351 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

I would like to think that what Garth meant was, up close and personal, you shoot me, I take 10 pts of damage. My turn. I shoot you. You eat 20 pts and lose your PPC.

We dance some more, your turn again, you go pew pew,(5+5 pts) then I go again. BOOM! another 20pts. Hahahaha sucka LOL

P.S. I think my solving your Heat problem for you, was rather kind of me as well. I just hope you have 60 more points of armor left...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 03 May 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[EDMW CSN]

guardian wolf, on 03 May 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

There is, but it costs tonnage, money, and if you aren't so lucky, an internal explosion that really friggin hurts

Doesn't sound like a bad deal. A full ton of exploded MG ammo does 400 damage. AC-20 deals 100 damage and an LRM-20 does 120 damage.

Current coolant pods only deal like 10 damage when exploded ;f

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 03 May 2012 - 09:15 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Economically there is no way ballistics can compete with energy based weapons. Unless they have significant in battle advantages like knockback or TACs then you will nearly always be better off going energy.

[Samuel Maxwell]

I hate how the mention of economics trigger the thought of money in half of the posts. Granted that heat, weight, and range were also talked about (thankfully). But there's little reason to try to figure out the economics of weapons if we don't even have a clue about the economy of the game. At this point, we're speculating. And if we're speculating, we might as well be suggesting.

Depending on how the players get rewarded for winning (and losing) and how much it costs to fully repair a destroyed 'Mech, I can see the cost of ammunition being a small or even a huge part in the game. if it is the latter, there may be ways to reward ballistic players. For instance, a player that hits with a ballistic weapon may be compensated more than an ammo is worth per shot in his/her paycheck. This makes it so that players don't simply waste ammo and rewards 'Mechs dependent on ammo (e.g. Catapult) if they hit.

There are many ways to balance ballistics and energy weapons. Heatsinks were already mentioned, too. I'm glad that there are so many players knowledgeable in the TT rules and made it easier to understand the game mechanics for me.

[Rejarial Galatan]

Tactically speaking, its like this. IF you choose to carry an all energy weapon load out because of w/e reason you want, you MUST deal with the economics of heat and cyclic rate. Faster fire or prolonged fire buys heat. Manage that heat as you want given the systems they give us. EXAMPLE: IF your in a high heat environ, desert, day side of a moon, fire as you can to do your job. Use what ever means at your disposal to cool. Stop firing or Coolant Flush <IF available, knock it off fans of NO coolant. It exists in previous iterations and thus valid as example> or Pods or w/e.
EXAMPLE: IF your in a cold environ, night desert, night side of a moon, glacial environ or any other cold place. Heat is less of a concern.

NOW, IF you use ammo based weapons that have a chemical propellant <bullets, missiles, AC rounds> then, you deal with the economics of lesser heat, physical ammunition weight and potential explosion in the magazine.

We all have our prefered weapons type. We all can make effective and lethal mechs based around our personalities and what we prefer in terms of our weapons. Take ammo, you run the risk of blowing up chunks of your mech when those stores are breached by enemy fire, or actual fire from flamers. You also take the risk of knowing your shot count is limited by what you have onboard. You also deal with the fact that, IF this games done right, gravity and friction with the air WILL bring that round down, period. Energy weapons only need concern themselves with the range of the target, gravity and atmosphere pose almost 0 effect on the weapon. I say: Do what you gotta do to enjoy the game.

[Ravn]

I knew I would eventually agree with one of your arguments

[Rejarial Galatan]

Ravn, on 03 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

I knew I would eventually agree with one of your arguments

had to happen eventually!

[Sassori]

God I can't even finish the whole thread before having to say this: FICTION != RULES!

Even in the game books it explicitly says that the Fiction does not accurately represent the technical aspects of the universe!

Ballistics run cool, they don't need as many heat sinks to build a mech that can run neutral. This is their strength. They pay for that in ammo, tonnage, and critical allocation. They also have the potential to do a lot more damage than energy weapons (Unless clan, cuz lets face it the ER Clan PPC is the most broken weapon in /any/ of the games cept maybe MW2) in the Inner Sphere.

PPC is 10 damage, 10 heat, or ER PPC is 10 damage, 15 heat.

ALSO!

PPC's can fire at /any/ range, they're just harder to hit with effectively at close ranges because the beam hasn't become fully coherent yet. They do NOT slag at point blank range, and any writer who says they do is a moron imho.

Now, as for /THIS/ game with energy weapons being a 'Dot' effect, ballistics have another strength over energy, they can more easily place all their damage into a single location. That makes AC's and even machine guns more effective than energy in that respect.

This also helps balance out the fact that they use ammo. This nonsense of one being inherently better than the other needs to go away, we don't even know what the frikken Economy is going to /be/ like yet.

Heck could be that energy weapons require more money to repair and the like. We just don't know, but please, get off the 'In the novels' thing, they've said they're trying to stick to TT rules, the Novels most /definitely/ do not stick to TT rules. At all.

How many times in the novels do the AC/2's on a Rifleman just do stupid amounts of damage? Or Medium Lasers cutting right through armor on medium mechs and scoring internal stuff? Or Lasers ramping up a mech's heat when they get /HIT/ by them?

Stop. Using. Novels. As. Basis. For. /ANYTHING/.

It has no bearing and makes you look crazy.

[Ravn]

In the novels, they didn't have Table Top mech game for which you reference. Muahaha!

Edit: Not disputing your claim. I'm crazy.

Edited by Ravn, 03 May 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I will say this clearly: CANON IS LAW. TT is taken from CANON, this game <MWO> is taken from TT. nuff said.

[William Petersen]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 May 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Coolant Flush <IF available, knock it off fans of NO coolant. It exists in previous iterations and thus valid as example> or Pods or w/e.
EXAMPLE: IF your in a cold environ, night desert, night side of a moon, glacial environ or any other cold place. Heat is less of a concern.

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 May 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

I will say this clearly: CANON IS LAW. TT is taken from CANON, this game <MWO> is taken from TT. nuff said.

"Coolant flush" exists only as a very specialized and experimental technology in Canon/TT, so how can you defend it and then proclaim that "CANON IS LAW"? The technical game mechanics of previous video games have 0 bearing on canon (or are you saying Mech Assault is canon?).

[Rejarial Galatan]

Petersen, give me a bloody break huh. TT makes mention of EFFING COOLANT FLUSHES via those nifty little C.Pods. Having never ruined my eyes on the 3rd person MW games on PC or console or where ever they cropped up, id not be able to say anything on them. And, I say this with kindness, back the heck off already petersen.

[Sassori]

Coolant pods are A) Experimental, and B ) Sucked, and C) Not even remotely available in this time period. No coolant flushing.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 03 May 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[JazzySteel]

So, I skimmed the thread as it degenerated into people arguing over Cannon and TT (I have not played TT, but would like to). So I'll just throw out there that I trust the devs to make the right decision.

But the price of Ammo is very relevant to my intrests, I am a huge fan of Rotary Autocannons, and they eat ammo like nobody's business...

[Ravn]

You have to give him credit for at least making a caveat to coolant flush now.

[Rejarial Galatan]

I can sit here and type until a REAL atlas arrives from 3049 and crushes my house. BUT its going to do me no good. People are set like stone on their take on coolant flushing and the various ways it can or should not be done. I leave it FORMALLY for the devs to place in or not. I am sick of this going in circles with this issue, its making me dizzy.

Price of ammunition and the risks TO my mech are reasons I take NON chemical propelled ammo IF i take any at all. Gauss Rifles, slugs of metal, no fuel for the round. Only gotta worry about weapon gettin blown up, but, sames true for ANY weapon now isnt it.

EDIT: 2nd paragraph added.

Edited by Rejarial Galatan, 03 May 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[William Petersen]

Rejarial Galatan, on 03 May 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Petersen, give me a bloody break huh. TT makes mention of EFFING COOLANT FLUSHES via those nifty little C.Pods. Having never ruined my eyes on the 3rd person MW games on PC or console or where ever they cropped up, id not be able to say anything on them. And, I say this with kindness, back the heck off already petersen.

"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.

[Ravn]

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

[Rejarial Galatan]

Agreed Ravn.

[Ravn]

JazzySteel, on 03 May 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

So, I skimmed the thread as it degenerated into people arguing over Cannon and TT (I have not played TT, but would like to). So I'll just throw out there that I trust the devs to make the right decision.

But the price of Ammo is very relevant to my intrests, I am a huge fan of Rotary Autocannons, and they eat ammo like nobody's business...

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.