159 replies to this topic

[Azureus]

Geminus, on 21 July 2012 - 08:09 AM, said:

Thats true, howerer that represents making a custom mech from the ground up, or serouslly altering an exsisting design at great exspsene. These mechs in the mech lab are the "from the factory" designs and variants. So they would have limitations.
Also if they did not have those limitaions there would be 0 point to creating omni mechs. Omnis were made to put any loadout in them and be able to switch that loadout easilly. Switching weapons on these mechs would be more like taking them to monster garage and riping them apart to rebuild them.

There were rules that covered field modification and yes also family mech builds both which were in essence a rebuilt or special ordered mech. general hardpoint alotments for certain weapons types in this game is a very bad idea. as with the MW4 games omni mechs were not allowed to load just anything but omin mechs were originally conceved to have all standard items necessary for a mech to function are preassigned with left over tonnaged group as "pod space" that allowed them to load anything not just certain areas were supposed to be omni

[Chiropteran]

Rashhaverak, on 19 July 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Your analysis is missing a significant advantage to the system you are decrying.

Anyone who played Chromehounds will tell you, the mechlab that they had in that game had nearly no limitations. If you were within weight and size tolerances, then it let you build the mech. You might have thought that allowing for infinite variety would result in the huge diversity in mech designs being played.

But that is not what happened...

The flaw in such a system was that all of the mech designs devolved into one primary and highly successful min-max design. Nearly everyone ran the same mech build. Two of the biggest guns you could put on the fastest chassis that would hold it. Any other design got eaten by the twin BFG design, and every match turned into the same match. Tactics and strategy went out of the window. The game bombed. It was a real shame to, because in the weeks before the twin BFG became dominant, the game was actually pretty fun.

The mechlab design and limitations should prevent such a de-evolution from happening to MWO. Mechs can only be optimized within a window that should allow each to have strengths and weaknesses, vice one single overarching mech design that beats all.

This man speaks truth

/thread

[RyuSoma]

Rashhaverak, on 19 July 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Y
The flaw in such a system was that all of the mech designs devolved into one primary and highly successful min-max design. Nearly everyone ran the same mech build. Two of the biggest guns you could put on the fastest chassis that would hold it. Any other design got eaten by the twin BFG design, and every match turned into the same match. Tactics and strategy went out of the window. The game bombed. It was a real shame to, because in the weeks before the twin BFG became dominant, the game was actually pretty fun.

The mechlab design and limitations should prevent such a de-evolution from happening to MWO.

But that's NOT what happens in Battletech, in the tabletop game OR previous video games if you knew anything about it. There are so many other factors in play that you cannot simply build a machine like that. Obviously Chromehounds was poorly balanced if the devolution to min/max was THAT SIMPLE.

If I want to exchange an ER PPC or large lasers for ballistic weapons so I am not limited by ammunition, I should be able to. If I want to do the reverse for a faster, harder, rapid punch with no heat load to juggle I should have that option. When the mech chassis are still limited, it behooves Piranha to open the design to more options. If you expect to limit the options on a given chassis, then there damn well better be more than 8 or 10 chassis to choose from.

Without a range of dozens of chassis to choose from, how can you replicate the variety and game balance of the tabletop game, which is one of the most important factors in PREVENTING the munchkin players. In the game-current time period, there ought to be over 100 different chassis available, from 2750-era Star League leftovers to lostech-upgraded 3049 designs. So if I want to try to replicate a Flashman- an all-energy weapons platform with XL engines, or an Archer or Crusader missileboat for indirect fire support, how can I with these hardpoint restrictions?

Edited by RyuSoma, 27 July 2012 - 08:51 PM.

[Melcyna]

RyuSoma, on 27 July 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

But that's NOT what happens in Battletech, in the tabletop game OR previous video games if you knew anything about it. There are so many other factors in play that you cannot simply build a machine like that. Obviously Chromehounds was poorly balanced if the devolution to min/max was THAT SIMPLE.

If I want to exchange an ER PPC or large lasers for ballistic weapons so I am not limited by ammunition, I should be able to. If I want to do the reverse for a faster, harder, rapid punch with no heat load to juggle I should have that option. When the mech chassis are still limited, it behooves Piranha to open the design to more options. If you expect to limit the options on a given chassis, then there damn well better be more than 8 or 10 chassis to choose from.

Without a range of dozens of chassis to choose from, how can you replicate the variety and game balance of the tabletop game, which is one of the most important factors in PREVENTING the munchkin players. In the game-current time period, there ought to be over 100 different chassis available, from 2750-era Star League leftovers to lostech-upgraded 3049 designs. So if I want to try to replicate a Flashman- an all-energy weapons platform with XL engines, or an Archer or Crusader missileboat for indirect fire support, how can I with these hardpoint restrictions?

Actually it did occurred in Mechwarrior...

MW2 and MW3 in particular, MW3 was the small laser boat fest...

a whole lot of ppl just running with them and one shotting each other's leg....

To be fair though the outcome of this is partially a result of the limited tech at the time, back then our internet connection was neither robust or fast... latency was also bad.

Given the available condition to play multiplayer, we therefore choose the design that is the most effective and least affected by the limitation especially on latency.

But it's just a showcase that MIN MAXING is very much done in MW series when it was allowed.

NOTE:
laser DOES NORMALLY HAVE AN ADVANTAGE over the ballistic equivalent, which is why PGI added the 'burn time' to the laser that you can see in the videos and interview as a further balancing mechanism and giving the autocannons an extra advantage to offset it with instant damage.

well technically it's already done in MW3, and that version was still insufficient to prevent laser boating, only time will tell if PGI's version with the addition of hardpoint limit is sufficiently tweaked to prevent a repeat of MW3 small laser boat spam.

Edited by Melcyna, 27 July 2012 - 11:11 PM.

[bandita]

Well i think that these mechs being lostech preclanner ones will have weapon specific hardpoints omnimechs
were called omnimechs because any weapon could be fitted to some modules (first time in the lore that this could be done i beleive) and i agree that the limitations i imagine are fun to work with.....Reason being that if every mech has the same ability then they will all eventually be the same!!....Which is so blarg

[Douglas Reichel]

So...I've noticed here and in a number of other threads people keep mentioning that weapons in mechs before a certain year were permanently mounted, and required special jury-rigging to remove and mount different weapons.
Unfortunately, as is the case with most Sci-Fi now, we've passed BT technology in certain areas, and the 'verse has to be updated to compensate, or it looks retarded. Like how we have smartphones now that put both communicators and tricorders in Star Trek to shame.

Even in a worst case scenario, it's been a thousand years in the BT 'verse, there is no possible way their tech will ever be WORSE than what we have now, but yet still capable of building 'mechs and interstellar ships and advanced weapons. Those technologies require broad and cross-disciplinary sciences, and well established and advanced infrastructure to support.

Do I expect the game to be realistic? Well actually...yeah, I do. But I understand no game can be completely realistic...yet. But I do insist on at least a basic level of consistency in the story. If it's told from the perspective of being our future...then it has to abide by the fact that we can now do things they can't, meaning they MUST become able to do them, retroactively.

Hey...at least I'm not going on and on like I could about how PPCs should require ammo and how both they and Gauss weapons would both use microscopic ammo.

[Donovan Jenks]

i thinks that the variants of the mechs mitigate the concern you have.

if there are limitations on one variant say lasers in the RT Torso then another might have ballistic in the RT Torso. This way you are staying true to some form of realism.

Mechs are like cars they have to be massed produced in gigantic plants so certain aspect are engineered into the frame. Sure you can tinker here and there but you are not going to turn an SUV into a sports car. The frame is not built for it.

Find a variant that has the hard points you want and build from there. It may turn out that you need two variants of the same mech to make all of the loadouts you like.

[lgzblitz]

and here i was wanting to put a single PPC on a commando it has the tonnage to fit one but not so sure about the hardpoint now

[Soviet Alex]

@Igblitz: The Commando has an energy hardpoint for the medium laser. That's where your PPC goes. Simples.

[Bishop Steiner]

MPcdn, on 19 July 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Hi all

I am suprised by the limitations when adding weapons to a Mech. I will explain. To me a weapon is a weapon, if you have the space you should be able to put any weapon in it. Right now weapon loadout slots a limited to being a beam or projectile. This takes away some of the fun weapon loadouts. Think 10 machine guns on a light or two guass on an Atlas the variants are unlimited.

On one more note weapons loads should show in game, if you take a PPC off you should not have a big tube showig in game.

Limitations add diversity and realism.

A weapon is a weapon, is not actually true.

A ballistic weapon of anny sort has to be able to have ammo feeds, usually going to a separate location. Energy weapons need power couplings and boosters, and many are directly tied to the cooling system, requirements with entirely different space geometry than an ammo feed.

Also, some things, like CASE are actually structural, and so when one swaps out an AC for a PPC, what does one do with the case? In paper terms, it's easy to just yank it out, in engineering terms, not so much.

Now, realism does dictate that is COULD be done, but unless they want to really complicate things, by having rules installed to greatly increase the cost factor and the down time of said unit for such conversions, I think that the "fixed hardpoint type" is the best compromise, especially since such mods usually are beyond the abilities of the facilities available to a Merc. Now if they can find a way to set it with the financial and time limitations involved, then I am all for it.... but do you want to have to have a second mech ready, because your catapult is unavailable for use for a week of real time game play?

Soviet Alex, on 28 July 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

@Igblitz: The Commando has an energy hardpoint for the medium laser. That's where your PPC goes. Simples.

Is the energy hardpoint big enough for a PPC though? I don't know which model they are following, soit might not matter, but a PPC takes 3 times the space of a medium laser.

[Mordon]

Soviet Alex, on 28 July 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

@Igblitz: The Commando has an energy hardpoint for the medium laser. That's where your PPC goes. Simples.

I saw a Commando mounting a single PPC in a match recently. Having never driven one I'm not sure if that's the only weapon he could fit or what.

[Soviet Alex]

@Bishop Steiner: the official releases concerning Mech-Lab have stressed that hardpoints & critical spaces are 2 different things. A PPC in a Commando would use up 1 energy HP, 3 slots, & 7 tons. Like a hedgehog, he's only got 1 trick, but it's a good one.

[T ddeusz]

I loved stock mech leagues in mw3 and 4 because knowledge of a mechs capacities and weaknesses gave an advantage to an experienced player. One shot kill boats are reminiscent of console warrior games that slowed the development of more exciting and complicated mech/sim games.

This hard point system is a nice compromise - though a stock only option in games would rock.

[Incunabulum]

MPcdn, on 19 July 2012 - 02:21 PM, said:

Hi all

I am suprised by the limitations when adding weapons to a Mech. I will explain. To me a weapon is a weapon, if you have the space you should be able to put any weapon in it. Right now weapon loadout slots a limited to being a beam or projectile. This takes away some of the fun weapon loadouts. Think 10 machine guns on a light or two guass on an Atlas the variants are unlimited.

On one more note weapons loads should show in game, if you take a PPC off you should not have a big tube showig in game.

These are Inner Sphere mechs, the weapons are mounted with associated hardware to support that type of weapon; huge power supplies and coolant lines for energy weapons, recoil dampeners and precise actuators for ballistics, etc. When you swap out a weapon you're only swapping out the *weapon*, not any of the other stuff - to change that is a depot level modification, in other words not easily done outside of a factory setting. When (if?) Clan omnimech tech shows up then you can expect to be able to do the sort of customization you want.

And as for the visuals, I agree that the HP's should show the actual weapons you have mounted but that seems to be more work to make that sort of thing work than PGI (to be fair, almost no-one else would do this either) wants to put in right now.

[Allen Ward]

Douglas Reichel, on 27 July 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

So...I've noticed here and in a number of other threads people keep mentioning that weapons in mechs before a certain year were permanently mounted, and required special jury-rigging to remove and mount different weapons.
Unfortunately, as is the case with most Sci-Fi now, we've passed BT technology in certain areas, and the 'verse has to be updated to compensate, or it looks ********. Like how we have smartphones now that put both communicators and tricorders in Star Trek to shame.

Even in a worst case scenario, it's been a thousand years in the BT 'verse, there is no possible way their tech will ever be WORSE than what we have now, but yet still capable of building 'mechs and interstellar ships and advanced weapons. Those technologies require broad and cross-disciplinary sciences, and well established and advanced infrastructure to support.

Do I expect the game to be realistic? Well actually...yeah, I do. But I understand no game can be completely realistic...yet. But I do insist on at least a basic level of consistency in the story. If it's told from the perspective of being our future...then it has to abide by the fact that we can now do things they can't, meaning they MUST become able to do them, retroactively.

Hey...at least I'm not going on and on like I could about how PPCs should require ammo and how both they and Gauss weapons would both use microscopic ammo.

Hm...but the BT tech was and is totally unrealistic, measured on technology available now (2012) and considering what we know about possible technology like Energy Weapons. I loved BT/TT. But one must realize and accept that BT is actually some sort of better steampunk game with a lot of nice looks and effects (huge mechs, sizzling energy weapons) but almost nothing in the game makes sense if you look closer at it. It's all game mechanics not "world mechanics". If you would take the BT parameters and throw them into a compuer simulation, the whole thing would go down the drain completely.

So if you talk about realistic games, you should not even think about MWO. It works and is great fun, though, as long as you accept, that the mechanisms (especially mechlab) are GAME mechanics. They are red lines drawn by the "gamemasters", they are not the result of a complex but balanced "realistic" system of laws, a system that could evolve on it's own as soon as the gamemasters stop retuning it constantly.

The whole readout catalogues of TT were sort of a restrictions lawbook. They never presented a believable or even realistic system of working weapon systems. Every mech factory in the IS would have done what has been described her earlier with other games, that allowed free mech design without limitations other than tonnage and size. No mech designer would ever have created the 200 and something mech variants where every design was totally unflexible and you could not even change a small laser into a machinegun afterwards. In the end a set of about a dozen well working models would have been produced in greater numbers, combining speed, armor, damage output and so on. In games we are complainign about power gamers, if you think about it, in war every faction is a power gamer, you have to win! And you don't wnat to do it in a balanced, fair or nice way.

That's where all the problems arise... war is not about fun. And there would not be much fun in (really) realistic wargames either. No heroics, no daftness, no crash boom bang. Efficiency, cost reduction, actually power gaming, that is war. So you cannot ask for realism without power gaming (or with fun). That's my opinion, only

[Allen Ward]

as for the graphics of the chassis variants. I hope this will get better, too. A Hunchback with multiple lasers in the side torso should not carry around a big box with missile tubes on his shoulder anymore. Some weapon changes are already represented, others are still missing. I hope they will fix this upon release. as well as the missing game pysics, no steam when firing energy weapons into the water, no trees waving or falling when walking through them, no burning trees when ppc or lasers fire into them, no barrels or stuff burnign or exploding when hit, no rocks crumbling,moving/falling, buildings look like big blocks with texture and don't react to shooting in any way, no mech foorptints on the gound, and so on,...I would definitely expect much more from this oh so great graphics engine... but this can wait until basics are stable.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Allen, you do realize that this thread is from July, right? Lots and lots has changed since this thread was made. New mechs, many changes to weapons, new equipment, engine speeds have been adjusted, heat has changed, we have DHS now... the list goes on.

While that does not change a few of the points the previous posters had, the entire game is much different now than it was in July.

[Thontor]

Allen Ward, on 24 November 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

as for the graphics of the chassis variants. I hope this will get better, too. A Hunchback with multiple lasers in the side torso should not carry around a big box with missile tubes on his shoulder anymore.

huh? All there is no hunchback that fires lasers out of missile tubes. The only variant that has energy and missile hardpoints in the torso is the 4J. And the energy hardpoints are below the missile tubes. Lasers don't fire out of missile tubes on any mech.

[Allen Ward]

Thontor, on 24 November 2012 - 10:12 PM, said:

huh? All there is no hunchback that fires lasers out of missile tubes. The only variant that has energy and missile hardpoints in the torso is the 4J. And the energy hardpoints are below the missile tubes. Lasers don't fire out of missile tubes on any mech.

True...old thread...shouldn't warm it up again
And true...lasers don't fire from missile tubes...but when I take out the missiles, why don't the missiles go away? Maybe I am mistaken here, but when I tinkered with the hunch and threw out the missiles, adding lasers (in the right hardpoint) I had the impression, that the missile box thing simply changed into another missile box thing, it didn't go away. whatever, I'm sure they will fix all this if it is really still an existing issue... cheers

[Melcyna]

Allen Ward, on 26 November 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

True...old thread...shouldn't warm it up again
And true...lasers don't fire from missile tubes...but when I take out the missiles, why don't the missiles go away? Maybe I am mistaken here, but when I tinkered with the hunch and threw out the missiles, adding lasers (in the right hardpoint) I had the impression, that the missile box thing simply changed into another missile box thing, it didn't go away. whatever, I'm sure they will fix all this if it is really still an existing issue... cheers

Look lower...

the energy weapon firing port on the Hunch side torso is located on the lens assembly below the AC port or missile port... on one hunch variant it's 2 lens

on another variant it's 3 lens (the missile based one)


Energy weapon mounted on the side torso will fire accordingly from that location and you will KNOW this if you have them as they will be blocked if you try to fire from hill crest without coming above the hill line until you clear the line of sight from the mid torso level.

Whereas weapon mounted on the AC or missile port can fire as soon as the top 20% clears off the hill... making them much more suited for hull down position firing.