39 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

Hello Dev team... I have spent a little while on the boards with all the friendly folks waiting in eager anticipation for your wonderful product. I've taken part in some discussions and posted a few of my own. I have been in total agreement with everything you've done thus far, but wanted to step up and make a case for two cosmetic additions I'd like to stay close to the canon of the Battletech universe, if at all possible.

Particle Projection Cannons [PPC]: Please, before we see our first in game PPC and with everything in my being, I hope you stick close to game canon and literature on this weapon system... a beam of electrified blue energy... not a fuzzy ball of lightning. A beam... a bright, brutal, devastating beam of super-heated plasma energy. /beg

Autocannons : Again, I have seen the game play video and am slightly concerned... the firing of Autocannons are depicted in the game as 'clips' of ammunition that fire off in rapid succession per trigger pull... not a single solid slug. [You need to leave the single depleted metallic rounds for the Gauss Rifle! ]. I was expecting to see a series of flashes and shell casings raining down from the Hunchback and Atlas cannons... not a single bullet. I can imagine your concern for game play mechanics with a stream of shells in the air in a simulation game… what if only half the shells hit... does it still do full damage? How do we sell that notion?, etc. You can get around that easily enough by not letting us see the shells in flight... all we want [or I would want] is the sound in our cockpit and the nasty result on the business end of our trigger pull. I want to hear that BOMBOMBOMBOMBOM as my AC/20 goes off, then the devastating plumes on my target indicating where my shells have landed. I don’t think I need to see them in the air to know they hit or miss… I will have other means to figure out the information, I am sure. Single shot cannons are for Gauss Rifles and pirate ships! lol

Other than those two things, your work thus far on the game has been nothing short of brilliant. Here is hoping the kind, polite wheel gets the oil.

[autogyro]

There's a lot of references in the books to stuff like the staccato fire of the autocannon when shooting, say, the AC/5.

[Halfinax]

Aren't ACs described in a variety of manners where some are single slug, and some are a series of slugs within a TT round? Based on brand rather than AC size? it's the UACs/Rotary ACs that are machine gun like in a series of rapid succesion of rounds, and not the basic ACs. From what I recall standard ACs vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

I concur that PPCs are, in the fluff, depicted as a beam of lightningesque energy in appearance.

[Gabriel Amarell]

the way autocannons are meant to look

[Victor Morson]

I'm fairly sure in the original game Autocannons were meant to be basically tank Autocannons and fire single shells. This is why Ultra Autocannons were unique, in fact. However, the various novels muddied the waters on this, as they did a lot of things (technology availability and setting). I'm partial to "slug" ACs except for RACs, myself.

[pursang]

I'd like them to look more like what they're described in the books as: Man-made bolts of lightning.

/Shrug

[CeeKay Boques]

Victor Morson, on 09 March 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm fairly sure in the original game Autocannons were meant to be basically tank Autocannons and fire single shells. This is why Ultra Autocannons were unique, in fact. However, the various novels muddied the waters on this, as they did a lot of things (technology availability and setting). I'm partial to "slug" ACs except for RACs, myself.

The TT game is limited. The Fluff is not. Viva la Fluff!

[Felbombling]

Good replies thus far... yes, the table top game, way back in the beginning, didn't even go into the weapon systems and how they operated. We, as gamers, had to imagine what was going on. Then the novels started to come out and explain in great detail how the weapons looked, smelled, reacted and sounded. This is what I base my game desires on... the heart and soul of the game. The topic I started was due to a strong desire to see the Mechwarrior franchise get back to the roots of Battletech. It is funny how people interpret the game based on how they came to know Battletech, isn't it? The hardcore, old school fans who were brought up on the novels would want to see beam PPC fire, whereas someone who was brought into Battletech playing a Mechwarrior video game might want the fuzzy ball of lightning PPC... because all they know is the fuzzy ball of lightning. Same thing for me in reverse, but perhaps because no computer game dev team has ever stuck really close to canon before, whereas THIS team said they were going to. So, given that information, the old timers salivate. We dream a little bit.

I think that the Autocannon issue is another good example. Many people have played Mechwarrior computer games and the Autocannon usually seems to be single shot slug. In the Battletech novels they had a very different, rich description. That description was a staccato burst of multiple shells. When Ultra Autocannon were introduced with the Clan invasion, the stream of shells and duration doubled. The first introduction of the Ultra AC/20 was a thing of awe to read... I think the author described a four second burst of shells and shell casings spewing from the Autocannon, leaving the barrel red hot afterward. I mean, that SOUNDS cool, not to mention how cool it would look, sound and feel in a video game! Rotary Autocannon came next, [I’ll get to the LB-X class in a moment] and that was basically described as a constant stream of shells like a Gatling gun, which is basically what it is. This would be a much greater stream of smaller projectiles, making the cannon hum or purr as it went off. There are many examples in the military arsenals of today.

I guess all I'm saying is that, the way they have the Autocannon set up now is not half as appealing as it COULD be, if they stuck to canon. It is one thing to play Battletech in the office for a day and then start designing the game, and another thing entirely to read a novel or two and then start designing the game… after you’ve played Battletech in the office for a day! If they stick to it the way it is now, I think they're missing out on a great opportunity to send the cool factor through the roof. Beyond that, they're taking away what really makes the Gauss Rifle have it's signature... a large depleted metallic sphere at thunderous velocity. My fear here is that people will see the two systems as too similar… 'Meh... I've seen that with the AC/20 already. So what?' Breaking it down the way I‘d love to see it, each Autocannon class would have their own characteristics, and the LB-X Autocannons would have their shotgun effect to match their other regular Autocannon mode of fire... and each weapon still feels unique.

[Bryan Ekman]

Halfinax, on 09 March 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Aren't ACs described in a variety of manners where some are single slug, and some are a series of slugs within a TT round? Based on brand rather than AC size? it's the UACs/Rotary ACs that are machine gun like in a series of rapid succesion of rounds, and not the basic ACs. From what I recall standard ACs vary from manufacturer to manufacturer.

I concur that PPCs are, in the fluff, depicted as a beam of lightningesque energy in appearance.

This is correct. ACs a classification, rather than a specific design.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Man made lighting doesn't really say "beam" to me I like the idea of an arcing, crackling weapon.

[Strum Wealh]

TheRulesLawyer, on 10 March 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

Man made lighting doesn't really say "beam" to me I like the idea of an arcing, crackling weapon.

Agreed - "cerulean bolts of man-made lightning" is where it's at...


...though, they're even better when said bolts are fired from the arms of a Marauder.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 11 March 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[Stripes]

Stick with the MechWarrior 4 visualisation of the "party-killer" PPC and we will be good!

PPC fires compresed stream or beam (which one you prefer) of ions and protons - so hell no to lightnigs and fuzzballs!

[pesco]

Bryan Ekman, on 10 March 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

This is correct. ACs a classification, rather than a specific design.

I see. From sarna.net:

Quote

Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/20s doing massive damage while having very short range.

Sooo, does this mean we get to buy the type we like?!

Edited by pesco, 10 March 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Lycan]

pesco, on 10 March 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I see. From sarna.net:


Sooo, does this mean we get to buy the type we like?!

::sniff sniff:: I smell a "micro transaction item" I mean come on, if anything screams "micro transaction" and "cosmetic modification" more than that (You, the guy with the Hula Girl, siddown! ) I don't know does.

Seriously, it doesn't give you any type of advantage going from a "slug" to a "stream of bullets" effect and tons of people would pay for the option to outfit some of their AC's with this type of effect.

[Datum]

The auto cannons should vary from model to model, but even if this is the only version, I still love it. Tons better than the older versions.


Please get the PPC's right, though. Keep it like the old trailer of 2009 and I'll love it.

[Sp12]

Some books call it lightning and others go with the stream.

Personally I don't care for canon so I'd go for whichever was less taxing from a computational/visual asset standpoint.

[Strum Wealh]

Strum Wealh, on 13 January 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

While I've stated a preference for a more beam/lightning-bolt like PPC firing, why not have variety?

Perhaps there might be different brands and makes/models might fire a bolt (the ball effect) while others fire a beam (the stream effect), as well as having other effects...

Example:

• Magna Hellstar Mk.I PPC fires a bolt/ball of particles at slightly-shorter-than-average range while producing higher recoil on the firing 'Mech, more "knock" against the target, and more-intense-than-average HUD static.
  
• Ceres Arms Smasher Mk.I PPC fires a "lightning bolt" at a slightly-longer-than-average range while producing lower recoil on the firing 'Mech, less "knock" against the target, and less-intense-than-average HUD static.
  
• Kinslaughter Mk.I PPC fires a stream/beam at average range, produces average recoil, produces average knock and average HUD static, but the beam has an extended duration (1.0-1.5 sec) and continuous damage across the beam's duration (as opposed to the damage being "front-loaded") that can can be "walked" over a target (or across targets) like a MW3 pulse laser or MW4 LCBL.

And so on.

Mk. II and up would improve some aspect or aspects of the base model (but not all aspects).

Damage per salvo and ROF would be consistent across brands and makes/models.

Your thoughts?

Why not have all of the styles represented?

Then again...

VYCanis, on 02 January 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 January 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

And it would give the inveterate "tweakers" something to obsess over in the endless search for perfection

tweaker 1- Dude what are you doing? are you using lord's light ppcs? are you tarded? you can't reliably DPS with those, the projectile speed is too slow to hit.
tweaker 2- What? How can you say that using a Donal? those things heat up like crazy, you can't get sustained damage with those at all.
tweaker 1- Thats why i have imperator AC5s to keep cranking out damage while the donals recycle.
tweaker 2. imperators are garbage, too many shots to do too little damage. mydrons are better
tweaker 1. your mom is garbage, mydrons recoil too much to stay on target long enough
tweaker 1&2- *rabble rabble rabble rabble!!!!*

[autogyro]

Lycan, on 10 March 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

Seriously, it doesn't give you any type of advantage going from a "slug" to a "stream of bullets" effect and tons of people would pay for the option to outfit some of their AC's with this type of effect.

No, but we must be careful going the other way - allowing people to pay for damage to be concentrated into a single shot rather than spread over a 3 or 4 round burst is, in fact, a tactical advantage, and therefore pay to win.

You can also construe that having 3-4 round bursts rather than a single shot does convey some tactical advantages (more likely to hit fast mechs since you can spray them) and therefore constitutes pay to win.

[Felbombling]

Bryan Ekman, on 10 March 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

This is correct. ACs a classification, rather than a specific design.

Are you saying that the AC is a classification from class, Bryan... as in AC/2 > AC/5 > AC/10 > AC/20, or are you saying that different manufacturers would have different delivery means… say an AC/20 and single slug for manufacturer ‘A’, compared to multiple slugs for manufacturer ‘B’?

[SnowDragon]

From my understanding of the Canon, Autocannons fired single rounds in battletech and all the MW games until 4. In 4 they were reported as "Firing a pair of shots over point-25 seconds. The larger the number, the higher the calibre".

In addition, there are Rotary ACs, (Bigger MGs) And Ultras, which my understanding of isn't great (never played Clan units back in battletech, you see). Personally, I love rotary ACs, but I'm never below using an AC20 just to see it ruin someone's day.

As for PPCs, no blue balls, thanks.