36 projectiles, standard or cluster munitions) in under 5 seconds from the first would be pushing the weapon's heat to a jam-risk and the fourth is done at your peril. If the weapon seems too good, I might tweak it down a step.

Quote

Well there a couple of Atlas versions that seem to break the initial design of an Atlas. A Atlas is not an Omni Mech. Some stuff is acceptable like jury-rigged additional medium laser on the arms (Danielle). Maybe even to add PPCs into the arms (Samsonov)
On base of the AS7-D the RS like Samsonov variant might be acceptable when you have compact large laser.

I see where you got that craziness, thought you made it up.. These heroes weren't listed a few years ago.

Alright. Also something I've accounted for in my mod plan, actually, with 'sized' mounts and weapon mount types (torso, in-arm-no-hand, on-arm, on-shoulder) with mechs that have locked soft points of different sizes (you could fit either a laser or ballistic or missile here, provided it has the same mount type and the same 'size', not gonna put an AC/20 on a small laser port, but a large laser can easily fit in the same area an autocannon/5 did.)

Quote

However the AS7 Jedra hero or the AS7-K2 or the Jurn break the chassis. Its subjective of course (but the AS7K2 moves the Gauss from right to left.

Definitely some tomfoolery here. Lets start with the K2.
Do you have the Atlas K2 page from 3085? I don't have it, but Mech Factory copy/pastes the TROs but didn't put in the chassis name..
The fluff I've found states the following:
Its a new design using prototype models (is implying a differrent skeleton from the Foundation 10X, which given that they managed to fit a 400 XL in there, I'd have to say they certainly did. Many standard Atlas features are completely missing including the coolant hookup port.)
No access to the distinct molds to produce the traditional AS7, brand new molds were used instead using Ferro armor.
*The art appears to have dropped the ballistic entirely but kept the coolant hookup port on left torso.
The fluff states when copying the design of the K2, they kept the Gauss Rifle in the Right Torso.

Quote

"Inspired by the Combine's design work on the AS7-K, Defiance created what became known as the AS7-K2"

Before I continue, I want to go ahead and point out that this shows WizKidz's complete lack of understanding of the model naming convention, as this K2 is a Lyran (Steiner) design.... K stands for Kurita... The also wonky AS7-C standing for Combine (Kurita) was done because these idiots really messed **** up)...
Sorry, continuing.

Quote

"Though it retains the primary weapons array of arm-mounted lasers and a GAUSS RIFLE ON THE RIGHT HIP, all secondary weapons have been stripped out and replaced with a pair of Guided Streak SRM-6 launchers."

This makes it sound like they had access to the original skeleton...but they pretty much said it was a new design..

But I think what happened here is the art failed to include the cannon, and rather than have it added in, they just used the coolant port as the Gauss Rifle when it came to the record sheet, placing it on the left hip. That thing looks nothing like a Gauss Rifle and compared to the (strangely closed) missile ports, it barely looks like 90mm. I think this design was originally going to use a standard 400, which if you build it that way, there's no room for the Gauss Rifle; bam it gets dropped. Can still haul the large lasers, might still haul ML/MPL on the rear torso, and could still fit the Streaks. But then in testing someone changed their mind, it didn't have enough umph or it lost its identity as an Atlas so they put the Gauss Rifle back in but threw in an XL engine to do it...

...Problem is at that point the art is already done.

Quote

The Jedra has LGRs in the arm- and energy weapons in head and sides. Those are obviously extreme changes, I know that refit rules would allow it - but some stuff like adding ammunition based weapon into a Crab / Wolfhound or putting heavy ballistics into the spot of light energy weapons is nothing I want to accept.

Alright the elephant in the room.
Streak SRM-6: 4.5 tons.
SRM-4 2 tons.
ER ML: 1 ton.

So.. 9 tons
15 tons
24 tons to work with.

Certainly some hardpoint/softpoint tomfoolery, but not unreasonable.

Light Gauss: 12
ER Large Laser: 8

This is where its pretty damn unlikely.
So.. 9 tons (2 Streak SRM-6
15 tons (Gauss Rifle)
24 tons to work with not counting ammo.

Needs 3, 3, 12, 12
30...
How the hell did the speed, armor, and heatsink count remain the same?
Also while construction rules basically says you can do anything you want, in the RPG if your ammunition is more than 1 component away from your weapon system there's a delay in feeding. The exception is if it is in the center torso feeding multiple systems (i.e. Blackjack and Blackjack's little chair-shaped ring around its gut going up and around the shoulders like a pair of suspenders holding its pants on...is actually its belted ammunition feed under armor going from the CT to the AC/2s in the arms).

So the ammo must be stored in the LT and RT respectively... So where did the record sheet put them? It needs at least 2, or 1 in the CT, or ideally 1 in each arm. But if it is feeding the Streak from a single ton that should be in the CT... But given that it had CASE in each ST there's no reason to just carry a single ton or to put it in the CT. Neither of these

Neverminding the tonnage complications here, this thing either loses its hands and stuffs them the Light Gauss Rifles inside the arms...or these are externally mounted and highly exposed like a jurry-rig complete with duct tape.

Jedra does seem pretty far-fetched; I wonder if its "holding" the Light Gauss Rifles like guns.. Because given the size of an externally mounted LBX-10 on an Atlas 2 or the Mydron Model RD Rotary Class 2 Autocannon on the Atlas III, and how big a Gauss Rifle should rightfully be, a Light Gauss even if compacted to Clan size standard...

From their logic if that little nub on the K2 is a Light Gauss, there's no issue fitting that on the arms.. But from the art it clearly wasn't supposed to be.

Quote

There are swaps that are problematic like the Zeus-X of the Wolf Dragons- the HPPC in the right arm is wrong although the LBX in the left arm might be ok. But when you say it's based on a 9T then its obvious that energy coupling - cabling and other stuff support the PPC in the left and the ammunition feed in the right.

Tldr, broken layouts is only a subjective opinion based on interpretation of artwork

Zeus I wouldn't even need to look at to see why that's messed up.

Something like the Crab's cannons in arms if I were to nitpick would be strapped on/around the arms rather than inside. Even with the large lasers inside, it'd have to feed too which as spindley as those arms are... yeah its pretty doubtful the MWO hero Crav would be exactly as depicted, since Crabs aren't nearly as big as they are in MWO (then again a lot of things aren't).

I see where you're coming from on broken layouts. Thought you pulled the example as a "this is what the Atlas should be" and my jaw hit the floor like "Wut?"

[Corvus Antaka]

odd decision. the MWO ui is still horrifying, but the mechlab customization of the mechs is fantastic. Sad to hear this won't be the case for mech5. Still, I'm a fan of stock mech play, so it's not all bad imho.

[Karl Streiger]

Corvus Antaka, on 02 May 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

odd decision. the MWO ui is still horrifying, but the mechlab customization of the mechs is fantastic. Sad to hear this won't be the case for mech5. Still, I'm a fan of stock mech play, so it's not all bad imho.

Its hit or miss - no mech lab can be fantastic but to do a hell of work is necessary - work that result in 100% different play style when you change the Shadow Hawk from the swiss utility knife 2H into the sniper 2K version - in tt the 2K is simple better (think in HBS:BT it is a thougher decission - and to work in MW5 you have to increase the difference in play style even further.

[Koniving]

In tabletop 2K is simply better. In MWO with the two stock machines going toe to toe, the 2H is outright superior...

The problem resting in that in tabletop, even if you were to throw in rapid fire autocannons the 2K has superior concentrated firepower. In MWO the 2H is sporting a ballistic weapon and as such can pump out 20 damage in AC fire before the 2K can get in 20, and will be over 40 before the 2K gets to 30...and so on.

This is one of the things I'm hoping to address in my mods by making them more reflective of their weapons' source material, so that in a truly fair fight we won't know whom might win. A truly fair fight being where it's not determined by front-loading damage over time in tabletop or PGI's idea of balancing front-loaded weapons to be able to fire up to 30 times its damage rating in the time it takes to reach it up to twice in the source material, but by an objective interpretation of the given source material.

(On a side note: If you're wondering why I haven't put up new posts in my mod threads, its actually because I've been editing old ones. That doesn't bump them up though.)

Edited by Koniving, 03 May 2019 - 01:23 AM.

[Steel Raven]

Koniving, on 03 May 2019 - 01:19 AM, said:

This is one of the things I'm hoping to address in my mods by making them more reflective of their weapons' source material, so that in a truly fair fight we won't know whom might win. A truly fair fight being where it's not determined by front-loading damage over time in tabletop or PGI's idea of balancing front-loaded weapons to be able to fire up to 30 times its damage rating in the time it takes to reach it up to twice in the source material, but by an objective interpretation of the given source material.

The problem is two fold, 1.) PGI nerfed the PPC in MWO so the AC/5 would be a better weapon on a competitive battle field. Hopefully a solo/co-op game wont require such heavy handed balancing of weapon systems. 2.) the Hit Reg of PPCs in MWO is horrible, in part thanks to how the Cryengine effects read with the Hit Boxes (Im guess it's the same reason Assault mechs get stuck on 1 pixel of terrain now and then) the Unreal engine will hopefully will not have that problem.

Different types of AC/5s and PPCs may increase the likelihood of both type of mechs getting a fair rep in game, other wise ether AC/5 or PPC mechs are going to get shafted.

IMO, giving the AC/5 twice the fire rate and having it run cooler while giving the PPC twice the punch per shot while running hotter should give both weapons a fair shake and both mechs a role: 2H a fire support trooper and the 2K a shot by shot sniper.

[Koniving]

Steel Raven, on 03 May 2019 - 09:41 AM, said:

The problem is two fold, 1.) PGI nerfed the PPC in MWO so the AC/5 would be a better weapon on a competitive battle field. Hopefully a solo/co-op game wont require such heavy handed balancing of weapon systems. 2.) the Hit Reg of PPCs in MWO is horrible, in part thanks to how the Cryengine effects read with the Hit Boxes (Im guess it's the same reason Assault mechs get stuck on 1 pixel of terrain now and then) the Unreal engine will hopefully will not have that problem.

This is largely true.

But, I do have a retort or two.

1) Originally PPCs could be fired every 2 seconds, similar to AC/10s at the time... but the heat was so bad that even when reduced to 7 heat per shot, they were still far too hot... This is one of the reasons they were increased to 3 during closed beta and eventually to 4 by or soon after open beta began.
Now, I'm aware that PPCs were slown down quite a bit. But back then they went 2k meters/second just like Gauss Rifles and had very little hit detection issues (the half second delay in firing though and the original animation made them a bit awkward; if you saw a PPC fly past you, you'd see a stationary ball that morphed into a firing projectile...).. Anyway, basically back then firing rates and DPS were quite comparable, and AC/5 was clearly superior anyway due to heat. Sure the PPC could devastate someone in a matter of seconds and faster than an AC/5, but heat basically made it unusable.

This isn't so much an issue with PGI, but an issue in general with the fact that Mechwarrior Online has ACs as single shot projectile weapons. As opposed to 5 from MW2, or 3 from MW3..

ACs in MW4 seem to fire individual projectiles, but as far as I can tell their damage model is completely different as I've seen LPL get fired 5 times in about 5 seconds, is doing far less 45 damage as the lets player I'm watching is firing a pair of them together (so 90 in total) and its barely doing much to tanks. So each shot isn't the full value, and I imagine the autocannons are not either. PPCs probably are but I couldn't say for sure without playing it for the first time while knowing about BT.

Actually all of Mw3's weapons seem much, much more deadly per shot than anything in MW4...much to my surprise. Watching some Mw4 gameplay's also brought up another question. What the hell is a Streak MRM 20????? "SMRM-20"

Anyway, on point 2.. Hit detection issues with PPCs only exist in bulk. The standard is to fire two or three of them at a time, often with another weapon tied together. For example twin PPCs and an AC/5 were a big thing of mine for a long while.
But next time you go to run PPCs, try two or three and chain fire them rapidly instead of firing at once. I think you'll be amazed at how much deadlier they seem.. Hit detection hasn't really come up in a private 2H versus 2K stock fight with quirks and skills off given that the 2K only carries one PPC. Just the fact that the AC/5 can pump out damage significantly faster...and that heat in MWO cripples the 2K.

---------

Quote

Different types of AC/5s and PPCs may increase the likelihood of both type of mechs getting a fair rep in game, other wise ether AC/5 or PPC mechs are going to get shafted. IMO, giving the AC/5 twice the fire rate and having it run cooler while giving the PPC twice the punch per shot while running hotter should give both weapons a fair shake and both mechs a role: 2H a fire support trooper and the 2K a shot by shot sniper.

While true, we still have the Shadowhawk sporting a non-canonical AC/5 in every trailer so far (if 120mm requires 3 shells to get 5 damage, then the Armstrong Requiem on the SHK which is an 80mm AC/5 can't possibly be a one shot wonder; not to mention the entire reason that Mech Rifles went obsolete is that those are one shot wonders, and the Heavy Rifle on paper is superior to the AC/5 in every way besides ammunition, and that's because the Heavy Rifle fires single large projectiles, while AC/5s fire many smaller ones).

Tabletop actually allows all Autocannons to fire twice in a turn with the Rapid Fire Autocannon rule; there's a risk of course.

My mod aims to capture that risk, as when you use a weapon within its rated damage it'll be perfectly fine. When you push it beyond its rating, such as trying to get double duty out of an AC/5, the weapon itself will run hot. If it runs too hot, it could jam or worse. Another thing my mod is looking to do is make PPCs into the Siege Cannons they are fluffed to be. They will devastate walls, buildings, and mechs in a single blow (and to note, my plan is also to cut to tabletop values, or if decimals prove to be an issue I'll multiply the values to get equivalents without using decimals). (Edit: By this I mean armor/structure values, the double armor/structure standard only forces the need for boating and min/maxing. If decimals turn out to be an issue, then 5 armor might become 25 armor, and 10 damage might become 50 damage, whatever I multiply the armor by then weapons will get an equal treatment in order to keep the 1:1 ratio).

An AC/10, typically, is a much faster firing AC/5 with calibers ranging between 80 to 120 (with very few exceptions; quite a bit lower with the Pontiac 50, quite a bit higher with the Defiance Killer Type T). So when comparing any AC/5 in that range with an AC/10, the actual difference is the AC/10 is pumping shells down range twice as fast in the same amount of time. As such, while an AC/10 can likewise pull double duty and be pushed to nearly 20 damage, it's still damage over time... as opposed to the PPC which is stereotypically a front-loaded weapon. I'll be allowing for variations (including some versions that can shoot a couple of weaker shots). Afterall I need iconic models like Donal with its bulky core and long barrel to be distinct from the 2 second charge time Lord's Light, so named for the blinding light that appears long before it actually fires.

I'm sure MW5's weapon variants might prove neat, but I'm certain it'd go the same route HBS BT did; a level up system of AC/5+, AC/5+++, and an AC/20 being inferior in every way to an 8 ton AC/5 with two pluses.
Thus I'm working on my lore-inspired weapons...and since I don't have nearly enough data on every single weapon system, I also have some liberties I'm taking. Karl's idea of a small laser shotgun effect intrigued me, given that small lasers are primarily an anti-infantry / anti-light vehicle weapon. I want to give it to Diverse Optics given the name but I actually have a fair amount of data on their weapons.

Edited by Koniving, 03 May 2019 - 09:28 PM.