190 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

Siilk, on 29 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

The problem is, any mech with 2 ER Large lasers in it's arms would beat Jagger at that. LLs are lighter, smaller and deal more damage, than AC2s and AC5s together while having only slightly shorter range. As for heat, let's see: 2xAC2 + 2xAC5 + 4 tons of ammo = 32 tons, 14 crit slots. 2xERLLs = 10 tons, 4 crit slots. So there would be 22 tons and 10 crit slots to fill with heatsinks. It'll be more than enough to dissipate 24 heat from both LLs.

I've often wondered how much different this situation would be if they had weighed the AC2 at 2 Tons, and AC5 at 4 tons. Suddenly they'd both be stellar weapons without any changes really necessary; you'd be able to make a fine argument then of AC5 vs PPCs and LRMs and you'd probably see lots of designs mounting twin AC/2s as backup, not primary, weapons - a role I think they should have always filled.

Honestly if FASA wasn't so completely resistant to retcon'ing things, I wonder if they'd addressed this many years ago. Even Project Phoenix went out of it's way in terms of fluff to avoid a retcon in the one place one was needed badly.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 29 March 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I'd prefer for them to put in TACs as Xhaleon suggested - however any mention of "chance" or even worse "RNG" sends a fair proportion of these boards frothing and foaming at the mouth as it denigrates their 1337 ski11s.

If TACs were in the game, I'd definitely prefer them to be skill shots. One example that springs to mine is the Catapult LRM launcher - if striking the LRMs while the lid is flipped up could cause a critical on the arm, that'd be pretty awesome.

[Johannes Falkner]

TACs would also negate armor piercing ammo though.

[Karl Streiger]

Hao Yu, on 29 March 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

First of all, autocannons, even the higher caliber ones, were the most badly-balanced elements of the original tabletop game. They made no sense. Heavier than energy weapons? Lower caliber shells having longer range than larger shells? Insanity.

Balancing boy - balancing. Or do you think that the improved Heavy Gauss is not imba

[Xhaleon]

Johannes Falkner, on 29 March 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

TACs would also negate armor piercing ammo though.

That was also a consideration I didn't mention.

Just make them start performing TACs at 75% armor status rather than 50%, or some other range of numbers that is appropriate.
The real problem with AP ammo is how do you emulate the accuracy decrease with it without adding some more RNG elements in. Hmm...

I'm really thinking now that this is the only way to do it without altering the actual stats of the weapon and all the shenanigans that come with it. The previous games did just that to make ACs viable, with variable degrees of success. If TACs were the sole domain of ACs as their single defining attribute, it can be easier to balance them with other guns. Still kind of depends on their rate of fire though; are smaller ones faster firing than heavier ones? It would be easier to balance then, as big ones would be hard up for getting criticals anyway due to slow firing.

Hao Yu, on 29 March 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

First of all, autocannons, even the higher caliber ones, were the most badly-balanced elements of the original tabletop game. They made no sense. Heavier than energy weapons? Lower caliber shells having longer range than larger shells? Insanity.

Heavy ACs were there for punching through armor by dealing high damage to single parts. They were well worth the weight, but Ultra 20s were tough customers with the heat. It is the low caliber ACs that have no real place except for anti-air.

Quote

Second, even if ACs were balanced in the original game (and I'll repeat, they're NOT), you can't directly translate a turn-based tactical game into a live-action simulator and expect similar results. There's this element called Rate of Fire that can't simply be a matter of heat. It's a matter of the difference in live combat between automatic weapons (like an assault rifle) and single fire weapons (like a sniper rifle). ACs should be balanced against lasers in that way.

In the end? Rewrite the stats completely. Give heavy weapons some range (it would certainly give the Atlas a better open-field reputation). Make the whole mess of ballistic guns lighter. Devote most of the weight to ammo, not the actual gun. Make them fire like assault rifles. Give them some legitimacy against all those PPC lovers.

Rate of fire is also a question I would like to know the answer for. The trailer shown only gave us the AC/20 and it was a single shot cannon. At least that's the only thing I think we saw. Burst damage has always been important in multiplayer games.

If most of the weight and criticals was given to weapon ammo, then you run into the problem of it causing ammunition explosions to be even more dangerous and likely to occur. If you meant just increasing the weight of each critical of ammo, then I could see how it might work.

The weapon niche of ACs I described above this quote response. I would prefer if they kept the role of larger ACs here as being low heat high damage weapons, even if they do tweak the stats for better balance. Lighter ACs have always been the problem child.

Edited by Xhaleon, 29 March 2012 - 10:54 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

PGI have shown a willingness to change the original TT rules where necessary. They have dropped the minimum range for the AC2 & 5 as it made no sense in a PC game. I don't see why they couldn't make them high velocity armour piercers to give them value. TACs could be modelled as hitting internals at the point of impact quite easily in the Cry3 engine. They just need to work out the chances to balance it. This would certainly make them useful and give the Dragon a role separate from the Grand Dragon. It would make it a very effective scout hunter if it had the chance of an engine crit to slow lights. The Blackjack and Jagermech would also find roles. The AC10 and 20 are not in need of help in the same way and wouldn't need that ability.

[Felbombling]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 March 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

PGI have shown a willingness to change the original TT rules where necessary. They have dropped the minimum range for the AC2 & 5 as it made no sense in a PC game.

Is there solid proof for this statement, Nik? I haven't seen anything that would suggest they have dropped the min ranges on these two weapons, unless I missed something in an interview or blog. This would be interesting if it does turn out to be true.

[MaddMaxx]

StaggerCheck, on 30 March 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

Is there solid proof for this statement, Nik? I haven't seen anything that would suggest they have dropped the min ranges on these two weapons, unless I missed something in an interview or blog. This would be interesting if it does turn out to be true.

Perhaps there in lies the solution. Min ranges. If more weapons has min ranges, would that force a Mech to have weapons on board to account for having an enemy close as opposed to having any weapon that is good @750m still be as good @90m

I know it sounds crazy but how do you combat a PPC boat? Get inside 90m. How do combat a AC2? Get inside 90m What is yup with that?
It would be the same as saying how do you combat a 9mm hand gun? Get inside 3 ft? Not likely.

Throw the old rules out and give all weapon classes a min range based on their Max range profile. Then, if nothing else, more Mechs would have to carry a mix of weapons based on self protection range, versus killing the enemy no matter where they end up by abusing the powerful @ all ranges. (save for the few seemingly BT/TT selected min. restricted weapons)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 30 March 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@StaggerCheck

Quote

[DAVID] With minimum ranges, it depends on how justified we can be in putting them into the game without them being silly. For PPCs, there’s mentions in the lore about they don’t reach a full charge at close ranges so as not to damage the attacker’s own electronic systems. LRMs, being meant for long range, do not necessarily arm before they clear a certain distance. But it’s harder to justify why you can’t accurately fire an Autocannon/2 or Autocannon/5 up close, other than it was a balance to their long range in the tabletop game, so they won’t be affected by any sort of minimum range. The tabletop long ranges, on the other hand, we’re interpreting as the maximum effective range. Lasers, AC slugs, and whatnot will travel past this range, but will begin to do less and less damage, and the effects of gravity on any sort of physical projectile will make it harder to hit your target. Missiles reaching the limits of their range will automatically detonate.

I would assume that this will apply to the Gauss Rifle when they introduce it as well. The ERPPC of course doesn't have the min range either. Basically we will be close range fighting a lot of the time anyway as learning how to get in close will be the only way to take on the Clans.

[Felbombling]

Ok... might be a good idea for a perk, being able to ignore some or all of a minimum range penalty, depending on the weapon.

[Victor Morson]

MaddMaxx, on 30 March 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Perhaps there in lies the solution. Min ranges. If more weapons has min ranges, would that force a Mech to have weapons on board to account for having an enemy close as opposed to having any weapon that is good @750m still be as good @90m

I know it sounds crazy but how do you combat a PPC boat? Get inside 90m. How do combat a AC2? Get inside 90m What is yup with that?
It would be the same as saying how do you combat a 9mm hand gun? Get inside 3 ft? Not likely.

I haven't brought Minimum Ranges up in this thread for AC2/5 largely because they've never been done with these weapons in a MechWarrior game. Living Legends showed how minimum LRM ranges could be handled in a very cool fashion (I did like how Clan LRMs still had a pseudo-minimum, except they WOULD detonate if you shot someone at point blank) and PGI has some good ideas for PPC minimum range, which at least has an explanation.

Why AC/2s and AC/5s have minimum ranges, though, is beyond me. It's silly on every level. It makes no sense even within the logic of the BTU (I don't think they ever even try to explain what happens in the minimum range) and it's just kicking dirt in the already down weapon.

[Belisarius1]

I've always thought minimum ranges were less about the weapon and more about its targeting systems. If they really wanted to model it, they could disable convergence beyond certain limits, which would stop AC's being pinpoint accurate at point blank.

I'm still honestly at a loss as to how this thread is still going. Rate of fire, and rock. I feel like I come in every couple of pages, say this, nobody disagrees, and then off you all go again.

[Requital]

Why not just increase the rate of fire? from a physics standpoint, bigger guns have almost always had a lower rate of fire due to scale and stress on components, so why should we assume in a future wracked with war and development setbacks that should change?

IMO, you can't give a huge rock to an AC-2, because from a physics standpoint, it doesn't make sense. Even if the round is super sonic, it is only applying its energy to one small spot on many tons of machinery. So rock isn't a great option.

You can increase the damage, but that would peeve tabletoppers and disrupt cannon.

So, the way I see it, increase ROF(Rate of Fire), and keep everyone happy. You can also make them VERY accurate with a very high velocity(low lead) with a large amount of reloads per ton(which makes sense from a physics aspect as well...I better be able to hold way more rounds of AC2 per ton than AC20). The ability to hit a scout mech zig-zagging away at a high speed from 800m away would still allow the AC2 to be useful in pairs for its intended purpose without making it a waste of tonnage.

[Jacob Davion]

Victor Morson, on 14 March 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

This is somewhat a sequel to my earlier thread about unique ammunition types, except with a much broader focus.

Basically, I've been attempting to think of a way to balance low-caliber Autocannon weapons - AC/2 and AC/5, as well as Machine Guns, including their upgraded brethren (UAC, LBX) and other than the ammunition concept from earlier, I'm drawing a blank.

The long story short is that these weapons are terrible in the board game and are highly specialized towards non-'mech situations; this was reflected in Living Legends, where these weapons were given a non-canon (but smart) upgrade in damage against light armor, meaning they would shred aircraft, hovercraft and battle armor - providing an extremely useful support role and making their poor effectiveness against BattleMechs an entirely acceptable trade-off.

But in a 'mech on 'mech game with limited NPC or no combat with vehicles and infantry and a huge focus on 'mech to 'mech, they are extremely poor weapons in almost every regard. A quick recap of each weapon:

AC/2
PRO: Extremely Long Range, Only 1 Crit, Low Heat
CON: Weighs more than a Large Laser for the damage of a Small Laser, posses only slightly more range than LRMs which do several times the damage and is ammo based further increasing weight and crit space to make it combat effective.

AC/5
PRO: Range similar to a PPC, Low Heat
CON: Has similar range to a PPC but weighs more; takes more crits than a PPC and is ammo dependent (meaning a PPC with a pair of DHS would take similar space without the drawbacks), damage is comparable to a single medium laser while weighing in as 8 times heavier

Machine Guns
PRO: Extremely light weight, as damaging as a Small Laser
CON: Ammo dependance increases weight and introduces more risk of explosions.

_

All that said, I think Machine Guns can be used acceptably as a gimmick build in the table top game (though most 'mechs only sport 2 of them maximum, which is why they appear to be bad weapons as even a half ton of ammo can support several for quite some time) but they've always translated poorly to MechWarrior games (since 1, anyway).

They're also the only one I have any honest suggestion on to make more effective - which is to say make them burst-fire, rather than non-stop fire, allowing you to do more damage over a short period and localize it more. Even if there is acceptable DPS and they are made "auto fire" it will effectively get too spread out over the 'mech to make them useful; they are likely to be more of a liability (again, due to ammo explosions).

As for the AC/2 and AC/5? That's why I'm making this thread. They're terrible weapons. The only option to make them useful is to go outside of canon heavily and possibly adjust their weight or space, but then that unbalances the progression to AC/10s and AC/20s: One could argue the AC/10 is too heavy for it's usefulness even and AC/20s are actually extremely effective weapons in both table top and past MechWarrior games.. but buffing the 2s and 5s may out date both of them.

Again this problem wouldn't be here if the game presented a reason for these weapons such as anti-air, but since we're talking a 'mech on 'mech game first and foremost here, I'm at a loss as to how these can be made useful and not just wasted weapons that sit unused as they have been in the past. Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue?

I do have thoughts too. I think if the Banshee's original armament had two ppcs instead of one and an autocannon/5 it might be a little more popular.

[Belisarius1]

Requital, on 30 March 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Why not just increase the rate of fire? from a physics standpoint, bigger guns have almost always had a lower rate of fire due to scale and stress on components, so why should we assume in a future wracked with war and development setbacks that should change?

IMO, you can't give a huge rock to an AC-2, because from a physics standpoint, it doesn't make sense. Even if the round is super sonic, it is only applying its energy to one small spot on many tons of machinery. So rock isn't a great option.

You can increase the damage, but that would peeve tabletoppers and disrupt cannon.

So, the way I see it, increase ROF(Rate of Fire), and keep everyone happy.[...]

That's thing though, MW4 already did that, and they were terrible because they had no rock. The niche you're chasing is suppression, and rock is a critical part of that whether it matches the physics or not.

I agree that it's a lot simpler than a 9 page thread would suggest, though.

[Requital]

Belisarius†, on 30 March 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

That's thing though, MW4 already did that, and they were terrible because they had no rock. The niche you're chasing is suppression, and rock is a critical part of that whether it matches the physics or not.

I agree that it's a lot simpler than a 9 page thread would suggest, though.

I have no problem with some rock from an AC2...but the idea of it having the impact of an AC10 would be foolish. The AC10 has a larger slug, slower speed, and therefore is more likely to expend more of its energy on the targets mass rather than punch through it. A small and fast projectile will try to punch through something and a larger slower round will try to knock something over.

Rock from an AC2 is fine, but within reason, and that should not be its only redeeming feature.

Including more rounds without added tonnage from the start will compensate for weight issues, and a high travel speed and accuracy combined with the ROF bump to balance the DPS would make a smaller caliber much more useful.


EDIT: If I wanted to make it all about physics, technically a small and fast caliber weapon would have an reasonable chance to crit, unlike tabletop games...because even if it only peppered a target and did very minor damage most of the time, it would have an easier time punching through armor and lodging itself in myomer fibers, actuators, or reactors causing severe damage in the rare chance it hit something good. Due to a higher rate of fire, in the hands of a good pilot, this would increase its chances of scoring a crit just from sheer amount of precision shots fired.

Edited by Requital, 30 March 2012 - 05:20 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Part of the issue with ROF is that major parts of the game - and its balance - are centered around damage per second.

For example, an AC-2 is an AC-2 because it deals 2 units of damage per TT turn (1 turn = 10 seconds), or an average of 0.2 units of damage per second.
Likewise, and AC-20 is an AC-20 because it deals 20 units of damage per TT turn, or an average of 2.0 units of damage per second.
And so on.

The canon armor values are set to balance against that kind of damage.

A canon AC-20 offers an average of 2.0 damage/second.
A MW4 AC-20 offers 18 units of damage per salvo and recycles every 4.5 seconds, which amounts to an average of 4.0 damage/second - double what it should be capable of.
These much higher damage outputs, combined with pinpoint-accuracy, are part of the reason that MW4 armor-per-section values are so much larger than their canon counterparts.

So, to maintain the canon balance between damage and durability (and we know that the Devs have stated, "We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules", so it is reasonable to assume that they will try to maintain the balance between stats wherever possible), an AC of any class would have to either have a slow ROF and do all of its damage in one go, or have a high ROF and fire several individually very-low-damage shells.

As an example, the AC-2 could fire one 0.2-damage shell every second (over 10 seconds, this would come out to a total of 2.0 damage), or one 0.4-damage shell every other second (again, this would come to 2.0 damage over 10 seconds), or one 0.5-damage shell every 2.5 seconds, or one 1.0-damage shell every five seconds, and so on.
The other ACs would/should also be expected to follow suit, to keep them balanced against each other as well as against armor.

As far as knockback/"rock" goes, I believe that the ACs (among other weapons) should have it, and that it should be proportional to damage (that is, bigger, harder-hitting weapons should generally produce more knockback/"rock").

Your thoughts?

[Pht]

Victor Morson, on 28 March 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

A haiku:

My car needs to be pushed;
My light bulb provides almost no light;
My toilet cannot flush.
All these things could be said to have a purpose, as a gun that can't kill people.

Diverse I am.

--

In all seriousness, given other weapons hit to similar ranges with more damage, for less weight and in some cases without ammunition concerns, the AC/2 is terrible and 'mechs that center around it are terrible. The UAC2 bane is terrible. The LRM/15 Bane does 120 damage at long range versus the AC/2 Bane's 40. Seriously, it's a 100 ton Clan assault that might have problems going up against a Tier 1 IS mech.

Ok... I guess you're not going to actually respond to what I posted. When all else fails, repeat yourself and ignore any counterpoints?

Xhaleon, on 29 March 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

Hey, I've got this idea that might step on some people's toes a wee bit.

Why not we bring some of the idea of Through Armor Criticals to into play? I know, I know, its a level of randomness that a lot of people are trying to avoid, but hear me out.

Nah, this would make sense. It'll never happen!

Hao Yu, on 29 March 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

For MWO, I would throw all previous canon conventions (perceived or actual) out the window and balance the ACs like any other weapon system: Take the concept in a void and balance from scratch.

So, say, a heavy gauss might do more damage than, say a small laser? You'd really toss ALL conventions out?

Victor Morson, on 29 March 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

Honestly if FASA wasn't so completely resistant to retcon'ing things,

I know, I know... have Joe Quesada take over the IP and have HIM retcon it, just like he did spiderman! ... Retcon for the win!

Quote

If TACs were in the game, I'd definitely prefer them to be skill shots.

Through armor means through armor; and 'mechs don't have chinks in their armor to really speak of - they're water-proof and air-tight!

Blasting a hole in armor or not is just a factor of whether murphy hates your target or not... or what kind of weapon you're shooting him with.

Johannes Falkner, on 29 March 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

TACs would also negate armor piercing ammo though.

How?

[Belisarius1]

Requital, on 30 March 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

I have no problem with some rock from an AC2...but the idea of it having the impact of an AC10 would be foolish. The AC10 has a larger slug, slower speed, and therefore is more likely to expend more of its energy on the targets mass rather than punch through it. A small and fast projectile will try to punch through something and a larger slower round will try to knock something over.

Oh sure, I'd never set it that high. I'm talking just high enough that something like a dire B can make it hard for a heavy to fire accurately. A kraken would, correspondingly, be able to suppress anything in the game. .

You'd obviously need to boost their rof to achieve that as well, which is fine.

Also, your edit is false. Real armour is more or less binary; you punch through or you don't. In actual reality, small-calibre rounds would never do any damage at all; they'd just bounce off. So realism is really secondary here however you look at it.

Strum Wealh, on 30 March 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Part of the issue with ROF is that major parts of the game - and its balance - are centered around damage per second.

For example, an AC-2 is an AC-2 because it deals 2 units of damage per TT turn (1 turn = 10 seconds), or an average of 0.2 units of damage per second.
Likewise, and AC-20 is an AC-20 because it deals 20 units of damage per TT turn, or an average of 2.0 units of damage per second.
And so on.

The canon armor values are set to balance against that kind of damage.

A canon AC-20 offers an average of 2.0 damage/second.
A MW4 AC-20 offers 18 units of damage per salvo and recycles every 4.5 seconds, which amounts to an average of 4.0 damage/second - double what it should be capable of.
These much higher damage outputs, combined with pinpoint-accuracy, are part of the reason that MW4 armor-per-section values are so much larger than their canon counterparts.

So, to maintain the canon balance between damage and durability (and we know that the Devs have stated, "We are adhering very closely to the BattleTech® tabletop rules", so it is reasonable to assume that they will try to maintain the balance between stats wherever possible), an AC of any class would have to either have a slow ROF and do all of its damage in one go, or have a high ROF and fire several individually very-low-damage shells.

As an example, the AC-2 could fire one 0.2-damage shell every second (over 10 seconds, this would come out to a total of 2.0 damage), or one 0.4-damage shell every other second (again, this would come to 2.0 damage over 10 seconds), or one 0.5-damage shell every 2.5 seconds, or one 1.0-damage shell every five seconds, and so on.
The other ACs would/should also be expected to follow suit, to keep them balanced against each other as well as against armor.

As far as knockback/"rock" goes, I believe that the ACs (among other weapons) should have it, and that it should be proportional to damage (that is, bigger, harder-hitting weapons should generally produce more knockback/"rock").

Your thoughts?

lol, dude, I'm sorry, but the point of this thread is to find a way to make them useful, not nerf them into such complete oblivion that people will burst out laughing any time someone spawns with one. The TT's balance flat out cannot be ported to an online game in this case.

Edited by Belisarius†, 30 March 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[Requital]

Belisarius†, on 30 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Oh sure, I'd never set it that high. I'm talking just high enough that something like a dire B can make it hard for a heavy to fire accurately. A kraken would, correspondingly, be able to suppress anything in the game. .

You'd obviously need to boost their rof to achieve that as well, which is fine.

Also, your edit is false. Real armour is more or less binary; you punch through or you don't. In actual reality, small-calibre rounds would never do any damage at all; they'd just bounce off. So realism is really secondary here however you look at it.

So when it comes to armor, plate or composite, the projectiles size is what matters, not the energy behind it or the resistance faced as the round attempts to pass through? REALLY?

Apparently we do not live in the same universe. In my reality density, mass, and energy combined with the density and mass of the target determine the penetration of the target. If in your world you can roll a bowling ball at 1 mile per hour and have it break through a 1/2" steel plate but the 7.62 mm round from a minigun will not pass through it, I apologize, I am off in my own little world again....it happens regularly

[Slyck]

Belisarius†, on 30 March 2012 - 08:14 PM, said:

Also, your edit is false. Real armour is more or less binary; you punch through or you don't. In actual reality, small-calibre rounds would never do any damage at all; they'd just bounce off. So realism is really secondary here however you look at it.

Modern armour sure, but BT armour is described as being nothing like modern armour. It's designed to be ablative because that was the only way to protect equally between kinetic and energy weapons. It is essentially impenetrable until it's gone, this is how they explained one of the defining concepts of the BT universe.

Anyways, I stand by my earlier observation, two things apparently do balance ACs against other weapons in MWO. They do all their damage to a single location while lasers do some or all their damage to one or more locations (depending on the steadiness of the players hand) (One might infer that this is actually the metagame difference between ballistics versus energy weapons). And they're cheaper, allowing a mech mounting an AC to be more servicable and easier to keep in the field over multiple engagements. Something I think we're all keen on doing.