15 replies to this topic

[ranx]

I think the ac20 needs a buff in survivability, it is far to prone to getting destroyed due to the amount of crit slots it takes up.

[Aegis Kleais]

Isn't that the risk with larger weapons like that? More crits slots = more chances to take damage.

In all honesty, I don't think I've equipped an AC/20 in months, so I'm not as in tuned to its survivability, but if indeed it is too much of a glass cannon, hopefully they'll make the needed adjustment.

[Willie Sauerland]

Given the boom it makes, and the hurt when it hits, it should have some disadvantages. Size is a good one which is why it is so big in the original BattleTech.

I see no problem with its current weight, size, or fragility.

[Aym]

ranx, on 12 December 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

I think the ac20 needs a buff in survivability, it is far to prone to getting destroyed due to the amount of crit slots it takes up.

They've mentioned all weapons have a default 10 HP. The Gauss has less, and they'll tune the HP of components going forward. Good topic to ask in the Ask the Dev's thread.
.Althought I'd like to see component HP be a percentage of the structure HP for the location it is placed it. I think that'd be interesting.

Edited by Aym, 12 December 2012 - 07:30 AM.

[FrostPaw]

I think it would make sense to make a short range brawling weapon more hardy. They made Gauss more fragile because it's supposed to be a sniper weapon. AC20 is for getting up close and mixing it, given it's weight, ammo bulk and size, I think survivability on top of that is a little excessive. Even if it is harder to destroy, it's still limited by all those other factors.

I know I often lost it on the Hunchback even before I lost the shoulder it was in.

[Bobzilla]

FrostPaw, on 12 December 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

I think it would make sense to make a short range brawling weapon more hardy. They made Gauss more fragile because it's supposed to be a sniper weapon. AC20 is for getting up close and mixing it, given it's weight, ammo bulk and size, I think survivability on top of that is a little excessive. Even if it is harder to destroy, it's still limited by all those other factors.

I know I often lost it on the Hunchback even before I lost the shoulder it was in.

Agree.

With so many ways to balance weapons, fragility should be changed to balance weapon servivablity vs weapon servivablity only.
They threw logic out the window when they nerfed the gauss servivability.

[ranx]

FrostPaw, on 12 December 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

I think it would make sense to make a short range brawling weapon more hardy. They made Gauss more fragile because it's supposed to be a sniper weapon. AC20 is for getting up close and mixing it, given it's weight, ammo bulk and size, I think survivability on top of that is a little excessive. Even if it is harder to destroy, it's still limited by all those other factors.

I know I often lost it on the Hunchback even before I lost the shoulder it was in.

This is exactly my point. The AC20 is a really big, heavy weapon for which you also have to carry ammo, and it has conciderable heat too. due to all these factors i really think it should be more difficult to destroy. Currently it pops like nothing.

[Willie Sauerland]

ranx, on 12 December 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

This is exactly my point. The AC20 is a really big, heavy weapon for which you also have to carry ammo, and it has conciderable heat too. due to all these factors i really think it should be more difficult to destroy. Currently it pops like nothing.

A really big weapon should not be really easy to target and destroy? I'm confused by this logic.

[canned wolf]

Really big weapons tend to be really tough too.

I'm torn on this one. AC/20 Hunchbacks and Atlases have a pretty serious disadvantage here. The have an enlarged torso section that is proportionally easier to target. More and more when I pilot my Atlas people focus fire my AC/20 to take it out, which is what they should do. But if I take out a K2, I don't have to deal with that drawback.

I just don't know if its a big enough disadvantage to warrant a change. I still wreck shop when I take my Atlas out, and AC20 Hunchbacks are rare enough that people don't focus the hunch like they used to.

[Willie Sauerland]

canned wolf, on 12 December 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Really big weapons tend to be really tough too.

I'm torn on this one. AC/20 Hunchbacks and Atlases have a pretty serious disadvantage here. The have an enlarged torso section that is proportionally easier to target. More and more when I pilot my Atlas people focus fire my AC/20 to take it out, which is what they should do. But if I take out a K2, I don't have to deal with that drawback.

I just don't know if its a big enough disadvantage to warrant a change. I still wreck shop when I take my Atlas out, and AC20 Hunchbacks are rare enough that people don't focus the hunch like they used to.

But these are designed into the build to make them more balanced. Just because a weapon is bigger does not mean it should necessarily be tougher. Think of the critical slots as an ammunition band and the other things it would take to make it work. Destroy the ammunition link and it can no longer fire. This does not mean the AC/20 itself is destroyed, only that it is no longer usable.

This seems to me to be a very valid balancing mechanism.

[Bobzilla]

Willie Sauerland, on 12 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

A really big weapon should not be really easy to target and destroy? I'm confused by this logic.

Easy to target and easy to destroy are 2 different things.

I think OP is saying the mechanics of the game causes anything that takes up more slots to be easier to be destroy (having not much to do with the player shooting). So a 1 slot weapon is twice as durable as a 2 slot weapon as its less likely to get hit. This equates to giving an Atlas and Jenner the same amount of armor and saying yeah the Atlas is big so it should be eaiser to destroy being a bigger target.

The slots/tons is already there to balance the weapons damage so this would make it double balanced.

I don't find mine blows that easy, but its a good point to think about

[Willie Sauerland]

Bobzilla, on 12 December 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Easy to target and easy to destroy are 2 different things.

I think OP is saying the mechanics of the game causes anything that takes up more slots to be easier to be destroy (having not much to do with the player shooting). So a 1 slot weapon is twice as durable as a 2 slot weapon as its less likely to get hit. This equates to giving an Atlas and Jenner the same amount of armor and saying yeah the Atlas is big so it should be eaiser to destroy being a bigger target.

The slots/tons is already there to balance the weapons damage so this would make it double balanced.

I don't find mine blows that easy, but its a good point to think about

Do not confuse armor and mobility for durability and toughness. In a sense, an Atlas is easier to kill than a Jenner because it is much easier to hit. Granted, it will take longer than when hitting a Jenner, but it is true. And the fact the Atlas is hitting back makes it a challenge as well...

And like I said earlier, think of it like the different parts which it takes to make the AC/20 work filling the slots. It then makes sense that a single crit could take it out. This is why a weapon is different from a [/i]mech[/i]. They shouldn't rely on one weapon to work whereas a weapon does require all its parts to work.

[Shae Starfyre]

I feel the opposite. The bigger the weapon, the easier it is to hit, and being ballistic weapons, even a small burr in the barrel can make a gun explode or the barrel rupture, whatever, making it more likely to have an issue from a critical hit.

Also, when they are hit, there's a round in it.

Energy weapons, (except for maybe pulse, PPC types, probably are not charged with anything, and fire with energy introduced) such that they would not explode, per-say. Also, being smaller, makes them less likely to get hit.

However, energy weapons should be just as likely to be affected by critical hits do to the components that make it work; drop a flash light and it might go out kind-of-thing.

I would like to see a more robust computation of the weapon and critical chance based on the weapon. Size is relative to chance of being hit, and I think this is fine, but what constitutes a critical for these weapons?

Ballistics: barrel is hit, round is hit, firing mechanism,
Lasers: capacitors, focusing diodes, electronic switches, etc.

Just food for thought; as was posted at about the same time above, anyone of these hit could render a weapon useless.

Edited by Aphoticus, 12 December 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Willie Sauerland, on 12 December 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Do not confuse armor and mobility for durability and toughness. In a sense, an Atlas is easier to kill than a Jenner because it is much easier to hit. Granted, it will take longer than when hitting a Jenner, but it is true. And the fact the Atlas is hitting back makes it a challenge as well...

And like I said earlier, think of it like the different parts which it takes to make the AC/20 work filling the slots. It then makes sense that a single crit could take it out. This is why a weapon is different from a [/i]mech[/i]. They shouldn't rely on one weapon to work whereas a weapon does require all its parts to work.

I don't dissagree with anything your saying. One crit should take out the whole weapon.
I'm saying that balancing weapon fragility vs weapon fragility in this game is the issue (or could be as I haven't payed close enough attention to the fragility of the AC/20).
If a weapon is already balanced to other weapons by tons/slots/Rof/Range/heat/Fire delay/velocity/side effect/damage, then in my opinion, they should all have the same survivability for game play.
I wouldn't want them to decided it is too fragile in comparison so they increase Rof or damage to balance it.

Also in RL, the bigger something is, the harder it is to destroy. The less electrical something is (more mechanical) the harder it is to destroy. But real life logic weigh in to heavy.

[Willie Sauerland]

Bobzilla, on 13 December 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I don't dissagree with anything your saying. One crit should take out the whole weapon.
I'm saying that balancing weapon fragility vs weapon fragility in this game is the issue (or could be as I haven't payed close enough attention to the fragility of the AC/20).
If a weapon is already balanced to other weapons by tons/slots/Rof/Range/heat/Fire delay/velocity/side effect/damage, then in my opinion, they should all have the same survivability for game play.
I wouldn't want them to decided it is too fragile in comparison so they increase Rof or damage to balance it.

Also in RL, the bigger something is, the harder it is to destroy. The less electrical something is (more mechanical) the harder it is to destroy. But real life logic weigh in to heavy.

I agree partially. The Gauss Rifle nerf was a horrible precedent to set. However, I suspect they will continue to massage the numbers until they are satisfied with the data whether we agree with them or not.

However, just because something is bigger does not necessarily translate to harder to destroy. Again, looking at all the components it takes to make something like the AC/20 fire, it could easily be taken out of commission should a critical hit be scored. Just because the ammo belt gets broken does not mean the gun itself is destroyed, only that it is out of commission. But, a direct hit on the gun with an AC/10 might be enough to destroy the gun itself. A medium laser might be able to get enough heat on the gun itself to warp it so it can't fire correctly. There are a lot of possibilities and I think the critical slots implement this side of the game very well.

Like I said, I'm sure they are looking at the numbers (and that is based on Command Chair posts as well) and will make the decisions they think are necessary to balance the game. Whether we agree or not.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 13 December 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Aegis Kleais, on 12 December 2012 - 06:51 AM, said:

Isn't that the risk with larger weapons like that? More crits slots = more chances to take damage.

Well, crit slots certainly have a double duty here- l imit how much you can put inside a mech section, and affecting the chance for critical hits...

Quote

In all honesty, I don't think I've equipped an AC/20 in months, so I'm not as in tuned to its survivability, but if indeed it is too much of a glass cannon, hopefully they'll make the needed adjustment.

I happen to think it's too weakened by this. It would need some additional advantages to justify its frailty.

My approach would be to raise item hit points based on the number of crit slots. Something like 7 base hit points for all items, +3 for each crit slot. (So 1 slot items still have only 10 hit points).

A weapon with 2 crit slots is twice as likely to be hit, but can also take about 30 % more damage than a 1 crit slot item. Seems okay, high crit slots is still an overall drawback, but at least you'll survive a bit longer than with having static hit points.


Of course, one thing I am not sure about is, is how much the current item hit points really matter in practice. 10 hit points is not that much if your average Jenner can deal 20 damage with one salvo. And the crit damage can potentially be doubled or tripled...