47 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Squigles, on 26 May 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

Not entirely true, as the source of that damage number is sourced from the Solaris Rules, meaning if they go that route, all the balancing has already been done.

AC/2 = 8 damage in 10 seconds. while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/5 = 10 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
Ultra AC/5 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 4 times over the duration for max damage
AC/10 = 20 damage in 10 seconds, while needing to hit 2 times over the duration for max damage
AC/20 = 20 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage
Gauss Rifle = 15 damage in 7.5 seconds, while needing to hit 1 time over the duration for max damage

The higher caliber's, as an obvious side effect, tend to deliver their damage to less overall locations, which tend to result in faster armor breaches.

As an interesting note, the Solaris rules includes all the weapons that are included for the launch of MWO, no more, and no less.

Strictly speaking, the per-salvo damage (and per-salvo heat, and range, and tonnage, and so on) is (most likely) sourced from the normal BattleTech rules.

Here is the Weapons and Equipment List.
(Ranges are in hexes; multiply by 30 to get ranges in meters. The Devs stated in Q&A 05 that the "long" would equate to the weapons' "maximum effective range".)

From the gameplay demo videos on MWO's YouTube page, it seems that the recycle times for the ACs is slightly shorter than their S7 values; I've clocked the AC-5 at a ~4-second recycle (vs 5.0 seconds) and the AC-20 at a ~6-second recycle (vs 7.5 seconds).

Also, another thing to consider would be the heat generated.
Firing four (4) times would mean that the AC-2 would be generate four (4) units of heat for that eight (8) units of damage, while the AC-5, firing only twice, would generate only two (2) units of heat for that ten (10) units of damage.
While the AC-2 would be lighter, longer-ranged, and have greater ammo longevity per ton (one ton of AC-2 ammo with S7-esque recycle times would represent ~112 seconds of continuous fire, versus ~100 seconds of continuous fire per ton for the AC-5), the AC-5 would have a greater damage over time capability, a much higher damage-to-heat ratio (10 to 2, rather than 8 to 4), and have each individual salvo deliver more damage (and, potentially, greater knockback) to the target.

Likewise, the AC-10 would fire twice, generating six (6) units of heat for twenty (20) units of damage, while the AC-20 would only fire once and generate seven (7) units of heat for twenty (20) units of damage.
While the AC-10 would be lighter, longer-ranged, have a slightly higher damage-to-heat ratio (20 to 6, versus 20 to 7), and have greater ammo longevity per ton (one ton of AC-10 ammo with S7-esque recycle times would represent ~50 seconds of continuous fire, versus ~37 seconds of continuous fire per ton for the AC-20), the AC-20 would have a slightly greater damage over time capability (20 units of damage every 7.5 seconds, rather than every 10 seconds) and have each individual salvo would deliver the full 20 units of damage (and, potentially, substantial knockback) to the target (rather than spreading the damage - and knock - between two salvos that may hit different locations).

One of the major concerns, however, would be the relationships between damage over time, heat over time, and armor/survivability - either damage per salvo and heat per salvo would have to be divided by ROF to maintain the DoT and HoT implied by the TT's 10-seconds-per-turn system, or every weapon would have to have a 10-second recycle time, or armor would have to be buffed.
Or we'd have to accept that face-to-face slug-fests between 'Mechs of the same weight class aren't generally going to be 60+ second affairs. After all, I would expect that most people would believe that a King Crab (dual AC-20s) or a Nightstar (dual Gauss Rifles) at short or medium range would be able to core and/or dismember most things short of an Atlas with one or two two-gun salvos...

On the other hand, all SRMs have a 5-second recycle and all LRMs have a 7.5-second recycle under the S7 rules.
Unlike the lighter ACs, which benefit from higher ROFs, the lighter missile launchers benefit mainly from greater "tube per ton" ratios and modularity.
For example, three SRM-2 launchers will require the same mass as a single SRM-6 (three tons) and one more critical space (three, versus two) and would get roughly the same number of salvos per ton (slightly more, actually - 16.67 for the triple SRM-2 vs 15 for the single SRM-6). Additionally, the SRM-2s can be spread out across the 'Mech (hardpoints permitting), so that taking out any one of the three SRM-2 launchers has less of an effect on the BattleMech's ability to retaliate than taking out the single SRM-6 (in other words, system redundancy FTW ).
Likewise, a quartet of LRM-5 launchers would have similar advantages over a single LRM-20, in addition to using less overall tonnage (8 tons for 4x LRM-5s versus 10 tons for one LRM-20) and fewer overall critical spaces (four criticals for 4x LRM-5s versus 5 criticals for one LRM-20).
Also, note how all of those are completely independent of the launchers' recycle times...

Personally, I feel that applying a S7-ish recycle time principle/system to the ACs (and the weapons in general) in MWO would help the lighter ACs to be "viable" weapon systems without making them horrifically overpowered (as they would still be very heavy and have to contend with limited ammunition, risk of ammo explosions, and increased heating from the higher ROFs), and that the missiles are actually fine as is, provided more people are able and/or willing to look beyond the number in the launcher's designation.

Your thoughts?

[PANZERBUNNY]

If they have included or will include special ammunition, I think they should break from canon and make it undesired weapons like the AC/2 and SRM-2 etc would be the only weapons able of taking those special munitions. It would give them more of a meaning an not tip the scale even more towards the larger bore/missile weapons as their effectiveness is increased drastically with those special minitions.

[Phades]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

(... good stuff)

Your thoughts?

It will really come down to how the munitions get released. I know months ago I posted something that referenced burst fired salvos vs. single projectile and spread on missiles, but i'll try to summarize here.

Lets say for example that the AC2 fires a single projectile. Over longer distances, this will help lend to better accuracy and being able to target specific sections. Then lets say that an AC5 does a burst fire of 3 projectiles over the course of .3-.5 seconds. The AC5 has a higher damage potential, but would have a harder time grouping all the damage into the same section and it would be more difficult to land all the shots at longer ranges. Then counter balance that against the base ROF (since if whole numbers are used, the AC5 would be a higher than PNP damage calculation potential) in 5 shot cycles and it would lend to a similar parity on the PNP side of things.

In the SRM side of things, having the missiles line fire sequentially for the SRM-2, rather than cluster fire (side by side) could create a similar parity. For me the SRM-2 is just a hard sale in general due to the tonnage vs. heat vs. space vs AMS.

The other issue to address is the ammo liability issue. Where the lower calibur items can shoot more, but it takes longer to dump the ammo, thus making it more likely for an ammo explosion to occur due to the nature of also taking damage over time and having no means to repair. Sure, CASE exists to limit this liability, but also at a cost which simply biases the weapons systems more against larger options that can deal their damage up front faster eliminating threats sooner and not carrying lots of excess rounds with the potential for self damage. This issue gives the nod to give a much higher ROF to the lower calibur weapons, but then they become hotter unless mechanics are introduced to use partial incriments of heat. So, instead of trying to rationalize why an AC-5 could belt out the equivilant of 6 AC-2 rounds in a similar time frame as the AC-2, but generate less heat, simply take a step in the direction of the machine guns (generating effectively no heat per shot) and step down the heat generation from 1 to .5 in order to bring it more inline with the rest.

As far as custom designs go in order to circumvent the inherent weaknesses of the low end items, I just hope that will be able to be achieved. Groups of SRM-2 and LRM-5 can be more efficient than their higher tonnage counterparts, but that still doesn't explain the SRM-4's inherent advantages and if we are pigeon holed by hard points, then they will quickly go by the wayside depending on implementation. Unfortunately the AC weapons can't be grouped due to their weight on anything but a heavier mech and there are lots of arguments to simply trade up for a higher calibur in those instances on those machines even if the ROF and HOT vs accuracy issues were addressed.

[wanderer]

Spleenslitta, on 26 May 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Yes the part about range is true but the AC2 has 720 meters range when we convert from TT ranges into meters.
The ER PPC has a range of 690 meters...that's only 30 meters difference. The difference is minimal.

As for the SRM 2....Well yes i would much rather use the SRM 4 or 6 too.
But the point here is that the SRM 2 is not being concidered as a viable weapon by anyone.
That's a flaw in the game for sure. What is the point of having weapons that nobody use?

Honestly? AC/2's are more a tank weapon than a 'Mech weapon in tabletop Battletech, and SRM-2 racks have one advantage they lack here- the ability to use Inferno munitions, basically hosing down targets with heat-inducing napalm rather than chewing up armor.

AC/2's really are a specialist weapon, and the ER PPC competes well because frankly, it's a next-generation weapon compared to the AC/2.

The LB-2X, which is the next step "up" in AC/2's isn't around yet, but it'll hit 810 meters in reach. The "Ultra" (double-tap) AC/2 will also hit 750m shots.

As for people comparing MW4 weapon stats to MWO ones....well, rude surprises are in order.

Clan ER PPC's are 1/1 (15 heat, 15 damage). IS ER PPC's are 15 heat, TEN damage. MW4 games base themselves on Clantech as it's readily available. MWO players are in a timeframe where Clantech doesn't even exist yet, and have years till it'd even be remotely considered common enough to use for anyone save the most uber-wealthy...which means super-elite mercs, not MWO players.

Clan large pulse lasers have a 600m reach. IS ones have a 300m (yes, that's barely more than a standard medium laser) range- and that's what you're using in MWO. Take whatever you learned about guns in MW4 and in general, toss it out the window to burn. It's useless, because MW4 strategy is based on super-light, supereffective Clan gear that nobody here has and nobody here WILL have, and heat scaling that was so arcade-style as to make most tabletoppers facepalm.

[PANZERBUNNY]

Streak in table top means when you "miss" a target, you don't use your ammo because you couldn't get a lock.

I would assume in this you NEED a lock and when you do, everything hits.

[00dlez]

Also different from table top is the rate of fire. My AC2 might be able to fire 5x faster than your PPC at the same range... damage might be more spread out, but what if you miss a PPC shot versus some scattered damge and missed shots.

[Rodney28021]

SRM 2 are great for firing Inferno round or other speciality round. Some mechs that i designed for TT use had SRM2 and LRM5 in large numbers to get more chances to hit and for spliting fire. I am sure some one will use some of the lower damage weapons in large numbers.

[Rodney28021]

Strum Wealh, on 28 May 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Strictly speaking, the per-salvo damage (and per-salvo heat, and range, and tonnage, and so on) is (most likely) sourced from the normal BattleTech rules.

Here is the Weapons and Equipment List.
(Ranges are in hexes; multiply by 30 to get ranges in meters. The Devs stated in Q&A 05 that the "long" would equate to the weapons' "maximum effective range".)

From the gameplay demo videos on MWO's YouTube page, it seems that the recycle times for the ACs is slightly shorter than their S7 values; I've clocked the AC-5 at a ~4-second recycle (vs 5.0 seconds) and the AC-20 at a ~6-second recycle (vs 7.5 seconds).

Also, another thing to consider would be the heat generated.
Firing four (4) times would mean that the AC-2 would be generate four (4) units of heat for that eight (8) units of damage, while the AC-5, firing only twice, would generate only two (2) units of heat for that ten (10) units of damage.
While the AC-2 would be lighter, longer-ranged, and have greater ammo longevity per ton (one ton of AC-2 ammo with S7-esque recycle times would represent ~112 seconds of continuous fire, versus ~100 seconds of continuous fire per ton for the AC-5), the AC-5 would have a greater damage over time capability, a much higher damage-to-heat ratio (10 to 2, rather than 8 to 4), and have each individual salvo deliver more damage (and, potentially, greater knockback) to the target.

Likewise, the AC-10 would fire twice, generating six (6) units of heat for twenty (20) units of damage, while the AC-20 would only fire once and generate seven (7) units of heat for twenty (20) units of damage.
While the AC-10 would be lighter, longer-ranged, have a slightly higher damage-to-heat ratio (20 to 6, versus 20 to 7), and have greater ammo longevity per ton (one ton of AC-10 ammo with S7-esque recycle times would represent ~50 seconds of continuous fire, versus ~37 seconds of continuous fire per ton for the AC-20), the AC-20 would have a slightly greater damage over time capability (20 units of damage every 7.5 seconds, rather than every 10 seconds) and have each individual salvo would deliver the full 20 units of damage (and, potentially, substantial knockback) to the target (rather than spreading the damage - and knock - between two salvos that may hit different locations).

One of the major concerns, however, would be the relationships between damage over time, heat over time, and armor/survivability - either damage per salvo and heat per salvo would have to be divided by ROF to maintain the DoT and HoT implied by the TT's 10-seconds-per-turn system, or every weapon would have to have a 10-second recycle time, or armor would have to be buffed.
Or we'd have to accept that face-to-face slug-fests between 'Mechs of the same weight class aren't generally going to be 60+ second affairs. After all, I would expect that most people would believe that a King Crab (dual AC-20s) or a Nightstar (dual Gauss Rifles) at short or medium range would be able to core and/or dismember most things short of an Atlas with one or two two-gun salvos...

On the other hand, all SRMs have a 5-second recycle and all LRMs have a 7.5-second recycle under the S7 rules.
Unlike the lighter ACs, which benefit from higher ROFs, the lighter missile launchers benefit mainly from greater "tube per ton" ratios and modularity.
For example, three SRM-2 launchers will require the same mass as a single SRM-6 (three tons) and one more critical space (three, versus two) and would get roughly the same number of salvos per ton (slightly more, actually - 16.67 for the triple SRM-2 vs 15 for the single SRM-6). Additionally, the SRM-2s can be spread out across the 'Mech (hardpoints permitting), so that taking out any one of the three SRM-2 launchers has less of an effect on the BattleMech's ability to retaliate than taking out the single SRM-6 (in other words, system redundancy FTW ).
Likewise, a quartet of LRM-5 launchers would have similar advantages over a single LRM-20, in addition to using less overall tonnage (8 tons for 4x LRM-5s versus 10 tons for one LRM-20) and fewer overall critical spaces (four criticals for 4x LRM-5s versus 5 criticals for one LRM-20).
Also, note how all of those are completely independent of the launchers' recycle times...

Personally, I feel that applying a S7-ish recycle time principle/system to the ACs (and the weapons in general) in MWO would help the lighter ACs to be "viable" weapon systems without making them horrifically overpowered (as they would still be very heavy and have to contend with limited ammunition, risk of ammo explosions, and increased heating from the higher ROFs), and that the missiles are actually fine as is, provided more people are able and/or willing to look beyond the number in the launcher's designation.

Your thoughts?

yeah i wholeheartedly agree with you on that, my TT designs split the missile launchers down for reasons of : survivability, more dice rolls, used less weight and critical spaces, able to fit any space on the mech, more efficient heat use. Instead of AC/2 i pack 5-8 machineguns and half ton of ammo. Important to burn through your ammo quickly before your armor fails. CASE was still useless since it didn't protect your xl engine and didn't work in arms. I plan to revisit my TT design stragedies and see if they can give me an edge here in MWO.