351 replies to this topic

[Rejarial Galatan]

I am starting to wonder something, and that is, if they will give us a TRO of sorts on the costs of things in game. Not before launch cuz that would spoil things of course, but, in some readme file or something. Oh, and I dont mean just the costs in C-Bills either. All stats, pros and cons there in.

[JazzySteel]

Ravn, on 03 May 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think that ammo really will only be a small cost. But if I am a scout mech who only uses energy, that small cost could amount to a LOT of c-bills over time.

My favorite mech that I've used was a Templar with four RAC5s and a medium pulse laser, and as much ammo as I could stuff into it. I even scrapped the Jumpjets to make more room. I could harry mechs at medium range and tear them limb from limb up close.

Edit: forgot to mention, I remember them eating though six tons of ammo stupid fast. when they werent jamming....

Edited by JazzySteel, 03 May 2012 - 09:36 PM.

[Zylo]

Ravn, on 03 May 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

I think that ammo really will only be a small cost. But if I am a scout mech who only uses energy, that small cost could amount to a LOT of c-bills over time.

I can't help but wonder if this will be balanced by higher repair costs on energy weapons or issues with energy weapons being easier to damage/destroy.

[William Petersen]

Ravn, on 03 May 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

He's just trolling you now Rej. Let it go.

Remember, kids, if someone's debating you and tied you up with your own words and pesky things like facts, call them a troll, grats, you win!

[Rejarial Galatan]

I THINK we may see, atleast for us energy boat fans, alot more on the Pulse Laser front, just to TRY to conserve heat. I know ima give it a whack and see what shakes out.

<sits on the shoulder of his mech in the bay and marvels at its beauty> Your a beast to keep cool, but, Your such a pretty machine!

[Terick]

William Petersen, on 03 May 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

"the Coolant Pod contain a reserve of compressed freon which can be flushed directly into the attached 'Mechs coolant system, boosting the effectiveness of each Single heat sinks by 200% and each Double Heat Sinks by 150% for 10 seconds."

Please, point out to me where this at all states or implied that Mechs come by default with any sort of "Coolant flush" ability.

The Original TRO 3025 on Coolant trucks. Would be really interesting if thy added coolant trucks to the game to let mechs pull back and cool off. Took only a few minutes to hook up, flush coolant, disconnect and move out. Would need to be targetable since they would be a strategic asset. At least more realistic then Repairs in mid battle that repair ALL the armor....

If you don't' like coolant flush, I don't' care. It can be done.

Coolant flushing without a coolant truck should have a real consequence. I would say that your HS only function percentage wise based on the percent of coolant you have left... so you flush 50% of your coolant... your heatsinks are now only 50% effective. You dump all of your coolant... your mech shuts down or self-destructs...

Edited by Terick, 03 May 2012 - 11:04 PM.

[William Petersen]

Terick, on 03 May 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

The Original TRO 3025 on Coolant trucks. Would be really interesting if thy added coolant trucks to the game to let mechs pull back and cool off. Took only a few minutes to hook up, flush coolant, disconnect and move out. Would need to be targetable since they would be a strategic asset. At least more realistic then Repairs in mid battle that repair ALL the armor....

If you don't' like coolant flush, I don't' care. It can be done.

Coolant flushing without a coolant truck should have a real consequence. I would say that your HS only function percentage wise based on the percent of coolant you have left... so you flush 50% of your coolant... your heatsinks are now only 50% effective. You dump all of your coolant... your mech shuts down or self-destructs...

I'm sorry, but the ability to be hooked up to a coolant truck and flush out heat with new coolant is still not a capability intrinsic to the mech itself, in the field, in the heat of the moment.

If you want coolant trucks, I've got no problem with that. I'm sure my scouts will make quick work of them, but fair's fair, and we should have ammo trucks, too.

Until you provide some actual evidence, I'm still standing behind "coolant flush" with neither truck not pod is fantasy made up for MW3 and 4.

The idea of flushing away 50% of your coolant is absurd. Coolant isn't some magical fluid that sucks up all the heat and getting rid of it makes you colder. It's a fluid that has a low specific heat to facilitate expedient heat transfer. If you've got components at some extreme termperature, your coolant runs through/around it, picks up some of the heat, and dumps it somewhere else (probably near some sort of external heat exhaust). Even when your mech is sweltering, the coolant is still going to be cooler than what it's trying to cool. Dumping it out isn't going to accomplish *anything* outside making your mech strain even harder to get cool.

The principle behind coolant trucks and coolant pods, is to have a sort of "reserve" (which is never stated as being anything close to standard equipment, otherwise research into 'coolant pods' would neither be necessary, experiment, nor volatile) coolant insulated from the rest of the Mech's heat, and kept at frigid temperatures so that when it is introduced into your cooling system it can immediately absorb more heat from the weapons/engine as it runs through the system.

This MW3/4 idea of a "coolant flush" has a basis in neither canon nor physics.

[Owl Cutter]

Rhinehart, disengaging the inhibitors gives a less than unity chance of frying the Peeper.  Your phrasing is misleadingly inaccurate, I suggest something to the effect of "COULD destroy itself," or "any such attack MAY," etc.  I don't know about you, but I consider the TT rules canon, and under those rules the default mode of operation simply has the weapon be less accurate within the minimum range; it generates heat as normal, hits like normal if it connects, but has a lesser chance to connect than at optimal range.  Interpret it as stifling a sneeze if the mental imagery of the weapon not projecting a beam is important to you, because it seems to do something since it generates the same waste heat as if it succeeded.  Disengaging the inhibitors is not the only way to attack within the minimum range, it's just an optional rule for UAC fans to trade one offensive penalty for a risk of poking out your own Peeper.  Call it "rolling against a Ralphie."


Kraktzor, what your group discovered is called "bracket fire" and seems to be popular among people who know what they're doing; having a weapon well-suited to the task might not _directly_ make up for having less firepower than an "alpha baby" would, but there are a lot of other benefits that come with designing that way, like redundant systems and the ability to borrow more peak firepower against future cooling when a good opportunity presents.  I myself don't really find the AC "food group" very appealing, though; I like "spicy" weapons like beams and LRM 5-racks for better efficiency since a greater portion of their cost is in heat sinks.   I just have to have two or three triggers to pull, so boating one weapon is not appealing to me, but nor is the Stalker's "Swiss Army Halberd" approach.

Prosperity Park, on 30 April 2012 - 07:48 PM, said:

The theory is you have a reserve of cool fluid sitting in an auxillary pod, and you dump the hot fluid in lieu of cool fluid.

I always figured it was a separate, total-loss coolant system that just operates by straitforward phase-change mechanism rather than whatever heat pump stuff the main cooling system uses, since such a simple system could be made to fail safe in an overheat-induced power loss.  It would probably use a different kind of coolant, since it's easier to have the bodies of coolant be separate if you want to release one and keep the other, and likely that the optimal substance to use is not the same for each purpose, but what you described certainly does not strike me as farfetched by Battletech standards either.  

Rejarial Galatan, on 30 April 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

i will ONLY pay to avoid heat in terms of weapons IF PGI gives us a faulty system to deal with heat. IF they give us emergency coolant and etc to deal with heat build up, then, ill take heat over ammo dets any day
but thats just me ya know?

Is there a single, objective standard for "faulty," or is it just based on a given player's preference?  I personally would prefer emphasis on the importance of not biting off more than I can chew; if I get into a sticky situation, IMO the opposing team probably deserves some points for outsmarting and outmaneuvering me or for my choice to be reckless.  


Hopefully that ties up a few loose ends so we can get back on-topic...  Yes, guns are underpowered and beams overpowered in the TT game, including on a big strategic or campaign scale.  You're always between the Scylla of cookoff and the Charybdis of coming up short, while beam weapons can enjoy freedom from both worries by simply piling on the heat sinks.  I'm told that the classic Star League guns (Gauss, LB-10 and Ultra 5) are an attempt to make guns competitive with beams, but I have a hard time believing that when Double Heatsinks were introduced at the same time...  


I would like to see more discussion of ideas for fixing this imbalance with the most respect for the source material, so screwing with stats already defined by canon is a last resort and things that could or will invalidate canon designs are right out as per PGI's stated intent to be able to add anything strait from the TROs once all of its equipment is implemented in the game.  I think the Solaris rules are a great source of material not just the rapid fire rules, but the reworked heat system- in fact, mostly because of the heat system.  It just makes more thermodynamic sense that if you are shedding a lot more waste heat, you are running at a higher temperature.  It also favours lighter 'mechs over heavier ones, which also makes gameplay and immersion sense.  Win-win, yes?  


I also like the idea of synergies between different weapons- kinda like how in the classic game an AC/20 paired with some SRMs is more brutal than a similar investment in just one of those weapons.  Since other MW games have introduced knock effects (for some weapons) which make it harder to return fire, and I have yet to see pitchfork-wielding purist mobs highlighting that mechanic, I think it might be a good idea to expand that into staggering or slowing effects (Fluff it as increased load on the DI computer, gyro, whatever, like PSRs "for sudden loss of armor.") and have other weapons in need of boosting be more like MRMs or Heavy Lasers in that they have incredible potential firepower offset by being harder to hit with.  That should help prevent boating, as well, hitting two birds with one stone.  


My personal most desired measures, though?  Make Double Heatsinks rare, and more expensive to maintain.  Also, cut down cookoff damage, it just seems very wrong to me that it damages you as efficiently as if it were fired at you and all hit.  Having munitions cook off near you should hurt, but probably not as much as if they were used against you the way they were designed to be used.



Okay, am I the only one who sees formatting change every time I try to edit and fix it?  This is driving me nuts.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 04 May 2012 - 01:05 AM.

[Ronin1051]

Lt Trevnor, on 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Well, for one thing, Energy weapons don't cause a lot of shake on the part of the enemy. Were if hit with a gauss rifle round, there is a possibility of losing a leg. And at close range, a AC/20 taking a limb! Energy weapons can't do that as well.

Exactly! In MechWarrior 4: Mercs, I always favored heavy balistics! Esspecially AC/20's (well... Ultra's of course) and LBX-20's. Never liked using Beam weps as my primary damage dealer, unless was the only and best config that a chassis supported. Point is, beam weapons have ALWAYS been kept in check in terms game balance by giant spikes in heat generation. For energy weapons, it makes sense for them to be unlimited in how many times they can be fired, since they draw power from a 'Mech's fusion core, why not? ;-/ Again, I think I heard Ekman saying (loosely) 'it will be based on the player's strategy and play style'... So do that mean it "smart" to load a 'Mech with a low heat tollerance with a bunch of heavy heat generating weapons? Sure, if that floats your boat! ...But I'll just be ducking and weaving, waiting until you overheat, then shread you from behind with dual LBX-20's! Then I would happily point out: NEVER rely on a single weapon type! Beam/energy weapons are a great secondary to balistics (i.e., run outta ammo, ammo explodes, jams, etc.). Kinda like having a trusty pistol for when your SAW machine gun jams...

[EDMW CSN]

As long ballistics do twice or even three times the DPS of energy weapons I will be happy even if it is more expensive.
Simply put this is NOT MW4/MW3/MW2 where you can load up ammo without cost.

There is a tangible cost in a persistent MMO universe, so instead of trying to circumvent it by making ammo cheaper (1 year down the road, hell ONE MONTH, the PPC will still be cheaper than the AC-10), make ballistics incredibly powerful instead. Their terrible weakness are already more than crippling enough.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I am sorry, but ballistics wont do twice to three times the dmg of energy except, and i mean EXCEPT at POINT BLOODY BLANK when they have the most speed they will EVER have. IF this game is designed right, I am sorry, BUT, physical resistance from the environment, namely AIR RESISTANCE and GRAVITY <more on G later> will affect and reduce the speed and power of ANY chemical or magnetically propelled PHYSICAL PROJECTILE. PERIOD. Gravity, will drag said rounds to the ground making them inaccurate after a certain distance. Energy weapons DO NOT have this problem, as they are ENERGY such as focused and compressed light <lasers> or particles of energy such as the PPC. Focusing range into full cohesion and then after a while dispersion and loss of cohesion are the factors for energy weapon power, NOT counting the machinery driving the inital charge to fire in the first place. Bigger gun, longer cohesive times, smaller, lesser.

[Samuel Maxwell]

Rejarial Galatan, on 04 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Energy weapons DO NOT have this problem, as they are ENERGY such as focused and compressed light <lasers> or particles of energy such as the PPC. Focusing range into full cohesion and then after a while dispersion and loss of cohesion are the factors for energy weapon power, NOT counting the machinery driving the inital charge to fire in the first place. Bigger gun, longer cohesive times, smaller, lesser.

Er... Diffraction. Need I say more?

http://www.rocketpun...er-weapons.html

EDIT: Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to say. It's like you said, "While ballistic weapons become inaccurate at range, lasers will too if you take into account of dispersion and science and stuff!" Are you sure you're arguing against ballistics?

Edited by Samuel Maxwell, 04 May 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

Game balance Galatan. Even MW4 recognized the problem of energy weapons having such an issue of being too powerful (range and stupidly high damage). That was the reason why the Clan ERPPC took 8 seconds to cool down vs the IS LRM 20 and LB-10x which recycles in 4 seconds only.

In a span of 16 seconds the ERPPC would have fire thrice (first volley is always "free), the LB-10x would have fired 5 times.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 04 May 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Thing of it is, and not counting magazine detonations or ammo weights, the fact air resistance slows projectiles and gravity drags them down makes me look to energy weapons, even if I gotta fire more slowly.

[EDMW CSN]

Rejarial Galatan, on 04 May 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Thing of it is, and not counting magazine detonations or ammo weights, the fact air resistance slows projectiles and gravity drags them down makes me look to energy weapons, even if I gotta fire more slowly.

Oh don't worry about it. Most MW games work under 1km. The AC-20 has the same short range as that of a medium laser so in the mean time while you are charging your 10 dmg PPC with an 8 second cool down, the AC-20 would have done another 40 dmg if the reload is 4 seconds.

In fact i am hoping PGI pushes AC-20 and AC-10 ROF to only 3 seconds. So if you are in an Awesome and a Hunchback closes on to you, he can tear you apart in under 10 seconds. That's the way it should be. Atlas only does it faster because he has 4 med lasers, SRM6 and AC-20.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 04 May 2012 - 10:47 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Dont assume my mech will carry ONLY PPC's. no...wait! YES, <evil look in his eyes> I carry ONLY PPC's. do what you wanna do to me <evil laugh echos across the land>

[William Petersen]

Rejarial Galatan, on 04 May 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I am sorry, but ballistics wont do twice to three times the dmg of energy except, and i mean EXCEPT at POINT BLOODY BLANK when they have the most speed they will EVER have. IF this game is designed right, I am sorry, BUT, physical resistance from the environment, namely AIR RESISTANCE and GRAVITY <more on G later> will affect and reduce the speed and power of ANY chemical or magnetically propelled PHYSICAL PROJECTILE. PERIOD. Gravity, will drag said rounds to the ground making them inaccurate after a certain distance. Energy weapons DO NOT have this problem, as they are ENERGY such as focused and compressed light <lasers> or particles of energy such as the PPC. Focusing range into full cohesion and then after a while dispersion and loss of cohesion are the factors for energy weapon power, NOT counting the machinery driving the inital charge to fire in the first place. Bigger gun, longer cohesive times, smaller, lesser.

Anyone else find it amusing he talks about physics mattering when it's to the disadvantage of ballistic weapons, but eschews it when it comes to heat management?

/gigglesnort

[Zylo]

William Petersen, on 05 May 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

Anyone else find it amusing he talks about physics mattering when it's to the disadvantage of ballistic weapons, but eschews it when it comes to heat management?

/gigglesnort

I think it depends how much the discussion enrages him and distorts his logic skills. I think he needs to switch to decaf or something since he seems to get upset over almost anything when someone doesn't agree with his view.

Anyway, the devs have to consider game balance which I expect will work out to be something like energy weapons running hot at the cost of no ammo and a smaller hit area which might make it far more difficult to hold the beam on target while being hit with ballistic weapons.

Ballistic weapons of course have limited ammo, the risk of ammo explosion but I suspect there might be some sort of knock back that will mess with the enemy's aim while being hit. I also expect to see the difference in travel time to the target between a laser and ballistic based weapons (making the fast mechs harder to hit at a distance with ballistic weapons) but beyond that I'm not sure how detailed PGI will make the physics in game.

[Terick]

William Petersen, on 05 May 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

Anyone else find it amusing he talks about physics mattering when it's to the disadvantage of ballistic weapons, but eschews it when it comes to heat management?

/gigglesnort

I find it amusing that when we really look at physics energy weapons should lose damage the farther they get from the point of fire.

Ballistic weapon damage would depend on HOW the damage is applied. A G-Rifle slug that is damage by kinetic energy should also lose damage the farther it goes... at these ranges though it shouldn't be a problem.

If the damage comes from the explosive force of the shell then won't matter hos fast the round was going when it hit you. You still have the explosive force doing the damage as long as it triggers.

Now that could really change weapons, sure the AC has ammo, but the damage is constant. Your ER PPC loses damage the farther we are apart... would make loading up on a lot of AC/2s worth it. The Demios and Bane would become real terrors.

[Zylo]

Terick, on 05 May 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

I find it amusing that when we really look at physics energy weapons should lose damage the farther they get from the point of fire.

Ballistic weapon damage would depend on HOW the damage is applied. A G-Rifle slug that is damage by kinetic energy should also lose damage the farther it goes... at these ranges though it shouldn't be a problem.

If the damage comes from the explosive force of the shell then won't matter hos fast the round was going when it hit you. You still have the explosive force doing the damage as long as it triggers.

Now that could really change weapons, sure the AC has ammo, but the damage is constant. Your ER PPC loses damage the farther we are apart... would make loading up on a lot of AC/2s worth it. The Demios and Bane would become real terrors.

This got me thinking, will the angle of the shots matter in this game?

Using WoT as an example you could often bounce shells if your angle was bad in relation to the target but due to the complex shape of the mechs I wouldn't really expect to see the impact angle make a difference due to all the additional calculations needed.