201 replies to this topic

[Tritarian]

I think one way to help curb the "boating" would be to induce an cycle time penelty.
Ex. With 2 weapons (of the same type) you would gain an small decrease in ROF.
With 3 it would moderate, with 4 well the ROF decrease would just plain suck.

Call it from addional load on the reactor (only so much power and a big load spike from having to rechage so much all at once should take some extra time and maybe some extra heat from the reactor to meet the demand), ballistic recalibration from salvo, barrel cool down, having to program the guidance on so many missiles all at once ( especially if you scale it with the number of missiles ieLRM 20 vs LRM 10)

and combine that with earlier over certain "brands" of weapons that can offset this by a very small margin (not to get around it mind you just to blunt the drawback by like 10-20%ish area if a full set of brand name weapon is used in the same group, ie Intek medium class lasers (-10% drawback from weapon grouping with same model of this laser) against the total draw back not per laser and all have to be the same

[LakeDaemon]

Graph,

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 12:10 AM, said:

"No customised mechs of any sort. They don't belong in this game, at all."

I never said that. You clearly didnt understand my opinion.

Im not against "modifications" that are either canon or in line with canon.
Im not against modifications that PGI has determined to be features in-balance with the game they want to create such as modules.
Im not against mounting and repurposing salvaged parts on areas of a mech that can support them if its done properly (i.e. energy for energy, ballistic for ballistic, no non-canon uber configs.)

I am against "full mechlab" user-constructed mechs because players will make uber mechs that will make the iconic designs obsolete. MWO is being designed as an iconic game and keeping the game on track with BT iconic mechs and timeline Letting users build their own mechs would derail that and therefore doesnt belong in this game.

If you disagree then thats fine. Amping up the exclamation points and quoting lines I post with a deconstruction is lame. I simply dont respond to that kind of posting. Its flaming and drags the board down for all. If you want to argue then do so in a private conversation.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 25 January 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[KingCobra]

Lake Damion and others i don't think we are seeing eye to eye on the mechlab i like many others i would presume only want to change the weapons in a pre defined TT/CBT Mech.Weapons or component slots not defile the original weapons slots themselves because that would alter the look and original configuration of the basic hard wired weapons and component slots.So say i take a atlas it has a stock ballistic slot with a lbx20 in it i don't want to change my ballistic slot for a missile slot that would be stupid.But i would like to take out the lbx20 in the ballistic slot and replace it with 2 AC5.This is not a franken mech its just replacing weapons and components in pre defined hardwired slots.Plus it might work better than the original config on certain maps the same with changing armor types or the new module components.

[LakeDaemon]

KingCobra, on 25 January 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

Lake Damion and others i don't think we are seeing eye to eye on the mechlab i like many others i would presume only want to change the weapons in a pre defined TT/CBT Mech.Weapons or component slots not defile the original weapons slots themselves because that would alter the look and original configuration of the basic hard wired weapons and component slots.So say i take a atlas it has a stock ballistic slot with a lbx20 in it i don't want to change my ballistic slot for a missile slot that would be stupid.But i would like to take out the lbx20 in the ballistic slot and replace it with 2 AC5.This is not a franken mech its just replacing weapons and components in pre defined hardwired slots.Plus it might work better than the original config on certain maps the same with changing armor types or the new module components.

That works fine for me.

[Graphite]

LakeDaemon, on 25 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Graph,
I never said that. You clearly didnt understand my opinion.

Ok, clearly I didn't.

Quote

Im not against "modifications" that are either canon or in line with canon.
Im not against modifications that PGI has determined to be features in-balance with the game they want to create such as modules.
Im not against mounting and repurposing salvaged parts on areas of a mech that can support them if its done properly (i.e. energy for energy, ballistic for ballistic, no non-canon uber configs.)

I am against "full mechlab" user-constructed mechs because players will make uber mechs that will make the iconic designs obsolete. MWO is being designed as an iconic game and keeping the game on track with BT iconic mechs and timeline Letting users build their own mechs would derail that and therefore doesnt belong in this game.

I'm glad to hear you support customising mechs.
What does "in line with canon" mean? What exactly do you mean by "modifications"?

Personally I think energy for energy, ballistic for ballistic, etc, is a terrible way to limit designs - there are plenty of canon designs that don't do that (e.g Blood Asp B exchanges energy weapons in its arms for missiles, and a ballistic weapon in its torso for lasers)

Anyway, which category will you vote for in the poll?

Quote

If you disagree then thats fine. Amping up the exclamation points and quoting lines I post with a deconstruction is lame. I simply dont respond to that kind of posting. Its flaming and drags the board down for all. If you want to argue then do so in a private conversation.

It's hard to convey emotion in text, hence unusual use of punctuation. I was quite incredulous that that anyone could believe 90% of players wanted "...no user-built mechs. It doesnt belong in this game.. at all" (although it turns out you didn't mean that)

"Deconstructing" (??) is nothing more than responding to each point you made, in a way that's clear and easy to read for others not already familiar with the conversation.

Flaming is personal attacks and name calling, something I don't do, and a very, very long way from anything I've written here. Please don't make inaccurate accusations like that.

[MaddMaxx]

For the sake of Thread consistency can we try and stay Era specific with our Mech choices when showing Alt. configs. Please.

Quote

"(e.g Blood Asp B exchanges energy weapons in its arms for missiles, and a ballistic weapon in its torso for lasers)"

The Blood Asp B is a Clan Omni Mech, based off the KingFisher and not seen until 3055+. We won't have to worry about the Clans, and or Omni's for at least another 18+ months.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 25 January 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Graphite]

MaddMaxx, on 25 January 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

For the sake of Thread consistency can we try and stay Era specific with our Mech choices when showing Alt. configs. Please.

The Blood Asp B is a Clan Omni Mech, based off the KingFisher and not seen until 3055+. We won't have to worry about the Clans, and or Omni's for at least another 18+ months.

Was just making a point about canon not following just "energy for energy, etc" MM, and the Blood Asp was the first to spring to mind.

[MaddMaxx]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Was just making a point about canon not following just "energy for energy, etc" MM, and the Blood Asp was the first to spring to mind.

Your point is well made but Moot for the timeline. Give us another era specific example so we may carry on. Please.

[LakeDaemon]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Ok, clearly I didn't.



I'm glad to hear you support customising mechs.
What does "in line with canon" mean? What exactly do you mean by "modifications"?

Personally I think energy for energy, ballistic for ballistic, etc, is a terrible way to limit designs - there are plenty of canon designs that don't do that (e.g Blood Asp B exchanges energy weapons in its arms for missiles, and a ballistic weapon in its torso for lasers)

Anyway, which category will you vote for in the poll?


It's hard to convey emotion in text, hence unusual use of punctuation. I was quite incredulous that that anyone could believe 90% of players wanted "...no user-built mechs. It doesnt belong in this game.. at all" (although it turns out you didn't mean that)

"Deconstructing" (??) is nothing more than responding to each point you made, in a way that's clear and easy to read for others not already familiar with the conversation.

Flaming is personal attacks and name calling, something I don't do, and a very, very long way from anything I've written here. Please don't make inaccurate accusations like that.

omg enough.. youre steam rolling the thread. IM personally if you want to discuss this.

[Strum Wealh]

MaddMaxx, on 25 January 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Your point is well made but Moot for the timeline. Give us another era specific example so we may carry on. Please.

How about some variants of the Annihilator?

Quote

ANH-1A - The actual variant that showed up with Wolf's Dragoons, the -1A was armed with four Autocannon/10s and four Medium Lasers. While less accurate and unable to use cluster rounds, the 1A was still a highly destructive and dangerous 'Mech that no MechWarrior looked forward to engaging.

ANH-1E - This field-expedient refit was used by the Dragoons after the Battle of Misery. All of the autocannons were removed and replaced with four PPCs and two additional Medium Lasers. The ANH-1E also carried forty-one heat sinks, enough to fire the main weapons continually.

ANH-1G - This variant had an ER PPC in the right torso, and three Gauss Rifles (one in each arm, and one in the left torso) provide hard hitting firepower. Each Gauss Rifle has two tons of ammunition. Ten double heat sinks are more than adequate to keep the machine cool.

**The Wolf's Dragoons were the garrison force of the planet Misery (located in the Draconis Combine) in 3025.

The Catapult, with its -C1 (the "standard" LRM and Med. Laser model) and -K2 (replaces LRMs with PPCs, adds MGs) variants, is another example.


All of the above variants can be built with technologies available in 3049.

[Kargush]

Canon designs only, up to and including "custom" mechs (that were not unique) noted in the backstory.

Edited by kargush, 25 January 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Graphite]

MaddMaxx, on 25 January 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Your point is well made but Moot for the timeline. Give us another era specific example so we may carry on. Please.

Not sure why you might expect a difference between eras, but anyway, Strum has provided an example.

Edited by Graphite, 26 January 2012 - 02:00 AM.

[Lorcan Lladd]

I see no need to restrict the freedom of 'Mech customization just to prevent boating; the very mechanics of the game should take care of that, with no need, and I want to emphasize this, no need to add any penalties to a weapons system based around boating; it is a valid tactic with just as many advantages and shortcomings as other tactics are.

It's simple; you want to strip every weapon for some twelve Machine Guns, you should be able to, and it makes for an effective set of weapons, yes, but only at short range and the ten plus guns will drink through ammo; and good luck surviving an ammunition shortage at short range, which you had to get into in order to attack...
...Another example, with a bunch of Medium Lasers; sure it's feasible to remove all other weapons and just install a barrage of lasers on your 'Mech, yes, but, again, you're limited with regards to weapon range and you're limited to using direct fire weapons fire only; if a sniper happens to detect you in open ground or a scout targets you for LRM fire from support units, you're screwed with no way to even counter attack.
A similar problem is faced by PPC or ERPPC boats, except inverted; their range makes them excellent for sniping, but they're limited to direct fire weapons and as such are often unable to return fire against entrenched indirect fire support units.

And an all-missile boat is helpless by itself, of course; MRMs lack accuracy and run short on missiles even faster than LRMs, which are useless at close range; finally, SRMs, while powerful and usually supplied with plentiful ammunition, are useless at any range surpassing some two hundred meters or so.
All of those missiles can be stopped, within reason, by Anti-Missile systems which would considerably reduce their punch.

And then there are autocannons, low ammunition, low heat, varying precision and power; boating any single type of AC will make for a 'Mech lacking in specific areas, such as punch or raw firepower, staying power which is the ammo supply or simple accuracy problems.

What I mean to say is that boating is inherently flawed at a perspective of either single or squad combat situations - just as are other approaches to 'Mech design, and none need rebalancing or nerfing.
That said, re-designing a 'Mech should be in itself a big deal, costing a lot in the way of C-bills and time.

Yet, it may work for you, as it may not, depending not only on your own playstyle, but also that of the enemy, whom may know exactly how to deal with your boat, and so on.
This is nice.

[Steel Talon]

Restricting customization is bad idea, good built mech should be 50% of way to defeat your opponent.
There should be some limitations like Heat & tonnage, want build laser boat, then u must sacrifice a lot of space to heat sinks.
For visual representation, modular system we can see in MW:LL customization preview video is a way to go!

[Pinkamena Pie]

Dlardrageth, on 25 January 2012 - 01:02 AM, said:

Oh, you mean an in-built random chance that any modified/customized component will fail on use? Now that is one sexy idea... though I expect you'll get some hate from people complaining about anything that even smells of RNG... <_<

I was thinking more along the lines of:
- If a standard heatsink disperses 1 unit of heat per second, a jury-rigged heatsink would only disperse 0.9 units of heat per second.
- A standard medium laser does 5 units of damage for 3 units of heat. A jury-rigged medium laser might do 4.75 units of damage for 3.15 units of heat.

Basically, nothing random about the drawback in almost all cases. It would just be a case of the newly added components not being quite as efficient as if the rest of the mech had been designed in conjunction with them.

[Outlaw2]

Lorcan Lladd, on 26 January 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

I see no need to restrict the freedom of 'Mech customization just to prevent boating; the very mechanics of the game should take care of that, with no need, and I want to emphasize this, no need to add any penalties to a weapons system based around boating; it is a valid tactic with just as many advantages and shortcomings as other tactics are.......

Sorry.. gonna sound mean here, but your entire post reeks of naivete. Boating dominates the competitive online matches. Plain and simple, and there is a reason. Few mechs in these matches have mixed loadouts..or loadouts with extreme range differences. About all the range vulnerabilites you described, you can simply have a few close combat boats protecting your ppc/laser/missile boats...but its usually not even an issue. A team with boats will beat out a team full of 'jack of all trades' loadouts ..every time (assuming two teams of equal skill). Partly due to the boats being more efficient at their range/role and partly because the boat team can dictate the fight better (while team full of jacks is more reactionary). The 'jack' pilot not only has to contend with weapons with different ranges...but also entirely different targeting systems. Some might lock-on, others are hitscan, others you have to lead the target...and many of those weapons have different lead times. Very inefficient all around.

I seen everything under the sun thrown at boating to diminish it, but it always comes at top. There is no natural, elegant mechanic that can prevent it, because boating is the natural and elegant approach to mech design. Not boating is messy and unnecessarily complex. You'll need to add seemingly arbitrary bonuses/penalties to it to make it work....but since its seems people are so adverse to any type of penalty, go with an all carrot approach. Give each weapon a small stat boost if your mech design fullfills certain "non-boating" requirements. Each weapon and maybe even each brand of weapon can have different requirements, allowing people to really tweak their designs. Similar to my prior examples, the "Intek" brand med lasers could recieve a 3% heat reduction bonus for each LRM10 on the mech...stuff like that. All these weapons with unique bonuses also gives PGI more things for players to buy at the shop. Its a win-win for everyone. But hell... even with this its still questionable if boats won't still dominate. It will depend how restrictive the mechlab is, but im sure whatever the mechlab ends up looking like players will boat to the max possible.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 26 January 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I agree with Outlaw. The online versions of the previous games have never included any "standard" mechs. If the sort of unrestricted mechlabs we have had in the past are allowed then everybody will strip out the Level 1 tech and min max the build using the Level 2 tech theoreticaly availble in the timeline. This means that playtesting for balance is totally irrelevant and it will devolve into a few "cookie cutter" designs that are proven to be most effective for each map. Given everything else we have seen so far I think, however unpalatable it may be to many people, that we will see no "mechlab" as it has been. Otherwise all they need to do is provide a few chassis of differing weight classes. Mix and match arns etc for the different weapons and let chaos commence. They have said that this is a "reboot" of the franchise and as such a lot of people will have their expectations of an "updated" MW3 or 4 dashed. I don't think this is going to be anything like we have seen before.

[MaddMaxx]

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

How about some variants of the Annihilator?

**The Wolf's Dragoons were the garrison force of the planet Misery (located in the Draconis Combine) in 3025.

The Catapult, with its -C1 (the "standard" LRM and Med. Laser model) and -K2 (replaces LRMs with PPCs, adds MGs) variants, is another example.


All of the above variants can be built with technologies available in 3049.

Perfect. Now which variant would you buy, and drive as described, or would you further tweak any of those loadouts if allowed in the MechLab?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Well, the latest interview produced.

Quote

Each `Mech has a role on the battlefield and is fully customizable by the player using an intuitive menu system called MechLab. Customizations include weapons, armor, along with other accessories, and modules

We know there will be a mechlab and customisation is in, just not to what extent other than "fully"

[sheradin]

I stand corrected I was thinkg of kia mech not his fathers before he got it