351 replies to this topic

[SideSt3p]

I'm just excited in general for whatever comes our way. I can go for or without coolant flush. I just want to play Beta soon

Although, to post OT, if I'm running a heavy energy load out, I expect it to be hot. I expect to have to stagger my fire and be very wary of my heat scale. The upside is I have no ammo to explode and so long as I stay alive and so on, I have infinite ammo!

I've always played primarily energy based designs, but MWO has me excited because the heat might actually be real enough that I want to PLAY an ammo based 'Mech. THAT is pretty cool to me.

[verybad]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

I hope ammunition driven weapons will be balanced with energy based weapons. If they are OP in the slightest, we are back to a Pay to Win situation since the Devs already said ammunition will be a major expense in upkeep... Actually, even if the weapons are balanced, energy weapons will need to have an intrinsic calibration and upkeep cost associated with them to keep the game from becoming entirely energy based. Why buy ammo when you can use a laser/PPC over and over for free.

Lasers have been show as causing damage over time, not instantaneously. This pretty much means that if anything, they'll be Underpowered in comparison to ballistic and missile weapons, and that their main attractions will be economic and for backup.

The problem with weapons that cause damage over time is that you (the user) have to remain vulnerable while using them.

All shooter games reward minimized risk strategies (ie leaving cover only when you have available firepower, staying in cover when overheated or rechanging weapons..

A lot of players only look at the offensive side of the game, the most successful players also play very defensively with minimized risk. (I know this was unpopular, but that's why poptarting in MW4 was so annoyingly successful, without 3rd person viewing, it is far less likely to be so in MWO.

Damage over time weapons mean you're vulnerable to the enemy for the entire time as well. I see ACs and Missiles being the main weapons, with energy being backups because of this. (Don't know how the PPC will perform as that's not been show AFAIK)

You will still want them (energy weapons) for the economic reasons and for backups, solid weapons look like they're better tactically however.

Risk minimization is the basis for success in play. Lasers are riskier IMO.

[Woodstock]

Ravn, on 30 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

This is true, but I don't think those players should be at a financial disadvantage compared to those using energy weapons, unless the ammo driven weapons do indeed pack a little more punch. But then, you are paying to win (USING IN GAME CURRENCY /extinguish torches)

I kind of like the idea of a financial cost for keeping Ballistic ... it reflect the roleplay side of the world

[William Petersen]

Christopher Dayson, on 18 May 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Normal mech construction has 10 heat sinks for free as an integral part of having a fusion reactor engine.
...

Without those 10 free heat sinks then the balance between ballistic and energy weapons goes right out the window.

A) No they don't. It's based on engine rating.

UrbanMech UM-R60L: Engine rating of 60, 10(+1) heat sinks, 9 require allocation, so there are only *2* engine-internal heat sinks.

Charger CGR-1A5: Engine rating of 320; 10+3 heat sinks; 1 requires allocation, so there are 12 engine-internal heat sinks.

From the BattleTech Master Rules (C 2003), page 118:

"Every BattleMech comes equipped with 10 heat sinks that do not take up tonnage (but they may take up critical slots..."

"A number of heat sinks equal to the engine rating divided by 25 (rounded down) are assumed to be an integral part of the engine. These heat sinks are only destroyed if the engine is totally destroyed and so cannot take crucial hits."

The amusing part is that you an allocate less than the rating/25 to a minimum of 10 on a Mech with a very high-rated engine kind of killing the "integral part of the engine" fluff. Still, that's how it works. Or I suppose I should say "that's how it worked."


B) That's strikes me as somewhat like saying if you don't give ammo weapons free ammo, balance goes right out the window. /shrugs

Edited by William Petersen, 18 May 2012 - 03:02 PM.

[Sassori]

Yes they do. All mechs come with 10 free heat sinks. Wether or not you can fit them into your engine size at all. You also saw fit to contradict yourself in your own post. Good call.

Without the 10 free heat sinks then the increased weight of the ballistic weapons makes it not compare favorably at all. Ballistic weapons are typically pretty friendly heat wise, energy weapons are not. You can thusly fire a lot more ballistics to generate 10 heat, than it takes firing energy weapons of the same range and comparable damage profiles.

That's why if you have the weight, it's easier to make heat neutral or heat negative ammo using mech's than it is to do comparable damage with energy.

4 Clan ER PPC's generates 60 Heat.

3 AC/20's generates 21 Heat.

See the difference?

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 18 May 2012 - 03:06 PM.

[William Petersen]

Christopher Dayson, on 18 May 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

Yes they do. All mechs come with 10 free heat sinks. Wether or not you can fit them into your engine size at all. You also saw fit to contradict yourself in your own post. Good call.

Without the 10 free heat sinks then the increased weight of the ballistic weapons makes it not compare favorably at all. Ballistic weapons are typically pretty friendly heat wise, energy weapons are not. You can thusly fire a lot more ballistics to generate 10 heat, than it takes firing energy weapons of the same range and comparable damage profiles.

That's why if you have the weight, it's easier to make heat neutral or heat negative ammo using mech's than it is to do comparable damage with energy.

4 Clan ER PPC's generates 60 Heat.

3 AC/20's generates 21 Heat.

See the difference?

Yeah, I do. The Mech with 4 ER PPCs will kill the other before it even gets in range. <.< Also, that 3 AC 20 model is carrying enough ammo to make Independence Day in New York look like a fire cracker.

[Sassori]

William Petersen, on 18 May 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

Yeah, I do. The Mech with 4 ER PPCs will kill the other before it even gets in range. <.< Also, that 3 AC 20 model is carrying enough ammo to make Independence Day in New York look like a fire cracker.

*facepalms* Way to completely sidestep the whole entire point.

Damage for Damage, Ballistics are more heat friendly than energy. There's no getting around that. Even tonnage for tonnage they're comparable.

Ultra AC 5, 9 tons, 2 heat, for 5-10 damage. +1 ton of ammo = 10 tons and 2 heat total.

PPC 7 tons for 10 heat for 10 damage. +3 heat sinks to = 10 tons and 7 heat.

With stock 10 heat sinks the Ultra AC 5 is /far/ more efficient than a PPC, but runs the risk of ammo explosion.

One of the factors that the ballistic is so efficient is because it can run 4 Ultra AC 5's and Run for neutral heat. Even if you put 4 tons of ammo one for each ultra AC 5.

4 PPC's is 28 tons + 12 tons of Heat Sinks to get to 40 tons and you're still running at +18 Heat, without even running.

Ballistics are more heat efficient per tonnage. This is how they're balanced, and the stock 10 heat sinks make up a large chunk of how that balance works.

EDIT: To clarify +12 Tons of what for the PPC's

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 18 May 2012 - 03:20 PM.

[William Petersen]

Christopher Dayson, on 18 May 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

<stuff>

Let's do a thought experiment. Let's assume all engines have no heat sinks and that running and walking no longer generate heat.

A PPC requires 17 tons to fire and remain heat neutral, and 13 crits.

To keep our comparison apples-to-apples, we'll stick with Tech 1 guns. An AC 10 matches it for damage and an AC 5 matches it for range, so let's look at both.

An AC 10 requires 15 tons to fire and remain heat neutral, and 10 crits. Without ammo (10 shots/ton).
An AC 5 requires 9 tons to fire and remain heat neutral, and 5 crits. Without ammo (20 shots/ton). But it does half the damage of the PPC.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can claim that the inherent heat sinks in a BattleMech are different than giving ballistic weapons free ammo, nor how they are "needed" for balance when the weapons look pretty well balanced when you have to pay for all your heat sinks.



NOTE: I wish to make it clear that I'm not really arguing for their removal (I'm not stupid, they've been an integral part of BattleTech since inception, and such a dramatic change would incur the wrath of whole hundreds of QQers on the forums), I'm arguing against your assertion that they are 'needed' for 'balance'. They are not.

[Sassori]

If you cannot see how the 10 free heat sinks that come with every mech attribute to a mech's balance then there is really no point in continuing this conversation. Weapons generate heat. In fact your own last point proves without a doubt that Ballistics are more heat efficient ton for ton and point for point. The fact that those 10 free heat sinks means ballistics don't have to devote space (Crits) and Weight (Tons) to Heat Sinks to get good damage is really the whole entire point.

It's like you're going: You have no point, because I say so, here, I'll even put up my own statement that completely agrees with you, but then say my own statement doesn't matter. Because I say so.

It's like you're trying to use the Chewbacca defense.

[William Petersen]

Re-reading your posts, I gather that you're arguing the "free" heat sinks are a point of balance to make ballistic weapons more attractive. That was the crux of the misunderstanding. I thought you were saying energy weapons were gimped without them.

I still wouldn't say ballistics *need* those free heat sinks. Their "increased weight" is countered by the need of the energy weapons to pack extra heat sinks. In fact, that energy weapons *don't* need to add those heat sinks up to their first 10 heat is a good reason to shy away from ballistics, especially on lighter chassis (though most lighter chassis can't even mount a ballistic weapon; I'll come back to this idea).

Specifically the AC/10 example above, with two tons ammo it breaks even on tonnage and saves a crit space, gives up one hex on the range increment, but has no min range. 20 shots is probably plenty for a company-sized engagement.


I don't really think the point of the free heat sinks is to balance weapons against one another. It's to effectively give a BattleMech space to use. As above, without them a single PPC takes 17 tons.

The panther wouldn't even exist because it can't reasonably devote that much tonnage to weaponry, in fact, most light mechs would be completely impotent because they just wouldn't have enough tonnage to mount beyond a couple MLas if they also had to pay for the heat sinks.

Another reason I don't believe it is a point of weapons balance is that once you reach that 10 heat, weapons *still* have to be balanced against one another.

[Sassori]

There is a lot of leeway up to that 10 points of heat with Ballistics if you are dealing with a heavier chassis.

I also agree that energy weapons are generally better on lighter chassis because you aren't trying to get as much damage into the chassis as you are with the heavier tonnage. It's the trade off.

I personally prefer Energy Weapons, but that's because I'm a trigger happy nutcase who hates running out of ammo. I build heat neutral designs so I can just shoot at will. That doesn't mean I don't respect Ballistic weapons. They have great efficiency when you have the weight available to use them freely.

I do think that 10 heat sinks free is definitely a part of balance even still because it is so much easier to overwhelm those 10 heat sinks with energy weapons. There is still balance once heat reaches 10 as well, because ballistics are still very heat efficient.

Honestly, the thing that ruins balance (Said this before, sayin' it again) is double heat sinks. Those thrash balance massively because the free heat sinks are double as well. So 1 ton suddenly becomes 22 heat dissipation. /THAT/ skews the balance immensely. In the end though, I still think a combined weapons platform is going to be more overall formidable than any single weapon type. Though with Double Heat sinks it becomes a lot more viable to go energy only than it did.

Edited by Christopher Dayson, 18 May 2012 - 06:31 PM.

[William Petersen]

Christopher Dayson, on 18 May 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

Honestly, the thing that ruins balance (Said this before, sayin' it again) is double heat sinks. Those thrash balance massively because the free heat sinks are double as well. So 1 ton suddenly becomes 22 heat dissipation. /THAT/ skews the balance immensely. In the end though, I still think a combined weapons platform is going to be more overall formidable than any single weapon type. Though with Double Heat sinks it becomes a lot more viable to go energy only than it did.

A point upon which we can both agree! Huzzah! B-)