164 replies to this topic

[Siilk]

}{avoc, on 30 April 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

So then what is the point of spending even a second of the devs' time "balancing" 4 weapons of the same type, same damage, similar heat and range?

It's all about the flavour of the weapons. A quick example: consider 3 variants of AC10, one that fires 1 shell per second in a semi-auto mode with the shell doing 1 point of damage, another one that fires quick barrage of 5 shells in a full auto mode(2 points of damage each) and then reloads for 9 seconds and another one that fires 1 shell doing 5 damage and reloads for 5 seconds. DpS is the same, 10 points of damage per 10 seconds(TT round), but the feel of that ACs is completely different.

[MaddMaxx]

LakeDaemon, on 01 May 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

Perhaps I didnt frame my post correctly. I'm not *pushing* for this feature. I wouldn't suggesting that devs waste time, or never take a day off, or deviate from their schedule and planned features. I'm just saying that it would be a fun idea at some point and that it wouldnt affect balance any more than modules which already exist. I was suggesting a variance in manufacturer quality of +2.5% to 10%... tops. It would add to the min/maxing but no more than modules do already.

Ideas like this are pure speculation since we havent seen the game yet but I think this would add interest to salvage, give another way to tweek your mech (and only tweek at the same level or less than modules). Im omitting engines as an example because they will probably vary alot more than 2.5% to 10% and weapons shouldnt vary that much.

You keep comparing what Modules do to versus what weapons could be like. At this time, there is no indication, nor facts that state, the DEV will have the Modules affecting Offensive Weapon based systems at all.

Maybe I missed something. Modules are Mech related, not weapon related.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 01 May 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

MaddMaxx, on 01 May 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

You keep comparing what Modules do to versus what weapons could be like. At this time, there is no indication, nor facts that state, the DEV will have the Modules affecting Offensive Weapon based systems at all.

Maybe I missed something. Modules are Mech related, not weapon related.

Correct. But I didnt say that modules would affect weapons in this speculative idea. I was trying to use modules as an example of how similar +2.5% etc variations in weapons based on manufacturer could be handled *if* this idea was ever taken up by the devs.

My apologies if I was unclear. Sometimes I post from work or my phone and Im in a rush.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 01 May 2012 - 09:24 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

LakeDaemon, on 01 May 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Correct. But I didnt say that modules would affect weapons in this speculative idea. I was trying to use modules as an example of how variations in weapons based on manufacturer could be handled *if* this idea was ever taken up by the devs.

My apologies if I was unclear. Sometimes I post from work or my phone and Im in a rush.

No apology required good sir. I just read this

Quote

"The game already has Modules that will enhance your abilities, ranges, effectiveness ect."

then you made further references to Modules in this weapons thread thus my inquiry.

It's all good.

[Cobweb]

I am strictly a tabletop BT person, I have never played a mechwarrior game in my life, so I don't know if this exists in the video games of yor or not, but the tabletop game has hundreds of pages of rules for any number of things, I have played 12+ hour games a number of times, and my friends and I affectionately refer to the game as "math the board game" it is easily the most in depth and complicated board game in the general market. With all that said, there are no differences in the manufactures weapon values in the game, I therefor believe it should be left out of the video game, don't really see the point in it.

[GrimJim]

Sure, difference is the realistic spice of this game but it should be very slight.

A Deathgiver AC/20 fires much differently than the Chemjet 20s but have basically the same effect. Same should apply all over. Faster ROF but less damage or vice versa...

....BUT if you want true variety use a sliding scale of bonuses for ROF, range, heat, and damage. As one area increases by a pip, another decreases. So you could have a Tomodzuru Autocannon Mount Type 20 (as found on FDs lovechild the Hunchback), it might have stats like +0, -1, -1, +2. The Pontiac 100, an AC/20 used on the Victor) which has a history ammo feed probs might look more like -2, +1, +1, +0.

Its all a matter of degrees: a second longer or shorter ROF, 10 meters farther or shorter rangewise, one point hotter or one point cooler, 21 points of damage vs. 19 points of damage.

All this doesn't amount to a lot of difference for gameplay rather for tweaking (which the devs seem to be doing with their module concept). But as proven with the Mechlab, customization is king.


People who spend hours reskinning a mech will spend hours finding just the right kind of small laser.

[Havoc2]

Siilk, on 01 May 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

It's all about the flavour of the weapons. A quick example: consider 3 variants of AC10, one that fires 1 shell per second in a semi-auto mode with the shell doing 1 point of damage, another one that fires quick barrage of 5 shells in a full auto mode(2 points of damage each) and then reloads for 9 seconds and another one that fires 1 shell doing 5 damage and reloads for 5 seconds. DpS is the same, 10 points of damage per 10 seconds(TT round), but the feel of that ACs is completely different.

I don't mean to be rude, but everyone needs to take the TT round thinking and throw it out the window.

I don't mean to say ignore the TT, because the devs have already stated they will be basing a lot off of the TT rules. But in your example why would anyone use the 2 ACs that spread damage? The 3rd AC does 100% damage to 1 hit location.

This isn't going to be TT where the dice roll determines where you hit, pilot skill will determine where a hit is placed. Yes, people MAY use different weapons of the same style, however the weapons types overlap way too much IMO to justify making various weapons of the same type. To me (and many others it seems) having the "flavour" of different weapons of the same type isn't worth spending dev time on.

If you want a different flavour, actually make a 'Mech with different weapons, not just different manufacturers.

Edited by }{avoc, 01 May 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[neodym]

I would really like if someone from devs had something to say about this

[Ursus_Spiritus]

No, the variations exist already between Clan and IS, and the different versions of LRM/SRM, SML, MDL, LRGL etc.

Not to mention of they introduce Clan Tech, or the RACs or the U/AC, the Light Gause, then you have the PLS or ER/LSR

Balancing alone, no to mention other variables.

Battletech/Mechwarrior already has a range of weapons that is pretty diverse.
Especially between Ballistic and Energy.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

}{avoc, on 01 May 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

I don't mean to be rude, but everyone needs to take the TT round thinking and throw it out the window.

I don't mean to say ignore the TT, because the devs have already stated they will be basing a lot off of the TT rules. But in your example why would anyone use the 2 ACs that spread damage? The 3rd AC does 100% damage to 1 hit location.

This isn't going to be TT where the dice roll determines where you hit, pilot skill will determine where a hit is placed. Yes, people MAY use different weapons of the same style, however the weapons types overlap way too much IMO to justify making various weapons of the same type. To me (and many others it seems) having the "flavour" of different weapons of the same type isn't worth spending dev time on.

If you want a different flavour, actually make a 'Mech with different weapons, not just different manufacturers.

Pilot skill will actually have a lot less %.
Due to movement, terrain, incoming fire, visibility, timing, heat, ammo, weapon group, weapon, existing damage, non existing damage, expertise level among other variables.

The wisdome in using canister rounds (Buck shot) is that spreads 2 points to various olocations increating signifcantly the chance of an internal crit (200rounds of MG Ammo anyone?, cockpit crit, pilot, or sensors etc.)

This 2 point hits HURT, though that 2 points seems insignificant to a 30pt location. Until you lose a pristine unit to a lucky roll (there will probably be crit chances) then you don't understand it's value.

Another aspect is if the physics of sustarined ballistics is applied to the game, the recoil from one big round, compared to series of smaller rounds affects your aim significantly as well.

Akin to firing a machine gun in
short burst better damage/accuracy
sustained burst higher damage/poorer accuracy
single shot less damage/higher accuracy

However using the same type of ammo, not having to use a variation of a type of weapon, instead have the options to select cluster, single, chain, group, single round/weapon.

That is the variation that many MW warrior games have had. There is your weapon variation in and of itself.

[Ursus_Spiritus]

Here is some light reading that details weapons as they are based on the TT.

http://www.sarna.net...Equipment_Lists

LRM -10 example

Manufacturing

Despite the list of manufacturers. They all have the same stats.

LRM-10 is manufactured on the following planets:
StarLight Coventry Coventry Metal Works
Delta Dart Oriente Oriente Weapon Works
Delta Dart Sterope Sterope Defense Industries
Devastator Series-07 New Avalon Corean Enterprises
FarFire Medium Missile Rack Menke Menke Armor and Armament
Federated 10-Shot New Avalon Achernar BattleMechs
Gamma-10 Andurien Andurien AeroTech - Free Worlds Defense Industries
Gamma-10 Westover Andurien AeroTech - Free Worlds Defense Industries
"Great Bow" Strato Domingo Auxiliary Production Site 4
Holly Dunianshire Majesty Metals and Manufacturing
Irian Weapons WorksShiro III Irian BattleMechs Unlimited
Longbow III Arcadia Arcadia BattleMech Plant CM-T4
Luxor 3R New Avalon Corean Enterprises
Magna Longbow-10 Unknown Magna
Shigunga Luthien Luthien Armor Works
"Short Bow" Strato Domingo Auxiliary Production Site 4
Snorri Terra Mitchell Vehicles
Telos DecaCluster Marduk Victory - (Norse BattleMech Works)
TharHes Reacher 10 Tharkad TharHes Industries
Valiant Heavy CrossBow Robinson Valiant Systems
Zeus Stewart,Corean Enterprises

Various warheads available for LRMS and SRMS as well

http://www.sarna.net...nate_Ammunition

Edited by 8100d 5p4tt3r, 01 May 2012 - 01:18 PM.

[Lomack]

I'm not really a fan of the different manufacturers having different stats. Primarily for the reason that this would increase the game development time considerably. If every weapon needs to have 3+ variants for the manufacturers with 3 slightly different levels of damage, cycle time, heat, and range its going to be a nightmare to balance.

If they want to add something like this later, after the game comes out, I am more ok with it. But, I would still rather have one kind of Gauss, one kind of PPC. We are all ready going to have IS and Clan versions.

[Alekzandr Sukhanov]

This would be interesting in the long run but, I'm pretty on board with the game sticking as close to the TT rules as possible. Of course, I do think it could potentially distract developers from the main stuff.

I'd thumbs it up if they had a table of developers who were twiddling their thumbs looking for something to do (which I might as well sub'd "developers" for "flying space ponies".)

[xenowolff]

Yes- Someday. It only makes sense if the Devs are shooting for simulator-style play. Imma be happy so long as I can modify my Centurion with an AC/20 and a set of Nails though.

[Ravn]

TT play is all well and good, but it is the little things like varied manufacturers and versatility that will give the game even more depth. Launch with good enough, develop to keep player interest.

[FrupertApricot]

In battletech weapons have always been classed in a generic way. An AC20 from mech to mech may be a 220 mm cannon or a fast firing 190mm cannon though. Different brands of each weapon and laser exist in various calibers, so how about as an option for mechs, within the current weapon setups (at least try for autocannons) there be some minor diversity.

IE

3 AC20s
one fires a big fast shell that does big damage when it hits, low recoil
One fires a ridiculous one second stream of medium shells
One fires a short burst of shells
And have them all BE AC20s! IE if you stand still and fire them they do the same dps over time, but due to manufacturer and this is possible within the batteltech system, differnet calibers, you get different preferences

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

While this is great from a lore prospective. There's just no practical point in working this into Mechwarrior: Online.

And this is coming from someone who LOVES the BT lore. But this would simply be extra work on the Devs, if they're going that far, they may as well work in quirks to different manufactures. Some are more prone to jamming... other's have loading issues. ect.

In the end, while a wonderful idea, it's just not practical for the game they're trying to create. I wish it was, because the idea would be cool, but too much work for too little payoff.

[HRR Insanity]

Jade Kitsune, on 08 June 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:

While this is great from a lore prospective. There's just no practical point in working this into Mechwarrior: Online.

And this is coming from someone who LOVES the BT lore. But this would simply be extra work on the Devs, if they're going that far, they may as well work in quirks to different manufactures. Some are more prone to jamming... other's have loading issues. ect.

In the end, while a wonderful idea, it's just not practical for the game they're trying to create. I wish it was, because the idea would be cool, but too much work for too little payoff.

Completely disagree. For a F2P game, this sort of diversity is EXACTLY what is needed to drive players mad... and spend money.

Subtle (likely unprovable) differences in weapon mechanics will drive players to spend more and play more to have more options and further customize their 'Mechs.

I think having weapon variants under the general category of "AC20" would be a fantastic marketing ploy and appeals to those of us who remember that the Chameleon had a 'Cyclops Eye Large Laser'... and very likely to make me want to kill the OP if they implement it.

From http://www.sarna.net...meleon#Armament ...

"The primary weapon was a Cyclops Eye Large Laser. This was backed up by two Intek Medium Lasers and a trio of Defiance B3S Small Lasers. To make the threat of overheating more real to the new MechWarrior, the 'Mech carried two Scatter Gun Light Machine Guns that can be used for anti-infantry training."

Excellent suggestion.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 08 June 2012 - 09:53 AM.

[Roland]

The downside of the approach described here, is that you run the risk of becoming too similar to Armored Core.

Armored Core has like 50 billion versions of any particular weapon type, with a thousand different stats all illustrating subtle differences between them. The problem is that it tends to get overwhelming. It's one of the things that made AC's mech building, imho, less satisfying than that of Mechwarrior.

You ended up having to trudge through a ton of numbers to really decide on a weapon. It added depth, but it also adds a significant barrier to entry.

[FrupertApricot]

Thats the thing. the numbers in terms of damage per 10 seconds of shooting and heat and such would be the same, the only thing different would be the feel/reload times.

TWO laser types. One that is the tracing laser like we see in this and MWLL, and then lasers that work like the ones in MW4 where its a laser point hit. Both would be medium or large or small lasers, but you could divide them to a different company/faction and further enhance player customization while totally fitting the lore. Granted its a huge insane thing that probably wouldnt happen but im glad to see some people who have thought of it too.