Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Q_res
Oct 29, 2005

We're fucking built for this shit!
A pubbie on the official forums suggested increasing internal structure of the head on all Mechs by 15 points. The problem with that is, it still leaves the AC/10 as a headcapper. But if you combine it with my earlier suggestion of buffing the PPC to 60 dmg and dropping the AC/10 to 70, I think it works.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Bubbacub
Apr 17, 2001

I wonder if PPCs will seem more useful in the campaign since they don't have to rely on ammo.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008

Kanos posted:

It seems to me that an easy way to solve the "too many headcappers" problem and "are my pilots going to die like flies" problem is to substantially increase the relative armor of the head. Head hits would still be debilitating due to incurred pilot damage and taking multiple would still kill you, but it would reduce the incidence of an Urbanmech blowing your head off from the fog.

Battletech heresy but - remove heads as a distinct location. All other armour values need to be adjusted for balance reasons, but just have head hits be a controllable outcome of certain kinds of CT crits with the result being a pilot injury/unconsciousness/death depending on how bad it is.

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


Alchenar posted:

Battletech heresy but - remove heads as a distinct location. All other armour values need to be adjusted for balance reasons, but just have head hits be a controllable outcome of certain kinds of CT crits with the result being a pilot injury/unconsciousness/death depending on how bad it is.

Randomly getting chumped by head hits is a core part of Battletech, as you noted. If they want to reduce the brutality of head hits, there are a ton of options without just randomly removing the head hit location. They could give it more armor and/or structure, they could reduce the odds of headshots from various angles, they could increase the number of hits a pilot takes, or reduce the number of pilot hits a pilot can take in a turn, etc. Any of those seems like a better idea than completely rebalancing the system to remove the Head location if they feel survivability needs to be increased.

Rygar201
Jan 26, 2011
I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.


Alchenar posted:

Battletech heresy but - remove heads as a distinct location. All other armour values need to be adjusted for balance reasons, but just have head hits be a controllable outcome of certain kinds of CT crits with the result being a pilot injury/unconsciousness/death depending on how bad it is.

No, this is un cool.


Personally, I am excited for the current system wherein high ground gives you better chances of headsh. Keep in mind that bracing and cover give damage reduction, so if you properly utilize those you will sharply reduce the instances of AC 10's doming you from the fog.

evilmiera
Dec 14, 2009

Status: Ravenously Rambunctious
Headcaps are super fun for both sides but sadly I never see them. Even when doing called shots they never seem to hit

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf

Rygar201 posted:

No, this is un cool.


Personally, I am excited for the current system wherein high ground gives you better chances of headsh. Keep in mind that bracing and cover give damage reduction, so if you properly utilize those you will sharply reduce the instances of AC 10's doming you from the fog.

I don't thiiink high ground alone gives you better head hit chances but DFAs most certainly do.

Rygar201
Jan 26, 2011
I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.


Gwaihir posted:

I don't thiiink high ground alone gives you better head hit chances but DFAs most certainly do.

Oh, I may have misread one of the data dumps. I thought elevation gave headshot advantage, like an FPS hah

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
There's a "Top" hit table, but I think it just gets used for DFAs. Elevation definitely gives you greater chances to hit period though.

Amechwarrior
Jan 29, 2007

Why not just drop the AC/10 dmg down instead of trying all these crazy things? Drop it to 60 and if you want raise the PPC to match and/or add negative effects to being hit by one. I kind of like the idea of the PPC impact adding to-hit or sensor detection penalties, as it would give the early moving Panther a great role similar to a sensor locker, but with weapons instead of a pilot skill. Mechs like the Awesome, who move last wouldn't really be able to exploit the shock effects unless they shoot a mech that hasn't moved yet as the next new round will reset the effect.

Blazing Ownager
Jun 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless
I know not everyone here really follows the HBS forums much, but has anyone tried the increased LOS mod? It makes a night and day difference to how much fun this game is. A hugely positive change.

Amechwarrior posted:

Why not just drop the AC/10 dmg down instead of trying all these crazy things? Drop it to 60 and if you want raise the PPC to match and/or add negative effects to being hit by one. I kind of like the idea of the PPC impact adding to-hit or sensor detection penalties, as it would give the early moving Panther a great role similar to a sensor locker, but with weapons instead of a pilot skill. Mechs like the Awesome, who move last wouldn't really be able to exploit the shock effects unless they shoot a mech that hasn't moved yet as the next new round will reset the effect.

They buffed AC/2 from 10 to 25 (on the 5x scale), the AC/5 from 25 to 50, which made the AC/10 at 60 look like a shorter range, heavier piece of crap. Right now the AC/10 has less than canon ammo (8 instead of 10) per ton, which I think might be the best way to bring it in line.

It's a tricky one to fix because the AC/2 and AC/5 not sucking is a nice change of pace.

Blazing Ownager
Jun 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

kingcom posted:

It was mostly a clusterfuck (same with the FedCom Civil war) because they had planned their religious terrorist plotline to kick off December 2001 so everything fell apart as they had to abruptly hold off on it and keep the FedCom civil war stuff plowing ahead. So its one of those thing where yeah its all a loving mess but I can't really be upset at anyone or blame anyone for it.

I could go on about all the reasons that the Jihad sucked, but the biggest is the fact they spent ages setting up:

- Them being the ones in control of the FWL
- The FWL being the most powerful technologically and the mostly untouched in all the wars
- The CC also being reliant on them for all information (replacing ComStar HPGs)
- The CC having the Trinity Alliance that could hit everyone in the back if they wanted

Basically it was all setup for "FWL and CC are misinformed and kept in the dark by the Blakist communication network while their puppet leader convinces them to trample over the rest of the Inner Sphere." Then instead they tossed all that out and expected people to buy that the Blakists just nuked everybody and took over the center of the galaxy while nobody cared to stop them and it was dumb. So dumb. Even by Btech's worst standards, dumb.

Amechwarrior
Jan 29, 2007

Blazing Ownager posted:

They buffed AC/2 from 10 to 25 (on the 5x scale), the AC/5 from 25 to 50, which made the AC/10 at 60 look like a shorter range, heavier piece of crap. Right now the AC/10 has less than canon ammo (8 instead of 10) per ton, which I think might be the best way to bring it in line.

It's a tricky one to fix because the AC/2 and AC/5 not sucking is a nice change of pace.

Ah yea, good point. But I wonder what will become of the actual Gauss Rifle? If it does 75dmg, is massive to mount and explosive, then why not take a much more available AC/10? If they raise the dmg to near 100 it becomes a god weapon even with the minimum range.

Tin Foil Hat Thinking - The AC/10 in beta is a cover to test how a gauss rilfe effects player choice.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Blazing Ownager posted:

I know not everyone here really follows the HBS forums much, but has anyone tried the increased LOS mod? It makes a night and day difference to how much fun this game is. A hugely positive change.


They buffed AC/2 from 10 to 25 (on the 5x scale), the AC/5 from 25 to 50, which made the AC/10 at 60 look like a shorter range, heavier piece of crap. Right now the AC/10 has less than canon ammo (8 instead of 10) per ton, which I think might be the best way to bring it in line.

It's a tricky one to fix because the AC/2 and AC/5 not sucking is a nice change of pace.

Honestly I think the way to do that might be to tone down the AC 2 and AC5 just a touch. Maybe from 25 to 20 and 50 to 40 or somesuch. Then an AC10 at 60 would make sense without having the 2 and 5 be pointlessly poo poo.

Blazing Ownager
Jun 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Amechwarrior posted:

Ah yea, good point. But I wonder what will become of the actual Gauss Rifle? If it does 75dmg, is massive to mount and explosive, then why not take a much more available AC/10? If they raise the dmg to near 100 it becomes a god weapon even with the minimum range.

Tin Foil Hat Thinking - The AC/10 in beta is a cover to test how a gauss rilfe effects player choice.

Yep. Gauss Rifles are likely to be in the vanilla game despite it's 3025 setting too, since LosTech is a thing and the weapon, effects, etc. are already in the game. I've never tested them so I don't know if they still do 75 at 5x or not though.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Amechwarrior posted:

Ah yea, good point. But I wonder what will become of the actual Gauss Rifle? If it does 75dmg, is massive to mount and explosive, then why not take a much more available AC/10? If they raise the dmg to near 100 it becomes a god weapon even with the minimum range.

Tin Foil Hat Thinking - The AC/10 in beta is a cover to test how a gauss rilfe effects player choice.

One of the issues that they need to deal with is the range you can see poo poo at and map layout for long range battles. I'm not saying everything needs to be a flat plain, but the AC2 and AC5 partially sucked in TT because those insane ranges were just about worthless. Very, very few maps were ever going to give you the kind of unobstructed LOS over 20+ hexes that you need for the multiple rounds of sanding poo poo off approaching mechs that AC2s are supposed to be good at.

Frankly it was an issue with the Gauss rifle too, but that had the added benefits of having seriously good damage and negligible heat. The calculus was basically that a gauss plus ammo weighed about as much as an ERPPC and the heat sinks required to use it, and having lower over all heat let you go a bit more nuts with secondary weapons. Even then it was much more of a lateral move either way that depended on your specific preferences.

If they made it possible to get LOS significantly further out then weapons like AC2s and 5s would find their place much more easily. A blackjack perched on a hill overwatching half the map with his twin AC2s wouldn't exactly be a doom bringer, but it would have a solid roll in harassing the gently caress out of the enemy and bringing them to the main fight dinged up.

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf

Cyrano4747 posted:

Honestly I think the way to do that might be to tone down the AC 2 and AC5 just a touch. Maybe from 25 to 20 and 50 to 40 or somesuch. Then an AC10 at 60 would make sense without having the 2 and 5 be pointlessly poo poo.

You're paying an awful lot of tonnage for an AC2 over a medium laser if it does less damage though. With existing map sizes the AC2's range doesn't really offer 6 tons of advantage over the typical ML. Hell, even at it's newly buffed damage, the choice to take an AC2 over another weapon is still really iffy. Even before considering potential ammo explosions.


Amechwarrior posted:

Ah yea, good point. But I wonder what will become of the actual Gauss Rifle? If it does 75dmg, is massive to mount and explosive, then why not take a much more available AC/10? If they raise the dmg to near 100 it becomes a god weapon even with the minimum range.

Tin Foil Hat Thinking - The AC/10 in beta is a cover to test how a gauss rilfe effects player choice.

I think the vastly scaled up armor and damage values gives them a lot of room to make gauss in to an actual more sniper-like weapon. Lots of damage but it can only fire once per 2 or 3 turns.

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





I agree with the general concept that there doesn't seem to be much long range engagement right now where a mech gets weakened before it's actually in the fight.

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

Gwaihir posted:

You're paying an awful lot of tonnage for an AC2 over a medium laser if it does less damage though. With existing map sizes the AC2's range doesn't really offer 6 tons of advantage over the typical ML. Hell, even at it's newly buffed damage, the choice to take an AC2 over another weapon is still really iffy. Even before considering potential ammo explosions.




Which is why they need to fix both the los range and perhaps map geometry to make range s situationally useful thing.

Eldragon
Feb 22, 2003

Internet Explorer posted:

I agree with the general concept that there doesn't seem to be much long range engagement right now where a mech gets weakened before it's actually in the fight.

From just casual observation it seems that terrain and turning isn't nearly as restrictive as it is in Table Top, plus sprinting.

Could also be the way the AI is programmed; Its probably pretty dumb and just tries to get the best hit chance it can.

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
Yea, I expect campaign maps to be much larger than current skirmish maps.

(And I'd rather campaign balance being first priority).

I think a lot of fun would be had experimenting with spotting range, (currently 200meters base, modified by tactics skill and individual mech chassis), sensor range, and visible detection/sensor detection range.

A Jenner for example gets 1.25x spotting range, 1.4x sensor range, and -.5 sensor signature. (This seems to be the same for all Light 'Mechs too.)
Conversely Assaults get .5x sensor range, with normal 1x multipliers for the other factors.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range. Or spotting range - arent most of them taller and more stable platforms?

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Jun 6, 2017

Zaodai
May 23, 2009

Death before dishonor?
Your terms are accepted.


AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range.

Because they're so fat the diabeetus has degraded their vision.

Rygar201
Jan 26, 2011
I AM A TERRIBLE PIECE OF SHIT.

Please Condescend to me like this again.

Oh yeah condescend to me ALL DAY condescend daddy.


AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range. Or spotting range - arent most of them taller and more stable platforms?

More CPU power is going to towards aiming all their guns?

:shrug:

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
"Balance" or "Giving Lights a reason to exist" typically.

Amechwarrior
Jan 29, 2007

Zaodai posted:

Because they're so fat the diabeetus has degraded their vision.

This.


Where in the files are the chassis sensor ranges? Is it class based or does each chassis/variant have a custom sensor range?

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
The chassis definition for each mech has all the stats in it, so it's per mech and not per class.

Blazing Ownager
Jun 2, 2007

by FactsAreUseless

Internet Explorer posted:

I agree with the general concept that there doesn't seem to be much long range engagement right now where a mech gets weakened before it's actually in the fight.

It's entirely the LOS thing. If you use the mod and bump it up, not only does this happen more but the AI gets a lot smarter.

Gwaihir posted:

"Balance" or "Giving Lights a reason to exist" typically.

The sad part is I don't think a lot of the people on the forums or even a lot of people at HBS themselves understand why lights are actually really good on TableTop. They can get crazy to-hit bonuses going (which isn't remotely as easy here) but the biggest thing honestly is the fact they always win initiative. Even without all the crowbar attempts, lights and mediums are just vicious back stabbers right now.

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
How much does the mod you were mentioning increase LoS by default? Like 1.5-2x?

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS

Blazing Ownager posted:

Even without all the crowbar attempts, lights and mediums are just vicious back stabbers right now.

Seriously. The one time I tried a proper light backstab with a Commando, it ended up getting two CT kills. A little practice and I could do it even better, I'm sure. If the Panther/PPC gets a little better, I could backstab from outside of their effective range to retaliate, which I'm sure is going to be awesome. Like making the AI choose between "I could turn my rear armor away from this Panther, but that'd turn it towards the AC/20 Hunchback, hmmm"

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf

Psion posted:

"I could turn my rear armor away from this Panther, but that'd turn it towards the AC/20 Hunchback, hmmm"

This is basically the essence of "How to win battletech.txt" anyhow~! (combined with make my dice odds better than his")

ChickenWing
Jul 22, 2010

:v:

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range. Or spotting range - arent most of them taller and more stable platforms?

all the extra electronics involved with Big Honkin' Guns and Thick Goddamn Armour interferes with the delicate sensor telemetry

lights have Less Of All That and so are better equipped to have sensitive sensor equipment






so basically,

Gwaihir posted:

"Balance" or "Giving Lights a reason to exist" typically.

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS
Thanks to Discord Crew I enabled some extra mechs (Cataphract, Firestarter, Enforcer, Blackjack) and tweaked vision range a bit. I then had the most That's Battletech round yet - now this is my fault for changing vision range and enabling unfinished mechs, but drat was it lethal. SUPER lethal.

-Cataphract first-shot headcaps enemy Trebuchet with its AC/10 + PPC
-DFA enemy Orion with my Blackjack and get a head/cockpit kill immediately
-enemy Hunchback immediately retaliates by CT killing my Firestarter with AC/20
-Inspired Cataphract CT kills enemy Urbanmech with AC/10 ... and then the lasers and PPC arrived
-now armless enemy Hunchback headbutts my Blackjack in the CT for a kill before my Enforcer finishes it

10/10 best skirmish
would drive me insane if it were campaign, though :laugh:

Psion fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jun 6, 2017

Cyrano4747
Sep 25, 2006

Yes, I know I'm old, get off my fucking lawn so I can yell at these clouds.

meanwhile this game has given me such a hankering for a SP BT game that I've dug up DOSBOX and Crescent Hawks Inception.

Psion
Dec 13, 2002

eVeN I KnOw wHaT CoRnEr gAs iS
https://gfycat.com/AbandonedFilthyAtlanticbluetang :rip:
https://gfycat.com/UnacceptableKindheartedAlligator :rip: :rip:
https://gfycat.com/SmugNewAtlanticridleyturtle :rip: :rip: :rip:

Eldragon
Feb 22, 2003

Gwaihir posted:

"Balance" or "Giving Lights a reason to exist" typically.

I would be nice if HBS would create a zero ton "software" package trait for mechs like how pilots have traits. So an assault ~could~ have long range sensors, but said mech would be giving up something else instead to do it. Much like what PGI did with MWO's modules.

Alchenar
Apr 9, 2008


An actual DFA combat animation would be nice.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

I hope they add more mech collapsing animations - if the head is gone/pilot dead I dont foresee mechs swaying before they collapse.

Also,

Alchenar posted:

An actual DFA combat animation would be nice.
Agreed, though I do acknowledge that making that animation is probably incredibly hard.


Also, mechashiva is not a crime!

Bolow
Feb 27, 2007

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

I dont understand why Assaults have so much worse sensor range. Or spotting range - arent most of them taller and more stable platforms?

If Battletech were remotely realistic it'd basically involve your marching your mechs out onto the field then getting dumpstered by a long tom because some rear end in a top hat was hiding in the grass with a laser designator.

It's best to not think about it

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Gwaihir
Dec 8, 2009
Hair Elf
I played a game on death valley with 350 spotting distance, and a few other tweaks:
Slightly lower base gunnery (65->60%)
Lower speed needed to get defensive move mods (The top move mod bracket by default is unreachable by any mech that isn't sprinting) and bumped up the top move speed defensive mod by 15%

Ended up being really fun, and it did feel like the AI played it better than usual. It actually came down to two of my mechs (Both with damage, one missing an arm, one with CT internal hits through rear armor) left standing at the end.
I even had an SRM commando that almost lasted the whole way through.

e: Stuff like a Spider or Locust should still be able to get good defensive mods for just running, and not sprinting. I feel like the game really needs the extra bracket for the 8/12 speed lights to be able to appropriately stretch their legs. Next game I'm going to try making the walk speed the equivalent of TT "Run" speed, while making sprint the equivalent of the actual Tacops sprinting rule- Double walking MP, no weapons fire allowed. Will probably be hilarity.

Gwaihir fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 6, 2017

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply