61 replies to this topic

[Sym]

Given the ability to removed/add weapons as in MW3/4...I would remove any MG or Small laser for more ammo or armor. That's just me.

That being said, I do not feel that removing a weapon or weapons based on it's low damage or how much it is not used is not a good thing.
Besides, once a few years ago during a TT game I had a 40 ton Cicada with 20 Small Lasers back stabbed my Atlas and in one turn left it a smoldering wreck.

All weapons have a purpose.

[Yeach]

Sym, on 20 February 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Given the ability to removed/add weapons as in MW3/4...I would remove any MG or Small laser for more ammo or armor. That's just me.

That being said, I do not feel that removing a weapon or weapons based on it's low damage or how much it is not used is not a good thing.
Besides, once a few years ago during a TT game I had a 40 ton Cicada with 20 Small Lasers back stabbed my Atlas and in one turn left it a smoldering wreck.

All weapons have a purpose.

Is that what we want to see in Mechwarrior 40 ton Cicada with 20 small lasers?

[Dlardrageth]

Yeach, on 20 February 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Is that what we want to see in Mechwarrior 40 ton Cicada with 20 small lasers?

And on what basis do you assume that this kind of "customization" would be possible in MWO? Unless you have a deeper insight into PGI's development process there's exactly a 50/50 chance at best this would be possible. Basically you are asking to remove the smaller weaponry based on an assumption that eventually it could lead to customization munchkinism, right? I can somewhat relate to where you'Re coming from with this, not a fan of excessive customization either here, but taking into account we have nary a clue about what customization will or will not look like, I think you went a bit over the top.

Maybe some kind of stacking modifier implemented would do the job as well? In particular with an eye on future expansions bringing in combined arms elements and thus vehicles, BA and infantry possibly, I'd rather not just have the smaller weaponry nixed from the get-go.

[Yeach]

The 20 small lasers does illustrate why it requires so many of the same type of weapon to use effectively.

On their own how effective have small lasers and machine guns been in the previous mechwarrior games?
Have these weapons even been able to knock out criticals as effectively as they have in the TT game?

[verybad]

Just giove targets for things like MGs that aren't necessarilly mechs. eg a row of explosive fuel tanks. MMMMMMmm.
Infantry would be fun also.

AC-2 can be useful for long range sniping, might not cause much damage, but you can iirtate people and get them off their game.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Yeach, on 20 February 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

The 20 small lasers does illustrate why it requires so many of the same type of weapon to use effectively.

On their own how effective have small lasers and machine guns been in the previous mechwarrior games?
Have these weapons even been able to knock out criticals as effectively as they have in the TT game?

I used them all the time during the beginning of MW4 campaign, when you're fighting armor/infantry and light mechs. There is a place for them. Tell me, how would you compensate Small Lasers or MGs on light mechs when you CAN'T put heavier weapons on them huh? Just leave them weaponless?

No, you know what, I'm tired of stupid people in this forum. Yes I'm insulting people, not specifically the OP and I can be yelled at all day but its true. This is a friggin Mechwarrior/Battletech game, not your stupid modern shooters. Heck, I'd suggest implementing EVERY 'Mech, weapon, etc into the game just to have them all, useful or not. Just because its 'not the best' in someone's opinion does NOT mean that someone can not find a use for it or that it doesn't have a role to fill regardless of a person's bias towards it.

Here's my compromise, you want to remove MGs, Small Lasers, and Flamers? Then the AC20, LBX20, LRM20, PPC, Gauss Rifle, etc, every 'heavy' weapon should be left out too. If we're leaving out the smallest weapons, why should we keep the largest ones in? huh?

[HATER 1]

wow, this thread has brought some interesting responses to my mind, mostly negative. I will say this instead: the small weapons do have a dedicated place in game, that would be the anti infantry role. simply, in the fluff of the game, infantry rules supreme by virtue of numbers and ease of 'production'.

i will say this also: i noticed that lighter weapons seemed to be overpowered in the MW games. the table top stats for a Med Laser say 5 dmg, 3 heat... per turn (10 seconds) it is used. this leads me to believe that if it recharges faster than 10 seconds, the actual individual shots should go down in damage, and heat output, while still maintaining that 5:3 dmg/heat ratio. just food for thought, never did the math in a game, and MW4 just didnt count as a real MW to me

[Szandor]

Yeach, on 20 February 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

The 20 small lasers does illustrate why it requires so many of the same type of weapon to use effectively.

On their own how effective have small lasers and machine guns been in the previous mechwarrior games?
Have these weapons even been able to knock out criticals as effectively as they have in the TT game?

In MW3 and 4, I've never had trouble finding a use for small weapons such as SLs or MGs. Flamers less so... I understand the theory there but never really had much of an opportunity to throw an enemy 'Mech into overheat. I have on multiple occasions had my 'Mech saved by that last bit of damage done at close range by a quick-cycling fleabite like the SBL, or the constant barrage of machinegun fire. Look up some canon variants for assault 'Mechs and you'll see that there are quite a few packing those small lasers, and not in obscene banks of twenty. They do significantly more damage than they seem to on paper, slowly eroding the tough armor on their counterparts to set up that AC/20 or PPC haymaker, or to capitalize on armor blowthroughs made by heavier weapons.

Absolutely keep them in.

[CeeKay Boques]

You might not, but I will find a use for a single AC2. Yes I will.

*Plink*

*Plink*

"Someone is shooting me, sir."
"Where?"
"I do not know. Exploring!"

*Plink*

*Plink*

[Six6VI]

As far as machine gun arrays are concerned, those weren't developed until 3068. I don't think we'll be seeing something like that for awhile. But as posted before every weapon has a purpose and I am not in favor of removing them or modifying them.

[Yeach]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 21 February 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

I used them all the time during the beginning of MW4 campaign, when you're fighting armor/infantry and light mechs. There is a place for them. Tell me, how would you compensate Small Lasers or MGs on light mechs when you CAN'T put heavier weapons on them huh? Just leave them weaponless?

No, you know what, I'm tired of stupid people in this forum. Yes I'm insulting people, not specifically the OP and I can be yelled at all day but its true. This is a friggin Mechwarrior/Battletech game, not your stupid modern shooters. Heck, I'd suggest implementing EVERY 'Mech, weapon, etc into the game just to have them all, useful or not. Just because its 'not the best' in someone's opinion does NOT mean that someone can not find a use for it or that it doesn't have a role to fill regardless of a person's bias towards it.

Here's my compromise, you want to remove MGs, Small Lasers, and Flamers? Then the AC20, LBX20, LRM20, PPC, Gauss Rifle, etc, every 'heavy' weapon should be left out too. If we're leaving out the smallest weapons, why should we keep the largest ones in? huh?

Since I am the only person advocating this opinion, I guess you are insulting me.

MWO (as of now) is a Mech vs Mech battle; it is not a single player campaign.
There are no infantry or armor in which the role of small lasers or machine gunes might excel.
So for the light mechs that have small lasers or machine guns as stock, I would advocate to upgrade them to medium lasers.

In another post, I mentioned that adding the AC2 and small lasers effectives adds two more ranges to the short/medium/long range balance. That could possibly mean more time play in balancing them.
More weapons equal more variables and when clan weapons come in you can double that.

How smaller weapons become effective is when they are boated.
I do not want to see small/flamer/ersmall laser boats rule the game as they did in MW3 multiplayer.

Personally (if they are added), I would like to see machine guns and flamers do area-effect damage (think starcraft firebat); IMO infantry are more suspectible to that type that direct fire (ie its harder to hit a small infantry with a direct weapon than it is compared to a mech; adding area-effect makes it easier to)

Anyways its matter of opinion, but in some ways I don't think their advantages (light lasers and AC2) outweight their disadvantage in damage output.

On another tangent; how do you make the AC2 effective? If you make them faster firing (and lower damage) to fit the 10 sec TT value (like MW4 tried to do); that makes them less effective (damage is less than 2) and you would have to hold them onto the target for a longer time which will results in a few misses and greater vulnerabilty for the firing mech.

[Knoxville]

I always loved the smaller weapons for heat management reasons. It isn't uncommon for me to have a few of the largest heat generating weapons (PPCs, Large Lasers, etc) and when the heat starts to build you really need AC 2's, machine guns, and small lasers to fall back on while the heat dissipates. They can be usefully grouped in with other weapons as well, small weapons group well with mediums (AC 2 + AC 5 or small lasers + medium lasers) and once you add in the pulse variants of the small lasers you get some very viable options that don't hurt too badly in the heat department.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Yeach, on 21 February 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Since I am the only person advocating this opinion, I guess you are insulting me.

MWO (as of now) is a Mech vs Mech battle; it is not a single player campaign.
There are no infantry or armor in which the role of small lasers or machine gunes might excel.
So for the light mechs that have small lasers or machine guns as stock, I would advocate to upgrade them to medium lasers.

In another post, I mentioned that adding the AC2 and small lasers effectives adds two more ranges to the short/medium/long range balance. That could possibly mean more time play in balancing them.
More weapons equal more variables and when clan weapons come in you can double that.

How smaller weapons become effective is when they are boated.
I do not want to see small/flamer/ersmall laser boats rule the game as they did in MW3 multiplayer.

Personally (if they are added), I would like to see machine guns and flamers do area-effect damage (think starcraft firebat); IMO infantry are more suspectible to that type that direct fire (ie its harder to hit a small infantry with a direct weapon than it is compared to a mech; adding area-effect makes it easier to)

Anyways its matter of opinion, but in some ways I don't think their advantages (light lasers and AC2) outweight their disadvantage in damage output.

On another tangent; how do you make the AC2 effective? If you make them faster firing (and lower damage) to fit the 10 sec TT value (like MW4 tried to do); that makes them less effective (damage is less than 2) and you would have to hold them onto the target for a longer time which will results in a few misses and greater vulnerabilty for the firing mech.

No, I'm telling everyone on the forums who are wanting to change something just because they don't like the way it is. Not because its broken, doesn't work right, or could work better, but because they think it should be the way they want it. I never said I was insulting solely this opinion either, there are multiple "We should do this to the game..." threads in the forum with stupid ideas.

Second, you entirely ignored my point about taking out all the really big weapons, which would just make it fair to take out all the really small weapons. Following the theme of your opinion, taking these weapons out would just make it easier for devs to balance the game because it would remove the need to balance large amounts of damage with range and recycle time compared to all the medium weapons.

I would like you to answer one question to validate your opinion. What would replace these weapons on the mechs that carry them without breaking tonnage rules or overly modifying the mech? Keep in mind, replacing 2 SL with a ML does LESS damage in 1 shot, plus the small lasers recycle faster, even though the tonnage is the same.

Edited by Mautty the Bobcat, 22 February 2012 - 12:15 AM.

[Yeach]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 22 February 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Second, you entirely ignored my point about taking out all the really big weapons, which would just make it fair to take out all the really small weapons. Following the theme of your opinion, taking these weapons out would just make it easier for devs to balance the game because it would remove the need to balance large amounts of damage with range and recycle time compared to all the medium weapons.

1. Large weapons do damage and the aim in mechwarrior/BattleTech is to destroyed your enemy as fast as possible.
2. Large weapons are restrictive in tonnage that they can not be "boated" as easily as small weapons.
3. Large weapons do concentrated damage.

More of a collary I agree that you need to find a balance in "large" weapons and they should not be able to act as "one-shot" "one-kill" weapons ie a gauss rifle to the head should not be an "instant" mech destruction.

Mautty the Bobcat, on 22 February 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

I would like you to answer one question to validate your opinion. What would replace these weapons on the mechs that carry them without breaking tonnage rules or overly modifying the mech? Keep in mind, replacing 2 SL with a ML does LESS damage in 1 shot, plus the small lasers recycle faster, even though the tonnage is the same.

Thats the first time that I have heard that small lasers should recycle faster than medium lasers; this would ultimately mean that they do even LESS damage per shot (if damage is based on the TT 10 second model).

2 SL doing less slightly more damage (6 vs 5) than a medium laser is trivial IMO. At small laser range you are partically in melee range; why not exchange them for a melee weapon when you are so close. IMO.

[Mautty the Bobcat]

Yeach, on 22 February 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

2 SL doing less slightly more damage (6 vs 5) than a medium laser is trivial IMO. At small laser range you are partically in melee range; why not exchange them for a melee weapon when you are so close. IMO.

Who said that we'll be able to take melee in this game? Have you seen it in Mechwarrior 1-4? Hell, in MechCommander even? I know I haven't. Besides, not all mechs are capable of using a melee weapon, so do you intend to suggest next that we should just modify every mech to be able to use a melee weapon?



Taken from Sarna.net

Small Laser said:

Damage - 3
Heat - 1
Tons - 0.5
Space Slots - 1

Medium Laser said:

Damage - 5
Heat - 3
Tons - 1
Space Slots - 3

1 Med Laser vs 2 Small Lasers said:

Damage - 5 v 6
Heat - 3 v 2
Tons - 1 v 1
Slots - 3 v 2

So you not only have 1 more damage but 1 less heat generation as well. Plus, you keep yelling 'Small Laser Boat' like its something that the devs aren't aware about, and that actually is a problem. If an enemy is running a small laser boat, you should have no problem because small lasers have such a tiny range that you shouldn't have to worry about getting in that range should you?

Tonnage is not the only factor when it comes to weaponry, because you can't just replace a small laser with a medium laser and take from armor off, it DOES NOT WORK that way. Do me a favor and try this experiment. Take a marble and try to shove it into an electrical socket, it doesn't work does it, wanna know why? Cause there isn't enough space to fit a marble (Medium Laser) into the space where that plug's 1 metal prong (Small Laser) is supposed to go.

Also, you dodged my question, give me specific examples of replacing small lasers, flamers, and machine guns on mechs, especially light mechs that do not have the tonnage/space to mount larger weapons, without causing the mech to be broken (unbalanced), inadequate, or breaking the rules of tonnage and space.

You continue to contradict yourself and you're making yourself look like an *** pretty fast.

Edited by Mautty the Bobcat, 22 February 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[Exilyth]

All this talk about small laser boats reminds me of a game I used to play when I was in school...

A wild small laser boat appears!
small laser boat has the initiative

small laser boat closes the distance
small laser boat tries to attack but it can't... out of range.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.
Awesome uses PPC... and misses completely.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.

small laser boat closes the distance
small laser boat tries to attack but it can't... out of range.
Awesome uses PPC... and misses completely.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.

small laser boat was defeated!
You gain 12 XP and 100 C-bill.
Items found: hulagirl, small laser, small laser, small laser, small laser, ...

TL;DR: If you let a boat w/small weapons get near you, you deserve to get toasted.

Also, I wonder why they (tptb) never made an improved AC/2 with even more range.

[Yeach]

Mautty the Bobcat, on 22 February 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

So you not only have 1 more damage but 1 less heat generation as well. Plus, you keep yelling 'Small Laser Boat' like its something that the devs aren't aware about, and that actually is a problem. If an enemy is running a small laser boat, you should have no problem because small lasers have such a tiny range that you shouldn't have to worry about getting in that range should you?

Tonnage is not the only factor when it comes to weaponry, because you can't just replace a small laser with a medium laser and take from armor off, it DOES NOT WORK that way. Do me a favor and try this experiment. Take a marble and try to shove it into an electrical socket, it doesn't work does it, wanna know why? Cause there isn't enough space to fit a marble (Medium Laser) into the space where that plug's 1 metal prong (Small Laser) is supposed to go.

Also, you dodged my question, give me specific examples of replacing small lasers, flamers, and machine guns on mechs, especially light mechs that do not have the tonnage/space to mount larger weapons, without causing the mech to be broken (unbalanced), inadequate, or breaking the rules of tonnage and space.

You continue to contradict yourself and you're making yourself look like an *** pretty fast.

I'm not sure I follow you; going from 2 small lasers or from 2 machine guns to 1 medium laser actually give you one EXTRA critical space with the same tonnage.

Add or subtract armor 0.5 armor to make the weapon fit; its not like all light mechs are fully maxed out on armor.

Since I don't have a mech calculator why don't you give me an example of a mech that cannot do the modification I propose; as you seem to have a mech in-mind.

From sarna.net
STG-3G - The 3G Stinger traded the two Machine Guns for a second Medium Laser. While this variant increased the Stinger's lethality against other 'Mechs, it also made heat management a little more complicated for less experience.

[Yeach]

Exilyth, on 22 February 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

All this talk about small laser boats reminds me of a game I used to play when I was in school...

A wild small laser boat appears!
small laser boat has the initiative

small laser boat closes the distance
small laser boat tries to attack but it can't... out of range.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.
Awesome uses PPC... and misses completely.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.

small laser boat closes the distance
small laser boat tries to attack but it can't... out of range.
Awesome uses PPC... and misses completely.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.
Awesome uses PPC... it is super effective.

small laser boat was defeated!
You gain 12 XP and 100 C-bill.
Items found: hulagirl, small laser, small laser, small laser, small laser, ...

TL;DR: If you let a boat w/small weapons get near you, you deserve to get toasted.

Also, I wonder why they (tptb) never made an improved AC/2 with even more range.

You have a specific small laser boat mech in mind with that?
Can you name it please and thanks.

Edited by Yeach, 22 February 2012 - 05:39 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

the devs said that the maps are going to be huge. that makes the extreme range ac 2 a viable weapon with snipers as you could score several hits before a mech could get into long range. and i rather like small lazers and machine guns for soft targets and infantry

[Pht]

Getting rid of the small weapons makes no sense and would render the lights and light end of the medium weight classes into obsolescence.

breeze, on 19 February 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

One thing that I've found about smaller weapons that don't translate from TT to Mw is how useful these smaller weapons actually are. And that they have a real role in the Battletech universe.

So far, nobody's ported over the full penetrating hits system from the TT, much less the convergence model that underlies the rules and the story lore... so, of course small weapons have been less useful.

In mw4 the armor factor went through the roof because of pin-point precision (all weapons of the same velocity fired at once hitting the same point), and mw4 also ditched any thing like a robust penetrating hits system, so it already virtually has done the "get rid of small weapons and make only the bigger ones viable" ... and it didn't work well at all.