71 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Gunmage, on 11 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

@Pht
OK, so mechs don't get knocked over, they just go off-balance and fall down. The result is the same - mech lying on the ground. Right?

If the pilot can't correct for being off balance, yes; the mech falls over. But falling over is not the same thing as being knocked around and not falling over.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 11 February 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

Actually if the mech "knock" only moves the mech slightly but the pilot is shaken about so that he is temporarily unable to focus/fire it is having the desired effect. Whatever the reason that mech is temporarily unable to return fire which is the required effect is it not?

I dont' see how that would a desirable affect to have in game.

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Remember guys, the first BT novels came out in 1984, when high energy lasers with enough power to actually cause damage were a far thing into the future (in the real world). Not trying to rip on the lore, but the tech is outdated, even to our standards. Perhaps the newer Tech Readouts have better clarified weapon mechanics, but energy weapons especially are a very gray area.

You know, for the life of me, I don't understand why people appeal to what we can .... or can't ... do with our current technology as grounds for changing a fictional universe around.

Part of the fun of the game is escapism... if all we wanted was "real life" ... why would we be playing a game in the first place?

Quote

Also note how many of the books are written by various authors. Yes, they probably collaborated very closely to get the facts right, but there still are some glaring inconsistencies, especially in the weapons department. One author may portray a six-pack of micro lasers "a damaging assault" while another says a trio of medium lasers do nothing more than "bubble the paint off some armor".

Which is why the story lore is only useable for concepts. The hard numbers must come from the parent system.

Quote

If we keep going back to the lore, how will the Battletech Universe ever expand?

If we keep arbitrarily ignoring the lore, how will the BTU not shrink down to nothing, as eventually all of it will be tossed for "new shinies?" If expansion is what's wanted, than expand it don't go tossing out what's already there, and for nebulous reasons to boot.

Quote

Many diehard fans have already denounced the Dark Age series as non-canon because it didn't "fit to their standards". Perhaps this game is a good chance for a bit of a rewrite on the minor things that just don't make sense in today's world. I am not suggesting changing any history, nor editing any of the primary mech variants. All I am saying is that certain weapons do need a bit more clarification.

The tech - the mechanics of the 'Mechs and the weapons - did not change in DA, and it's the tech that's being discussed. I don't see what it is that you think needs clarification.

UncleKulikov, on 11 February 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Lasers need some weakness to counter their hitscan. One way to do that would be to have them deal no knockback. That would make weapon choice more tactical, whether it's worth it to have the knockback or the efficiency.

Weapons should knock back as if they were fired singly, so combined. 2 LRM 5s should hit with the same force as a LRM 10 and so on.

Lasers do not have to do hitscan. There's nothing about them that makes that kind of behavior necessary... in fact, in most of the lore, they're already blurbed as having some slashing effect; the don't do all of their damage in a single instant of "on time."

[Trogusaur]

Pht, on 11 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

You know, for the life of me, I don't understand why people appeal to what we can .... or can't ... do with our current technology as grounds for changing a fictional universe around.

Part of the fun of the game is escapism... if all we wanted was "real life" ... why would we be playing a game in the first place?



Which is why the story lore is only useable for concepts. The hard numbers must come from the parent system.



If we keep arbitrarily ignoring the lore, how will the BTU not shrink down to nothing, as eventually all of it will be tossed for "new shinies?" If expansion is what's wanted, than expand it don't go tossing out what's already there, and for nebulous reasons to boot.



The tech - the mechanics of the 'Mechs and the weapons - did not change in DA, and it's the tech that's being discussed. I don't see what it is that you think needs clarification.

Funny you mention escapism, that is the whole point of a war game, you're not in it, but you're using conventional weapons. ACs are as close to conventional as they can be, as are Gauss, all missles, and others. Why abandon that now that we have found the real properties of a laser?

I could not disagree more about your comment on how things are moving away from the canon. In fact, it's a little to close, and completely closing off all chance of new material. With all the loreheads running around, there will be absolutely nothing new from what we have seen in the past, aside from gameplay mechanics, something you also continue to fight.

BT won't shrink from change, it will help interest new people. Notice how 80+% of the BT fanbase is 25 years or older, meaning most players were there at the beginning, and there is no growth between ages. If we continue to stick to every single word the canon says, BT will continue to shrink, not grow.

And notice how all the other weapons (aside from lasers, they didn't exist yet) followed true to conventional weapons from the 80's. BT had to make the lasers up by guesswork and theory from the very beginning. Now that we know what it would take to build a laser that powerful, there must be something to accurately fit it. So for the life of you, it's time for just a bit of change.

[Pht]

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

Funny you mention escapism, that is the whole point of a war game, you're not in it, but you're using conventional weapons. ACs are as close to conventional as they can be, as are Gauss, all missles, and others. Why abandon that now that we have found the real properties of a laser?

... Um, no, BT weapons are not conventional. Not at all. http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__95839 http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__13666 http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__12993

And we don't know the real properties of lasers. We never will. We can't. Karl Popper is worth reading in places, even if he sometimes seems to refuse to accept his own conclusions for no good reason.

Quote

I could not disagree more about your comment on how things are moving away from the canon. In fact, it's a little to close, and completely closing off all chance of new material. With all the loreheads running around, there will be absolutely nothing new from what we have seen in the past, aside from gameplay mechanics, something you also continue to fight.

You say it's "too close" - examples? And what reasons make it a bad thing to follow the lore, as you seem to be saying?

"Closing off all chance of new material" - a red herring and a strawman. Following what's already established does not mean you cannot add to what's already there. If you're going to disagree, disagree with what's actually been posted; and nowhere (in the past ten years, actually) have I posted anything to the tune of "the lore cannot be added to."

Quote

BT won't shrink from change, it will help interest new people. Notice how 80+% of the BT fanbase is 25 years or older, meaning most players were there at the beginning, and there is no growth between ages. If we continue to stick to every single word the canon says, BT will continue to shrink, not grow.

What I specifically referenced was the idea that it's ok to toss out the lore for whatever arbitrary reasons - the natural conclusion of that would be to finally have the entire lore trashed, down the road, as virtually everything would be questioned than left by the side of the road. The lore isn't expanded by allowing anything to be tossed out of it; it's expanded by adding to it; which the MWO devs have been doing - witness the UAV drones in the promo vid, which are new but "fit" the already established lore.

To the rest of this paragraph:

80% of the bt fanbase is 25 yoa+,

the bt lore has not changed,

Therefore, bt is not picking up new fans because it has not changed.


Your conclusion simply does not follow.

Quote

And notice how all the other weapons (aside from lasers, they didn't exist yet) followed true to conventional weapons from the 80's. BT had to make the lasers up by guesswork and theory from the very beginning. Now that we know what it would take to build a laser that powerful, there must be something to accurately fit it.

Um, lasers have been around in functional form since may of 1960.

Quote

So for the life of you, it's time for just a bit of change.

Change, no. Expansion? Maybe, if it fits what's already there. I've no interest in going after whatever the latest fad is.

[Robert Silverton]

I would say energy weapons would cause no knockback. but could still cause a distabalizing effect for falling purposes.

simple example would be your runnning along at top speed then get hit by 2 clan large lasers both hit you on the right side of you mech now all of a sudden you gyro has to compinsate for the lose of a ton 1\2 of armor in the 1 second between strides.

[Trogusaur]

What do you mean laser properties can't be studied? I know they have been around since the 60's, but they have not been a viable weapon til now. Observe. http://www.engadget....t-ablaze-video/ That is a weaponized laser in action. See any knockback there?

I didn't say it is a bad thing to follow canon, I am saying the loreheads are pushing for this game to follow canon to the letter. I didn't clarify in the last post. The Autocannon is based off weapons of today, regardless of size. Size of the weapons were adapted to fit the giant robot scheme, and does not take away from the fact huge ballistic shells exist. Gauss rifles are similar to today's railgun, in the way they function. Missles in BT act like real missles. Why should lasers not act like real lasers??

When did anyone say, "let's screw the lore and make our own game"? No, the devs have made it very clear that they will stick to the timeline, mech loadouts, and BT combat mechanics as well as they can. I am simply proposing changing the way some weapons work, now that we have more information on how they function. Is even that too much a change? The BT fanatics also went crazy over the UAV from the vid because it wasn't canon, don't try to say people were not combative over that. It seems that there is absolutely no room for change, even when it makes sense to do so.

Your argument about the fanbase not increasing rests my case. BT is mostly followed by people who have played from the early ages. The fact so many older people play it (and so few young people) mean that Battletech has added few new followers since the first of the fanbase developed. Hence, the stagnation of growth within the community.

It feels as if you weren't there from the beginning, you have no chance at catching up with all the lore. Therefore you have no place playing Battletech games, according to diehard fans. That is the message you people convey when you cry "everything must be how it was since day 1!" This is coming from an 18 year old, who has struggled for almost a decade trying to understand BT's vast history. It simply isn't attractive to be shunned by the old fanbase because you don't know as much as they.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 11 February 2012 - 06:19 PM.

[Pht]

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

What do you mean laser properties can't be studied? I know they have been around since the 60's, but they have not been a viable weapon til now. Observe. http://www.engadget....t-ablaze-video/ That is a weaponized laser in action. See any knockback there?

I mean just that - laser properties can't be studied.

wikipedia said:

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method ...

http://en.wikipedia....em_of_induction

"Viable as a weapon." The language wasn't clear on this point.

Quote

I didn't say it is a bad thing to follow canon, I am saying the loreheads are pushing for this game to follow canon to the letter. I didn't clarify in the last post. The Autocannon is based off weapons of today, regardless of size.

Even if the AC's were based off of the weapons of the day during the time of their implementation (and unless the people that implemented them tell us this, how can we say we know this?)... How does that mean, of necessity, we should ignore the lore?

Quote

Why should lasers not act like real lasers??

If you hadn't noted, I've been of the group that has been saying that lasers don't generate knock; and besides, if you really want to get mind bent, apparently what passes for "modern physics knowledge" (an oxymoron, see wiki link) says that lasers *do* have knock... http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=379922

Quote

When did anyone say, "let's screw the lore and make our own game"? No, the devs have made it very clear that they will stick to the timeline, mech loadouts, and BT combat mechanics as well as they can. I am simply proposing changing the way some weapons work, now that we have more information on how they function. Is even that too much a change? The BT fanatics also went crazy over the UAV from the vid because it wasn't canon, don't try to say people were not combative over that. It seems that there is absolutely no room for change, even when it makes sense to do so.

I'll agree that crying over the UAV is silly. It fits the BTU tech and isn't a game-breaker and does not require some other tech be trashed.

Beyond that, I wasn't saying that you meant "let's screw the lore" - what I was pointing out is that when our standards for what to keep and not keep are purely arbitrary, *nothing* can survive; anything at all can be argued against and tossed.

Quote

Your argument about the fanbase not increasing rests my case. BT is mostly followed by people who have played from the early ages. The fact so many older people play it (and so few young people) mean that Battletech has added few new followers since the first of the fanbase developed. Hence, the stagnation of growth within the community.

That's not my argument; it's yours. Did you not notice that your conclusion is wrong and not supported by what you're basing it on?

If you want a monkey wrench in the works again - that BT is followed by older people does not mean it is adding few new followers. For all you know, it could have quite a few new followers; but they are getting in at an older age.

Quote

It feels as if you weren't there from the beginning, you have no chance at catching up with all the lore. Therefore you have no place playing Battletech games, according to diehard fans.

You do realize that your conclusion isn't valid?

That someone doesn't know all the lore does not mean they have no place playing the game. In fact, there probably *is no single person* who knows the entire lore; or even most of it. Even randall bills (who's JOB it is to know the lore) has said that he has to look things up.

If anyone ever tries to use that line on you, point this out to them.

Quote

That is the message you people convey when you cry "everything must be how it was since day 1!"

I'm not arguing that this is not what you think is being conveyed. That said, ... arguing for an already existing lore does not convey that newbies should keep out. Again, the conclusion simply cannot and does not follow.

Quote

This is coming from an 18 year old, who has struggled for almost a decade trying to understand BT's vast history. It simply isn't attractive to be shunned by the old fanbase because you don't know as much as they.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not shunning newbies. Pointing out where something or the other is contrary to the lore does not mean you want someone out of the community.

Anyways, yes, the lore is huge; so pick a corner of it you find compelling, and get to know that. Don't sweat all the rest... and be happy you have sarna, the comstar historical archives, and the BT forums to go look up what you don't know; most of the loreheads around nowadays didn't have them when they got into the universe.

[Dezereus]

I'm at work and don't have time to read all the posts for this, so I hope you can forgive me if someone has already brought up this point. When it comes to lasers causing rocking/whatever, or any weapon for that matter; at least part of the rocking/cause of imbalance is the loss of "tons" of armour. The loss of weight imbalances the mech' requiring the pilot to regain stability or quite possibly fall.

I think the poll is interesting as it tries to ask several interactions of weapons and the resulting effect on the mech'. But the poll is too incomplete; we need to consider the physics of the kinetic energy being transferred, explosive impacts, damage dealt(loss of armor), location of hits, weight of the mech' involved, direction of movement vs source/direction of fire in relation to this, cockpit hits, and so much more. This is a subject that would take an immense amount of work and understanding of physics to even begin hypothetical thought on weapons that are quite frankly, science fiction. I don't doubt that we could draw parallels and come up with reasonable estimates for what to expect in the form of force, but by in large it comes down to fact that we have very little to go on for a complete scientific understanding of some of the weapons.

So, now we sit at an impasse, where we must make the assumption that the developers will take our trust in them seriously and deliver the goods. While this poll certainly encourages some intelligent discussion on the subject, I do not believe that our opinions for something that can and should be grounded in physics matter when it comes to this. For me I will trust that the developers will give the best experience possible within the limitations of our understanding of physics on an entirely science fiction set of technologies.

Apologies for the ol' wall o' text approach

[Trogusaur]

Not to cut off the exponentially increasing size of each post, but I think we can agree to disagree on the off-topic points. The arguments are getting invariably silly, and I don't really have the time nor attention to squabble over normatives.

Personally, I would like to see zero recoil on a laser weapon, considering it is still a beam of energy. As an equal tradeoff for the receiving party, no knockback. For missles, I would like to see an increasing destabilization of the targeted mech as it continues to be rocked off balance. For AC's, I prefer to see heavier firing recoil as the weapon increases followed by heavier return in the event of a clean hit. I think a trio of smaller ACs should stack intensity of the impact, but slightly less than 3x more potent, considering how each shell should spread across the torso.

This is all assuming damage values remain the same, obviously. Again, this is strictly regarding impact and recoil. And this poll is based on public opinion, not necessarily based on canon nor physics. Just giving and receiving input

Edited by Lord Trogus, 16 February 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[Exploding Boy]

I like the idea of knockback and recoil.

Makes the targeting computer (limit recoil/speed up convergence), piloting skill, the MWO "modules" make sense.

Not sure about lasers having recoil or knockback...maybe the mech does turn a bit in one direction based on which side was hit? Interesting topic, regardless.

[Trogusaur]

My thoughts exactly. While playing through the other MW games, I found it easy to develop mechs that could constantly cause knock without repercussions. For instance, 4x LBX-5 AC in MW4 could constantly rock a target on each hit, disorienting the receiver and causing a great deal of disruption to any chance of retaliation. However, group firing them would still cause the same rocking! I also noticed adding even one Large Laser into the mix exponentially increased chances of completely knocking over the mech. Why is it that there is seemingly a stacking system for knockover, but not knockback?

[Lusankya]

Lasers giving knocks in MW4 always has and still bothers me. I thought the lasers in MW3 were pretty good as they were basically a flash of light and I really liked that.

[Pht]

Lord Trogus, on 17 February 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

My thoughts exactly. While playing through the other MW games, I found it easy to develop mechs that could constantly cause knock without repercussions. For instance, 4x LBX-5 AC in MW4 could constantly rock a target on each hit, disorienting the receiver and causing a great deal of disruption to any chance of retaliation. However, group firing them would still cause the same rocking! I also noticed adding even one Large Laser into the mix exponentially increased chances of completely knocking over the mech. Why is it that there is seemingly a stacking system for knockover, but not knockback?

... and why were there ghost legs and side torsos? who knows?

IMO, the knock/recoil effect, as far as aiming is concerned, is unnecessary, and not something 'Mechs really suffer from.

[Kraktzor]

Pht, on 10 February 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

No, they don't get knocked over - they go "off balance" because their gyroscopic mechanism can't compensate quickly enough for unpredictable losses of weight due to what amounts to instantaneous damage chopping off weight.

It would be like a hiker with a heavy backpack going up an incline suddenly having his backpack removed.

Uh, actually yes they do. TT rules say that if you take enough damage at once, you need to make a Piloting roll or fall down. And it only takes 20 points to do it (I think), so a couple AC/10's is all you needed to (possibly) knock a Mech over.

[Trogusaur]

Lusankya, on 17 February 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Lasers giving knocks in MW4 always has and still bothers me. I thought the lasers in MW3 were pretty good as they were basically a flash of light and I really liked that.

Unforunately, it has pretty much been decided that the Mechwarrior games have absolutely no validity in the canon, despite the fact every game was based on the timeline of BT history. It's mostly because of inconsistencies between gameplay and established combat rules. Holding aside the games' good memories, people still like to trash them every individual problem, and dismiss the entire game as a result when discussion the next.

Personally, I think that if there is to be any change (which there obviously has to be, according to the fact every game dealt with laser mechanics differently), there should be set rules by which every following game should have.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 21 February 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[ice trey]

Base knockback on damage.

10 AC2s are the same as a single AC20

The knockback is dependant on the number of missiles that hit.

Lasers do have knockback. Consider it flash-heating of the armor that causes an explosion-like effect. Removing the knockback of the lasers should only be done if TPTB start messing with the balance that the boardgame provides, like removing ammo explosions from the game, or making autocannons follow a ballistic trajectory.

I'm more hoping this game focuses on Balance than realism, because

• If the game isn't balanced, then we'll see nothing but the same unit and tactics over and over and over again (See: Mechwarrior 4 prior to Mektek and Mercenaries - the Atlas and Daishi, with smatterings of Novacat; Mechwarrior 4 anything - Jumpsniping AKA Pop-tarting dominating the game and making any other tactic useless)
  
• This is a game about Giant Robots. Giant Robots aren't realistic in the first place - they're just cool. "Tacticool" doesn't make it any more realistic, it just tricks us into thinking it could be. I'm glad the game is going back to it's sim roots, but at the end of the day, it's based on nothing more than make-believe. Might as well focus more on staying true to it's roots and keeping the gameplay varied and balanced, rather than trying to make it realistic based on current knowledge - thereby risking an imbalanced game that heavily favors one tactic or playstyle.

[Sug]

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

What do you mean laser properties can't be studied?

Pht, on 15 February 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I mean just that - laser properties can't be studied.

[Trogusaur]

Lawl! I never noticed that.

[NotNewHere]

New Info:
I was reading the wiki article on charged particle cannons (don't ask) and it turns out that realy heavy duty lasers like those on a mech cause recoil both to the target and weapon due to the super fast expansion of air around the beam. Also the metal directly under the beam expands causing further recoil.
Also it turns out PPC's exist in real life as prototype weapons.

A 2cm hole has 4 times the surface area of 1cm hole, bring this into the third dimension and a 2cm sphere has 8 times the volume of a 1cm sphere, pretty basic right?. Therefor an AC10 round being twice the size of an AC5 round would have 8 times the mass. Therefor 3 AC5's would still only deliver 3/8 of the mass and energy of an AC10. So if we want true realism an AC10 should cause 8 times more knockback than an AC5, and an AC20 should cause 64 times more knockback than an AC5.

http://en.wikipedia....Particle_cannon

[Trogusaur]

Most interesting! That is assuming acceleration is constant for all ballistics, however. I am not familiar how the canon describes projectile velocity, but one must assume an AC20 and an AC2 are fired at the exact same speeds in order for that to be true.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 21 February 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Halfinax, on 10 February 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Lasers shouldn't cause any kind of "impact" beyond melting away armor, and undoubtedly more ballistic or missiles hitting should have more "impact". Inertia should still be a factor. I really don't want to see some kind of hollywood action movie thing where a 1 ounce (10 bl) slug hitting a 'Mech causes it to fly back 20 ft. (20 Meters). The firing 'Mech should suffer as much recoil as the target 'Mech (except in the instance of missiles) when it comes to recoil. It's physics!

Actually, any sort of projectile would (outside of a vacuum) have less energy at the point of impact than at firing, due to the effects of drag.

However, consider also that even if the energy imparted to the target cannot be greater than the energy imparted to the firing 'mech, the rate of deceleration of any projectile as it hits the target 'mech will almost always be higher than the rate of acceleration as it exits its launcher (the exception possibly occuring when a very hard projectile simply passes through a very soft target with minimal resistance). Since the rate of energy transfer into the target is much higher, it produces a greater force on the target due to a higher Impulse produced by a higher ****. Additially, in weapons where chemical reactions (e.g. explosives) are able to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy, additional forces will be applied to the target 'mech.

An analogy might be throwing and catching a baseball. When I throw, according to Newton's 3rd law, the ball is exerting a reaction force against my hand even as my hand exerts force against the ball, but the acceleration from the throwing motion is long and gradual. When the ball is caught, it's still carrying most of the momentum and kinetic energy it had when it left my hand, and the catcher has to decelerate that mass to dissipate the energy. Typically the glove and arm flex slightly to cushion the impact, but the motion is still much more abrupt, and the force at the point of impact is greater than at the point of release.

And if the catcher isn't paying attention, and the ball hits him somewhere nice and bony (let's say swuare on the forehead), the deceleration is quite sudden, and even while the ball may retain a portion of its original momentum as a result of this collision, the force imparted to the catcher's head is greater than the force imparted to his gloved hand would have been. The impact might be enough to knock the would-be catcher down! (Yes, I've ignored some inelastic effects from the compression of the glove and the hand, but for our intents and purposes they are "small".)

Of course, there is also a second effect of hitting someone in the head with a baseball, which is the trauma and disorientation caused by being hit. Taking this comparison to the battlemech, IIRC canon documents that 'mech "knockdowns" may be caused by loss of balance due to nero-electrical feedback from damage to critical systems via the neurohelmet interface, in addition to the jarring experienced from the impact. So while the force of a stream of autocannon shells hitting a 'mech might not be sufficient to knock it over (for all that the force on the target 'mech is greater than the force on the firing 'mech), as mentioned by other commenters, the pilot will be shaken and possibly disoriented, and in addition may experience feedback if a critical hit is scored, either or both of which may result in a loss of balance.

Light is treated as both a particle and wave, but since quantum physics defines a photon as mass-less, lasers do not impart any physical force to their target, only thermal energy. I can still see them producing a knockdown from a critical hit due to feedback effects, but not as a result of impact force.

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

BT won't shrink from change, it will help interest new people. Notice how 80+% of the BT fanbase is 25 years or older, meaning most players were there at the beginning, and there is no growth between ages. If we continue to stick to every single word the canon says, BT will continue to shrink, not grow.

Can you back this up with facts, or is it just supposition?

Lord Trogus, on 11 February 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

And notice how all the other weapons (aside from lasers, they didn't exist yet) followed true to conventional weapons from the 80's. BT had to make the lasers up by guesswork and theory from the very beginning. Now that we know what it would take to build a laser that powerful, there must be something to accurately fit it. So for the life of you, it's time for just a bit of change.

We had PPCs and Gauss rifles back in 1984? Why was I not informed, I'd have definitely asked Santa for one!

Lord Trogus, on 17 February 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

My thoughts exactly. While playing through the other MW games, I found it easy to develop mechs that could constantly cause knock without repercussions. For instance, 4x LBX-5 AC in MW4 could constantly rock a target on each hit, disorienting the receiver and causing a great deal of disruption to any chance of retaliation. However, group firing them would still cause the same rocking! I also noticed adding even one Large Laser into the mix exponentially increased chances of completely knocking over the mech. Why is it that there is seemingly a stacking system for knockover, but not knockback?

Because MW4 has really borked physics? I really preferred the weapons effects of MW3.

Nightwish, on 21 February 2012 - 09:38 AM, said:

A 2cm hole has 4 times the surface area of 1cm hole, bring this into the third dimension and a 2cm sphere has 8 times the volume of a 1cm sphere, pretty basic right?. Therefor an AC10 round being twice the size of an AC5 round would have 8 times the mass. Therefor 3 AC5's would still only deliver 3/8 of the mass and energy of an AC10. So if we want true realism an AC10 should cause 8 times more knockback than an AC5, and an AC20 should cause 64 times more knockback than an AC5.

Or, if you consider the AC/10 to have twice the mass of the AC/5 round, the radius of that sphere only increases by the cubed root of 2, or is only 26% larger. Of course, spherical projectiles aren't very efficient, so I doubt they would be used in autocannons, as they aren't used in modern firearms or artillery...