71 replies to this topic

[Graphite]

Sturm, I think you're getting a bit too in-depth!

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

I disagree.

What the risk of jamming does is encourage player discipline - "let up on the trigger or you'll jam your weapon and won't be able to use it any more!"

TT has 10 second turns.
If you want to reduce a rate of fire from "2" to "1.5" (I won't clarify, you understand what I mean) how do you do it?
Decree that the gun alternates between 1 and 2 shots per turn? That won't work - a much better way is to add a risk of jamming and let the player reduce the rate of fire himself.
I really do believe that is the point of the jamming risk.

In a RT game you have no such problem - you can easily adjust RoF by the millisecond if you want.

Quote

I disagree.

Looking at the description for Ultra ACs found in the Tech Manual (pg. 208):

It really isn't explicit about the point you're making.
Even if you accept that it is making that point, I think it's just a case of matching fluff to the TT rule as written, not to the intended effect of the rule.

Quote

That depends on how robust the Devs make the game and its rules.

True. With just a single rate of fire there's no possibility of "cheating".

[Strum Wealh]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Sturm, I think you're getting a bit too in-depth!

Perhaps... just a bit.

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

TT has 10 second turns.
If you want to reduce a rate of fire from "2" to "1.5" (I won't clarify, you understand what I mean) how do you do it?
Decree that the gun alternates between 1 and 2 shots per turn? That won't work - a much better way is to add a risk of jamming and let the player reduce the rate of fire himself.
I really do believe that is the point of the jamming risk.

In a RT game you have no such problem - you can easily adjust RoF by the millisecond if you want.

Indeed, the TT game has time segmented into 10-second "turns".

ACs are described as being fed from magazines/clips, as opposed to belts (making them more akin to very large, smoothbore versions modern assault rifles than most modern autocannons; one example of a real-life, vehicle-mounted, magazine/clip-fed autocannon is the L21A1 RARDEN used by the British Army).
The fluff, quoted above, even mentions how the magazines/clips for the Ultra ACs are designed for compatibility with the high-speed loading system, which makes them incompatible with the special munitions (why they can't redesign the munitions to fix that, I don't know... BT engineering, right? ).

As such, I maintain that the ammo counts listed in the TT tables represent the number of magazines/clips present in the ammo bin, where each magazine/clip contains enough individual shells for 10-seconds worth of continuous fire.
That is, an AC-20 that fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells from a single magazine/clip at a rate of one shell every 0.50 seconds and an AC-20 that fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells from a single magazine/clip at a rate of one shell every 2.50 seconds will still have the same DPS; each gun delivers 20 points of damage per 10-second period despite having vastly different rates-of-fire.
(It also handily explains how two different caliber guns with different rates-of-fire can be in the same "damage class".)

What the Ultra ACs do, I posit, is increase the rate of fire of the gun - to continue with the guns from the previous example, the Ultra version of the first AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 0.25 seconds while the Ultra version of the second AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 1.25 seconds.
As such, these UAC-20s fire at double the ROF of their standard counterparts and thus deliver twice as much ordinance to the target in the same amount of time; each gun now delivers 40 points of damage in a 10-second period.
The drawbacks, of course, are that the UACs go through magazines twice as quickly, build up more heat, and increase the risk of jamming the weapon (as parts may become out-of-sync with each other due to the increased vibration and/or failure of the timing system and "arming circuitry").

Now, let's use the original example guns with the modified (1.5x rather than 2.0x) TacOps rule - first AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 0.33 seconds while the Ultra version of the second AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 1.67 seconds.
As such, these AC-20s fire at one-and-a-half times their normal ROF and thus deliver 50% more ordinance to the target in the same amount of time; each gun now delivers 30 points of damage in a 10-second period while going through magazines/clips more quickly than normal (but not as quickly as the UACs) with many of the same drawbacks of their faster-firing UAC brethren.

And the UACs are purpose-designed to deal with the double-fire setting - Standard ACs are not designed to deal with that level of stress, and (like every machine) when pushed too far beyond its design limit for too long, something is going to give (usually catastrophically and/or spectacularly), hence Standard ACs' destroying themselves as opposed to UACs' disabling themselves (something like completely burning out a circuit board vs blowing a single fuse or diode so that the circuit board as a whole survives) - this, IMO, being what the "jamming" mechanic represents.

It is, then, the player's responsibility to constantly evaluate not only how much ordinance is needed to neutralize a target, but how quickly that ordinance is to be delivered.
"Is it worth the risks associated with the high-ROF setting, or will the lower-risk low-ROF setting suffice?"
The ability to rationally make a decision based on the answer to that question (among others) and effectively and efficiently act on that decision is part of what I referred to in referencing "player discipline".

That's how, IMO, variable ROF (settings changed by user toggle, of course) should be done in a real-time situation/game.

Your thoughts?

[Solis Obscuri]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

This is getting OT. Thread is: should we boost ACs with the (official, optional) Tac Ops rapid fire rule, to stop them being second class weapons? (My paraphrasing )

I think that autocannons should be designed such that they are not "second-class weapons", without requiring a secondary mode of fire.

And from what I've seen on the forums, the assumption that autocannons will be "second-class weapons" is based on the assumptions that:

• Lasers will have similar cycle times to autocannons
  
• Grouped laser fire ("laser boating") will be able to concentrate damage as effectively or more effectively than autocannons
  
• Autocannon ammunition will not last long enough to make autocannons a viable weapon in combat, considering miss chance and damage output
  
• The additional heat generated from firing lasers vs. autocannons will be offset by the light weight of lasers, actually allowing "laser-boat" 'mechs to dissipate heat more effectively than autocannon-equipped 'mechs

Each problem, respectively, can be solved by:

• Making sure lasers don't have too short of a cycle time (except maybe pulse lasers)
  
• Prevent grouped weapons from all having the same impact point, particularly if firing while moving (I also kind of like the idea of allowing a more precise "aim" for holding the crosshairs steady on a target while stationary, vs. running-point-and-shoot)
  
• Autocannons are an "aggressive" weapon, so make them give out higher rates of damage with a short cycle time (a.k.a. "high-DPS"). The trade-off for ammo dependency is the ability to cripple or destroy enemy units faster than they can destroy you.
  
• It's fine as long as it's still a trade off: use energy weapons and have plenty of heat sinks and run cool but have lower DPS, or use ammo-dependent weapons and run cooler with higher DPS (until you run out of ammo), or run with a mix of weapons and fewer heat sinks and accept that you will periodically have to cease firing to cool down.

So I see no real need to have an option 1.5x mode. It just creates more complication in using the autocannon, and creates an additional feature which has to be balanced from a design standpoint.

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

I disagree.

What the risk of jamming does is encourage player discipline - "let up on the trigger or you'll jam your weapon and won't be able to use it any more!"

I disagree. Jamming gives you a 1-in-8 chance of disabling your biggest and most powerful weapon the first time you fire it, and possibly even blowing yourself up with an internal ammo explosion; within a TT "sim" this adds some flavor to the weapon, but within a competitive video game, it just tells people they shouldn't be using autocannons.

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

What lowering the ROF without the risk of jamming does is let one fire continuously (at least, until one runs out of ammo), which encourages "lead-trigger"/"spray-and-pray" gameplay.

No, letting people fire continuously lets people fire continuously. Though limited ammunition certainly should make people consider the usefulness of that tactic!

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Without the risk of jamming (or some other, similar limiting mechanic, like worrying about "barrel overheating"), ACs turn into the continuous-fire "bullet hoses" that they evidently were not meant to be (that's what MGs are for), rather than burst-fire weapons.

Or you can just make them weapons that fire a burst, then have to reload for a few seconds while the feed unit brings in the next casette "round" of ammo.

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Looking at the description for Ultra ACs found in the Tech Manual (pg. 208):

Part of the entire point of the Ultra ACs is that they have two different rates-of-fire: the lower-ROF setting, where they function identically to the same-damage-rating Standard ACs (while being heavier and having a slightly longer effective range) and the higher-ROF setting, where they double the ROF, putting twice as many shells in the air per unit time and allowing them to "dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time" at the cost of increased ammo consumption, increased heating, decreased accuracy, and increased risk of jamming and disabling the weapon.

Likewise, the entire point of the TacOps rule under discussion is that Standard ACs may be able to (poorly) emulate the Ultra ACs' ability - they too would have a higher-ROF setting whereby they can put more shells in the air per unit time (which translated into increased damage per unit time) at the cost of increased ammo consumption, increased heating, decreased accuracy, and increased risk of jamming and outright destroying (rather than just disabling) the weapon as well as the much lower-risk "normal-ROF" setting.

Or you can just give the UltraAC half the cycle time of the autocannon, and not punish players for using either weapon system.

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Implementing variable ROF settings (especially when there are only two choices: high and low/normal) as a player-toggled setting could easily allow for this in a real-time setting, and (I would imagine) be fairly easy-to-do.

Though it still doesn't provide a reason for needing the complication of this additional mechanic, or any reason why it would be particularly desireable.

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Indeed, the TT game has time segmented into 10-second "turns".

ACs are described as being fed from magazines/clips, as opposed to belts (making them more akin to very large, smoothbore versions modern assault rifles than most modern autocannons; one example of a real-life, vehicle-mounted, magazine/clip-fed autocannon is the L21A1 RARDEN used by the British Army).
The fluff, quoted above, even mentions how the magazines/clips for the Ultra ACs are designed for compatibility with the high-speed loading system, which makes them incompatible with the special munitions (why they can't redesign the munitions to fix that, I don't know... BT engineering, right? ).

As such, I maintain that the ammo counts listed in the TT tables represent the number of magazines/clips present in the ammo bin,

Agree up to this point...

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

where each magazine/clip contains enough individual shells for 10-seconds worth of continuous fire.
That is, an AC-20 that fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells from a single magazine/clip at a rate of one shell every 0.50 seconds and an AC-20 that fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells from a single magazine/clip at a rate of one shell every 2.50 seconds will still have the same DPS; each gun delivers 20 points of damage per 10-second period despite having vastly different rates-of-fire.
(It also handily explains how two different caliber guns with different rates-of-fire can be in the same "damage class".)

Do you seriously want to make the AC/20 into a weapon you have to continuously fire at the same part of a target for ten seconds in order to do full damage? That's going to be a terrible weapon, if every other weapon type gets to discharge in under a second for full damage, allowing them to then run for cover over the next nine seconds while the guy with the AC/20 chases them around like an annoying younger sibling ("Come back! Mom said you have to play with me! C'mon, I get to shoot you back! This isn't fair! I'm telling...")
The only way that could possibly be balanced out is if say...

• PPCs and lasers are beam weapons that have to be held on target for 10s to do full damage
  
• Missile launchers fire one missile very few seconds - say, once every 2.5s for an SRM-4, one per second for an LRM-10, 2 per second for an LRM 20, etc.
  
• Uhh... Gauss Rifles only have the one slug so... I guess it takes ten seconds to get to the target, so you have to lead it a lot...

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

What the Ultra ACs do, I posit, is increase the rate of fire of the gun - to continue with the guns from the previous example, the Ultra version of the first AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 0.25 seconds while the Ultra version of the second AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 1.25 seconds.
As such, these UAC-20s fire at double the ROF of their standard counterparts and thus deliver twice as much ordinance to the target in the same amount of time; each gun now delivers 40 points of damage in a 10-second period.
The drawbacks, of course, are that the UACs go through magazines twice as quickly, build up more heat, and increase the risk of jamming the weapon (as parts may become out-of-sync with each other due to the increased vibration and/or failure of the timing system and "arming circuitry").

Now, let's use the original example guns with the modified (1.5x rather than 2.0x) TacOps rule - first AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 0.33 seconds while the Ultra version of the second AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 1.67 seconds.
As such, these AC-20s fire at one-and-a-half times their normal ROF and thus deliver 50% more ordinance to the target in the same amount of time; each gun now delivers 30 points of damage in a 10-second period while going through magazines/clips more quickly than normal (but not as quickly as the UACs) with many of the same drawbacks of their faster-firing UAC brethren.

And the UACs are purpose-designed to deal with the double-fire setting - Standard ACs are not designed to deal with that level of stress, and (like every machine) when pushed too far beyond its design limit for too long, something is going to give (usually catastrophically and/or spectacularly), hence Standard ACs' destroying themselves as opposed to UACs' disabling themselves (something like completely burning out a circuit board vs blowing a single fuse or diode so that the circuit board as a whole survives) - this, IMO, being what the "jamming" mechanic represents.

It is, then, the player's responsibility to constantly evaluate not only how much ordinance is needed to neutralize a target, but how quickly that ordinance is to be delivered.
"Is it worth the risks associated with the high-ROF setting, or will the lower-risk low-ROF setting suffice?"
The ability to rationally make a decision based on the answer to that question (among others) and effectively and efficiently act on that decision is part of what I referred to in referencing "player discipline".

That's how, IMO, variable ROF (settings changed by user toggle, of course) should be done in a real-time situation/game.

Your thoughts?

Well...

This is what I'm seeing as the train of logic supporting the TacOps rules for autocannons:

• Let's put multiple rates of fire for autocannons (from TacOps) in the game
  
• This is a justifiable effort if it is required to make a autocannons a worthwhile weapon to equip
  
• Which means that autocannons need to be bad without an increased rate of fire option
  
• So autocannons should be weapons that do damage very gradually and jam a lot
  
• But the variable rate of fire will make them good, because they'll do damage faster by firing faster
  
• But then they'll blow up and kill you
  
• Or, best case, run out of ammo fast
  
• But we don't want people just running around with their finger on the trigger spraying down the countryside
  
• And they'll do that if the autocannons fire slowly
  
• So we need to make the autocannons fire fast
  
• But make the ammo really weak, so it takes ten seconds to get the full damage effect of a burst
  
• So everyone who uses an autocannon will have to run around with his/her finger on the trigger all the time to do any appreciable damage
  
• Though it won't be quite so bad using the TacOps "rapid-fire"
  
• But then their gun will jam and set off an internal ammo explosion

Well, you guys have convinced me - the TacOps rules for rapid fire should definitely not be included in this game!

[Dlardrageth]

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

[...]
What the Ultra ACs do, I posit, is increase the rate of fire of the gun - to continue with the guns from the previous example, the Ultra version of the first AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 0.25 seconds while the Ultra version of the second AC-20 in high-ROF mode now fires bursts of up to four 5-damage shells at a rate of one shell every 1.25 seconds.
As such, these UAC-20s fire at double the ROF of their standard counterparts and thus deliver twice as much ordinance to the target in the same amount of time; each gun now delivers 40 points of damage in a 10-second period.
The drawbacks, of course, are that the UACs go through magazines twice as quickly, build up more heat, and increase the risk of jamming the weapon (as parts may become out-of-sync with each other due to the increased vibration and/or failure of the timing system and "arming circuitry").[...]

Maintaining the 1-dmg-per-shot ratio and assuming a salvo of 20 shots accordingly would then turn the barrel size of an AC20 the same as an AC2 though, wouldn't it? Because suspension of disbelief wouldn't really work with a way larger bore/shell size on the AC20 while doing the exact same 1-dmg-per-shot as an AC2 IMHO. Unless you assume that for some reason the dmg-per-shot ratio of an AC2 is way off or it has for some reason an extremely weird firing cycle.

Wonder how that fits canon, on a side note...

[Graphite]

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Perhaps... just a bit.

Gah! Strum, your posts are too big!

Quote

Indeed, the TT game has time segmented into 10-second "turns".

ACs are described as being fed from magazines/clips, as opposed to belts (making them more akin to very large, smoothbore versions modern assault rifles than most modern autocannons; one example of a real-life, vehicle-mounted, magazine/clip-fed autocannon is the L21A1 RARDEN used by the British Army).
The fluff, quoted above, even mentions how the magazines/clips for the Ultra ACs are designed for compatibility with the high-speed loading system, which makes them incompatible with the special munitions (why they can't redesign the munitions to fix that, I don't know... BT engineering, right? ).

ACs represent classes of weapons - some fire bursts of smaller projectiles, some fire fewer larger projectiles.
See the first couple of paragraphs here for a better explanation: http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20

Quote

And the UACs are purpose-designed to deal with the double-fire setting - Standard ACs are not designed to deal with that level of stress, and (like every machine) when pushed too far beyond its design limit for too long, something is going to give (usually catastrophically and/or spectacularly), hence Standard ACs' destroying themselves as opposed to UACs' disabling themselves (something like completely burning out a circuit board vs blowing a single fuse or diode so that the circuit board as a whole survives) - this, IMO, being what the "jamming" mechanic represents.

They can't be unjammed in the field, so exploding is no different to jamming unless you're playing a campaign or something.

Quote

That's how, IMO, variable ROF (settings changed by user toggle, of course) should be done in a real-time situation/game.

Your thoughts?

Well, I definitely disagree (just too fiddly for good gameplay - a nice clean RoF change is all that's needed), but this forum would be pretty boring if we all agreed with each other

Solis Obscuri, on 25 January 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

I think that autocannons should be designed such that they are not "second-class weapons", without requiring a secondary mode of fire.

//snip//

Well, you guys have convinced me - the TacOps rules for rapid fire should definitely not be included in this game!

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second - a RoF increase, to approximate the change you would actually see from introducing the rule, is all that's needed.

Dlardrageth, on 25 January 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Wonder how that fits canon, on a side note...

See top of my post...

Edited by Graphite, 26 January 2012 - 02:20 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Graphite, on 26 January 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:

Gah! Strum, your posts are too big!

Quote

See top of my post...

I'm afraid you lost me there... What has one to do with the other?

[Graphite]

Dlardrageth, on 26 January 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I'm afraid you lost me there... What has one to do with the other?

Sorry, I meant this:

ACs represent classes of weapons - some fire bursts of smaller projectiles, some fire fewer larger projectiles.
See the first couple of paragraphs here for a better explanation: http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20

[Karl Streiger]

Solis Obscuri, on 25 January 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

• Making sure lasers don't have too short of a cycle time (except maybe pulse lasers)
  
• Prevent grouped weapons from all having the same impact point, particularly if firing while moving (I also kind of like the idea of allowing a more precise "aim" for holding the crosshairs steady on a target while stationary, vs. running-point-and-shoot)
  
• Autocannons are an "aggressive" weapon, so make them give out higher rates of damage with a short cycle time (a.k.a. "high-DPS"). The trade-off for ammo dependency is the ability to cripple or destroy enemy units faster than they can destroy you.
  
• It's fine as long as it's still a trade off: use energy weapons and have plenty of heat sinks and run cool but have lower DPS, or use ammo-dependent weapons and run cooler with higher DPS (until you run out of ammo), or run with a mix of weapons and fewer heat sinks and accept that you will periodically have to cease firing to cool down.

i second that

there was a time where the different ROF of a weapon in TT did matter: Duel - Rules invited with Solaris IV isn't it.
As far as i can remember the AC 5 had a RoF of 1, while a PPC fired only every 3 or 4 round - like the large laser.
so replacing a AC 5 with a PPC means in standard rules a better mech (cheaper, no ammunition explosion...) - for example wolverine K and Shadow Hawk K
while it gives you in duel rules a worser mech because of its slower ROF and the greater heat

the simulation of duel rules was best in mw3 - make the weapons like in mw 3 and most things would be ok

i guess the handling of a ac isn't dependent of its caliber (difference between Pontiac 100 and Tomodzuru)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 January 2012 - 02:57 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Graphite, on 26 January 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Sorry, I meant this:

ACs represent classes of weapons - some fire bursts of smaller projectiles, some fire fewer larger projectiles.
See the first couple of paragraphs here for a better explanation: http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/20

You might want to cross-reference the article about the AC2. The exact same phrase: "Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire." is to be found there. Now if you look at the listed examples for AC20s though, they seem all to have at least a 150mm caliber.

Furthermore it also says:

Quote

Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor

Which is more or less an indirect quote from the rules. Would be rather interesting to find a real example for a 30mm gun doing same damage as a 203mm one... The next sentence after that tries to relativize the one quoted above by stating:

Quote

The exact same caliber of shell fired in a 100 shot burst to do 20 damage will have a shorter effective range than when fired in a 10 shot burst to do 2 damage due to recoil and other factors.

...but interestingly gives no footnote for a source for that interpretation! Also mind the point about caliber there further downwards.

Doesn't sound to me like it is very believable that your average AC2 has the same caliber as your average AC20, sorry. Unless I can get a more reliable source for AC20 and AC2 usually having similar calibers, I don't buy it.

[Graphite]

Dlardrageth, on 26 January 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

Doesn't sound to me like it is very believable that your average AC2 has the same caliber as your average AC20, sorry. Unless I can get a more reliable source for AC20 and AC2 usually having similar calibers, I don't buy it.

The point was that the assumption you based your whole argument on :"1 point per projectile" is wrong.
There is no such fact.

[Dlardrageth]

Graphite, on 26 January 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

The point was that the assumption you based your whole argument on :"1 point per projectile" is wrong.
There is no such fact.

You do realize I quoted Strum Wealh's post stating: "[...]now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells[...]" and replied to this, right?"

So care to enlighten me now how my assumption is wrong? Which quite obviously wasn't made by me? I was replying to the model Strum suggested. The whole canon issue was a mere side note, as very clearly stated by myself in my post.

So it is totally irrelevant IMHO if you state that by canon there is no fact of 1-dmg-per-shot or not, because I wasn't referring to the canon to start with. That was a mere secondary thought on thinking about calibers and AC sizes.

I was adressing specifically a point in Strum's post I found intriguing. And thus my reply there and the statement of mine about AC sizes and calibers. Based simply on the quoted text. It doesn't matter and I don't really care if in an alternate universe the barrel sizes of ACs go by standard X or Z, I simply pointed out a conceptual difficulty in Strum's model.

So thanks for the effort to pointing me to Sarna.Net which I happened to know already , but it's largely irrelevant, because it doesn't offer helpful info pertaining to the subject of the matter. Which is - and was - the AC size question with the model described by Strum in his post.

[Graphite]

Dlardrageth, on 26 January 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

You do realize I quoted Strum Wealh's post stating: "[...]now fires bursts of up to twenty 1-damage shells[...]" and replied to this, right?"

No I didn't, sorry.