Jump to content

Tonage Upscaleing.


9 replies to this topic

#1 LDTorroc

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 51 posts

Posted 21 February 2019 - 02:58 PM

Another tread from yours truly. Today i bring to you a couple of ideas about how to lighten and possibility even add tonnage on mechs.

When i was going through the books i was seeing mention to something known as LAC's i dont rember ever seeing these before so i did a little bit of digging. LAC's were also known as Light Auto cannons, they were created with the mind set that the current Ac's were too heavy for the mechs with were using them, So they would lighten the ac's with many different ways, The end result was a lighter more compact AC, the down side tho was these AC's had only 75% at best and 60% at worse of the range of the original AC. This gave mechs who relied on ac's a few more tons for more armor, ammor, or perhaps a better engine.

Another thing i noticed was Light gyro's These gyros were not small in the least, infact they would take up what ever extra space a CT would have while giving the mech quite a bit of tonnage for the cost.

Now lets talk about tonnage. this is something with has bothered me greatly since starting with MWO, i rember sitting next to my dad and watching him and everyone around the table playing MW, and BT. and i rember something KEY with i have not seen here. How to incress the max Tonnage of a mech. This was able to be preformed on all mechs but assaults by beefing up the endo skeleton of the mech adding more bracing and reinforcing the skeleton, or somethings replacing the skeleton entirely with a stronger more resilient material. This would allow Mech to incress their max tonage to about five extra tons, For some this dosnt seem like much but five extra tons of armor, or anther weapon with ammo was always welcome including if you knew you were heading up ageist odds with were not in your favor.

Now, I do see a way to implement this in the game as it stands RIGHT NOW. One of two ways, 1. It is done through the mech lab much like you would buy a better structure or armor, the price of the new skeleton would have to scale on the cost of the mech its self tho, between 60-70% of the base mech's price perhaps closer to the range of 130%-150%.
2.With the skill tree as it is, we could see it injected in with the survial tree under skeleton density, For each rank adding .5 for a grand total of 5 tons with all 10 ranks.

Some may ask why such a thing, The mechs are part of the extension of the mech pilot, and as such many pilots would modify their mechs to meet the goals and needs of what ever mission would come their way. A few of these ideas i have been thinking for a while and i will expand upon when more comes to mind.

Edited by LDTorroc, 21 February 2019 - 03:02 PM.


#2 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 22 February 2019 - 05:36 AM

View PostLDTorroc, on 21 February 2019 - 02:58 PM, said:

Now lets talk about tonnage. this is something with has bothered me greatly since starting with MWO, i rember sitting next to my dad and watching him and everyone around the table playing MW, and BT. and i rember something KEY with i have not seen here. How to incress the max Tonnage of a mech. This was able to be preformed on all mechs but assaults by beefing up the endo skeleton of the mech adding more bracing and reinforcing the skeleton, or somethings replacing the skeleton entirely with a stronger more resilient material. This would allow Mech to incress their max tonage to about five extra tons, For some this dosnt seem like much but five extra tons of armor, or anther weapon with ammo was always welcome including if you knew you were heading up ageist odds with were not in your favor.

Sounds like a house rule,
Remember that your speed is determined by engine/tonnage, so you'd have to also replace the engine to accommodate the mass increase. At which point why not begin with a mech that is 5 tons heavier to begin with?

#3 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,716 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 22 February 2019 - 05:42 AM

Hi, LDTorroc... I have some Questions for you regarding Tonnage Increase of the Mech's Physical Structure...
  • Was that perhaps just a "Special House Rule" that was used during those old BattleTech TableTop games?
  • Does the Endo-Steel Upgrade Option not already cover this somehow?
  • Is it possible that this addition could be used in some Exploit-Like Form to gain massively unfair advantages, which would cause PGI to not allow it over Balance Problems with the game?
...and while I'm at it, here are Questions regarding other Gyros...
  • Is the "Light Gyro" which you refer to also known as the "XL Gyro"?
  • How would you gauge the Tonnage Requirements for implementing this, as there is currently no differentiation between the Chassis itself and the Gyro in terms of Tonnage Calculations?
  • Would doing this ultimately facilitate need for the "Compact Gyro" as well, in order to have a proper array of them in MWO?
...which brings me to one last Thought & Question, this time for "Light ACs"...
  • I just noticed that the "Light ACs" of '2' & '5' Sizes have Zero Minimum Range, while the "Normal ACs" happen to have differing Minimum Ranges of their own. Is it possible that PGI has already rolled together the "Light ACs" with the "Normal ACs" for some kind of Balance-Related Reasons (or just general simplicity, which I've noticed can also create Balance Problems too) in the current MWO game's rules and designs?
...and with that, I'll wait for your return reply on this Thread, but I apologize for any overload that this may cause you. I just find myself simultaneously interested but confused (and/or worried) over implementations and/or effects on MWO's design and gameplay. :mellow:

~D. V. "trying to understand your post's Ideas a bit better" Devnull





(p.s.: I did see Horseman's Post above, but decided to finish the post as-is anyway. It's usually better to ask a question, instead of assuming because of someone else's post, on Feature Suggestion Threads like these.)

#4 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,914 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM

View PostD V Devnull, on 22 February 2019 - 05:42 AM, said:

Does the Endo-Steel Upgrade Option not already cover this somehow?
Not quite. ES reduces the tonnage of the mech's internal structure by half (from 10% of the mech's tonnage to 5%). On a 100-ton Assault that does come out to 5 tons, but it works as a reduction of your mech's tonnage rather than an increase of your mass limit.
The reason I suspect a house rule is that if we follow TT mech design rules, such a change in tonnage would also require increasing your engine rating to match (eg a 60-ton Griffin would have to use a 300-rated engine rather than a 275-rated one)/

Quote

Is it possible that this addition could be used in some Exploit-Like Form to gain massively unfair advantages, which would cause PGI to not allow it over Balance Problems with the game?
Such as by bringing a proto-IV4 into Scouting? Absolutely.

Quote

  • Is the "Light Gyro" which you refer to also known as the "XL Gyro"?
  • How would you gauge the Tonnage Requirements for implementing this, as there is currently no differentiation between the Chassis itself and the Gyro in terms of Tonnage Calculations?
  • Would doing this ultimately facilitate need for the "Compact Gyro" as well, in order to have a proper array of them in MWO?
1. That's the only equipment that seems to match. Unless house rules.
2. Same as in tabletop, based on the engine you have equipped. Gyros are 1 ton for 100 and under, 2 tons for 105-200, 3 tons for 205-300, 4 tons for 305-400.
3. Clearly yes.

Quote

  • I just noticed that the "Light ACs" of '2' & '5' Sizes have Zero Minimum Range, while the "Normal ACs" happen to have differing Minimum Ranges of their own. Is it possible that PGI has already rolled together the "Light ACs" with the "Normal ACs" for some kind of Balance-Related Reasons (or just general simplicity, which I've noticed can also create Balance Problems too) in the current MWO game's rules and designs?

Absolutely not - LACs don't just have different ranges compared to normal ACs (note that it's not just min range that's removed, but the weapon's range brackets are reduced), but they also have lower tonnage and LAC5 takes only two rather than four slots on the mech.

#5 LDTorroc

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 51 posts

Posted 22 February 2019 - 09:57 AM

View PostD V Devnull, on 22 February 2019 - 05:42 AM, said:

Hi, LDTorroc... I have some Questions for you regarding Tonnage Increase of the Mech's Physical Structure...
  • Was that perhaps just a "Special House Rule" that was used during those old BattleTech TableTop games?
  • Does the Endo-Steel Upgrade Option not already cover this somehow?
  • Is it possible that this addition could be used in some Exploit-Like Form to gain massively unfair advantages, which would cause PGI to not allow it over Balance Problems with the game?
...and while I'm at it, here are Questions regarding other Gyros...
  • Is the "Light Gyro" which you refer to also known as the "XL Gyro"?
  • How would you gauge the Tonnage Requirements for implementing this, as there is currently no differentiation between the Chassis itself and the Gyro in terms of Tonnage Calculations?
  • Would doing this ultimately facilitate need for the "Compact Gyro" as well, in order to have a proper array of them in MWO?
...which brings me to one last Thought & Question, this time for "Light ACs"...
  • I just noticed that the "Light ACs" of '2' & '5' Sizes have Zero Minimum Range, while the "Normal ACs" happen to have differing Minimum Ranges of their own. Is it possible that PGI has already rolled together the "Light ACs" with the "Normal ACs" for some kind of Balance-Related Reasons (or just general simplicity, which I've noticed can also create Balance Problems too) in the current MWO game's rules and designs?
...and with that, I'll wait for your return reply on this Thread, but I apologize for any overload that this may cause you. I just find myself simultaneously interested but confused (and/or worried) over implementations and/or effects on MWO's design and gameplay. Posted Image


~D. V. "trying to understand your post's Ideas a bit better" Devnull





(p.s.: I did see Horseman's Post above, but decided to finish the post as-is anyway. It's usually better to ask a question, instead of assuming because of someone else's post, on Feature Suggestion Threads like these.)


Alright thank you for getting back with me on this.

Regarding tonnage.

1. As far to my knowledge this was an additional rule in one of the handbooks, This was back during the days when you wrote up your mech on a character sheet like D&D, Before they switched to using cards with flat values. As far as were it was located, i would need to do a bit of digging through the books, If i had to put a guess on it, it would have been one of the mercenary hand books with this rule existed in. Due to the nature of mercenaries and the need to be flexible.

2.Endo steel would not suffice for what i am talking about, Yes, endo steel is strong and can hold the structure of the orginal mech nicely, But the problem is it would not be able to bear extra tonnage, As far as the engine is concerned It would really rely on what the mech was being used for, if speed wasnt an important factor an normal engine of 100-200 would be just fine, much like right now my Atlas is runing an std 200 and i have no issue, becouse i have the extra fire power needed.

3.As for as this being exploitable, I dont quite think so. This kind of rule set as I said before, if my memorie dose not fail me was ment for mercenary groups mainly, but it would also be preformed by both clans and IC. Mechs were not always easy to build, so sometimes they would need to retrofit or even upgrade existing mechs to meet the ever changing needs for battle. As far as it being exploited not really, I say this because it is only an exploit if it causes something that is game braking or gives only you an unfair advantage. In this regard, everyone up except 100 ton mechs in the the table top was able to do a modification like this, and as it stands right now with how everyone loves to min max their builds already it would allow for alittle bit more of a creep for mechs with are not used enough due to poor hard points to weight ratios to be able to be betterutilized.

in the regard to EX Gyros,

1. "Developed by ComStar in 3067, much like the XL Engine, the XL Gyro is constructed from lighter though more bulky material and components, increasing the size of the gyro by half in exchange for halving its weight"

2. the old rules with covered this started engines from old rules was the weight is always rounded up to the next whole number So mechs with STD 10-100, their gyro would weight about 1ton, 110-200 two tones, and so on and so forth. This modification was more offtently seen in heavy and assult class mechs to reduce the weight of the gyro, Now unless PGI had already tought about this and just added in the gyro weight in with the engine we can pause this right here, but this could save between 2-3 tons for the cost of a couple of extra chest slots in your CT.

3. the compact gyro was acully twice as heavy as the the normal gyro but it would free up space inside of the CT allowing more to be installed inside, it was ment as a way to help protect the vital componets of the mech.

4.

View PostHorseman, on 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:


Absolutely not - LACs don't just have different ranges compared to normal ACs (note that it's not just min range that's removed, but the weapon's range brackets are reduced), but they also have lower tonnage and LAC5 takes only two rather than four slots on the mech.

He hit the nail on the head. LAC's were ligther and more compact allowing them to be placed with in mechs more easily much like snub nose ppc's, The draw back to this was their range was reduced meaning they were not as useful for long range engagements loseing upwards to 20-30 precent of ther range advantage. This here is a common trend when it comes to LIGHT weapons with in both MW and BT.

#6 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,716 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 22 February 2019 - 10:20 AM

Catching up with the discussion... I think I may have to skip (most of) the Emoji. :(



View PostHorseman, on 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:

Not quite. ES reduces the tonnage of the mech's internal structure by half (from 10% of the mech's tonnage to 5%). On a 100-ton Assault that does come out to 5 tons, but it works as a reduction of your mech's tonnage rather than an increase of your mass limit.
The reason I suspect a house rule is that if we follow TT mech design rules, such a change in tonnage would also require increasing your engine rating to match (eg a 60-ton Griffin would have to use a 300-rated engine rather than a 275-rated one)

That would probably also eat up half (or more) of the Increased Tonnage, wouldn't it? Which of course could easily mean in TT that the expansion would end up wasted. That doesn't work out so well.

In MWO's case, all PGI needs to do is downcurve the Engine Speed by using information from the next Tonnage Level up for the Engine Speed information. Implementing any of this in MWO would however require a little too much Balancing Work, and needs to have some kind of extensive cost beyond a little loss of Engine Speed. But what's worse? It would be too hard to design in a "give and take" on using such a choice in any proper manner. So I think this is likely to be a 'flop', unfortunately.

I'll still want to hear LDTorroc's answer in regard to that Question which I posed, however.



View PostHorseman, on 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:

Such as by bringing a proto-IV4 into Scouting? Absolutely.

Sounds like a start point of a Griffin to do that... (Or basically any other 55-Ton Mech, but this one seems likely to be most-used in that kind of Abuse of such a change.) ...right?



View PostHorseman, on 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:

2. Same as in tabletop, based on the engine you have equipped. Gyros are 1 ton for 100 and under, 2 tons for 105-200, 3 tons for 205-300, 4 tons for 305-400.

I'll also want to hear LDTorroc's answer in regard to this one. Frankly, I think in MWO's case that any implemented Gyro Tonnage Changes may need to be done differently than TT does it. Instead for MWO, the Mech's Tonnage should be used, and not the Equipped Engine's Rating. Why? The fact that the Mech's Tonnage is a more stable number to work from for the game's designing of additions like this. Using the Engine Rating would make it jump unnecessarily, and we don't need to make something potentially confusing to others.



View PostHorseman, on 22 February 2019 - 07:58 AM, said:

Absolutely not - LACs don't just have different ranges compared to normal ACs (note that it's not just min range that's removed, but the weapon's range brackets are reduced), but they also have lower tonnage and LAC5 takes only two rather than four slots on the mech.

I get most of the Attributes are all from the Normal ACs' Series. What made me think the Light ACs may have been 'rolled in' is the removal of Minimum Range, which has unfortunately made the Normal ACs potentially too powerful under certain situations and implementations. Frankly, I think PGI may have screwed up the Balance in the game here.

Anyway, I can't rely on either my thoughts or your response for 100% certain, whether they be for or against any arguments here. PGI would be the ones to know for sure, but I'm still going to want to hear what LDTorroc's opinion is in regard to this too.



And now I've only just noticed that LDTorroc posted a reply to me earlier. I'm going to get to reading that, but thank you for the discussion value that you brought with you. I'll throw a 'Like' on your post for giving me so much to chat about, and then get to reading LDTorroc's post below yours. :o


~D. V. "so many thoughts, and getting ninja'd while chattering about Tonnage-related things" Devnull

#7 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,716 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 22 February 2019 - 11:52 AM

View PostLDTorroc, on 22 February 2019 - 09:57 AM, said:

Alright thank you for getting back with me on this.

Regarding tonnage.

1. As far to my knowledge this was an additional rule in one of the handbooks, This was back during the days when you wrote up your mech on a character sheet like D&D, Before they switched to using cards with flat values. As far as were it was located, i would need to do a bit of digging through the books, If i had to put a guess on it, it would have been one of the mercenary hand books with this rule existed in. Due to the nature of mercenaries and the need to be flexible.

2.Endo steel would not suffice for what i am talking about, Yes, endo steel is strong and can hold the structure of the orginal mech nicely, But the problem is it would not be able to bear extra tonnage, As far as the engine is concerned It would really rely on what the mech was being used for, if speed wasnt an important factor an normal engine of 100-200 would be just fine, much like right now my Atlas is runing an std 200 and i have no issue, becouse i have the extra fire power needed.

3.As for as this being exploitable, I dont quite think so. This kind of rule set as I said before, if my memorie dose not fail me was ment for mercenary groups mainly, but it would also be preformed by both clans and IC. Mechs were not always easy to build, so sometimes they would need to retrofit or even upgrade existing mechs to meet the ever changing needs for battle. As far as it being exploited not really, I say this because it is only an exploit if it causes something that is game braking or gives only you an unfair advantage. In this regard, everyone up except 100 ton mechs in the the table top was able to do a modification like this, and as it stands right now with how everyone loves to min max their builds already it would allow for alittle bit more of a creep for mechs with are not used enough due to poor hard points to weight ratios to be able to be betterutilized.

in the regard to EX Gyros,

1. "Developed by ComStar in 3067, much like the XL Engine, the XL Gyro is constructed from lighter though more bulky material and components, increasing the size of the gyro by half in exchange for halving its weight"

2. the old rules with covered this started engines from old rules was the weight is always rounded up to the next whole number So mechs with STD 10-100, their gyro would weight about 1ton, 110-200 two tones, and so on and so forth. This modification was more offtently seen in heavy and assult class mechs to reduce the weight of the gyro, Now unless PGI had already tought about this and just added in the gyro weight in with the engine we can pause this right here, but this could save between 2-3 tons for the cost of a couple of extra chest slots in your CT.

3. the compact gyro was acully twice as heavy as the the normal gyro but it would free up space inside of the CT allowing more to be installed inside, it was ment as a way to help protect the vital componets of the mech.

4.
He hit the nail on the head. LAC's were ligther and more compact allowing them to be placed with in mechs more easily much like snub nose ppc's, The draw back to this was their range was reduced meaning they were not as useful for long range engagements loseing upwards to 20-30 precent of ther range advantage. This here is a common trend when it comes to LIGHT weapons with in both MW and BT.

Interesting thoughts... Thanks for answering all of my questions there. ^_^

Just my additional opinion, but I think the only way to stop what could be considered Exploit-Like Behavior over a Tonnage Increase would be to block any 55-Ton Mechs that had boosted their Tonnage to 60 from doing things like Scouting. It could create a Mech Imbalance Issue to allow any kind of 60-Ton rigging in Scouting, and I'm sure nobody wants that. There's several other problems with implementation into MWO, but this would at least diffuse one of them. :mellow:

Also, check my post above this one. (#6 in your Thread here.) I dropped in some extra thoughts regarding the whole thing with Gyros and Engines. It so happens that PGI's Balance & Coding Teams don't do the best of jobs (no offense intended to them, but this is just how I feel, and I know they've been wrongfully rushed before), and need the work to not be so hard as to cause Extra Bugs over this. Other than that, I could see this being an interesting addition to MWO's gameplay, particularly in terms of Equipment Allowances in many Mech CTs, as this might potentially allow some very surprising builds. Oh, and just for the note, it seems that a Compact Gyro is 150% of a Normal Gyro's Weight, and not 200% Weight. This could allow for some interesting trades in Tonnage. :)

On the count of implementing the Light ACs... Who hit the nail on the head? Like I said to Horseman, I get that most of the MWO AutoCannon Stats are from the BattleTech Data. But there's no Minimum Range on MWO's Version, where apparently TT's/'BT Lore's have such. In order for the Light ACs to really have a complete implementation, I think that MWO's Version of the Normal ACs might have to end up getting a Minimum Range. That way, the Light ACs can have the perk of No Minimum Range to themselves. :o

I'm gonna scram here, but given the interesting discussion we're all having, I'm going to throw a 'Like' on your post that I am replying to. B)

~D. V. "many many things that aren't in MWO for possible Mech Designs... so many ideas yet to form" Devnull

#8 LDTorroc

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 51 posts

Posted 22 February 2019 - 12:44 PM

View PostD V Devnull, on 22 February 2019 - 11:52 AM, said:

Interesting thoughts... Thanks for answering all of my questions there. Posted Image

Just my additional opinion, but I think the only way to stop what could be considered Exploit-Like Behavior over a Tonnage Increase would be to block any 55-Ton Mechs that had boosted their Tonnage to 60 from doing things like Scouting. It could create a Mech Imbalance Issue to allow any kind of 60-Ton rigging in Scouting, and I'm sure nobody wants that. There's several other problems with implementation into MWO, but this would at least diffuse one of them. Posted Image

Also, check my post above this one. (#6 in your Thread here.) I dropped in some extra thoughts regarding the whole thing with Gyros and Engines. It so happens that PGI's Balance & Coding Teams don't do the best of jobs (no offense intended to them, but this is just how I feel, and I know they've been wrongfully rushed before), and need the work to not be so hard as to cause Extra Bugs over this. Other than that, I could see this being an interesting addition to MWO's gameplay, particularly in terms of Equipment Allowances in many Mech CTs, as this might potentially allow some very surprising builds. Oh, and just for the note, it seems that a Compact Gyro is 150% of a Normal Gyro's Weight, and not 200% Weight. This could allow for some interesting trades in Tonnage. Posted Image

On the count of implementing the Light ACs... Who hit the nail on the head? Like I said to Horseman, I get that most of the MWO AutoCannon Stats are from the BattleTech Data. But there's no Minimum Range on MWO's Version, where apparently TT's/'BT Lore's have such. In order for the Light ACs to really have a complete implementation, I think that MWO's Version of the Normal ACs might have to end up getting a Minimum Range. That way, the Light ACs can have the perk of No Minimum Range to themselves. Posted Image

I'm gonna scram here, but given the interesting discussion we're all having, I'm going to throw a 'Like' on your post that I am replying to. Posted Image

~D. V. "many many things that aren't in MWO for possible Mech Designs... so many ideas yet to form" Devnull


On the note of the tonnage Cap, yes that would be the intended effect. It would give mechs that little bit of extra wiggle room, at the cost of what they could bring on a drop deck. because if you allowed your hunchback to work with getting five extra tons on his mech for ammo, or even a bigger gun, then the rest of the drop deck would need to be altered for such an change to the mech. The extra tonnage was meant for extra equipment, armor, weapons, ammo, or even a slightly bigger engine.

Currently in game, we are encouraged to try and make our mechs as light a possible so we can fit all the equipment we can possibly try and cram in to it, rather then the other way around with would allow mechs to take in a little extra tonnage, yes they may be a bit heavier thus reducing their speed unless they had a bigger engine, but it would allow them to take in that little bit extra with might help them survive.

Now on to the not about LAC and AC's in general, This is a topic my father and i have talked about quite often about. In the old school table top and paper and pen games by official rules Ac's did have a min range, but it never really made much scene to many players my father and his group included. I say this because, these are not missile or rocket warheads. These are large caliber ballistic weapons. The original weapons classifications were abstractions for a very wide variety of weapons types but not all AC's are the same, the AC classification was a simplified abstraction for game purposes. The introduction of things like RAC lost sight of these abstractions and simplifications. What I am trying to say is these weapons were more like large scale sabot, acpr rounds, and even cluster munitions such as the LB10x. There was no real reason given for a minimal range such as for the reason behind missile and rocket based weapons with were packed with large amounts of high explosives.

#9 D V Devnull

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • 2,716 posts
  • LocationAnywhere but here, and the lights in my bays are off.

Posted 23 February 2019 - 02:15 AM

Hi again, LDTorroc... I was reading through your reply, and then something hit me about this part...

View PostLDTorroc, on 22 February 2019 - 12:44 PM, said:

Now on to the not about LAC and AC's in general, This is a topic my father and i have talked about quite often about. In the old school table top and paper and pen games by official rules Ac's did have a min range, but it never really made much scene to many players my father and his group included. I say this because, these are not missile or rocket warheads. These are large caliber ballistic weapons. The original weapons classifications were abstractions for a very wide variety of weapons types but not all AC's are the same, the AC classification was a simplified abstraction for game purposes. The introduction of things like RAC lost sight of these abstractions and simplifications. What I am trying to say is these weapons were more like large scale sabot, acpr rounds, and even cluster munitions such as the LB10x. There was no real reason given for a minimal range such as for the reason behind missile and rocket based weapons with were packed with large amounts of high explosives.

Is it possible that the Minimum Range on the Normal AC/2 and AC/5 was because of imitating Real Life Physics in regard to Metal-On-Metal Contact? For example, the whole thing with Ricochets and such, and what could happen to your own Mech if that kind of Issue was somehow incurred? (For Example, what if you were shooting a Lock on a Door with a Handgun? Point-Blank would not be such a good idea, right?) :huh:

Other than that, it really does seem like an Arbitrary Niche was being given to the Light AC Weaponry, huh? I guess even if we don't give that Perk to Light ACs alone, they would still have a place in MWO for use. My only question for other people at that point would be as to how many of them actually decide to use it on their Mechs. Any bets it would be a total dream for the brawlers? :)

~D. V. "More thoughts about Light ACs... was it physics, perhaps?" Devnull

#10 LDTorroc

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 51 posts

Posted 23 February 2019 - 10:45 AM

A niche weapon? Perhaps not, If anything shows us what has happened with light weapons so far with in PGI, they will infact be slightly weaker to make up for the fact they are ligther and more compact, much like we see with micro lasers, small lasers, and the snub nose ppc. I could see lights, and prehaps meds useing them more to help off put the tonage issues.

SO in recap, lighter but with a slight hit to damage and range sounds like a reasonable trade off so they can better equiped on mechs.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users