55 replies to this topic

[FrostPaw]

I quite like the idea a mech with an AMS system close to an allied mech can defend them from an incomming missile attack. I'm thinking a heavy or medium supporting a light could defend the light with such a tool.

The thing that needs to be worked out is some kind of overlapping, diminishing return which allows for an AMS defensive network but reduces the effectiveness of multiple AMS to the point where having too many is detrimental rather than beneficial. Perhaps something that increases the missile defence umbrella but reduces the ammo capacity faster because multiple AMS systems are firing at the same incomming projectiles and most of the ammo is wasted on missiles already shot down.

[Sporkosophy]

If they do AOE AMS rather then self only, I'd like a reduction of 60% for each unit after the first to prevent overt abuse, more if necessary.

[Arbhall Sommers]

So the idea is that in a game oriented toward team play, a mech dedicated to formation defense is penalized for specializing for the benefit of his/ her team?

I would love to see a "Fly Swatter" battlemech deployed with a lance to cover it. That would be awesome in my opinion. The firepower sacrificed at the team level is significant enough to cover the advantage of a fly swatter. At an individual level its more so, since the fly swatter cannot defend itself one on one.

I can see this working really well, a Catapult and a Fly swatter working together. One covers the over and they move as a team. They are lacking a spotter and close up defense. Looks balanced to me, add in the missing two elements and the game looks interesting.

Fill up a lance with all swatters they cant hurt anything.
Fill it up with close up brawlers, the range elements have the advantage till they are overborn.
And so on and so on. There will be uneven matchs will happen, adapt and overcome or die.

[Mike Silva]

Arbhall Sommers, on 12 May 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

So the idea is that in a game oriented toward team play, a mech dedicated to formation defense is penalized for specializing for the benefit of his/ her team?

I would love to see a "Fly Swatter" battlemech deployed with a lance to cover it. That would be awesome in my opinion. The firepower sacrificed at the team level is significant enough to cover the advantage of a fly swatter. At an individual level its more so, since the fly swatter cannot defend itself one on one.

I can see this working really well, a Catapult and a Fly swatter working together. One covers the over and they move as a team. They are lacking a spotter and close up defense. Looks balanced to me, add in the missing two elements and the game looks interesting.

Fill up a lance with all swatters they cant hurt anything.
Fill it up with close up brawlers, the range elements have the advantage till they are overborn.
And so on and so on. There will be uneven matchs will happen, adapt and overcome or die.

Okay so this is supposed to be Battletech....

[UncleKulikov]

It should be in, but also have a failure or overload chance.

[Aegis Kleais]

For the tonnage, AMS should only protect the Mech whose pilot chose to equip it. Sharing information is one thing, but sharing defensive abilities is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

Why not have BAP share its ability to nearby Mechs or ECM share its abilities to nearby Mechs? It's bad enough LRM's have a defensive piece of equipment against it; don't give AMS more power against LRMs.

[Mike Silva]

Aegis Kleais™, on 12 May 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

For the tonnage, AMS should only protect the Mech whose pilot chose to equip it. Sharing information is one thing, but sharing defensive abilities is a step in the wrong direction, IMO.

Why not have BAP share its ability to nearby Mechs or ECM share its abilities to nearby Mechs? It's bad enough LRM's have a defensive piece of equipment against it; don't give AMS more power against LRMs.

ECM does actually "share" its abilities with nearby 'mechs. It's an AOE thing, if you're in the jamming area certain enemy systems are rendered null.

*edit* - I'm not trying to erode your point, I completely agree with it. Just an "FYI" thing.

Edited by Mike Silva, 12 May 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[Arbhall Sommers]

Mike Silva, on 12 May 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Okay so this is supposed to be Battletech....

No idea what you mean by that but moving on.
Just something Id like to see.

Makes me wonder if the FC systems like Artemis 4 will be able to increase the effectiveness of the missiles in game like they do on the table top.

[Kanatta Jing]

Arbhall Sommers, on 12 May 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

No idea what you mean by that but moving on.
Just something Id like to see.

Makes me wonder if the FC systems like Artemis 4 will be able to increase the effectiveness of the missiles in game like they do on the table top.

The Artemis 4 makes LRM's better at Direct Fire without improving their ability at Indirect Fire. It's an okay game design choice so long as the bonus doesn't mean that C1 Catapults are suddenly able to out DF DPS the Awesome.

[Arbhall Sommers]

Kanatta Jing, on 12 May 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

The Artemis 4 makes LRM's better at Direct Fire without improving their ability at Indirect Fire. It's an okay game design choice so long as the bonus doesn't mean that C1 Catapults are suddenly able to out DF DPS the Awesome.

The Catapult should technically outperform the Awesome in a short match, but the fact that an Awesome does not rely on ammo gives it a huge edge. I am hard pressed to say which would win more often. Regardless....
I like the way you said that, the FCS would improve direct fire missiles only and not indirect fire. I dont think the FCS should be as lame as the TT version though, that system is expensive and it takes up space and makes the mech more vulnerable to critical hits while only providing a small bonus. I would have used them more if they added 3-4 to the missile hits roll instead of the piddly +2. Even an additional bonus to the to hit roll would have been better like the one for artemis 5 later on.

[Melissia]

Perhaps while activated the AMS causes weapons to generate heat quicker?

[Deathz Jester]

Slight heat generation to balance it out.

also doesn't AMS have ammunition? whereas LAMS does not? so LAMS should generate more.

idk maybe i'm just spouting nonsense lol

[Melissia]

AMS is basically a machinegun tied to a computer that fires at missiles.

LAMS is essentially a micro pulse laser tied to a computer that fires at missiles.

[Thom Frankfurt]

Well the AMS does generate it's own heat....

[Arbhall Sommers]

I dont think that the AMS needs much tweeking, its pretty good, but it burns through ammo way too fast for it to be unbalanced. One bad roll and its empty. It can be great, but you can also burn all the ammo taking out only one missile. Ive had it happen a dozen or more times.
I think its a cool mechanic, and shouldnt change much despite the down sides of using it.

[Melissia]

I was suggesting that it can be turned on or off, and while on, it generates heat or causes other weapons to generate more heat than normal.

[Arbhall Sommers]

I could live with that. Powered on it adds one or two to the heat per turn to cover the power draw on the targeting computer.
The LAM however, that is another type of creature. It has shut down my mechs at least a few times.
It generates massive heat, one game i had it actually set off my missile ammo. Took out my mech while it shot down a whopping 3 missiles.
Good concept, but a potential disaster.

[The unnamed one]

Sporkosophy, on 12 May 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

inb4 his reasoning being MW4 grrrrrr.

I like the compromise they implemented into the game. They used a hard point system with so many crits to put stuff in,

[Kenyon Burguess]

as we saw in the videos, the missles spread out when fired and come at the target in a high angle. it "looks" like they splash (miss?) around the target while its moving. from that impression of a jenner surviving a catapult's 2 LRM salvos fired on two occasions, i am pretty confident i wont need an AMS system. i think the only reason they gained popularity in the earlier MW games was because of the missles coming at you in a stream. it made shooting them down easy. as a spread attack now. you wont be able to hit them like you could before.

[Deathz Jester]

Personally I liked the MW3 way, if you wanna put 6 machineguns in your head go ahead.

i forget did it have rear facing weapons?