• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There is an objective reality beyond any one individual's perceptions or opinions. If we had a better multiplayer system, we could prove what works and what doesn't with statistics and empirical data.

My perception, which wants hard proof, is that small autocannons and large lasers are not worthwhile. The LosTech included in this game, ER lasers and Gauss Rifles, are not worthwhile. Missiles should be heat-seeking and tend to hit the center torso much more strongly than other weapons.

I'd like to see melee values for punching and kicking and give me a choice of which to do.
 
There is an objective reality beyond any one individual's perceptions or opinions. If we had a better multiplayer system, we could prove what works and what doesn't with statistics and empirical data.

My perception, which wants hard proof, is that small autocannons and large lasers are not worthwhile. The LosTech included in this game, ER lasers and Gauss Rifles, are not worthwhile. Missiles should be heat-seeking and tend to hit the center torso much more strongly than other weapons.

I'd like to see melee values for punching and kicking and give me a choice of which to do.

I mean, you can beat the entire game using only the AC/2, so does that mean it's fair to say that it is "not worth while"?

Only in the very narrow context of min-maxing for multiplayer engagements is it not worth while.

Otherwise you can happily make a lot of money selling everything and just using crappy cheap weapons :).

Perfect balance would mean never having the tools to challenge yourself. It's ok if some weapons "are bad". They have their uses, for difficulty and for fun.
 
You want Empirical Data... do the tests yourself and stop questioning those that have done the work.

We give you Empirical data... that is not up to your perception to believe or not... unless you put effort into what your perceptions state.
 
Greetings Mechwarriors,

Please post with civility and respect even in critique and disagreement.

Thank you, Carry on.
 
[Mod edit: While thanks are appreciated, Please no direct commenting on moderation outside of PM. Site Rules.]

I mean, you can beat the entire game using only the AC/2, so does that mean it's fair to say that it is "not worth while"?

Only in the very narrow context of min-maxing for multiplayer engagements is it not worth while.

Otherwise you can happily make a lot of money selling everything and just using crappy cheap weapons :).

Perfect balance would mean never having the tools to challenge yourself. It's ok if some weapons "are bad". They have their uses, for difficulty and for fun.

I don't believe it's possible to beat the game mounting nothing but AC/2's. Not even a little bit. No, that wouldn't prove that they were worthwhile even if it were true. "Worthwhile" in this context means they can't be profitably replaced with something else.

I love being accused of min-maxing. Next you're going to tell me the game is too hard.

There are lots of other ways to challenge yourself that don't include mounting bad weapons. You could always use the bad mechs if that's the kind of thing you do for fun. I try to make the best team possible. [Mod Edit: Dismissive]

You want Empirical Data... do the tests yourself and stop questioning those that have done the work.

We give you Empirical data... that is not up to your perception to believe or not... unless you put effort into what your perceptions state.

Yes, as I said I want empirical data, and I suggested that the way to get it would be a multi-player tournament that doesn't currently exist. Any data that could be produced short of that would have one failure or another (i.e. A mathematical comparison of weapon performance ton-by-ton wouldn't take into account the fact that you can't take four tons of an AC/2. You have to take the whole thing and fit it on a mech or you get nothing.)

[Mod Edit: Personal Comments.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[I don't believe it's possible to beat the game mounting nothing but AC/2's. Not even a little bit. No, that wouldn't prove that they were worthwhile even if it were true. "Worthwhile" in this context means they can't be profitably replaced with something else.
Yeah, a lot of people said it wouldn't be possible before I went ahead and did it ^^.

For me it's pretty simple:
Bad weapons serve many purposes in games and they need to be there for a game to be a classic just as much as there needs to be good well balanced weapons.

Bad weapons test skill, can you identify which weapons are bad weapons? Some people can't or take time to do so.

Bad weapons allow designers to control difficulty. Giving early game enemies bad weapons makes them easier to deal with.

Bad weapons allow good weapons to shine brightly. If every weapon is perfectly balanced and excellent, what is there to look forward to? Where is the strategy in mech builds?

Bad weapons add depth to the discovery. If every weapon is mathematically the same, there is nothing to discover once you've discovered the math.

And finally, bad weapons are great for insane challenge runs :). Most fun I've had playing this game. No lie.
 
Yeah, a lot of people said it wouldn't be possible before I went ahead and did it ^^.

For me it's pretty simple:
Bad weapons serve many purposes in games and they need to be there for a game to be a classic just as much as there needs to be good well balanced weapons.

Bad weapons test skill, can you identify which weapons are bad weapons? Some people can't or take time to do so.

Bad weapons allow designers to control difficulty. Giving early game enemies bad weapons makes them easier to deal with.

Bad weapons allow good weapons to shine brightly. If every weapon is perfectly balanced and excellent, what is there to look forward to? Where is the strategy in mech builds?

Bad weapons add depth to the discovery. If every weapon is mathematically the same, there is nothing to discover once you've discovered the math.

And finally, bad weapons are great for insane challenge runs :). Most fun I've had playing this game. No lie.

Bad weapons being bad because of flaws in other aspects of the game design though?

IMO every weapon should have a niche; 'bad' in-battle weapons can still be made good by campaign-level mechanics.
They could be cheaper to buy, more widely available, easier to maintain/arm (if ammo had a cost/availability), better for scrap/mech recovery.

As-is there's no weapon scarcity by type, which seems a huge missed opportunity.
Are there really infinite numbers of Mech mountable PPCs on every BattleTech world ?!?!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a lot of people said it wouldn't be possible before I went ahead and did it ^^.

For me it's pretty simple:
Bad weapons serve many purposes in games and they need to be there for a game to be a classic just as much as there needs to be good well balanced weapons.

Bad weapons test skill, can you identify which weapons are bad weapons? Some people can't or take time to do so.

Bad weapons allow designers to control difficulty. Giving early game enemies bad weapons makes them easier to deal with.

Bad weapons allow good weapons to shine brightly. If every weapon is perfectly balanced and excellent, what is there to look forward to? Where is the strategy in mech builds?

Bad weapons add depth to the discovery. If every weapon is mathematically the same, there is nothing to discover once you've discovered the math.

And finally, bad weapons are great for insane challenge runs :). Most fun I've had playing this game. No lie.

But there are not enough weapons in Battletech to allow so many weapons to be bad and so few weapons to be good. Especially if you consider that LRM and SRM are only one type of weapon. For players like me, who like to use only good weapons, it's not enough to give replayability.

If there was 6 or 7 different choice into good and very good weapons, who allow me more than 2 tactics, bad weapons wouldn't be a problem, additional at all the advantage you spoke.

I also think that the difference of power between good and bad weapon is too big. Like I said, I really have the feeling to go in easy mod when I start to use the LRM/SRM/Medium laser tactic. In X-COM 2, I know there are some soldiers class who are better than others. But when I use them, I don't have that feeling than difficulty decrease to two ranks. It's just a little easier.
 
If you want more choice and more replayability, we are simply going to have to wait for more content.

Sure, LRM's are OP. But that's an issue with LRM's not with the "bad weapons".

In the meantime, I can only recommend to get into modding, maybe something like RogueTech if you want more choice and different balancing.

I think the balance is pretty decent, LRM's excluded, in the vanilla campaign and that any adjustments need to be made with a scalpel and not a hammer.
 
I'm having fun and dropping mechs with builds using AC5, AC10, LL, ML, PPC, LRMs, SRMs*, and the "spoilercannon".

What follows is IMO only.

AC20 isn't a good "main gun" because of the anemic range and limited ammo, but its weight means it will dominate any build its part of and it's restricted to larger mechs.

AC2 has a weight problem in that I can get a PPC or LL for the same general size for much better impact.

* SRM2 is... anemic, and not worth the weight if it's the only SRM that can be put on a mech, not least of all because of the excess ammo (I tend to err on the "too much" side from a death-match perspective, but 100 missiles 2 at a time is perhaps a bit much).

MGs, Flamers, and SLs aren't worth the weight if you're not risking melee on a regular basis, and in this game with the suicidal AI makes melee a gamble. If anyone gets that close I've already screwed up.
 
The true question is: do these weapons have enough advantage to justify to take them instead of LRM, SRM or medium laser? Rephrase: do all these weapons are equally useful that LRM, SRM or medium laser?

I will tell you why I think that LRM, SRM and M laser are more powerful than other weapons. It's not only because of damage by tons, like RealCadaver think, it's because of stability damage.

When you obtain the LRM 15 and 20, it's become really easy to make fall an enemy mech. Some people use the knockdown are their only weapon to win: they kill enemy pilot by that and that work because knockdown gives also an aim malus. That work and give a very good salvage.

But who said mech fall, said also free called shoot. There free called shoot are what make pinpoint damage pointless. I don't need pinpoint damage because I can choose the target I want. Damages by tons become very important because they allow me to destroy quicker the part I want to destroy. If I use an L laser to called shoot a CT, it will do only 40 damage. If I use 5 M laser, I will deal 125 damages. So, with 2 mech equip with SRM and M laser, you can destroy in one turn the CT of a mech knockdown, so destroy an enemy in one turn (often, only one mech is enough). That why LRM, SRM and M lasers are so powerful.

When I start to use this tactic, I really had the feeling to past in easy mod. Mission, when I need to "kill specific target than retreat" or "hold the position X turns" finished, will all enemies mech destroy and a lance almost intact in my side. I kill all enemies to the second to last mission with just some internal damage on my mech (I had one Higlander, one Battlemaster, one Black Knight and one Jaggermech). The last mission was a joke for me so much it was easy. I made missions with 5 skulls with a drop tons of 4 skull and that is still very easy.

When I compare with the time when I used all the weapon, I don't see a reason to change. Not because AC weapons, LL and PPC are useless. But because the others are far better.

I wish I could use all weapons in the game. I will like to do. But I am so used to optimize in games that it's hard to force myself to use something I consider bad. So it's why I want to LRM be nerfed, directly or indirectly.

I play with one LRM boat. All of my mechs always do some stability damage but the LRM boat has such an easy time of pushing stability bars to max that all they really need is just one source of heavy stab damage.

With a called shot to a core, an LRM 20 gets the shot that lands on the core and then each following missile gets 39% chance to land on the core if it hits in the first place. Random is random, though. If there were an LRM 1000, we could say you will very reliably get about 39% hits on the core after that first core hit but with 5, 10, 15 or 20 missiles per salvo, results are going to vary a lot more wildly with chance being as far from 100% as they are. Several larger weapons hitting at 90-95% is a much more reliable way to inflict heavy damage on a core. They aren't as damage/weight efficient, but they will absolutely kill parts faster.

So I don't use LRMs for damage unless a mech is in trouble and 70 LRMs will do the job. And I don't waste morale shots on them. I generally spread those two 15s and 20s across 2-3 mechs at at time, so that they're either getting knocked down or put in a position to get knocked down with follow-up attacks.

One of my favorite front-liner builds right now is KCs with double AC/10s (65-70 damage versions), 10-12 SRMs and jumpjets. But this is because my primary goal is shooting heads or all of the other things off for salvage. Knocking assaults down over and over again is a reliable but slow approach. I find it much more satisfying to target their heads from the flanks where if I miss, I don't land most of my shots on the core. Surprisingly often I get a lethal headshot on the first attempt or two. When, I don't, I'm doing heavy damage to arms/side-torsos, legs which I can work with if the headshots don't pan out. 10 SRMs at 90-95% to hit and 17% chance to hit the head do inflict pilot injuries quite regularly. So between that, the LRM spam causing knockdowns along with the regular stability damage, the sometimes immediate lethal headshots, I've got about 3 different ways to cripple mechs happening long before the pilot in a mech drink-mixer approach would get results. That approach does more reliably get healthy mechs from the pilot kills though, which is good if you want the most parts possible, bad if you want the most mechs possible (fewer other items means better odds to complete mechs for $).

mLasers are great. I generally pack enough ammo to get at least 10 shots and it's usually enough. When it's not, it's nice to at least have some energy in the mix, which is currently on my Atlas 2 exclusively. mLaser and SRM range is something of a sweet spot, I'll admit. Once you can target enemies from that far away, I find it's much easier to mitigate damage using jumpjets, evasion, defense gyros + taking advantage of terrain. It's why I don't use AC/20s as much as most people do. But once you have more than a couple the heat does build up quickly.

I like L Lasers for a bit more punch at longer ranges. The LRM boat is great for support as well as knockdowns but it's nice to have one other mech in the mix that's going to have an easier time of shooting out a right torso connected to some nasty weapons that one of my other mechs is about to get attacked with. Also, there's all those half and even quarter armor mechs you see regularly on base missions. L Lasers at 50 damage (+++) are great for popping heads off of those.

My Atlas 2 also runs mLasers and sLasers. The variety is very convenient for securing salvage from mechs that have cores and lots of other parts hanging by a thread.

But much of what my mechs are equipped for is salvage and avoiding excess damage. There are times when there's nothing better for the job than double AC/20s to the rear torso. Or an Atlas 2 distributing a combination of obscene stability damage AND focus fire on one part with quad PPC++es from potentially extreme ranges. Staying very far away and lobbing LRMs is just one way to do it and not the best way if you want to regularly complete 4 mechs per mission. But if I just wanted rapid killing-power, I'd probably adjust my mech build strategies again. Although I certainly pilot kill fast enough.

That said, I'm not likely to ever have a use for an AC/2 or an SRM2 on a King Crab. Those are weapons for mechs with tighter tonnage, maybe heat restrictions. Or an SRM2 might be handy for giving a grasshopper just a little bit of stability damage from the same range as its mLasers.

But there's no reason to try to find the ultimate weapon in this game. They balance along too many categories and so many have good synergies with each other or the mechs you put them on that ignoring most of them in favor of a couple isn't doing you any favors. Look at what the mech can do. Look at what weapons it can bring. Look for possibilities.
 
Last edited:
At this point I'd rather have the Large Lasers and PPC generate slightly less heat to be more inline with the TT versions. The only other thing that breaks my sense of immersion in Battletech is being able to do precision shots with missiles.