|
Der Waffle Mous posted:I don't know how this whole mythology around PPCs being useless inside their minimum range has popped up when in the tabletop, the worst you're dealing with is equivalent to the medium range penalty. They're specifically built to not shoot at anything within 90m range because they're super fragile and otherwise the EMP effect from the shot will cause the PPC to explode. Of course, in tabletop you can choose to turn the field inhibitor off to damage an enemy within minimum range at the cost of having to roll to see if it blows up or not: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Field_Inhibitor
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
Yeah i read up on that, the AoE on the impact would cause damage to the shooting mech. Makes sense from a lore perspective then, but not in any other loving way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
PGI's implementation of minimum range is poo poo (just like their implementation of LRMs) Also: Spider SDR-5K: Now has a +20% Machine Gun Rate of Fire Quirk. 
PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
They should just give people that option of slamming PPC in someone's face at close range. Drawback is suiciding during the act.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
So is that flame dog posted a few pages back a good build? Seems like it wouldn't work against more than 1 dude
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Drythe posted:So is that flame dog posted a few pages back a good build? Seems like it wouldn't work against more than 1 dude If you fix up the armor to be correctly placed, yes. The current SRM implementation is very strong, and the flamers to stun-lock a target is probably a better use of tonnage than lasers would be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
I've found the best thing in conjunction with flamers, on my stormcrow, is small pulse lasers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
It's OK guys, this is totally a realistic thing one can do manually! (I call it the
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
I don't understand the difference between shooting two at once and shooting four at once. Why not have them all on the same button with the macro? It looks cooler?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Drythe posted:I don't understand the difference between shooting two at once and shooting four at once. Why not have them all on the same button with the macro? It looks cooler? Flamers create more heat for you when you hold the trigger down longer. Switching back and forth between two resets that heat increase.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It's OK guys, this is totally a realistic thing one can do manually! (I call it the I get the impression i shouldnt be playing for a few days until this gets adressed. It wont, will it? Until goons flame-lock Russ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:I get the impression i shouldnt be playing for a few days until this gets adressed. Just join mumble and jump in a group. The flamer shenanigans don't really work terribly well in group queue due to how rarely you'll catch someone not in a murder ball. This might change as flamer usage gets more organized, but it's fine for now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Drythe posted:I don't understand the difference between shooting two at once and shooting four at once. Why not have them all on the same button with the macro? It looks cooler? It looks cooler. And I've got six, so I'm cycling all six on an alternating .1 second on, .2 seconds off interval. You could do the same with all six firing at once, but this way if you miss a couple of shots you'll be able to tag them with more heat immediately. And I'm cooling off while doing it, which is the part I really wanted to show.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It's OK guys, this is totally a realistic thing one can do manually! (I call it the I know someone posted this already but here it is again. 1. firectrl.exe 2. 3. fire sequence: 3,4,4,5,4,4 where 3 and 5 are flamers and 4 is an empty group 4. bind fire button 5. hold fire to fire fire without getting fiery (don't forget to group fire the flamers when you can to MINMAX!) 6. no seriously run this into the ground Herb Dington fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
In the tradition of classic releases, an event is comming up. It is a recent tradition only a few months old but a tradition nonetheless. http://mwomercs.com/tournaments?t=201602mechs
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Hey 19, is there any possibility of ammo quirks for lighter 'mechs? I feel like a Shadow Cat would be much more viable with like a "plus-two tons ballistic/gauss ammo" quirkl
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Herb Dington posted:I know someone posted this already but here it is again. Isn't that double the time needed? You only need .01 on and .02 off so wouldn't it be 1ms?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Btw, welcome to Caustic Therma weeks, enjoy your stay until you overheat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Pattonesque posted:Hey 19, is there any possibility of ammo quirks for lighter 'mechs? I feel like a Shadow Cat would be much more viable with like a "plus-two tons ballistic/gauss ammo" quirkl There are no ammo quirks in code at this time. I think they're non-trivial to add which is why you haven't seen them yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Drythe posted:Isn't that double the time needed? You only need .01 on and .02 off so wouldn't it be 1ms? Server ticks being exactly 1ms (?) I decided to just go to 2ms. But you're right, you Herb Dington fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Number19 posted:There are no ammo quirks in code at this time. I think they're non-trivial to add which is why you haven't seen them yet. Im no programmer, but "ammoX weight = 90%" doesnt sound like rocket surgery?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:Im no programmer, but "ammoX weight = 90%" doesnt sound like rocket surgery? It would be ammo capacity boosts and again, it sounds simple but it isn't always in practice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Number19 posted:It would be ammo capacity boosts and again, it sounds simple but it isn't always in practice. If its about space and not weight, why not have the ammo-quirk reduce the slots on the weapon?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
It sounds like ammo is set to always take x tons for x ammo on the ammo object itself. Probably because it was originally designed without quirks in mind. To edit this, you now need to create a separate object for that ammo, that then only shows up for the mech. What that then means, is I bet ammo shows up on the loadout dependent on the weapons equipped, so now you are making a new weapon and ammo, just for one specific mech. And all your new objects are the exact same even except the ammo now gives 12 shots instead of 7 per ton. Then these objects themselves could be tied to other things that make it a spiders nest to work with. It always sounds simple and people criticize, but unless you have actually worked on a system you don't get to talk about how you would have done things. e: This is also just theory, but you can see how it can get complicated fast. Drythe fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:If its about space and not weight, why not have the ammo-quirk reduce the slots on the weapon? That would be far more difficult. You'd essentially need to have a distinct weapon that was only available for that one chassis. It would get wildly out of hand. Ammo boost quirks would be nice to see, it would add a nice ballistic specific quirk that is currently missing (energy get reduced heat as their specific quirk). Drythe posted:It sounds like ammo is set to always take x tons for x ammo on the ammo object itself. Probably because it was originally designed without quirks in mind. I think converting all ammo to formula based would probably be the better solution. That would let you to inject a variable with a default value of '1' and quirk as needed. So, AC20AMMO_SHOTSPERTON = 7 would be AC20AMMO_SHOTSPERTON = INT(7*X) And now a mech can have a specific X setting that influences ammo. It might make more sense to give mechs a 'secret' ammo compartment that counts how many tons of each type is equiped, and adds in a set value of 'extra' per ton of each type, depending on how the ammo is actually implemented in the game. EoRaptor fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Yolomon Wayne posted:If its about space and not weight, why not have the ammo-quirk reduce the slots on the weapon? Quirks do not show up in the mech lab at all. This would require even more work. Your tonange savings quirk would also run into the same issue. e: I should clarify: Quirks are visible as a list in the lab but cannot affect anything there directly. They only affect in-match weapon characteristics. Number19 fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Old bird here who just reinstalled for funsies. I've got elited / mastered Jenners, Centurions, and Stalkers, plus the free Thunderbolt 9S from a while ago which I don't like very much (though maybe it's because I keep trying to use it as a 3PPC sniper - I accept build suggestions). Also about 10M C-Bills saved up. What would be a good 70-tonner to fill up my IS dropship? I'd like a ballistic build, since I haven't tried one yet. That would point me towards either the Warhammer 6R, or a Cataphract - is the 3D still the best C-Bills 'phract?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
NihilCredo posted:Old bird here who just reinstalled for funsies. I've got elited / mastered Jenners, Centurions, and Stalkers, plus the free Thunderbolt 9S from a while ago which I don't like very much (though maybe it's because I keep trying to use it as a 3PPC sniper - I accept build suggestions). Also about 10M C-Bills saved up. The cataphract is an okay ballistic platform, though the meta currently favours the jagermech due to better arm position. The 3D and the 0XP are both good cataphracts. Taking a ballistic mech into CW is currently bad, because ammo limitations will curtail your 'staying power' in a fight, and force you to abandon an otherwise good mech. EoRaptor fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Number19 posted:Quirks do not show up in the mech lab at all. This would require even more work. Your tonange savings quirk would also run into the same issue. Sounds like a reason to introduce ammo modules. Spend 6+ billion cbills for "lightened" or "densely packed" ammo or something. e: Modules that let you buy different ammo, not modify already existing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Is there no way to save different loadouts for 1 mech? I don't wanna have to strip it again and start from scratch if i wanna try out a different build every couple of matches. oh my sweet summer child
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Why not just, say, increase all ammo to be comparable to how nasty energy based weapons are? Oh right, Paul. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Why not just, say, increase all ammo to be comparable to how nasty energy based weapons are? I don't think it's just Paul. I'm pretty sure the dire hards would lose their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:Ammo boost quirks would be nice to see, it would add a nice ballistic specific quirk that is currently missing (energy get reduced heat as their specific quirk). Missile and Ballistic -heat% quirks exist though  Now energy duration quirks, that's definitely a lasers-exclusive one. But then, UAC Jam Chance is a ballistic-exclusive quirk. . . (I'm being a dick) I would looove to see additional ammo/ton quirks on stuff like the Gargoyle or Shadowcat, but that kind of stuff is probably way more difficult to execute than it sounds. I imagine weapon characteristics are relatively simple compared to altering the physical inventory of a mech and the way ammo is handled compared to other stats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Special Munitions for the standard ACs were a thing. More or less meant to keep them relevant after Ultras and LBXs of all sizes came out. also RACs. Caseless ammo in particular let you carry twice as many rounds but gave your gun a chance to jam. Precision ammo negated some negative modifiers but you only carried half the ammo per ton, and with AP ammo you took a hit penalty and carried less per ton but had a chance to cause through-armor criticals on each hit. Then there were Flak and Flechette, which were specialist ammo types for anti-aircraft and anti-infantry, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I don't think it's just Paul. I'm pretty sure the dire hards would lose their poo poo. Pretty much, its the grognards that eat up the pricy rear end bundles. And they're the ones that'll flip out if poo poo diverges too far from whatever old battletech game they played.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I don't think it's just Paul. I'm pretty sure the dire hards would lose their poo poo. Yeah, the main problem this game has is that it's based on a table top game that had completely different play mechanics. Plus, it doesn't help that aspects of the game were intentionally unbalanced or balanced by ways that don't show up in a multiplayer FPS. There isn't a clean way out of that one for them. If they just deep six things that were done in TT (like, say, doubling all the ammo) then they're going to piss off that core fan base that they rely on to sell their nostalgia mechs. Are there really enough people out there who just want to play a robot fighting game once you alienate the people who like Mechwarrior specifically? Quirks are a dirty fix, but probably the best tool they have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ5F4SzPgBo AC2s are fun
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
To be entirely honest, since they doubled armor for the game, they should double Ammo per ton. That would go a real long way to fixing ballistics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, the main problem this game has is that it's based on a table top game that had completely different play mechanics. Plus, it doesn't help that aspects of the game were intentionally unbalanced or balanced by ways that don't show up in a multiplayer FPS. you know it's interesting, every once in a while on the Brown Sea some dude will go: "LRMs on an Atlas are fine. AFTER ALL, in TABLETOP, the Atlas comes stock with an LRM! For LONG RANGE PUNCH!" and they're totes serious
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
PoptartsNinja posted:It's OK guys, this is totally a realistic thing one can do manually! (I call it the Dang, Russ is right. This isn't complete gamebreaking bullshit. Nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 21:50
|
|
