593 replies to this topic

[LackofCertainty]

To Vexgrave:

I don't like the idea of ammo trucks + reloads in match.

1. One ammo truck per team means that you only want 1 module per team. It means that people need to have that much more pre-game discussion, because otherwise the Catapult that mounts no extra ammo and relys on their MFB/ammo truck is pissed when they spawn in and someone else has control.

2. Since you'd need to keep it out of enemy range, most likely the primary users would be LRM mechs. The balance of LRMs vs other long range weapons is that LRM have IDF fire capability, and have a crazy damage potential at the cost of being severly ammo limited. My point is that even with the penalties you've suggested, it still has a big problem. If LRM's are balanced without the ammo truck, then they become too strong when the ammo truck is present. If LRM's are weak and are balanced with the expectation of an ammo truck, then your team is -forced- to field an ammo truck to make them usable.

3. 20 minute games max means that the matches are pretty short. I'd rather focus on forcing on people actively fighting eachother and being forced to deal with running out of ammo, rather than havine 2-5 minutes (10%-25% of a game) spent as they sprint back toward safety and waste time reloading. More action, less waiting.

4. One of the main reasons for ammo to exist in MechWarrior is so that it can run out. An AC 20 hits way harder than any energy equivalent weapon at this point in the timeline. The balance for that is that the AC 20 has a short range and carries very few reloads per ton. It is a heavy weapon and it forces people to make every shot count, while giving people massive rewards when they do hit. Ammo trucks reduce the importance of those features. It seems like it encourages people to dump their initial ammo, then head back to cover to grab 2 more tons of AC 20, before heading back into the fray.

5. Extra work involved for the Devs. I'm not a fan of the feature in the first place, and I don't like the idea of the devs having to incorporate a bunch of extra work to prepare this for the game. Additional things they'd have to prepare include:

Model/animation for the truck
Code/interface for remote driving the truck
Code/animation for mech opening itself to recieve ammo
Code/animation for mechs who are reloading the mech
Code/Animation for the ammo moving from truck into the mech (since any hit to the exposed ammo causes explosions it'd need a hitbox at least)
Code/Interface for determining what ammo types to bring (does everyone pick one type of ammo to bring before the match, or does the MFB owner pick? If the MFB owner picks, that screws over other people who are relying on their own MFB to keep them supplied)
Balance work for getting the MFB capacity/speed/armor/signature correct

I don't know what that list adds up to in term of manhours, but I know that it's more than a couple. I don't think the MFB/ammo truck is worth time.

edit:
5. 8% chance to explode reguardless of precautions means that it'd basically be, "Your team has an 8% chance to lose whenever you use this," because the ammo explosion would likely destroy/cripple all the mechs involved in the process. I don't like the idea that I might lose, not because my team got outplayed, but because one of my teammates tried to reloaded, got unlucky, and killed himself and one other mech in the process. It's not balanced if the choice is "Well, you can abuse the ammo truck to use an overly ammo-dependant design, but it might ruin the game for you and your team."

6. I'd rather encourage people to design balanced mechs rather than putting in a mechanic to aid people who make an overly ammo dependant mech without giving up appropriate tonnage for reloads. I'd rather have the catapult tear off some armor to get more missiles than have them use a truck/mfb in game to compensate for it.

Edited by LackofCertainty, 07 April 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[Blkcat]

I'm against reloads.

I've read most, if not all, of the novels up to the DA. Where, in the novels, do you see any mech reloading during the heat of battle? Sure, during slack periods, but not when there are actual enemy mechs within spitting distance. Hell, the whole battle for Huntress was basicly trying to keep the supply train more than 1 mile from any combat, and when they failed to do so, almost lost the whole war.

Now, using the books again as reference, when has a battle been won or lost because one side kept better track of expendables? If you cant come up with an example, reread the book where Adian Pryde won his Bloodname.

When was the last time anyone saw a M1 getting rearmed during a PITCHED BATTLE with rounds and missiles falling around em? We arent talking about a M16 here. You dont just eject the expended clip and slap home another.

The TT balanced energy weapons vs ammo weapons using ammo as a big figure. Energy weapons deal less damage per hit,produce more heat per shot, and take up more crit spaces. So, if we take away one of the big balancing figures, ammo, then why would anyone go for energy rather than balistic/missile loads? Heck, hit harder, many cases further away (some of those with lock on and thus more accurate), stay cooler (and thus able to keep up the firepower longer), do more "knock around" damage, and not have to worry about ammo shortages either? Sign me up. /sarcasm.

I usually run a Balistic machine, so I do feel the pain some of you have been talking about, but there have to be trade offs to every advantage, or you ruin the balance. If you run a boat, you run the risk of running out of ammo. Its one of those trade offs.

[Charles Martel]

Availability of reloads via MFB or supply depot isn't "unlimited ammo". It's an extra tactical dimension which mirrors realistic warfare (And is part of TT as well).

Don't like the idea of Mr. UAC20 reloading, you have three options.......

1. Take him out before he can reach the depot/MFB

2. Follow him back to the depot/MFB and take him and it out.

3. Turn the opfor's depot/MFB into a trap, taking out mechs coming for reloads.

Most arguments in favor of "no reloads" boil down to not wanting to have to put forth the effort to cut the enemy's supply lines.

[Blkcat]

Charles Martel, on 08 April 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Availability of reloads via MFB or supply depot isn't "unlimited ammo". It's an extra tactical dimension which mirrors realistic warfare (And is part of TT as well).

Most arguments in favor of "no reloads" boil down to not wanting to have to put forth the effort to cut the enemy's supply lines.

Has nothing to do with not wanting to put forth the effort, its a desire not to see balance disrupted.
As I stated in my earlier post, the TT balanced energy vs ammo in large part due to the limited amount of shots ammo weapons have. Unless you also want to up the damage on energy weapons, drop the heat output and crit costs to mount em, and take away ammo weapons knock down ability, your going to seriously unbalance how the weapons work. Now I highly doubt anyone is in favor of those changes, but without them, ballistic and missile weapons become OP without the limiting factor of ammo.

BTW: If you dont think a MFB=unlimited ammo, you must not have played in the Kali leagues during MW3.

[LordDeathStrike]

Charles Martel, on 08 April 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Availability of reloads via MFB or supply depot isn't "unlimited ammo". It's an extra tactical dimension which mirrors realistic warfare (And is part of TT as well).

Don't like the idea of Mr. UAC20 reloading, you have three options.......

1. Take him out before he can reach the depot/MFB

2. Follow him back to the depot/MFB and take him and it out.

3. Turn the opfor's depot/MFB into a trap, taking out mechs coming for reloads.

Most arguments in favor of "no reloads" boil down to not wanting to have to put forth the effort to cut the enemy's supply lines.

theres nothing stopping you from dropping armor/engine weight/un needed heat sinks to gain tonnage and crits to carry more ammo reloads in your mech. ps, we are pre case for the most part here, so when you take a hit to the ammo bins, you are boned if theres anything left in them. in such a scenario its beneficial to dump any ammo you havent spent on shots when losing armor to where its stored, because once the ammo blows up, you are done (as in it takes you out without case).

and as ive mentioned earlier, mechs dont just park next to an ammo truck and refit in 30 seconds. you have to unbolt armor plates and have cranes and men drop TONS of shells and missiles into the exposed section. cant just have a hatch that pops right open over the ammo, as 1 decent weapon hit to a hinge or latch, and it would fly open mid fight, leaving your ammo exposed to a free shot, bam you dead.

[T0RC4ED]

Im thinking MFBs should be included, but limited use, and rare. Some maps/areas would realistically have them where others would not. Assuming there will be missions where destroying a target is the objective I could see them not being available. Missions that happen in very remote areas would also not be likely to have mobile field bases.

I did think it would be possible for the commander to do an ammo drop but then I got to thinking.... well, how the heck would the ammo get loaded...lets face it missiles dont load themselves.

Edit, MFBs should not be able to replace armor. Im not sure if its canon or not but as ive said before, I would like to keep things in the realm of plausable realism.

Edited by T0RC4ED, 08 April 2012 - 02:54 AM.

[Sparks Murphey]

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

The TT balanced energy weapons vs ammo weapons using ammo as a big figure. Energy weapons deal less damage per hit,produce more heat per shot, and take up more crit spaces.

Sparks looks at his AC/10, then at his PPC.

What version of the TT rules are you playing? Ballistics weigh more and take up more crits than energy weapons of comparable damage. An IS PPC deals the same damage as an AC/10, at a longer range, for almost half the weight and half the size. If you add that saved weight in single heat sinks (not doubles), you cover most of the ground lost to heat. Double heat sinks blow that right out of the water. An AC/5 nicely matches the PPC's range brackets, and is only slightly heavier and bigger (but still heavier and bigger, and that's without the ammo), but also does half the damage. An AC/20 with 5 measly rounds weighs in at 15 tons and 11 crits; for 9 tons and 9 crits, I can buy 4 medium lasers and five single heat sinks. Same net heat, same range, same damage output (though admittedly not all nicely grouped in the one place like the AC/20), but I'm now contemplating bolting a large laser on as well, just for an alternate firing mode and messy alpha strikes. On top of this, an energy weapon will never decide that it feels to hot now, or someone punched it in just the wrong way, and violently explode tearing your mech into oh-so-much shiny pieces of confetti. I'll grant that the gauss rifle doesn't really have an equivalent damage/range bracket in energy weapons (though the Clan ER PPC makes a compelling substitute...) but generally, ballistics suck in tabletop, even without running out of ammo. The real question is, why would you take ballistics over energy weapons (in table top, at least), especially if you can't reload?

(Missiles are different kettle of fish. I've not much problem with them over energy weapons, aside from their tendency to scatter all over a target rather than land nicely in the one spot, but that can come in very handy for crit-seeking. Indirect fire is rarely useful in tabletop, though.)

My real problem (in tabletop, I'll highlight again) isn't actually with energy weapons or ballistics, but with double heat sinks. With singles, energy and ballistic weapons aren't at too much of a disparity (aside from the OMG KABOOM explosion factor as mentioned), but double heat sinks, especially with the "you get ten for free in your engine rule, and some of those you don't even need to assign to crits!" rule, the balance was thrown way off. Every energy weapon's drawback was suddenly halved, while ACs...got ultras, which ate up your ammo on maybe-I'll-hit-with-both,-maybe-I-won't rolls and jammed, and LBs, which reduced the amount of damage dealt.

Ahem.

Stepping back from the table, the MechWarrior games have dealt with that level 2 (uh..."Tournament Legal" is the term these days) heat sink slip up of FASA's nicely. Heat is a pain again, double heat sinks or not. Ballistics (and missiles) smack your mech around and make it hard to hit things, an effect you don't get in tabletop. The single, slow crack of a PPC is nice, but someone sniping you in the cockpit (because you can aim now, rather than rely on a 12 on 2d6) with the faster cycle rate of an AC/5 is lethal.

So yeah, ammo weapons in MWO should run out of ammo; its the drawback they pay for not roasting you alive. A reload point/station/truck...meh, I guess, but my general experience has been that either a) the enemy got to you before you ran out of ammo, and you are now nearly dead, or the enemy did not get to you before you ran out of ammo, because they are nearly dead (or c: both you and the enemy should get serious about this and fight already). Either way, time to whip out the lasers and finish the fight. But sure, why not, if you're up for standing stationary around several dozen tons of high explosive in a battle.

Just don't make out like the table top game supports ammo-less ammo-based weapons as being too cool to pass up. They're not.

[Blkcat]

Sparks Murphey, on 08 April 2012 - 04:14 AM, said:

.

Just don't make out like the table top game supports ammo-less ammo-based weapons as being too cool to pass up. They're not.

For your comparisons, AC/5 has a BV of 70, vs the BV of a PPC at 176. The AC5 weighs in at 8 tons, vs 7 for the PPC with the AC taking up one extra crit. Double fire the AC5, to equal PPC's damage, and you have built up 2 heat, vs the 10 the PPC builds up from a single shot. So damage/heat, you gotta add in 8 single, or 4 double, heat sinks to equal the AC's heat profile while doing the same amount of damage. Granted, you have depleated 10% of your ammo (should you not add more) but thats a small thing to pay for saving 7 tons and 6 crits for the same damage output. Hell, you could add 6 tons of ammo and still save yourself a ton, for the same damage output. This is why I run ballistic in TT. When you figure in heat dissipation, energy weapons cost more in weight and crit for the same damage output.A better comparison, from your point of view, would have been with the AC/10 as its damage is the same, range is nearly the same, weighs in at 12 tons with 7 crits. Still, however, when you factor in the weight and space for heat dissipation, the AC still wins. Now all that being said, what happens when you no longer have to worry about bringing enough ammo for your guns to the fight?
If Ballistics/Missiles shouldnt have to worry about running out of ammo (i.e. MFB's), then we might as well do away with heat then to balance energy.
BTW: There are rules for PPC's exploding on a crit as well. Believe they are in the core rulebook, but would have to dig it out to confirm. Went something along the lines of a crit to a PPC not only rendered the weapon unuseable, but also caused the capacitors to blow, doing one PPC shot worth of damage internally to the affected body part. Believe there was also a part in one of the novels where Dan lost a PPC during a Solaris battle and lost that limb as a result (mech limb, not body limb, as Gray Norton already got his hand by then.)

Again, limited ammo was used as a balance feature between the energy and the ballistic/missile weapons for the TT. You take that away, and your going to have to beef up energy or ammo drivin becomes OP.

[Rimestorm]

Im against having reloads.

Using the basis of TT reloads speeds as have been previously stated (6mins per ton with an elite tech crew?). Reloading a Centurion from empty for it's AC10 (2tons) and LRM10(2 tons) according to TRO3025 would take 24 minutes...

Repairs. While it would be nice for certain campaign or scenario missions I can't see really happening, not when PGI want to be using 1:1 time scale on their metaworld part of the game. How long does a tech crew take to remove damaged armor plates and weld on armor per ton?

Food for thought.

Sorry if I have miss read anything or got info wrong. its 2.30am in Kiwi land and still bringing myself up to speed with alot of the BT lore

[Aegis Kleais]

Using a 1:1 conversion from TT is rarely ever the way to go. This isn't BattleTech Online, it's MechWarrior Online.

[Cochise]

I really do not think they are going to NOT have any reloads at all because that would basically be ignoring every Mechwarrior PC game from day one and I do not think thats going to happen. As Aegis said, this is Mechwarrior Online.

[wwiiogre]

Field reloads are 30 seconds per ton with an 8% chance of an explosion per ton if loaded by a cargo hauler and 50 seconds per ton and 8% chance for explosion per ton if loaded by a mech with full hand and arm actuators. Note, the mech being loaded if hit in rear armor will automatically have all of his ammo explode and his mech and the cargo loader or other mech doing the loading will take damage.

This does not seem like a big deal, but it is huge. First the cargo hauler is pretty much unarmored and carrying explosives, gets hit once all of the ammo is gone. Second, mech being reloaded needs to completely shut down after returning to wherever the ammo dump or cargo hauler or warehouse or dropship is. Note there are no Mobile Field Bases they don't happen till 3059 for IS and 3060 for Clan.

So to reload during a game it will be dangerous, it will be expensive since you have to buy your ammo before the match and actually place it on the map and then when you need a reload you have to run to wherever the ammo is, turn your mech off and hope and pray you don't take fire during the reloading process cause if you do you and your mech are out of the battle and your mech is a total wreck. If you actually had another mech reloading you then both of your mechs are total wrecks and both of you are out of the game.

How bad is it? Well a mech that should be in the fight withdrew out of a fight, or even two mechs or even four mechs cause one is being reloaded, one is doing the loading and two are trying to guard them. So in reality you lose almost an entire lance of mechs during a battle to safely reload a single mech. Oh did I mention there is an 8% chance to explode per ton of ammo reloaded. So not very safe chance to reload during battle.

The time frame of 15 minutes for Green crew or 6 Minutes for Elite crew per ton of ammo is not during a battle and only happens between battles.

So it is very dangerous and not a good idea to try to reload during a game. It could possibly cost the player his mech and a teammates. To me this seems perfectly fine if PGI adapts this exactly as it is in Table Top canon. Sure you could camp the ammo depot, but you still take the 8% chance for explosion per ton reloaded. No way to get around this. Except of course to take 6 - 15 minutes to reload per ton. Which in a 15-20 minute game means your mech is out of the battle. Should have taken less armor and more ammo plain and simple.

So reloads under fire are part of the game and always have been, they are extremely dangerous and if handled per the TT rules they will be a way to possibly get more ammo but at a chance to ruin your teams game and your own personal game. I know in a game that I was running a scout I would be snooping near the enemies back side just waiting for one of their catapults to go running back for a reload and then just as he shuts down I will go running in and almost point blank him in the arse and cause an automatic ammo explosion plus I will then destroy all of his precious ammo sitting on the ground if I can't actually steal it. I imagine that ammo left on the ground by one team and not used would become spoils of war if that team lost the battle and the ammo was left for the victorious side to claim as salvage.

Pretty simple really and very realistic part of a sim. Loading ammo during battles is dangerous and yes it has happened thruout history with some good and some bad problems. I personally would never attempt it. I would make sure I took enough ammo into a game.

chris

[Blkcat]

so what buffs then are you proposing to energy weapons to offset ballistics and missiles no longer having to worry about ammo?

[wwiiogre]

no buffs, no powerups no magic glowing boxes, this is not MechAssault or Hawken or any other fps made for a console, this is hopefully going to be a Simulation of Mech Combat where you are the pilot and you need to go to a base to get fixed and it takes so much time that it has to be done between combat and if you actually try to get more ammo during a match the possible bad things that can happen are so severe you really don't want to try it. At least most sane people wouldn't want to try it.

chris

[JackDeth]

Coming from a real combat experience...consumables are very important.
Try lugging enough ammo and food through the combat area for any length of time and you get an up close look at reality.
If the idea of the game is to give a "pucker factor" to the pilot...then by all means have ammo depletion a very real problem.
If not...the game becomes one of ....I can run around all day long just firing and not have any chance of dying.
Not my idea of a good game....but then again...I look for more realism.
Jack

[Blkcat]

If thats really what you want a reload to be like, then your going to need alot higher number than 8%. Thats better odds than playing Russian Roulette with a .38.

[Cochise]

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

so what buffs then are you proposing to energy weapons to offset ballistics and missiles no longer having to worry about ammo?

If they do not have reloads, that is the buff, not having to reload with energy weapons. In another very popular online game that will go un-mentioned, that was the balance, the counterbalance was the bullets had higher alpha strike while energy weapon did more damage over time and didn't have to reload.

I really think they will have reloads though, it just not going to be easy. There will be risk involved. The whole risk vs reward kind of thing will be part of the equation I think. Maybe you will go to an ammo depot but you will basically be a sitting duck with your mech powered down for a while as the ammo is reloaded and the risk for ambush is very high.

If risk vs reward is balanced, then I'm good with that. If there is reload and zero risk, maybe that's not so good.

Of course the risk may already be the inherent one. You were a numbskull and didn't plan, and you engaged the enemy, alone, while low on ammo, that is just not smart and you will be blown to bits.

Really there are a lot of ways this could play out. Ultimately, whatever they do, I'll be good with it. These guys are smart and love mechwarrior and want to stick with the spirit of the franchise and all that and have good gameplay. They're not boneheads. Well except for Paul.

[5th tier]

I just looked at the 2012 DGC trailer and knoticed that the mechs had a maximum amunition (if they didn't have unlimmited ammo)of 9. Just curious if any one else knoticed.

[Sparks Murphey]

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

For your comparisons, AC/5 has a BV of 70, vs the BV of a PPC at 176.

Yeah. Because BV is supposed to be a measure of 'Mech effectiveness, and an AC/5 is less effective. I wasn't calling them equal based on BV, because that'd be pointless, but for how much bang you get for tonnage or crits.

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

The AC5 weighs in at 8 tons, vs 7 for the PPC with the AC taking up one extra crit. Double fire the AC5, to equal PPC's damage, and you have built up 2 heat, vs the 10 the PPC builds up from a single shot. So damage/heat, you gotta add in 8 single, or 4 double, heat sinks to equal the AC's heat profile while doing the same amount of damage. Granted, you have depleated 10% of your ammo (should you not add more) but thats a small thing to pay for saving 7 tons and 6 crits for the same damage output.

Which would be fine, if you could double fire standard ACs in standard play. The Maximum Tech introduced advanced rules that let you do this in with autocannons, but they have an 8% chance of jamming each time you fire. So no dice on tabletop (for MechWarrior videogaming, I totally agree with you, as I laid out in my previous post)

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

A better comparison, from your point of view, would have been with the AC/10 as its damage is the same, range is nearly the same, weighs in at 12 tons with 7 crits. Still, however, when you factor in the weight and space for heat dissipation, the AC still wins.

Yeah, it is a great comparison. It was the one I opened with in my previous post. It doesn't win. An AC/10 limited to a single ammo bin beats the same weight in a PPC and single heat sinks by a single heat point, though the PPC gets 90 metres more range. That makes them pretty much even. If you switch to double heat sinks, you've suddenly got 20 heat that your mech can dissipate that the design rules force you to take, many of which are included crit-free in you engine (depending on your engine size) For that, I can comfortably take a pair of PPCs, chucking on maybe an extra heat sink or two if I feel like moving and firing. A single AC/10, weighing as much as both my PPCs, leaves me with bucket loads of spare heat dissipation to spare, but sadly, I've now used up most of my weight allowance.

Again, this is nicely averted in the video games, where firing those twin PPCs will cause your heat to spike before your heat sinks wash it away, forcing a quick slap of the override button. Heat works like it should there. In table top, its just a quick check at the end phase to see your net heat.

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

BTW: There are rules for PPC's exploding on a crit as well. Believe they are in the core rulebook, but would have to dig it out to confirm. Went something along the lines of a crit to a PPC not only rendered the weapon unuseable, but also caused the capacitors to blow, doing one PPC shot worth of damage internally to the affected body part.

I think you're referring to the level 3 (which I presume falls under "experimental" in the new scale) PPC capacitor rules, which came out in Maximum Tech. They were experimental equipment that allowed you to charge your PPC up by not firing it for a round for extra damage the next. If the PPC or capacitor is critted while charged, they explode for 15 points (eat THAT, 400 point machine gun explosion!). Otherwise, no, PPCs don't explode in table top.

You might also be referring to the gauss rifle, which is tournament-legal equipment that does have its capacitors explode when hit. But its also an ammo-based weapon.



Just to recap and expand from my last post, my argument ISN'T that energy weapons are awesome and ammo-based weapons need to be reload-free in MWO to be balanced. Its that the introduction of double heat sinks negated the drawback of energy weapons in table top, killing off any semblance of balance, and while the video games manage to bring that penalty back, negating the limited rounds of ammo-based weapons in MWO would do a similar thing there to make ammo-based weapons OP.

[Charles Martel]

Blkcat, on 08 April 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

BTW: If you dont think a MFB=unlimited ammo, you must not have played in the Kali leagues during MW3.

I've played A LOT of MW3. It's really hard to get reloads from a destroyed MFB. I specialized in hunting down the other team's MFB.

Which is funny, because one role in MWLL I volunteer for is escorting the APC with the reloads, so it doesn't get ambushed. Some days you're the wolf, other days you're the sheepdog I guess.

Edited by Charles Martel, 08 April 2012 - 08:47 PM.