Is headcapping too powerful?

[Kereminde]

Nor should we try to get away from this topic. It is an enduring game dialectic and one I am quite comfortable with.

The only way this topic dies is if the game dies... and I don’t want to see that for many, many, many years to come. :bow:

This is not an “All or Nothing” topic.

HBS has spoken in the past about how they sometimes “Go In Strongly” and then allow player feedback to help them fine tune, if indeed any fine tuning proves to be needed.

It is this fine tuning, a “ratcheting back” that I hope to see with 1.9

A "ratcheting back" isn't going to stop this topic, and it's not going to "solve" any of the issues being brought up in here. It's just going to move the goalposts further down the field - and someone will still figure out how to routinely make it work. Which will necessitate moving things again. I've been down this road, it's not conductive to fun, it punishes everyone while people who abuse the system to get these results get bored and go somewhere else - leaving the damage done.

I'm being serious here, not just hyperbolic - this is not the same as older Bulwark issue (which the AI used to as much benefit as the players), because this is something only the player can truly exploit through Precision Shot. Taking that away "solves" the headcap issue but moves it into a "why am I able to core a 'Mech so easily" issue. (Again, something which already exists, it's just headcapping is flashier and gets more attention in a mystifying way. Mystifying, because it was an issue before Heavy Metal with people boating a bunch of weapons to go for decapitations - usually some flavor of MLs if I'm remembering right.)

On tabletop this gets "solved" because two players can do the same thing to each other, or a third party can step in and tell them to knock it off. But here, the OpFors controlled by the computer do not get to do the same thing, and there is no third party to step in and tell people to knock it off. (And honestly, I don't think there should be. I think if players want to cheat code or "I WIN button" their way through a game - let them. I just don't want their experiences to be what the game gets balanced for. Which is where this discussion is starting to circle around.)

People want to trivialize their encounters? More power to them. But if the complaint is how a voluntary action, taken to an extreme for the sake of turning the game into skeet shooting? Then we're playing whack-a-mole with trying to stop it from happening, and there's no end to that task. I don't have an interest in a game where a proportionately-small group of players trivializing encounters becomes the point the devs balance against. It's one reason why I chucked MMOs out of my life.

 

[Retic73]

Then don't do it? This seems like a simple solution, in the end. Nobody is putting a gun to your head telling you to play it that way.

Agreed.
PS head capping is an optional mechanic I enjoy sometimes, and other times I don't use at all. I have never kept track, but let's say I enjoy it 25% of the time. Now you've just killed a quarter of my enjoyment in the game. Will I stick with a game that I only enjoy 75% of the time? Not likely!
Are we next going to be told that all careers be Ironman because that's how some members of the community believe the game should be played?

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

Are we next going to be told that all careers be Ironman because that's how some members of the community believe the game should be played?

The "Ironman" button is for the weak-minded Just kidding! But actually that's about the same thing with headshots: It is your free choice to reload or not. Or to headcap or not. I never play with ironman turned on, but with self-imposed ironman. Just because I tend to mess with the json-files alot and I'd hate it to break my career entirely.

But back to headcapping: Another idea would be to just add in a clustering mechanic - similar to what SRMs do - for multiweapon called shots. As it is right now, the meta for headcapping is using more smaller weapons, like ++MLs and ++UAC2s, which almost guarantees a clean kill with the MAD. If the chance for the first shot would remain about the same, but got reduced for every additional weapon you use, this would make it alot less powerful. It would turn the bigger weapons to prime headcappers and also buff the "breaching shot" ability.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I hate to repeat myself, but the core problem of headcapping is the too-high hit probabiliy of the Marauder. 35% is just insane. And it's even simple to prove. The heavier the opposing mech the more CT armor and structure points they have. If you get a 90(95)% prob for CT and 35% for the Head your headkill prob is 7/18(19) of the CT hit prob. If the total head points are less than 7/19 than the total CT points, then headshot is simply more likely to kill, not to mention that a non-lethal headshot will add an injury.
If I'm not wrong most heavier mech heads have 61 Health points. That's 7/18(19)s of 157/(166). If a CT has more health points than that, a Marauder headshot is more likely to kill the mech than a called CT shot (assuming the Marauder comes with an array of roughly equal-damage weapons). You can basically mathematically check what probability would be just ok. A 90 ton Highlander 732 has 290 CT HPs or about 29/6 of head HPs. If you go from 90% CT prob, 18-19 percent headshot prob is about the break even.

Which simply means, even without the Marauder, with CSM, the really big mechs are as likely to kill with headshots than with coring. Adding ANYTHING AT ALL to the Marauder moves the advantage further DOWN (lighter Mechs become easier to headshot than to core as well.

Now. Low-prob shots need specific mech set-ups (dedicated headcappers), and you can build a couple even without the Marauder. If you don't use the Marauder and take on big-skull missions it pays to include a dedicated headcapper mech, simply to try and one-shot the most dangerous assault mech right away (because of the above arithmetics that make headcapping at 18% as likely as coring). For the same reason people build max-alpha mechs - one-shot coring (which is easier to do).

The Marauder is just handing players the ideal headcapper. Of course, the 35% are too much. As I said, I adjusted things to 23%, CSM giving 17%. This still makes the Marauder quite good in the Headcapping department, especially with the UACs and ERMs (++). Playing with one is fun. 23% means, the HC isn't guaranteed - and sometimes using up your morale fpr PS is wrong when you don't succeed and in that case had been better of with vigilance.

So, bottom line, it's just an adjustment problem, not a general one. No matter what you do, if people have fully maxed pilots and +++ Mechs (you can go with 4 Marauders, if you want to), you can win missions whatever you change with PS.

 

[Orbitone]

I hate to repeat myself, but the core problem of headcapping is the too-high hit probabiliy of the Marauder. 35% is just insane. And it's even simple to prove. The heavier the opposing mech the more CT armor and structure points they have. If you get a 90(95)% prob for CT and 35% for the Head your headkill prob is 7/18(19) of the CT hit prob. If the total head points are less than 7/19 than the total CT points, then headshot is simply more likely to kill, not to mention that a non-lethal headshot will add an injury.
If I'm not wrong most heavier mech heads have 61 Health points. That's 7/18(19)s of 157/(166). If a CT has more health points than that, a Marauder headshot is more likely to kill the mech than a called CT shot (assuming the Marauder comes with an array of roughly equal-damage weapons). You can basically mathematically check what probability would be just ok. A 90 ton Highlander 732 has 290 CT HPs or about 29/6 of head HPs. If you go from 90% CT prob, 18-19 percent headshot prob is about the break even.

Which simply means, even without the Marauder, with CSM, the really big mechs are as likely to kill with headshots than with coring. Adding ANYTHING AT ALL to the Marauder moves the advantage further DOWN (lighter Mechs become easier to headshot than to core as well.

Now. Low-prob shots need specific mech set-ups (dedicated headcappers), and you can build a couple even without the Marauder. If you don't use the Marauder and take on big-skull missions it pays to include a dedicated headcapper mech, simply to try and one-shot the most dangerous assault mech right away (because of the above arithmetics that make headcapping at 18% as likely as coring). For the same reason people build max-alpha mechs - one-shot coring (which is easier to do).

The Marauder is just handing players the ideal headcapper. Of course, the 35% are too much. As I said, I adjusted things to 23%, CSM giving 17%. This still makes the Marauder quite good in the Headcapping department, especially with the UACs and ERMs (++). Playing with one is fun. 23% means, the HC isn't guaranteed - and sometimes using up your morale fpr PS is wrong when you don't succeed and in that case had been better of with vigilance.

So, bottom line, it's just an adjustment problem, not a general one. No matter what you do, if people have fully maxed pilots and +++ Mechs (you can go with 4 Marauders, if you want to), you can win missions whatever you change with PS.

The difference though is for the core you do not have to use weapons with excessive damage when looking at the statistics.
Fair to say both approaches require certain mechs to work well and not necessarily the same weapons.
With the 18% that is say 11 weapons averaging 32 damage, if you look to core you can use whatever mix as long as they are in good range and this is further enhanced by JJ (taking out the back).
What changed this quite a bit is the new damage rating for certain weapons and others introduced, and it sort of becomes a binary choice suggested with some solutions.
Some of us do not want to use UACs from balance or a lore context perspective (maybe only exist 1 unique Bullshark and Annihilator player uses) , but the game your enjoying where you balanced the Marauder down it is mentioned being nice now with UACs and ERMs.

The challenge is for the solution to have a context that fits most players comfortably with comparable balance, otherwise it should probably be left alone and done via mods.
That said I did not use my own rule that to benefit from the Marauder 35% I must keep the PPCs then I would probably reduce to somewhere just under or at 30%.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I certainly agree that the new weapons are the stuff of dreams for headcapping efforts. The small UACs, the Snub PPC (++ for 5 x 25 damage) and the light hight damage lasers, but these weapons make of course all the other mechs better headcappers as well.
The Marauder has 3 ballistic and 4 energy (+ 2 support hps). If you slap on 1000 armor points you still have 30 tons left for those. This might be 2 +10 damage MLs (35 damage each), two LLs (whatever version for at least 40 damage) or 2 PPCs (with up to 60 damage) and 2 +++ AC/2s with also 35 damage each (you can also reduce armor a bit and install 3 AC2s or 2 AC5s with the LLs).
This Mech will still have very solid headcapping chances on 35% (depending on such things as cover and bulwark with the opponent), although the alpha damage isn't really that massive.

And let's be serious here, with the Marauder at 35%, even with the old weapons you WOULD configure it this way, simply because it makes perfect sense. It would still be one hell of a Mech - but of course with the new weapons you have more shots and can do it from a bigger distance.

 

[KDubya]

The underlying problem is not head capping but the players use of Precision Shot and the Morale system. Two called shots per turn is just broken, regardless of where you are aiming. Change that to something more like the skirmish and multiplayer Fury and it'd be better. Plus let the AI use the same thing to make it fair.

For the marauder I'd look to change the double headshot precision strike from an "I win" to something like a team accuracy buff or the team ignores some evasion or damage resistance. Something useful but not the current Marauder = MVP mech without question.

 

[Orbitone]

The underlying problem is not head capping but the players use of Precision Shot and the Morale system. Two called shots per turn is just broken, regardless of where you are aiming. Change that to something more like the skirmish and multiplayer Fury and it'd be better. Plus let the AI use the same thing to make it fair..

The max resolve points you can generate per round without killing anything is 40 (35+5 from very rare cockpit with the latest updates), so you can only do multiple precisions per round storing the points up and that makes sense and a reason to build them.
Which comes back to possibly making Called Shot Mastery an active button that links to Precision Strike but costs somewhere around 40-45 resolve points, the player can still select a normal Precision Strike that instead uses the Improved Called Shot bonus for 30 resolve points.
Just comes down how many Called Shot Mastery should be viable per round and whether any changes should be around cost or penalty use or a change to how targeting % works.
Still would need to tweak the Marauder a bit though and I feel it should still be above 25% and closer to 30% for those of us who want to play it closer to lore/3025 rather than min/max builds.

Question is what can be changed that does not force other players to have to adapt their balanced playing styles (not everyone goes the min/max meta route), and should it be changed this way or by a mod so becomes a user choice.

 

[Orbitone]

Also changes need to take into consideration the game can be broken down to early/mid/late, much of the discussion here is about resolving a perceived issue with the late game (and not necessarily at the beginning of the late game)
Changing universal mechanisms/values/etc also need to be weighed up how much impact that has on the mid game (and possibly end of the early game).

 

[Jolly Joker]

The first question is:

Is headcapping an issue with Mechs that are not the Marauder?
My answer would be "no". Sure 18% is not a bad probability, but you need a specific Mech set-up. Sure, the new weapons make that set-up a lot more viable and dangerous, but that is addressed with the new difficulty setting in 1.9. Still, I'd suggest a reduction of the CSM bonus factor which is at 3.75. A slight reduction to 3.4 or 3.5 would probably suffice.

Is headcapping an issue with the Marauder? Oh, yes, it is.
The reason is that the Marauder is a fine mech anyway. You could easily collect a full lance of them and forego all the other mechs (needing different mechs only in weight-regulated missions). The massive headcapping bonus is way too high, considering that the lance is also profiting from a -10% in damage (I mean, that alone would be a nice bonus). The bonus should be so that the probability would end up at 24% at most. Even that is - imo - still too much. The reason is, that the game isn't about decapitating stuff - it's a tactical battle that shouldn't be over in two turns.
In my opinion, 14% Called Shot Mastery and 21% for the Marauder would still be fine, especially with the new weapons.

The good thing is, that this is fairly easy to mod, just changing a couple of numbers, so everyone can do it the way they like.

 

[Kereminde]

The first question is:

Is headcapping an issue with Mechs that are not the Marauder?
My answer would be "no". Sure 18% is not a bad probability, but you need a specific Mech set-up. Sure, the new weapons make that set-up a lot more viable and dangerous, but that is addressed with the new difficulty setting in 1.9. Still, I'd suggest a reduction of the CSM bonus factor which is at 3.75. A slight reduction to 3.4 or 3.5 would probably suffice.

Is headcapping an issue with the Marauder? Oh, yes, it is.
The reason is that the Marauder is a fine mech anyway. You could easily collect a full lance of them and forego all the other mechs (needing different mechs only in weight-regulated missions). The massive headcapping bonus is way too high, considering that the lance is also profiting from a -10% in damage (I mean, that alone would be a nice bonus). The bonus should be so that the probability would end up at 24% at most. Even that is - imo - still too much. The reason is, that the game isn't about decapitating stuff - it's a tactical battle that shouldn't be over in two turns.
In my opinion, 14% Called Shot Mastery and 21% for the Marauder would still be fine, especially with the new weapons.

The good thing is, that this is fairly easy to mod, just changing a couple of numbers, so everyone can do it the way they like.

I disagree. On the first question the answer is "it depends" since there were builds made specifically for headhunting before Heavy Metal, and after "LRM stability-based assassination" became a less-reliable method of taking care of business. On the second question, my answer is "not any more than other options". You still need to build for it, and I will note - you will need to really . . . truly . . . be always looking for and plopping down money for the components to make this happen. To take advantage of the "problem" is to warp your playstyle entirely and put all your eggs in one basket.

It also, notably, would still be "no less reliable" than doing things like this with other 'Mech chassis even if the Called Shot Bonus got removed from it. If all Lostech equipment was also removed (UACs and ER Lasers) then it still would be decent enough at the job simply for the volume of weapons it could - in theory - mount. You'd be risking more, having to shave either armor, ammo, or cooling . . . but there's already ample solutions to two of those issues built-in.

This is not a bug or issue with the game's code and/or variables. It's a bug or issue in how people approach the game.

 

[Icewraith]

Removing Lostech, a headshot Marauder probably runs 2 AC/5++d (or one AC/20+++), 4 ML++d, 2 SL++d. Without the chassis quirk, the GRH laughs at it and tells it how cute it is.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Look, people can approach a game whatever way they like. Usually, that is exactly the way bugs and imbalances are sniffed out: by approaching the game in a purely pragmatic way in order to beat the game. There is no bugged way in how people approach a game.

Now, people who play a game hundreds and even thousands of hours are bound to develop tactics and strategies to overcome all difficulties; they will also try out things in order to see what they will get away with. Which means that the hard core of gamers still at the game, are way better playing it than the average gamer playing this casually, among other games and is happy with playing the campaign and just dabble around a bit. (This is so with each and every game.)

My experience is that developers are NOT balancing the game for the hardcore gamers (because that makes it too difficult for the majority). I can well remember the complaints about ambush waves and whatnot and how people felt screwed.

Anyway - and this is a genuine question - I don't see the point you are making here and what you don't agree with exactly with my post. Probability is RELIABLE. It is what you base your play on. If you have a Mech that will have a 35% probability for headshots, it would be criminal, not to equip it accordingly. It's good with Precision Shots on other parts as well, but a 35% chance for a headshot is a massive ace in the hole. The hardpoints of the Marauder, 4E and 3B with roundabout 30 tons of weight mean that you will set up that mech good for headcapping anyway, which I already explained.

So, no, players don't have to put all eggs in one basket, even without the new weapons. A Marauder is a natural headcapper.

 

[Kereminde]

Removing Lostech, a headshot Marauder probably runs 2 AC/5++d (or one AC/20+++), 4 ML++d, 2 SL++d. Without the chassis quirk, the GRH laughs at it and tells it how cute it is.

Though the Marauder would still have the damage reduction bonus, unless those simply get scrubbed entirely across the board. Though, to be honest, I still prefer the HGN 732 since it can multi-role pretty efficiently. (Even better if you remove the jump jets.) I suppose you could also manage to use the Black Knight (either one, though the 6b might be a better call - if you can get one).

Look, people can approach a game whatever way they like. Usually, that is exactly the way bugs and imbalances are sniffed out: by approaching the game in a purely pragmatic way in order to beat the game. There is no bugged way in how people approach a game.

Now, people who play a game hundreds and even thousands of hours are bound to develop tactics and strategies to overcome all difficulties; they will also try out things in order to see what they will get away with. Which means that the hard core of gamers still at the game, are way better playing it than the average gamer playing this casually, among other games and is happy with playing the campaign and just dabble around a bit. (This is so with each and every game.)

My experience is that developers are NOT balancing the game for the hardcore gamers (because that makes it too difficult for the majority). I can well remember the complaints about ambush waves and whatnot and how people felt screwed.

Anyway - and this is a genuine question - I don't see the point you are making here and what you don't agree with exactly with my post. Probability is RELIABLE. It is what you base your play on. If you have a Mech that will have a 35% probability for headshots, it would be criminal, not to equip it accordingly. It's good with Precision Shots on other parts as well, but a 35% chance for a headshot is a massive ace in the hole. The hardpoints of the Marauder, 4E and 3B with roundabout 30 tons of weight mean that you will set up that mech good for headcapping anyway, which I already explained.

So, no, players don't have to put all eggs in one basket, even without the new weapons. A Marauder is a natural headcapper.

1. There's nothing wrong with an imbalanced game. Perfect balance is not necessarily a desirable paradigm, considering the tabletop did not begin in perfect balance and arguably only got worse over time. Trying to get balance out of it would not be honoring the original source material, it'd be having balls worthy of Talon to go "we can do this so much better" and proceed to make a game which is BattleTech In Name Only. We already had something like that done once, it went "click", and usually when it's brought up there's not a small amount of bile reserved to be brought to bear. (Notably, the balance for that game also was imbalanced - in a different direction entirely.)

2. The hardcore strategists and tinkerers who come up with the builds are not just solving for themselves, but for everyone. This is the Age of Internet, where that information gets spread really quickly. Someone comes up with a Lance design and a strategy, posts it up, and anyone can get to work without having to test it themselves or learn why. They won't necessarily be as good - but most of the hard work is done already.

3. You didn't ask a question, you made a statement. I know it's nitpicking, but considering the tone of what follows? I'm gonna pick some nits. "Having a good probability" is not reliable, it is an expression of random chance for a particular outcome. 35% is not "reliable". If my car could get me to work (and back) 35% of the time for either trip, that's not reliable. If my computer only worked 35% of the time (and needed two boots to start up), that's not reliable. Winning the lottery at a 35% chance (and needing two wins to get the jackpot) is not reliable, it's a trap for people who really don't do the math.

Also, if it's criminal not to equip the Marauder for headshots, serve me with a warrant for my arrest. I'm not doing it. I find two Gauss on a Annihilator, both can be acquired without hitting Black Market shops looking for lostech, and backing them with a pair of AC/5s can actually produce much more consistent results in dropping enemies via Precision Shot. And not into the head.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I know it's nitpicking, but considering the tone of what follows? I'm gonna pick some nits. "Having a good probability" is not reliable, it is an expression of random chance for a particular outcome. 35% is not "reliable". If my car could get me to work (and back) 35% of the time for either trip, that's not reliable. If my computer only worked 35% of the time (and needed two boots to start up), that's not reliable. Winning the lottery at a 35% chance (and needing two wins to get the jackpot) is not reliable, it's a trap for people who really don't do the math.

Also, if it's criminal not to equip the Marauder for headshots, serve me with a warrant for my arrest. I'm not doing it. I find two Gauss on a Annihilator, both can be acquired without hitting Black Market shops looking for lostech, and backing them with a pair of AC/5s can actually produce much more consistent results in dropping enemies via Precision Shot. And not into the head.

I have no idea whether you have no idea about probabilities or whether you make nonsensical comparisons to make a (false point). 35% probability are 35% probability for EACH weapon/projectilem which is something very different from the example you give. When you have 7 engines in your car and each one has a 35% probability to make half the distance and a 65% prob to fail immediately, you reach your target when more than one engine works. That means you need at least 6 engines to fail. The chance for this is QUITE low, so going to work with such a car is a very healthy proposition, 2x2x2x2x2x2/3x3x3x3x3x3 + 2x2x2x2x2x2x2/3x3x3x3x3x3x3 = 64/2187 + 128/6561 = 320/6561 or less than 5%.

So you have a 95% prob to headcap which is as good a prob as you get in the game. So, doing the math is what you actually should do.

Now, whether you don't take 95% chance or not, is your decision - as would be your decision to use Locusts on each mission. THe question here is WHAT IS POSSIBLE, not what you prefer (and from what you wrote I'm getting the impression that the reson my be a wrong idea about how probabilities work).

1. There's nothing wrong with an imbalanced game. Perfect balance is not necessarily a desirable paradigm, considering the tabletop did not begin in perfect balance and arguably only got worse over time. Trying to get balance out of it would not be honoring the original source material, it'd be having balls worthy of Talon to go "we can do this so much better" and proceed to make a game which is BattleTech In Name Only. We already had something like that done once, it went "click", and usually when it's brought up there's not a small amount of bile reserved to be brought to bear. (Notably, the balance for that game also was imbalanced - in a different direction entirely.)

This is also going into the wrong direction. No sufficiently complex game can ever be perfectly balanced (and especially not in a human vs. AI situation). So that isn't on the plate. The question is whether there is an obvious IMbalance - one that invites to abuse.
And the question is whether the Marauder is one. And I think it is.
You say, you prefer the Anni with two Gauss. Fine - but that doesn't mean you CANNOT use a headcapping Marauder as well.

 

[Kereminde]

Now, whether you don't take 95% chance or not, is your decision - as would be your decision to use Locusts on each mission. The question here is WHAT IS POSSIBLE, not what you prefer (and from what you wrote I'm getting the impression that the reson my be a wrong idea about how probabilities work).

There are a lot of things possible, so I'm assuming you must have meant "what is probable". Which is still a huge sample size, unless you want to try splitting hairs about what probability you want to put on things.

Oh, and while I might not be doing the math correctly for the 35% probability? That's roughly a 1 out of 3 chance it works, and needing two times out of seven for it to "succeed". Frankly, that's not enough. I play many, many, games with dice which run on better probabilities than that - and when speaking about "reliability" I prefer something a great deal more reliable. My Marauder headcap record is not nearly as stellar as advertised here, even after putting the seven weapons as discussed on it. Maybe it's just a statistical anomaly not unlike during the Backer Beta when people seemed to die an awfully lot to headcaps from Urbies. For no discernible reason, it tended to happen more to one particular player.

You want to make a case for it? Upload a video record of you doing one hundred attempts at headcaps on a fresh target, uncut and unedited. And don't turn it around on me, because you're making this claim of superiority: burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[Jolly Joker]

There is no "burden of proof" because the math is the math, as in 1+1=2, and the percentage probability value for headcapping isn't 2 out of 7. The math says you have a 95% chance to headcap under the conditions outlined. I have put down the math in my post above, and you either know probability math or not, but in any case this is not the right place to teach it to you.

There is also the question of how the game is translating probability into real action, that is, how "probability" is actually implemented in the game, which I have, frankly, no clue. There is no REAL randomness possible. If you fire with 7 weapons and a chance that is a mulitple of 5, you'd have to have a basket with - in this case - 7 white balls and 13 black balls, and the game would have to draw a ball randomly for each weapon (always dropping the ball back after each draw). Usually this works with some RNG in computers, but RNGs aren't really random.

Lastly, I thought the video with the guy winning missions with one single Marauder had already done a pretty good job showing that it's doable. What is necessary from your point of vioew would be showing that you can win the same mission with one single NON-Marauder mech.

 

[Icewraith]

There are a lot of things possible, so I'm assuming you must have meant "what is probable". Which is still a huge sample size, unless you want to try splitting hairs about what probability you want to put on things.

Oh, and while I might not be doing the math correctly for the 35% probability? That's roughly a 1 out of 3 chance it works, and needing two times out of seven for it to "succeed". Frankly, that's not enough. I play many, many, games with dice which run on better probabilities than that - and when speaking about "reliability" I prefer something a great deal more reliable. My Marauder headcap record is not nearly as stellar as advertised here, even after putting the seven weapons as discussed on it. Maybe it's just a statistical anomaly not unlike during the Backer Beta when people seemed to die an awfully lot to headcaps from Urbies. For no discernible reason, it tended to happen more to one particular player.

You want to make a case for it? Upload a video record of you doing one hundred attempts at headcaps on a fresh target, uncut and unedited. And don't turn it around on me, because you're making this claim of superiority: burden of proof is on you, not me.

Here’s a fairly accurate dice conversion for you:

Odds of a 5 OR 6 on 1d6: 1/3
Odds of a 6 on 1d6 :1/6
Dice pools:
ER Medium++d, 4d6, success on 5 OR 6
UAC2++ shot 1, 3d6, success on 5 OR 6
UAC2++ shot 2, 3d6, success on 6.

Headshot kill conditions:
0% DR:
Any two successes from the 3 dice pools scores the kill.

20%DR:
Two successes from the first (laser) pool, OR any success from the first (laser) pool and any success from the other two pools, OR any three successes scores the kill.

40% DR: Any three successes scores the kill.

The 95% figure mentioned earlier I don’t think is quite calculated properly. The chance of missing the head on all seven shots at 35% success and all three additional shots at 18%, at 95% base accuracy, is 3.36%.
1-((1-(.35*.95))^7*(1-(.18*.95))^3)

(The Engine analogy, due to the wording “half the distance”, falls victim to Xeno’s paradox.)

But perhaps you want the ultimate salvage machine?
Please consider the 1 UAC/20++ TTS+++ 4 TAG Marauder with Breaching Shot pilot. (~55% chance to headshot kill regardless of DR, 80% chance to hit the head with the 4 TAG) Unless you fire the Autocannon in the round after the TAGs at the same target, in which case it becomes the anti-salvage machine.

 

[Orbitone]

And we are back to UACs

 

[LongRange]

All I know is it’s borderline ridiculous to play the game and feel like I’m in a John Wick movie. Getting bum rushed left and right with heavies and I’m taking down 2-3 opfors per round with up to 3! Called shots per round. Anni and BS each with 2x UAC5s++ and 2x UAC10s++ with drivers that are 4x10 pilots. MAD W/2x UAC5s and Stalker w/4x15 LRMs.

Side note...UAC20s are almost worthless except with a 4x10 pilot and TTS+++ due to recoil issues. ++ gives you 240 dmg but often only one hits but the recoil kills any real chance for continuing effectiveness.