31 replies to this topic

[FrupertApricot]

LBX pellets should do the same damage as LRMs FOR BALANCE REASONS. on tabletop LRMs do one per hit, in MWo about 1.8. Why give LRMs the love but not the LBX even though it has worse spread?

[Dexion]

I was just thinking this today. All other spread weapons got a dmg boost but not LBX. I think 1.5 would be better however, as you do have some control over where the shot hits, unlike lrms.

[Voridan Atreides]

1.8 is a bit much...

[Dukarriope]

But then it'd have to be called a LB-15X AC.
...But yes, unless the LBX gets combined cluster spread ammo or straight slug munition selection, making it a LBX15 might bring it up with the spraysiles.... But then again, it's way easier to shoot lights with a LBX than SRMs.

[Mahws]

It may be easier to hit them with an LBX than SRM, but at least the SRM do something when you score a hit.

[Mad Pig]

Agreed. Let's be like the NFL and get some parity. Show us some LBX love!

Edited by Mad Pig, 08 January 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[Dexion]

Dukarriope, on 08 January 2013 - 05:34 PM, said:

But then it'd have to be called a LB-15X AC.

Still 10 Pellets, Still a LBX 10, after all, LRM 10's didn't become LRM 18's, right.

Really, I'm still wondering how this was never taken care of. I kinda forgot about the LBX until I ran one tonight. Left me with a "eh, that would be so much cooler if it did just a BIT more damage".

[superteds]

Or just give the LBX alternate ammo (slug) like it's meant to have. AC10 risks becoming pointless, but you can give that special ammo, or a better DPS or range or whatever to compensate.

[Noth]

Dexion, on 08 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Still 10 Pellets, Still a LBX 10, after all, LRM 10's didn't become LRM 18's, right.

Really, I'm still wondering how this was never taken care of. I kinda forgot about the LBX until I ran one tonight. Left me with a "eh, that would be so much cooler if it did just a BIT more damage".

Missile are named for the number of missiles they fire. ACs are named for teh damage they do, so yes at 1.5 per pellet it would be a LBX15.

[Mahws]

AC's are named after the amount of damage they do over a single turn. So in BT lore an AC20 is anything from a massive single shot weapon (that does 20 damage in ten seconds) to a five shot burst weapon (that does 20 damage in ten seconds).

E.g.

Quote

An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "round" while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, and causing higher damage per shell. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output.

So if we're going to be keeping damage/names based on tabletop:
AC/2 = AC/40
AC/5 = AC/29.4
UAC/5 = UAC/45.5
AC/10 = AC/40
AC/20 = AC/50

An LBX10 doing a bit more damage hardly seems much of a concern in that regard.

Edited by Mahws, 08 January 2013 - 09:32 PM.

[Noth]

Mahws, on 08 January 2013 - 09:30 PM, said:

AC's are named after the amount of damage they do over a single turn. So in BT lore an AC20 is anything from a massive single shot weapon (that does 20 damage in ten seconds) to a five shot burst weapon (that does 20 damage in ten seconds).

So if we're going to be keeping damage/names based on tabletop:
AC/2 = AC/40
AC/5 = AC/29.4
UAC/5 = UAC/45.5
AC/10 = AC/40
AC/20 = AC/50

An LBX10 doing a bit more damage hardly seems much of a concern in that regard.

It's per shot for the names. Even in solaris rules an AC2 did 2 damage per shot.

[Mahws]

Take it up with the BT writers if you disagree. It's their canon, not mine.

Random examples:
Crusher Super Heavy Cannon AC20, ten shot burst.
Whirlwind AC5, three shot burst.

[Noth]

Mahws, on 08 January 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

Take it up with the BT writers if you disagree. It's their canon, not mine.

Random examples:
Crusher Super Heavy Cannon AC20, ten shot burst.
Whirlwind AC5, three shot burst.

*sigh* you are confusing per shot with lore and TT. That crusher super heavy AC 20 fires a ten round burst 1 time in 10 seconds in CBT, yet fires that 10 round burst more times in 10 seconds in Solaris rules. It's all about damage done in teh round which for all purposes is 1 shot per round (even if the flavor text says it is a burst of rounds)

[Mahws]

Yes, now go back and read exactly what I said in my first post.

The names are no longer linked to damage done per round. They are now linked to damage done per shot. Thus the AC2 doing 40 damage per ten seconds (standard round) and the AC5 doing 29.4.

As such we're already ignoring what the numbers on the AC names originally mean, so it doesn't really matter if the LBX10 doesn't do 10 damage a shot from a 'that's what it's like in table top' perspective.

[Noth]

Mahws, on 08 January 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

Yes, now go back and read exactly what I said in my first post.

The names are no longer linked to damage done per round. They are now linked to damage done per shot. Thus the AC2 doing 40 damage per ten seconds (standard round) and the AC5 doing 29.4.

As such we're already ignoring what the numbers on the AC names originally mean, so it doesn't really matter if the LBX10 doesn't do 10 damage a shot from a 'that's what it's like in table top' perspective.

It's still per round, just the round varies from weapon to weapon just like in Solaris rules. An AC5 that fires in 3 round bursts fires in 3 round burst regardless whether it is the 2.5 second rounds of solaris or the 10 second rounds of CBT. It's a per trigger pull and thus per shot damage.

[General Taskeen]

LB-X "cluster" needs something

A. Either give it the proper flak-burst effect (round explodes in proximity to a target, burst of pellets spread over smaller area's), although this might be problematic coding with netcode
B. Give a far reduced spread so all pellets hit at the caliber's given effective range over smaller area's (all pellets spreading roughly across side torso's and center at effective range)
C. A possible damage per pellet increase, 1.2 to 1.5, something like how other past MW titles balanced it or current. Going with 1.5, that would LB 2-X at 3 damage, LB 5-X at 7.5, LB 10-X at 15, LB 20-X at 30. Or start with a high damage per pellet for the lowest caliber (1.5 ; 2-X ; 3 Damage) - (1.4 ; 5-X ; 7 damage) - (1.3 ; 10-X ; 13 Damage) - (1.2 ; 20-X ; 24 Damage) ... just something.

[Mahws]

Noth, on 08 January 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

It's still per round, just the round varies from weapon to weapon just like in Solaris rules. An AC5 that fires in 3 round bursts fires in 3 round burst regardless whether it is the 2.5 second rounds of solaris or the 10 second rounds of CBT. It's a per trigger pull and thus per shot damage.

So if I hold down the left mouse button in MWO does that make an AC2 the same as an AC10 then? They both do the same amount of damage per turn, no matter how long you count that turn as being, right? Seeing as an AC2 is supposed to do a fifth of the damage as an AC10 in the same amount of time in TT (regardless of the turn length fluff) does that mean that an MWO is taking five turns for every MWO AC10?

The point is that the naming conventions from table top don't mean squat in a Mechwarrior game. The system is completely different, nothing works the same. So arguing that a weapons shouldn't have a property changed because it'd be 'not like in TT' is completely silly.

Edited by Mahws, 08 January 2013 - 09:58 PM.

[smokefield]

maybe instead of increasing the damage they should decrease the spread area...at the moment in you are close to maximum range it will fire the pellets spread all over the enemy mech...reduce that spread to half..so the damage will be more localized..therefore improved.

[Noth]

Mahws, on 08 January 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

So if I hold down the left mouse button in MWO does that make an AC2 the same as an AC10 then? They both do the same amount of damage per turn, no matter how long you count that turn as being, right? Seeing as an AC2 is supposed to do a fifth of the damage as an AC10 in the same amount of time in TT (regardless of the turn length fluff) does that mean that an MWO is taking five turns for every MWO AC10?

The point is that the naming conventions from table top don't mean squat in a Mechwarrior game. The system is completely different, nothing works the same. So arguing that a weapons shouldn't have a property changed because it'd be 'not like in TT' is completely silly.

No. It's a per trigger pull. Because TT is an abstraction, the ACs are named for the damage done each time they are fired whether it is a burst or single round.

They don't need to up the damage on the LBX10 to make it an LBX15, they just need to make it work like a real LBX and have it fire canisters that explode or normal AC rounds. That would have teh effect of decreasing spread and allowing it to have all damage to one area like it is supposed to.

[General Taskeen]

Mahws, on 08 January 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

The point is that the naming conventions from table top don't mean squat in a Mechwarrior game. The system is completely different, nothing works the same. So arguing that a weapons shouldn't have a property changed because it'd be 'not like in TT' is completely silly.

Agreed. TT grognardary of damage values should be dropped for balancing a real time Mech game indeed. Weapons and equipment are "placement balanced" already with weights/criticals, its the damage/heat that really need to be changed. Basing the way weapons are fired or from TT turn seconds or whatever else just plain sucks. Past Mech titles got that picture for the most part. MW:LL another current title dropped hardcore TT damage-turn-based as well in favor of fun, variety, and better balanced weapons.

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 January 2013 - 10:05 PM.