54 replies to this topic

[Graphite]

This suggestion thread is ridiculous: why should a small laser do as much damage as a large laser?
A small laser weight 0.5 tons and takes 1 critical slot, a large laser weighs 5 tons and takes 2 critical slots.

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

By the way, I can make a completely logical case for this to be supported by realism for projectile weapons. Since they are still accelerating out of the muzzle when fired they probably wouldn't reach their terminal velocity until they've travelled some distance. So, a Gauss rifle slug should be travelling faster after 600m (and dealing more damage) than after 100m.

Not finding much science for the lasers though

What on earth do you think accelerates a bullet AFTER it's exited the muzzle??? Magic?
Muzzle velocity is the maximum velocity - they decelerate from that point on.

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

No, its not. And not the real subject here. And, if you do enough searching you will find articles that describe rifle bullet acceleration as going to 0 shortly after the bullet leave the muzzle. And, if you refer to simple physics it has to be this way because the projectile is accelerating all the way down the barrel at a high rate. That doesn't immediately drop to 0 once its out of the barrel. Accleration = energy and that energy has to go somewhere and it doesn't do so instantaneously (Law of conservation of energy).

Someone needs to take a high school physics class...this is completely wrong.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 03:59 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

Graphite, on 19 January 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

This suggestion thread is ridiculous: why should a small laser do as much damage as a large laser?
A small laser weight 0.5 tons and takes 1 critical slot, a large laser weighs 5 tons and takes 2 critical slits.




What on earth do you think accelerates a bullet AFTER it's exited the muzzle??? Magic?
Muzzle velocity is the maximum velocity - they decelerate from that point on.

Yes, I believe its magic.

By the way, the thread has nothing to do with small lasers doing the same damage as large lasers. Musta been magic that led you to that conclusion.

[Graphite]

DEVASTATOR, on 19 January 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Yes, I believe its magic.

By the way, the thread has nothing to do with small lasers doing the same damage as large lasers. Musta been magic that led you to that conclusion.

A quote from your OP:

Quote

As a very simple example, if a large laser dealth 20 points of damage and a small laser dealt 5 points then the small laser should recycle 4 times as fast. This would mean that the Damage Per Second (DPS) would be identical between them and your weapons choice wouldn't depend on knowing that a certain weapon was the most owerful but would be based on your preferred style of play. In close or at a distance as an example.

Now tell me again why I brought up damage of SL vs LL?

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

Graphite, on 19 January 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

A quote from your OP:



Now tell me again why I brought up damage of SL vs LL?

Obviously you are not reading the post and picking things out that you want to comment on. The post is all about how range doesn't seem to come into play when balancing out weapons. In the PnP version long range weapons aren't as effective in close. I suggested a couple of ways one might simulate this and asked for other ideas. I don't see any ideas coming from you so you haven't really provided anything of value here except to take something out of context and imply it was the intent of the post.

Which it wasn't.

[Graphite]

DEVASTATOR, on 19 January 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Obviously you are not reading the post and picking things out that you want to comment on. The post is all about how range doesn't seem to come into play when balancing out weapons. In the PnP version long range weapons aren't as effective in close. I suggested a couple of ways one might simulate this and asked for other ideas. I don't see any ideas coming from you so you haven't really provided anything of value here except to take something out of context and imply it was the intent of the post.

Which it wasn't.

Your point was that all weapons should be "equal" ("...where no weapon type, of any range, has an advantage"), which is ridiculous.
You used SL vs LL as an example, and so did I.

The weapons are NOT created equal, and that's not a bad thing. Their size and weight equals them out somewhat (you can carry far more SL than you can LL) and that's enough. There should be no "fiddling" to try and make a SL as "good" as a LL - for example.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 04:25 PM.

[verybad]

Considering that DOT (Damage Over Time) is not necessarilly going to be what is the value that makes a weapon effective up to it's maximum range (for instance, it is likely that Mechwarriors will use cover as much as possible, just as in other FPS or Vehcile combat games)

So a small laser that does the same daamge over time as a large laser may not necessarilly be all that effective.

Even if jumpsniping is not an effective, or a reduced effectiveness tactic, I guarantee that any sane player will still use cover as much as possible while tryign to get a lock onto his opponent(s). The DLOS system of information will make scouts EXTREEMLY valuable maintaining the info on the battlegrid. The key here however is COVER.

Staying out of cover while you plug a small laser into a target for say 10 seconds(who knows, but that's reasonable for conversation) is going to make you very vulnerable. This same tactic is used in TT battletech, as people try to get their mechs into forest that they can shoot out of, but opponents have a penalty shooting into.

No matter what, mechs will probably be engineered for alpha strike efficiency in order to maintain their own safety. small lasers nibbling on mech, aren't the same as large lasers taking slower but much larger bites.

By btech rules, 3 small lasers (1.5 tons) should do MORE damage than 1 large laser(5 tons), just be less accurate. DOT combined with cover in a RT game make the argument much more complex than simplybtech numbers however.

Edited by verybad, 19 January 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[Graphite]

Quote

1) Hardpoint-Like System:
I liked this system in MW4 because it detracted from boating quite a lot. Mechs regained their character as role specific tools instead of all being alike. Perhaps a system where each range of weapon was limited in quantitty somehow. An Atlas can only have 4 long range, 3 medium range and 4 short range (as an example). Its a bit contrived but would probably do the job. Not my first choice.

I see you're probably not familiar with Battletech. You do know that MW is a BT game, right? (never perfect copies, but usually pretty close)
A BT mech has "critical slots" (i.e. space for equipment) and of course a maximum tonnage. All weapons have different weights and sizes, and generally larger, heavier weapons are the "better" weapons.
So yes, there is already a system similar to the hardpoint system you are thinking of, but more in-depth.

As for forcing every mech to have similar range preferences, that's not a good idea. As a general rule of thumb you can fit more short range firepower onto a mech than long range, and of course it's easier to hit from short range. On the downside, you have to be fast enough and heavily armoured enough to get close if you want to get to use your short range weapons.

So there are advantages and disadvantages to all ranges, and there are roles for long, medium, and short ranged mechs.

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 04:49 PM.

[verybad]

The critical location system actually isn't more in depth, it allows you to make any mech into any other mech based purely upon tonnage.

Hardpoints give mechs character. I think he mentioned prefering the Hardpoint system. Using battletech crit systems in the video game leads to mehs not having any personality, they're just whatever you con fit onto a tonnage basis.

While boating happened in both crit hit Mechwarrior AND Hardpoint Mechwarrior, at least with hardpoints an Archer is used as a Missile boat, not an AC boat (for instance)

[Graphite]

verybad, on 19 January 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

The critical location system actually isn't more in depth, it allows you to make any mech into any other mech based purely upon tonnage.

No, it's based on both tonnage and space. Hardpoints simplify both those variables together, AND restrict what a chassis can carry.

I agree that loading an Archer with ACs instead of missiles is against its "character", but that not a compelling reason to arbitrarily disallow it. Also, the OP isn't making his suggestions for reasons of "character", he's concerned about "balance".

[verybad]

Yes, and the restriction leeds to more diversity in the actual Chassis used in the game.

The crit system made only the tonnage matter, because all mech chassis start out the same, they were generic gunbags.

In MW2 and MW3, people quickly learned which chassis had the most effective hit boxes (were hardest to hit), they then used those most effective chassis almost exclusivly in multiplayer games.

Hardpoints reflect the base role a mech was designed for. For a lot of long time fans of the boardgame (like myself) having a mech be characterized by it's canon role (eg Archer as a missile mech) is EXTREMELY compelling.

As for balance, it gets more difficult with more crit spaces *shrugs* Hardpoints don't "simplify crits and tonnage together" (unless we're thinking of a different game from MW4). I like battletech. A lot. I've been buying btech products for over 20 years. However it's not balanced for a realtime game, it was never envisioned as a real time game.

Mechwarrior has to make modifications in order to retain balance. Balance is more important than staying with the turn based system as well, as if you don't have a fun, balanced game, your player base desolves into just grognards, and that's not enough to run a F2P game off of successfully.

So again, I love the btech board game, played it a lot in highschool, still buy some of it's products, but you got to use the right tool for the right job.

Edited by verybad, 19 January 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Graphite]

verybad, on 19 January 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Yes, and the restriction leeds to more diversity in the actual Chassis used in the game.

There are much better ways to to this than arbitrary restrictions.
For example, have the armour, engine, heatsinks, jump jet, and space location (perhaps also things like TC) be hardwired into the chassis, and only allow modification on top of that.

Say for example the chassis of an Annilhilator ANH-3A vs that of an Atlas AS7-CM:

ANH-3A chassis
Available tons: 44
Speed 2/3
Armour 307 (couldn't be bothered writing individual locations, but that would vary too)
Heat capability: 28
Available crits:
LA: 3
RA: 3
H: 1
LT: 6
CT: 2
RT: 3
LL: 2
RL: 2

AS7-CM Chassis
Available tons: 45.5
Speed 3/5
Armour 304
Heat capability: 20
Available crits:
LA: 6
RA: 8
H: 1
LT: 9
CT: 2
RT: 9
LL: 0
RL: 0

So although they're both 100 tons (and even have similar tonnage available) they're still obviously different chassis, and suited best to different weapon types.

Much, much better to go down a road like this than say: "that chassis is restricted to these weapon types...." for the sake of fixing hitbox differences.

Quote

The crit system made only the tonnage matter, because all mech chassis start out the same, they were generic gunbags.

In MW2 and MW3, people quickly learned which chassis had the most effective hit boxes (were hardest to hit), they then used those most effective chassis almost exclusivly in multiplayer games.

I wasn't talking about MW2/3

Quote

Hardpoints reflect the base role a mech was designed for. For a lot of long time fans of the boardgame (like myself) having a mech be characterized by it's canon role (eg Archer as a missile mech) is EXTREMELY compelling.

Like myself.
It's not enough reason to cripple customisation.

Quote

As for balance, it gets more difficult with more crit spaces *shrugs* Hardpoints don't "simplify crits and tonnage together" (unless we're thinking of a different game from MW4).

1 variable vs 2. That's simplified.

BTW, this discussion you and I are now having is not on topic...

Edited by Graphite, 19 January 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[DEVASTATOR]

Graphite, on 19 January 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

Your point was that all weapons should be "equal" ("...where no weapon type, of any range, has an advantage"), which is ridiculous.
You used SL vs LL as an example, and so did I.

The weapons are NOT created equal, and that's not a bad thing. Their size and weight equals them out somewhat (you can carry far more SL than you can LL) and that's enough. There should be no "fiddling" to try and make a SL as "good" as a LL - for example.

My point was NOT that they should be equal. And since you simply are incapable of or unwilling to actually read or understand what people post about you're not really worth the effort.

[DEVASTATOR]

verybad, on 19 January 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Yes, and the restriction leeds to more diversity in the actual Chassis used in the game.

The crit system made only the tonnage matter, because all mech chassis start out the same, they were generic gunbags.

In MW2 and MW3, people quickly learned which chassis had the most effective hit boxes (were hardest to hit), they then used those most effective chassis almost exclusivly in multiplayer games.

Hardpoints reflect the base role a mech was designed for. For a lot of long time fans of the boardgame (like myself) having a mech be characterized by it's canon role (eg Archer as a missile mech) is EXTREMELY compelling.

Well said VB and really the issue I was trying to address. All the various changes through the MW games from open ended customizaiton in MW2 through to the hard point system in MW4 helped resolve the basic problem. That people inavariably go to either all small laser boats or long range boats of some kind (missiles, lasers, PPC, etc.). There's never been any incentive to actually vary the weapons loadout to include some small, medium and large weapons (and forget about machine guns and flamers). There's never been any incentive to build mechds that resemble how they are described in the TRO's or to make them role specific.

While a lot of changes over the years have helped (and the hardpoint system like it or not, was the most effective of these changes) nothing has ever been done to encourage people to vary the loadout. Nothing has been incorporated to make you want to select weapons of different ranges. If they could put something in the game that made you think about that - gave a benefit to doing it - we'd see completely different mech designs in the game that more closely resemble the TRO variants. THAT'S what this post is about Graphite and if you actually took the time to read it and understand it you'd know that.

And by the way, I think its you who doesn't understand what MW is all about. MW is NOT BT. Never has been and never will be. Its based on the same story lines, technology and timeframes but its not BT. There's a reason they split the product line and called it MW when they publsihed the PC games and not BT. It was meant to be different from (or perhaps a subset of) BT which is a much broader realm.

Edited by DEVASTATOR, 20 January 2012 - 04:19 AM.

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

My point was NOT that they should be equal. And since you simply are incapable of or unwilling to actually read or understand what people post about you're not really worth the effort.

DEVASTATOR, on 18 January 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'd like to think that the "perfect" system of balance would be one where no weapon type, of any range, has an advantage.

You've been backpedalling every time someone makes a point against you in this thread.

[DEVASTATOR]

Nerts, on 20 January 2012 - 07:12 AM, said:

You've been backpedalling every time someone makes a point against you in this thread.

Explain how that's "backpedalling"? If you call correcting people when they misunderstand, miscontsrue or otherwise ignore the intent of the post then I'm guilty as charged.

Furthermore, explain how those quotes, taken completely out of context, actually mean anything? Yes, I want the weapons balanced so that there's no advantage to using one or the other. That has nothing to do with making a large laser = a small laser and never have I said that. As i clearly have stated in this and other threads, i'd like them such that the choice of weapons would be dictated by someone's personal playing preferences (brawler, scout, sniper, etc.) and not by what weapons have a known advantage that makes it faster to kill a mech with them (a la small laser boating in MW3 for example).

Why didn't you quote me when i said that? Why are you purposely misconstruing what I'm saying? And by the way, are you going to actually contribute something useful to this thread (like an idea as was requested) or simply continue to look for a fight.

Edited by DEVASTATOR, 20 January 2012 - 07:29 AM.

[Nerts]

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Explain how that's "backpedalling"? If you call correcting people when they misunderstand, miscontsrue or otherwise ignore the intent of the post then I'm guilty as charged.

Furthermore, explain how those quotes, taken completely out of context, actually mean anything? Yes, I want the weapons balanced so that there's no advantage to using one or the other. That has nothing to do with making a large laser = a small laser and never have I said that. As i clearly have stated in this and other threads, i'd like them such that the choice of weapons would be dictated by someone's personal playing preferences (brawler, scout, sniper, etc.) and not by what weapons have a known advantage that makes it faster to kill a mech with them (a la small laser boating in MW3 for example).

Why didn't you quote me when i said that? Why are you purposely misconstruing what I'm saying? And by the way, are you going to actually contribute something useful to this thread (like an idea as was requested) or simply continue to look for a fight.

Maybe you should present your ideas more clearly if multiple people are getting a different point than you're intending?
And I've already said I think you were trying to "fix" something that isn't a problem, although I do agree with what you and Verybad are saying about hardpoints vs critical slots.

[DEVASTATOR]

Nerts, on 20 January 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

Maybe you should present your ideas more clearly if multiple people are getting a different point than you're intending?
And I've already said I think you were trying to "fix" something that isn't a problem, although I do agree with what you and Verybad are saying about hardpoints vs critical slots.

Its spelled out pretty clearly in the first post. The two people who didn't seem to take the time to read it thoroughly should have.

So, if we're finally getting back on subject, are you telling me that the lack of incentive to use weapons of varying ranges isn't a problem? I think it is. No MW game has ever provided a tangible benefit to using a mix a ranges for weapons. There's almost no benefit to using medium lasers in a game when you can get more small lasers on the mech dealing more damage with a faster recycle time. The only sacrifice being you'd have is to wait an extra 2 seconds before you could get into range to fire those small lasers. I think that's a problem and one of the root causes for boating in the past.

Edited by DEVASTATOR, 20 January 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Exactly what this game will be is still far from certain, and multiple interpretations of what the Dev's have said so far are possible. What we do know is that this will be the first MW designed for online PvP only, not single player PvE with an online PvP component.

I think that this will make it very different from all previous games. The other point is that all the mechs shown so far are Level 1 tech. We don't know what level of customisation will be possible, or even if what Level 2 tech there is will be available at start.

If we are effectively limited to the standard mechs then some of them may well come with a mix of weapon types and ranges ie Atlas & Dragon. We have two short range mechs (Jenner & Hunchback) and one long range, Catapult. All have ammo dependant weapons, with all the drawbacks involved. It will require a different playstyle for people used to Clan Tech and immediate, almost unlimited, customisation.
If it does turn out this way I think it will be very interesting.

[DEVASTATOR]

I wouldn't be opposed to mechs coming as their TRO variants only with no customization allowed. Going with the old "Stock" mech variant option of MW3. At least then you'd be forced to use the weapons it came with which are usually varied in type and range - no boating.

We will definitely have to wait and see what the devs have in mind as we are all wildly speculating about what it will be and what it might or should be. If there's limited customization (mostly "stock" mechs) then there's not much point in this (and many other) ideas. If there will be customizations (and one would think they would allow at least some degree of it) then I'm still in favor of finding ways to get people to use all the weapons types and ranges and not boat.

So here's another crazy idea. Change the effective ranges of the existing weapons. I know this will send all the BT purists into a tizzy but what if a large laser had a range of 1.5Km, a medium with 1km and a small with 500m (just some examples to show a larger difference in range ebwteen them). At least then you'd think twice about boating all small lasers and trying to get in close. Any large laser would be able to get off plent of shots before you got into range with your small lasers. People might even start using medium lasers as a reasonable trade off. Its way out of the box thinking and not my favorite idea but how do you recreate or, at best, simulate the effect the PnP had with weapons being more effective only within their ideal range?

I still like the concept of somehow having a range "sweetspot" where a large, medium and small laser are most effective and outside that range simply aren't. Changing the damage dealt based on range was the only semi-reasonable thing I could come up with.

[Graphite]

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

My point was NOT that they should be equal. And since you simply are incapable of or unwilling to actually read or understand what people post about you're not really worth the effort.

Well, now you're misquoting me
I put "equal" in speech marks for a reason - I didn't literally mean equal, I was summing up your "balanced, with no advantages to any weapon" in single word.

Weapons should not be balanced, they should not be without advantages over each other. MW would be extremely boring if they were, and of course there's the fact that the "better" weapons are much larger/heavier than the "worse" weapons, so that you can take more of the inferior weapons to make up for your so-called "imbalance".

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

Well said VB and really the issue I was trying to address.

Lol, good one! He's talking about variety of chassis - something you've never even hinted at.

Quote

There's never been any incentive to actually vary the weapons loadout to include some small, medium and large weapons (and forget about machine guns and flamers).

There's a very good reason for that: you can only be at one range at a time, and so wasting weapon space on weapons with ranges that are ineffective at you best range would be silly.
In short, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a long range mech, a short range mech, or a medium range mech. You're thinking too small - mechs are intended to work in lances, and you would introduce your range variation WITHIN THE LANCE, not within the mech. I.e. you have a long range support mech, a short range brawler, etc, etc, to make an effective force.

Quote

There's never been any incentive to build mechds that resemble how they are described in the TRO's or to make them role specific.

Many, many reasons for that. TRO designs have to consider infantry, vtols, areospace, cost, resource availability, and so on. There are probably no TRO designs that can't be improved on when you don't need to consider these things - which we don't.

Quote

If they could put something in the game that made you think about that - gave a benefit to doing it - we'd see completely different mech designs in the game that more closely resemble the TRO variants. THAT'S what this post is about Graphite and if you actually took the time to read it and understand it you'd know that.

Then perhaps you should have said that in your OP.
See above for why hoping to see TRO designs is never going to happen.

Quote

And by the way, I think its you who doesn't understand what MW is all about. MW is NOT BT. Never has been and never will be. Its based on the same story lines, technology and timeframes but its not BT. There's a reason they split the product line and called it MW when they publsihed the PC games and not BT. It was meant to be different from (or perhaps a subset of) BT which is a much broader realm.

Oh, so wrong!
They split the BT licences for tabletop gaming and computer gaming. MW is the result of the computer gaming licence. It is thoroughly BT, through-and-through.
The dev team was required to play TT BT as part of this project.
Every name you see, every image, and (approximately - RT requires tweaks) every stat you see all came from BT. Sorry.

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Explain how that's "backpedalling"? If you call correcting people when they misunderstand, miscontsrue or otherwise ignore the intent of the post then I'm guilty as charged.

Furthermore, explain how those quotes, taken completely out of context, actually mean anything? Yes, I want the weapons balanced so that there's no advantage to using one or the other.

There, you just said it again.
If you don't like being held responsible for quotes of your own words, perhaps you need to think a little more carefully before you write.

Quote

That has nothing to do with making a large laser = a small laser and never have I said that. As i clearly have stated in this and other threads, i'd like them such that the choice of weapons would be dictated by someone's personal playing preferences (brawler, scout, sniper, etc.) and not by what weapons have a known advantage that makes it faster to kill a mech with them (a la small laser boating in MW3 for example).

No one want to see laser boats. Not the same as forcing multirange mechs though - there are short, long and medium range lasers.
The best way to punish laser boats is with heat.

Quote

Why didn't you quote me when i said that? Why are you purposely misconstruing what I'm saying? And by the way, are you going to actually contribute something useful to this thread (like an idea as was requested) or simply continue to look for a fight.

I notice you ignored the suggestion I gave, and just argued instead.

DEVASTATOR, on 20 January 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Its spelled out pretty clearly in the first post. The two people who didn't seem to take the time to read it thoroughly should have.

So, if we're finally getting back on subject, are you telling me that the lack of incentive to use weapons of varying ranges isn't a problem? I think it is. No MW game has ever provided a tangible benefit to using a mix a ranges for weapons. There's almost no benefit to using medium lasers in a game when you can get more small lasers on the mech dealing more damage with a faster recycle time. The only sacrifice being you'd have is to wait an extra 2 seconds before you could get into range to fire those small lasers. I think that's a problem and one of the root causes for boating in the past.

It's not a problem. Laser boats are a problem, single range mechs aren't.
I'd like to see your small lasers take out a faster mech with medium lasers!
There's a place and a role for every weapon.

Edited by Graphite, 20 January 2012 - 03:39 PM.