Why are penalties to hit on the heat scale so inconsistent?

[Akalabeth]

Every modifier towards a mech for overheating is applied in roughly even intervals.

1. Every 5 points of heat incurs a -1 movement penalty

2. Starting at heat 14, and every 4 heat thereafter a mech has a chance to shutdown with increasing odds

3. Starting at 19 heat and every 4-5 heat thereafter, a mech's ammo has a chance to explode with increasing odds

BUT

Then we get to modifiers to hit
+1 to hit at 8 heat
+2 to hit at 13 heat (5 later)
+3 to hit at 17 heat (4 later)
+4 to hit at 24 heat (7 later)

What the heck is going on? Is there a reason why they're applied so non-sensically? And more importantly, is there a reason this was carried over into the current rule set?

I suspect the only reason it's like this is because with 3 different progressively affective outcomes already and with the desire to not have more than one effect per any given heat level they just squeezed them in wherever they could but what we're left with is inconsistent to say the least.

[Zombyra]

Really, if you take out the last modifier at 24 heat, it's a pretty smooth curve.  But what you said here:

. . .
I suspect the only reason it's like this is because with 3 different progressively affective outcomes already and with the desire to not have more than one effect per any given heat level they just squeezed them in wherever they could . . .

I'd say you're dead on.  That's probably why.

[cray]

It was eyeballed quickly in the early 1980s, worked for the single test game run, got fiddled with a bit, and then published. Don't over think it, the original writers didn't.

[MadCapellan]

The reason is probably the 2D6 bell curve, and wanting to make sure an overheating 'Mech could still hit something, even if not very well.  The average pilot is going to be base base 8 to hit on a +4.  With movement and terrain modifiers, that quickly approaches impossible, even at short range.

[Akalabeth]

It was eyeballed quickly in the early 1980s, worked for the single test game run, got fiddled with a bit, and then published. Don't over think it, the original writers didn't.

So in the 30 years since the subsequent writers have never thought to rectify it?
That's honestly one of the things that annoys me about battletech rules progression. Things that were mistakes or don't make sense aren't changed, rather they're ignored. And if things are problematic, then a new rule is simply thrown over top.

Two examples are clan LRMs and Pulse Lasers. From what I understand LRMs were supposed to have a minimum range of 3 but this was left out, so, rather than fix it in say TW they simply left it alone. Pulse lasers meanwhile were waaay too powerful with TC, so rather than fix the pulse lasers (ie by giving them shorter ranges as they probably should have, or maybe decreased the bonus to -1), they simply nixed the TC+Pulse Laser combo. Which ruined Goliath scorpion mech selection, not that they really matter of course.

I don't really understand the approach myself, I imagine it's an effort to not tick off existing fans. 

The reason is probably the 2D6 bell curve, and wanting to make sure an overheating 'Mech could still hit something, even if not very well.  The average pilot is going to be base base 8 to hit on a +4.  With movement and terrain modifiers, that quickly approaches impossible, even at short range.

Uh . . . the point is not the modifiers, the point is the fact that the modifiers are introduced at completely irregular intervals. A mech loses 1 MP every 5 heat. A mech begins to shutdown at 14 heat, with increasing odds every 4 heat. A mech's ammo will explode on 19 heat, with increasing odds every 4-5 heat.

Whereas a mech will have problems firing at 8 heat, and then 5 heat later, and then 4 heat later, and then 7 heat later. Why not just 8 and then say 13 18 23 or 8 and then 14 20 26 etcetera.

[BeeRockxs]

they simply nixed the TC+Pulse Laser combo

They didn't nix it, they just disallowed aiming with it. You still get the -1.

[Stormfury]

Two examples are clan LRMs and Pulse Lasers. From what I understand LRMs were supposed to have a minimum range of 3 but this was left out, so, rather than fix it in say TW they simply left it alone.

Urban legend.

Pulse lasers meanwhile were waaay too powerful with TC, so rather than fix the pulse lasers (ie by giving them shorter ranges as they probably should have, or maybe decreased the bonus to -1), they simply nixed the TC+Pulse Laser combo.

Clan Pulse Lasers are fine. The tipping point was not Clan Pulse/TC designs, but the grim and dawning realisation that the addition of IS Targeting Computers with the burgeoning numbers of C3-equipped designs (and C3/TC/R-A/C designs) from the Inner Sphere that things were going to go pear-shaped rather rapidly on the balancing front.

They didn't nix it, they just disallowed aiming with it. You still get the -1.

Which, with the Pulse bonus, is a cumulative -3 to-hit.

[Akalabeth]

They didn't nix it, they just disallowed aiming with it. You still get the -1.

Yeah you're right I wrote that before I checked the rule so overstated the effect, but it's still a band-aid approach and doesn't really make sense on a fundamental level either. Autocannons are reported to fire multiple rounds per shot, yet a rapid-fire variety (RAC or UAC) which just fires even more rounds per shot can't aim whereas a normal one could? Or even the idea that a TC helps a weapon to hit a target easier, but, not hit parts of the target? How can a system have an equivalent effect on two different weapons (ER and Pulse for example) on the basic shot, yet, an effect vs zero effect for the aimed shot? Or a better question is, how can a TC help a pulse laser aim at an Elemental or a Savanaah master or a protomech yet it can't aim at the leg of a 100 ton mech?

And yes realism and battletech don't mix. But it is symptomatic, rather than fix the foundation of the problem they just threw a band-aid on.

I like the new rulebooks in general, but I would've preferred they'd gone back and fixed some of these inconsistencies. The IS LB-X Autocannons are another inconsistency. LB ACs originally from the 10 model looked to be lighter but bulkier. But then, the remaining models were just bulkier. So now everyone loves the lb10 because it's the only one to get the prize.

Though to be fair I wouldn't expect them to change weights, that would entail a lot of redesigns which I suspect would never happen.

Urban legend.

Are you actually reading the thread you're referencing?
Because, there are no facts in it you realize. Just opinion.

Herb says roughly 'I don't know but because it was not changed, I assume it was not a mistake'

Clan Pulse Lasers are fine. The tipping point was not Clan Pulse/TC designs, but the grim and dawning realisation that the addition of IS Targeting Computers with the burgeoning numbers of C3-equipped designs (and C3/TC/R-A/C designs) from the Inner Sphere that things were going to go pear-shaped rather rapidly on the balancing front.

A Clan Large Pulse Laser has almost the same range as the ER PPC and Gauss Rifle. "Extended Range Lasers" only extend one range band past pulse lasers. This is stupid.

They should have the same range as heavy lasers, or in other words the same range as normal Lasers. At least on the clan side of the things. This would then actually justify the IS having such terrible ranges with their pulse lasers. The way clan lasers function now they're more like X-Pulse Lasers.

[nckestrel]

Are you actually reading the thread you're referencing?
Because, there are no facts in it you realize. Just opinion.

Herb says roughly 'I don't know but because it was not changed, I assume it was not a mistake'

Herb has more facts that you do.  Unless you come up with some....urban legend.

[Kit deSummersville]

From what I understand LRMs were supposed to have a minimum range of 3 but this was left out,

I've paged through rough drafts of TRO 3050 and didn't see any evidence of an LRM minimum range. Where did you get this understanding?

[MadCapellan]

Uh . . . the point is not the modifiers, the point is the fact that the modifiers are introduced at completely irregular intervals. A mech loses 1 MP every 5 heat. A mech begins to shutdown at 14 heat, with increasing odds every 4 heat. A mech's ammo will explode on 19 heat, with increasing odds every 4-5 heat.

Whereas a mech will have problems firing at 8 heat, and then 5 heat later, and then 4 heat later, and then 7 heat later. Why not just 8 and then say 13 18 23 or 8 and then 14 20 26 etcetera.

You've missed my point then.  My point was that they wanted heat to effect gunnery, but because of the 2D6 bell curve, it effects to-hit unevenly.  If to hit penalties came in earlier or built up too rapidly, they'd be far too devastating, but if they advanced evenly with the first effect, there'd be little serious effect.

Other than not being symmetrical, there's nothing wrong with the way the heat scale affects gunnery.  Point in fact, I think it's pretty well thought out.  Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

[bakija]

Other than not being symmetrical, there's nothing wrong with the way the heat scale affects gunnery.  Point in fact, I think it's pretty well thought out.  Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

I think you are still misunderstanding the question.

The OP was wondering why the heat modifiers were applied in the specific places that they were applied, as those specific places seem really random and arbitrary relative to all the other penalties; the first penalty is at 8 heat, the next is 5 heat later, the next is 4 heat later, and then the next is 7 heat later. Which is, as noted, fairly random and not following a logical pattern. Which would make some people wonder.

I agree with the answer which is "Those were just where they fit on the scale so don't worry about it", as that is likely the answer. But the question is not asking about why the modifiers are applied. It is about why they are applied in the specific places that they are applied.

[MadCapellan]

I agree with the answer which is "Those were just where they fit on the scale so don't worry about it", as that is likely the answer. But the question is not asking about why the modifiers are applied. It is about why they are applied in the specific places that they are applied.

Well, only the original writers could say for sure, but my gut instinct is to say that it was probably originally 8/16/24, and someone decided that they probably could increase it to a total of +4 rather than +3, prompting the 16 slot to be split into the 13 & 17 slots that it is now.  Accumulating to-hit penalties prior to 8 would make the heat scale horrifically brutal and extremely limit overheat strategies, which the original game was geared towards.  Introducing penalties at 18 & 22 would have overlapped with rolls to avoid shut-down, which would have cluttered up the record sheet.  It's worth noting that almost every heat level in the 17-26 range has a specific heat effect assigned to it.  With the decision made to change the single modifier at 16 into two, they had to use empty slots remaining.

[ApokalypseTest]

How can a system have an equivalent effect on two different weapons (ER and Pulse for example) on the basic shot, yet, an effect vs zero effect for the aimed shot? Or a better question is, how can a TC help a pulse laser aim at an Elemental or a Savanaah master or a protomech yet it can't aim at the leg of a 100 ton mech?

The TC still allows aiming - its just that the spray effect of the pulse laser which makes it easier to hit a target at tall (hence the -2) does not add as much to precision shooting (which is why it does not give the same -2 on aimed shots) .

But it is symptomatic, rather than fix the foundation of the problem they just threw a band-aid on.

I think its called backwards compatibility, which at least for a while was working.

I like the new rulebooks in general, but I would've preferred they'd gone back and fixed some of these inconsistencies. The IS LB-X Autocannons are another inconsistency. LB ACs originally from the 10 model looked to be lighter but bulkier. But then, the remaining models were just bulkier. So now everyone loves the lb10 because it's the only one to get the prize.

Though to be fair I wouldn't expect them to change weights, that would entail a lot of redesigns which I suspect would never happen.

backwards compatibility...

[worktroll]

So in the 30 years since the subsequent writers have never thought to rectify it?
That's honestly one of the things that annoys me about battletech rules progression. Things that were mistakes or don't make sense aren't changed, rather they're ignored. And if things are problematic, then a new rule is simply thrown over top.

To quote IT lore, "if it's documented, then it's not a bug, it's a feature".

Why does BT have to comply with arbitrary numerical patterns? It's well established that there is no great scientific logic underpinning the game beyond the properties of the 2D6 probability distribution. Why should the heat scale be as it is? For the same reason HMGs have no long range, or the HGR round loses damage with range. Because it works in the game context.

There are other rulesystems which devote great energy to basing their rules off internally-consistent principles - the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator for one, or GURPS vehicle construction rules for another. And you know what? Few people seem to be playing these gamesystems. On the whole, accuracy of simulation <> fun.

And as a wise man said,

Don't over think it, the original writers didn't.

W.

[Akalabeth]

To quote IT lore, "if it's documented, then it's not a bug, it's a feature".

Why does BT have to comply with arbitrary numerical patterns? It's well established that there is no great scientific logic underpinning the game beyond the properties of the 2D6 probability distribution. Why should the heat scale be as it is? For the same reason HMGs have no long range, or the HGR round loses damage with range. Because it works in the game context.

There are other rulesystems which devote great energy to basing their rules off internally-consistent principles - the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator for one, or GURPS vehicle construction rules for another. And you know what? Few people seem to be playing these gamesystems. On the whole, accuracy of simulation <> fun.

But we're not talking about the principles of simulation, we're talking about consistency.
On the heat scale, all penalties are applied at even internals, except the hit penalties. Not consistent
For IS LB-X Autocannons, all autocannons are the same weight only bulkier, except the LB 10-X which is lighter.
A Large Pulse Laser (based on a weapon with a 5/10/15 range) has the same short range and almost the same long range as an Extended Range PPC, based on a weapon with a longer range (6/12/18).

And it's not that people don't play SITS because it's a simulation, people don't play it because it's boring. Even the most ardent Ad Astra supporter/Honor Harrington lover I know said playing it was like watching paint dry. That and their miniatures are too expensive.

The TC still allows aiming - its just that the spray effect of the pulse laser which makes it easier to hit a target at tall (hence the -2) does not add as much to precision shooting (which is why it does not give the same -2 on aimed shots) .

You can't use pulse lasers with a TC aimed shot at all. There is no option to ignore the -2 to hit. Unless that's some advanced rule (which would be a band-aid on top of a band-aid)

I've paged through rough drafts of TRO 3050 and didn't see any evidence of an LRM minimum range. Where did you get this understanding?

It's just a rumour. Whether there's any truth to it has not been substantiated. But given the LRMs and SRMs are half weight half crits, halving the minimum range would make sense as well.  Clan Autocannons have less or equal minimum ranges to their older equivalents.

[worktroll]

But we're not talking about the principles of simulation, we're talking about consistency.

But we are. Simulation requires consistency to a defined framework. Playability does not. Take weapon ranges. As there are 3 range bands in the basic game (short/long/medium), all long ranges were multiples of 3. It was convenient to distinguish the LRM (max range 21) from the PPC (18) and the LL (15). When the ERLL (IS version) came along, it's ranged didn't conform to the "rule of 3". That's not inconsistency with something that was basically happenstance; it was defining how a particular new weapon worked.

Sure, many weapons continue to use the "rule of 3" - it's easy to use. Those that don't aren't "inconsistent" - they're highlighting how that particular weapon behaves differently from the usual. MRMs and the SnPPC make good cases in point - their range bands are distorted by choice to achieve a result. "Consistency" here is not relevant.

W.

It's just a rumour. Whether there's any truth to it has not been substantiated. But given the LRMs and SRMs are half weight half crits, halving the minimum range would make sense as well.  Clan Autocannons have less or equal minimum ranges to their older equivalents.

Incorrect - if the man holding the physical proofs that were used by the developers in the development of the book say there's nothing in there about it - there's nothing there. Like the Mark I omnis, there's never been any evidence for the supposed minimum range of 3.

[SCC]

If Mk. I Omni's don't exist, whats the Woodsmen then?

[Akalabeth]

But we are. Simulation requires consistency to a defined framework. Playability does not. Take weapon ranges. As there are 3 range bands in the basic game (short/long/medium), all long ranges were multiples of 3. It was convenient to distinguish the LRM (max range 21) from the PPC (18) and the LL (15). When the ERLL (IS version) came along, it's ranged didn't conform to the "rule of 3". That's not inconsistency with something that was basically happenstance; it was defining how a particular new weapon worked.

It IS inconsistency. It also shows that the only thing consistent about battletech is how arbitrary it is.
There are established trends in given categories of weaponry, when one or more does not follow that trend it's inconsistent.
Again with the LB-X autocannons for the IS. All models see an increase in range by one range band. For the actual weights, all are the same weight and all have more crits EXCEPT for the LB 10-X which weighs less and actually has less crits. That's not happenstance, that's just inconsistent. My guess is that whomever was in charge at the time figured the LB 10-X was too powerful so adjusted the subsequent ACs but didn't bother fixing the original cannon.

Why is that? Why cannot things be rewritten? Values can be tweaked without heavily altering the core rules. And yes you would need to fix a few designs but big deal, they've done it before (ie Rifleman IIC)

With the ER Lasers, the Large has a 33% increase in range with greater accuracy represented by a small long range. The ER SL followed this same trend but the ER ML did not. The problem here is not even the ER LL, it's the ER ML because it should have a medium range of 9 not 8.

In light of that, things like MRMs and Snub Noses are a non-factor. Because they're internally consistent. The MRMs do not have varying ranges. The rocket launchers, on the other hand, are odd. I don't know why 10 rockets of the same type would have more range than 20 rockets of the same type, but even in this case they're consistent because there's an obvious range band where smaller launchers have more range. It doesn't make sense, but it's consistently not making sense.

Incorrect - if the man holding the physical proofs that were used by the developers in the development of the book say there's nothing in there about it - there's nothing there. Like the Mark I omnis, there's never been any evidence for the supposed minimum range of 3.

Well then that's just one more thing that doesn't make much sense. Especially in light of the fact that ATMs have a big minimum range.  The clans were apparently able to completely erase the minimum range on long range missiles, but not autocannons, and not home-grown missiles and not Gauss rifles either.

But the oddest one is of course still the pulse lasers. Which are internally consistent, but don't make sense alongside other weaponry. Of course the Clan ER LL itself doesn't make any sense either, with a weaker than normal medium range which lends itself to neither arguments of accuracy nor inaccuracy and ignores the established baseline of the other ER Models. Each of which themselves have standard 3x range bands (2/4/6 and 5/10/15) yet the ER LL is (8/15/25) increments of 8/7/10. The ER SL is the same range as the SPL btw and therefore not ER at all.

It's just odd, and needlessly so because most things in BT do follow established baselines. Even the HMG example you gave makes sense in the context of the idea that it's a MG with less range, and how do you make a 1/2/3 weapon have less range? You simply get rid of the long range and make it 1/2/-. This makes sense. It's fine. Because it goes with the LMG which is 2/4/6.

But a lot of other things do not.

If Mk. I Omni's don't exist, whats the Woodsmen then?

I dunno if this is a joke or you simply don't know. But the "Mark 1" omnis are versions of the original 16 clan omni mechs that are supposidely pre-print versions. For the most part they're more powerful than what was printed, and make some changes which better represent the base models. The Stormcrow for example has a pair of streak-6s. The Hellbringer has ferro and/or endo and has a lot more armour. Etcetera.  In other words they're "version 1" of the original 16, as opposed to "version 1" of the omni mech in general.

[StCptMara]

If Mk. I Omni's don't exist, whats the Woodsmen then?

You are confusing the fictional Mk. I Omnis with First Generation OmniMechs.
The Mk. I Omnis were a fan creation that fixed the "problems" with the original 3050 omnimechs.
In some cases, I do like the Mk. I version better(the Mad Dog springs to mind), but, despite people
trying to show proof of them existing, and despite Herbs promise that if someone can actually show
evidence that they ever existed(by bringing him the actual document, most likely), he would canonize them,
no-one has ever produced that documentation. They are as real as 1628.

[martian]

I dunno if this is a joke or you simply don't know. But the "Mark 1" omnis are versions of the original 16 clan omni mechs that are supposidely pre-print versions. For the most part they're more powerful than what was printed, and make some changes which better represent the base models. The Stormcrow for example has a pair of streak-6s. The Hellbringer has ferro and/or endo and has a lot more armour. Etcetera.  In other words they're "version 1" of the original 16, as opposed to "version 1" of the omni mech in general.

Interesting. Where (in what publication) can I find them?

[Akalabeth]

Interesting. Where (in what publication) can I find them?

The fan design boards.
Also this webpage seems to have them:
http://battletech.hopto.org/deathshadow/ds_Mk1Omnis.html


Oh and sorry just to clarify because my original post may not be clear, they are "allegedly" pre-print versions. The webpage itself that I linked to claims they were printed in a fanzine prior to 3050 coming out. But, from what I've understood that's not really the case and it's more likely that they're simply someone's fanbrew designs.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

It IS inconsistency. It also shows that the only thing consistent about battletech is how arbitrary it is.
There are established trends in given categories of weaponry, when one or more does not follow that trend it's inconsistent.
Again with the LB-X autocannons for the IS. All models see an increase in range by one range band. For the actual weights, all are the same weight and all have more crits EXCEPT for the LB 10-X which weighs less and actually has less crits. That's not happenstance, that's just inconsistent. My guess is that whomever was in charge at the time figured the LB 10-X was too powerful so adjusted the subsequent ACs but didn't bother fixing the original cannon.

Actually, the reasoning behind the difference in size between the LB-X ACs and standard ACs and why the LB-10 is lighter than the AC 10 while the rest aren't is that the LB-10X was built centuries ago by the Star League and had a long time to work the kinks out of it while the other three LB-X ACs were built by accelerated crash course reverse engineering of Clantech, so there was less focus on "getting the perfectly built gun" and more on "getting a gun that functions."  You're putting a lot of speculation up here without anything to support it.

[sillybrit]

The fan design boards.
Also this webpage seems to have them:
http://battletech.hopto.org/deathshadow/ds_Mk1Omnis.html


Oh and sorry just to clarify because my original post may not be clear, they are "allegedly" pre-print versions. The webpage itself that I linked to claims they were printed in a fanzine prior to 3050 coming out. But, from what I've understood that's not really the case and it's more likely that they're simply someone's fanbrew designs.

If only whoever faked them could have remembered to use factional accounting, seen in both the earlier TRO2750 and the original TRO3050. That alone exposes that the designs were produced after TRO3050 - I think it was the second or third printing of the BattleTech Compendium that required all masses to be rounded up to half or full tons - saving TPTB from having to slap their heads in frustration at having to explain that they were never official every time somebody asks about them.

[Akalabeth]

Actually, the reasoning behind the difference in size between the LB-X ACs and standard ACs and why the LB-10 is lighter than the AC 10 while the rest aren't is that the LB-10X was built centuries ago by the Star League and had a long time to work the kinks out of it while the other three LB-X ACs were built by accelerated crash course reverse engineering of Clantech, so there was less focus on "getting the perfectly built gun" and more on "getting a gun that functions."  You're putting a lot of speculation up here without anything to support it.

And yet IS weapons tech has exceeded that of the Star League which makes that point irrelevant.
Also by that same logic, all Star League weaponry including the Gauss Rifle, UAC/5 and pulse lasers should be markedly superior to any of their post-clan contemporaries and yet the UAC/5 is actually inferior in its improvments to the UAC/10. The UAC/10 is no bulkier and has a superior increase in range when compared to the UAC/5. The UAC/20 while not an improvement, is at least AS improved as the UAC/5 (and not inferior). The only UAC that's actually inferior in quality to the 5 is the UAC/2.

Or are you going to tell me next that the UAC/5 did not benefit from those centuries of use?

[Stormfury]

The U-A/C-5 was not really in use for "those centuries" anywhere other than amongst the Clans. And even then they were superceded by advanced technology models which still could not overcome those flaws.

While, yes, Inner Sphere technology now offers more options than Star League engineering, very few of them represent actual revolution.

The IS ER Lasers are inferior copies of Clan technology, as are the other calibres of AutoCannon. The Light and Heavy Gauss Rifle are what you get when you decide to fire a lighter or heavier round. MRMs are a poor compromise between LRMs and SRMs. MMLs combine two missile systems into one. The only improvement to Pulse weaponry has been the implementation of brute-force solutions that still do not come close to Clan technology.

The only truly new weapon system going around are the Plasma-based ones. Everything else is either Star League tech that nobody has been able to improve on, or a desperate copy of Clan technology that nobody has found a way to improve on.

The ones who have gone beyond the Star League's capabilities are the Clans, not the Inner Sphere. Weapons technology is just one area in which they lag behind.

[Akalabeth]

The U-A/C-5 was not really in use for "those centuries" anywhere other than amongst the Clans. And even then they were superceded by advanced technology models which still could not overcome those flaws.

I believe by "centuries" the other guy inferred the Star League, not the intervening years since. The UAC/5 was introduced in 2640 so was in service for at least a century before the fall of the Star League.


Either way, the point he was trying to make was that he was saying the LB 10-X was superior to the other LB-X models because of its star league origins, yet for that explanation to be CONSISTENT, all weapons of star league origin would likewise need to be similarily superior yet in the case of the UAC/5 it's actually inferior to the UAC/10 so it's not. And thus while the star league-origins idea is a nice one, it's not consistent with the facts.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

No, AC-5s just sucked enough to begin with that not even the Star League could fix them.

And in the words of Miles Davis, so what?  So what if not every weapon series is consistent with tonnage, range, or ammo per ton (something I noticed you haven't brought up even though the splits on SRM and AC ammo are even more glaringly obvious).  You're asking for consistency on things that aren't as closely related as you seem to think they are (also, the Ultra 10 is really as badly underpowered a gun as the Ultra 5 is).

[SCC]

The real world reason why the LB-10-X and U-5 are out of sync with the rest of rest of their type is that they where CREATED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, the U5 and LBX-10 are boosters to make the game more interesting, not part of a unified system

[Akalabeth]

No, AC-5s just sucked enough to begin with that not even the Star League could fix them.

Is that argument supposed to hold any sway over me? Because it does not.
'The LB 10-X is superior because it's Star League, but the UAC/5 is not because the AC/5 sucks anyway so who cares about that.' hahahahah.

Next on the subject of small lasers you tell me "who cares if the clan ER small is the same range as the small pulse, no one cares about small lasers anyway".


It's a simple fact. Things are either consistent, or they're not. If you assign historical reasoning behind a weapon being superior, then likewise all weapons from that period should be superior not just the one. If weapon values are all over the place then there's no rhyme or reason behind it, it's just arbitrary. And any fluff thrown in to back it up is just a distraction from poor design. "The UAC/10 is superior in upgrades to the UAC/2 and 20 because Bob researched it, not Tim".

Remember also that the baseline for a weapon represents a wide variety of different models, each representing that weapon. Each model of which was based upon varying models from clan space (or SL equivalents). So yes you could get away with saying one UAC/10 is superior, but every model is superior compared to every model of the rest of the range? And there's no real reason why scientists would have more or less trouble reverse engineering a given calibre from a select range of weapons. Even in the case of the LB 10-X, so the other models are inferior, but why would not those scientists look at how the LB 10 model is superior and apply those same principles to whatever they've reversed from the clans?


Does any of this sound stupid yet?
That's because trying to apply real-world explanations to arbitrarily different values is pointless.

The real world reason why the LB-10-X and U-5 are out of sync with the rest of rest of their type is that they where CREATED AT DIFFERENT TIMES, the U5 and LBX-10 are boosters to make the game more interesting, not part of a unified system

That's my point. They SHOULD be unified and if they're not they should've been fixed to become unified.