213 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Ialdabaoth, on 05 August 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

Mass and crit size need to stay within canon ranges, or this isn't Battletech. The ONLY exception I could see to this is the Arrow-IV launcher, simply so that a split-critical system doesn't have to be coded.

At this point you made a mistake. Crits and weight has to be the same for ClassicBattleTech the bord game - its necessary for the critical hit system - every equipment can be hit with the same chance of 16%? Based on a dice throw of 2 d6.
So we have a game that removes the first and second random roll (that is no real random roll because it is 2d6 with some "shots" are nearly impossible and a range were every shot may hit. As well as a system were damage is applied to torso and arms and legs in nearly equal way...CT has higher chances but we are talking in general about 2-5%.
So those fist random rolls are removed in favor of skill and the third random roll remains....funny ey?

However what I really want to say: when you convert the critical hit systems. For example the hip of a commando has 30cm / 1ft in diameter but the Atlas hip is 1.20m / 4ft. Its obviously that you can hit a Atlas hip more likely as the hip of the commando.

The reason of the Raven with AC 20....why not. Ok it is nonsense that the AC 20 handles in the same way as on the Atlas. But of course you can have a Raven with a AC 20 - but with the difference it is a burst firing weapon with a High Rate of Fire (like the infamous Pontiac 100 - YenLoWang and Victor - a sleak 60mm design that fires a 100 shell burst of 60mm in 6sec

So another reason why crits and weight don't have the need to be fixed. I'm pretty sure the weapon is a kind of armored and has several internal security measures. When you remove them or use a lighter receiver and a less powerful propellant for ACs you can save weight - of course you can reduce the length of the barrel as well. A AC 20 carabine version may weight only 13t...with a reduction of range and a reduction of damage but with increase of ammunition and reduction of heat.

You see - MW is far away from BT but with enough sense and carefull planing in combination with a dialog with not so stubborn lore fans (and I'm pretty sure i have forgotten more about BT as the most that play MW will ever know)

[Redwood Elf]

Lord of All, on 06 August 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...27573cf77ee9016

Yup...see? 2 tons of ammo only, and a small laser for when you run out of ammo (which you will very quickly, considering if you're running around like a raven must to avoid getting gunned down quickly, you're going to miss a LOT)

Edited by Redwood Elf, 07 August 2013 - 05:39 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Its not just AC/20 raven

[Lord of All]

Redwood Elf, on 07 August 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

Yup...see? 2 tons of ammo only, and a small laser for when you run out of ammo (which you will very quickly, considering if you're running around like a raven must to avoid getting gunned down quickly, you're going to miss a LOT)

You want med laser lose the jj and some armor. I'd prefer the JJ to put those ac20 shots in the back and if your missing shots with that build you shouldn't be piloting a light that brawls.

[Redwood Elf]

Lord of All, on 07 August 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

You want med laser lose the jj and some armor. I'd prefer the JJ to put those ac20 shots in the back and if your missing shots with that build you shouldn't be piloting a light that brawls.

Lights shouldn't brawl, period. If you're brawling in a light, you're doing it wrong.

[Karl Streiger]

Redwood Elf, on 07 August 2013 - 08:14 PM, said:

Lights shouldn't brawl, period. If you're brawling in a light, you're doing it wrong.

Brawling means give and take damage - stop using the term "brawling" for anything that should mean "short" range.
Here light mechs excel - reverse to TT its much harder to hit a light mech at short range at on long range.
So light mech with decent short range weapon is always a good idea.

But you all seem to miss the point - we shouldn't talk about: should a light Mech carry a AC 20, we should talk about: should the Raven 4X be able to carry a AC 20.

[Lord of All]

Karl Streiger, on 07 August 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Brawling means give and take damage - stop using the term "brawling" for anything that should mean "short" range.
Here light mechs excel - reverse to TT its much harder to hit a light mech at short range at on long range.
So light mech with decent short range weapon is always a good idea.

But you all seem to miss the point - we shouldn't talk about: should a light Mech carry a AC 20, we should talk about: should the Raven 4X be able to carry a AC 20.

Actually NO, BRAWLING means to quarrel in loud fashion. It is a way of describing a loud bash. whether one or both parties are taking a beating doesn't matter. I've been in a ton of brawls where I've walked away un-scratched.

[Drunk Canuck]

Metafox, on 01 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

I really like the idea of using the MW4 hardpoint size limitations. It would give each variant much more personality and make things like large ballistics a much bigger deal. Instead of being able to slap an AC20 or a gauss onto any mech with a ballistic hardpoint, a player would actually have to choose a variant that's capable of accommodating such a massive gun. I don't believe that this would limit customization. The challenge and fun of customization is in working around limitations and a hardpoint size limitation would improve the fun and challenge.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that PGI has said that they won't use any kind of hardpoint size limitations. I'm guessing that it's probably a budgetary constraint. They'd have to take the extra time to determine exactly what size they want each hardpoint to be, and they'd have to spend a great deal of time on balancing the hardpoints. From what I've heard, they're done with the hardpoint system and they've moved on to other things.

Unfortunately if they want to keep their players happy and want to see this game become a competitors type of game where people take it seriously, they need to eliminate cheese builds permanently.

[Redwood Elf]

Lord of All, on 10 August 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Actually NO, BRAWLING means to quarrel in loud fashion. It is a way of describing a loud bash. whether one or both parties are taking a beating doesn't matter. I've been in a ton of brawls where I've walked away un-scratched.

In any case, Light mechs don't "Brawl", they most often Circle Strafe. Let's use the correct terms for things, folks.

[Torquemada]

When I started this thread I hadn't expected it to develop into such a heated debate. One thing I would say is that as the game has moved on, it seems (at least to me personally) that this issue is even more important now than when I initially voiced my concerns. As more new chassis are being introduced I've seen little if any reason to actually even consider some of the new mechs let alone mech variants. MWO needs something to help differentiate the mechs themselves and the variants within other than minor speed tweaks for acceleration, braking, turning or arm movement.

In answer to the AC20 Raven debate, it was only one example, it's not the pivotal point of the thread. I must admit though I do still love playing an AC20 Raven because it's a great little support Mech to aid brawling big mechs that are busy toe-to-toe with other heavies. Targetting with an AC20 at speed in a Raven against a slow moving heavy or assault is a piece of cake. Also getting the shell to land in a softened spot will often take out a weapon or component on the enemy which all helps. What an AC20 Raven isn't so good at is against other lights, I only ever shoot at them when they've over heated and hit a wall and so are easy targets otherwise it's most often a wasted shot.

An AC20 Raven, or one of the other 'broken' builds allows for a very different style of play to my usual recon Raven builds. However, even though I really enjoy it, I know it's simply wrong and needs to be changed. This is why I started this thread and it's why I still strongly believe that MWO desperately needs the hard point system revisiting to allow for balance where required and to greatly help differentiate otherwise similar variants (see my Atlas AS7-D and AS7-D-DC point which I think I made in the first post, simply why would anyone take an AS7-D over an AS7-D-DC unless the AS7-D-DC was restricted from using some very large weapons to make space for all the electronics it can mount?).

[Lord of All]

Redwood Elf, on 11 August 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

In any case, Light mechs don't "Brawl", they most often Circle Strafe. Let's use the correct terms for things, folks.

Wrong again.

[Pht]

Torquemada, on 20 August 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

When I started this thread I hadn't expected it to develop into such a heated debate. One thing I would say is that as the game has moved on, it seems (at least to me personally) that this issue is even more important now than when I initially voiced my concerns. As more new chassis are being introduced I've seen little if any reason to actually even consider some of the new mechs let alone mech variants. MWO needs something to help differentiate the mechs themselves and the variants within other than minor speed tweaks for acceleration, braking, turning or arm movement.

Yep.

Some people will simply NOT take their fun-medicine.

The community went through this in SPADES in MW3... to some extent in mw4 too.

I'm somewhere between interested and maybe scared a bit to see how they handle omnimechs in the mechlab.

IMO, they should just do what it takes to make them scarce at the start, until everyone's used to compensating for them. I don't think they'll be able to, because everyone will wail if they find out they can't just waltz in and get their madcat/timberwolf; to heck with taking the fun-medicine, I want my shiny!

Quote

In answer to the AC20 Raven debate, it was only one example, it's not the pivotal point of the thread. I must admit though I do still love playing an AC20 Raven because it's a great little support Mech to aid brawling big mechs that are busy toe-to-toe with other heavies.

This is really nothing more than a somewhat extreme example of how badly the current mechlab allows you to munchkinize the 'mechs.

This setup is just one step removed from MW3's "make all the 'mechs feel like similiar walking bags of guns" problem - and it will only get more pronounced as they add more 'mechs. Once people adjust to the "ooo, new mech" reaction, they'll quickly realize that wasting the time to get the newest mech (and the money for some versions of them) is just pointless.

PGI has needlessly crippled their cash-inflow from the whales by not size-limiting the weapons "rubber" points (they aren't "hard" in the least).

It makes sense by the lore and for gameplay to disallow changing engines, internal structure, cockpit types, acutaor setups (on non-omnimechs), and than actually having weapon hardpoints type based (ballistic, energy, etc) and size based upon the size of the weapon that went there... and than put in every variant with its ... now ... UNIQUE ... set of weapons hardpoints and internal structure/engine setups.

This would have made gameplay sense. It would have made the game far more fun for anyone who wants to STAY with the game, and it would have been far more justifiable from the lore.

Taking customization as close to the maximum limit as you can makes mech building boring as hell for any sort of sustained time and game playing.

Edited by Pht, 23 August 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Boyinleaves]

I won't particularly care how much the MechLab allows us to customise, if they ever give us some reasonable ability to make our own games with our own rules, and limit things to stock TRO3025 for example. I'll care even less if they implement leagues and ladders that have such prerequisites, and private matchmaking that allows us to specify our own rules for a match. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure I agree with Pht above me, in that customisation becomes boring when you don't have limits.

For example, I'll be absolutely overjoyed if they implement a class/tonnage limit into PUG games, though as the game currently stands, it will probably make a drop of 4 Spiders ridiculously powerful. Limiting us as such potentially improves the matchmaking balance, but it would also probably improve the variety of the matches.

I can remember boating very little but machine guns in MW2, and how ridiculously effective it could be; it's little different from our current situation. I still run my 2PPC/Gauss Firebrand, because it's my most effective moneymaker; but it's freaking boring. On the other hand, I love my 'Pults, and have fond memories of the 'Mech from years of BT, but I rarely play them anymore, because other chassis do the same job, but with less potential fragiliy. The more specialised each chassis is, the more likely there will become a niche that it can fill, and the more likely it becomes that the chassis is utilised, provided other gameplay elements are there to support it (weapon balances, tonnage limits, other objectives besides gratuitous destruction). For the same reason, I would love to see a multitude of 'Mech quirks get introduced to further separate variants, and even more variety in match types, maps, and random limitations (in random matches) to further support variation. Implement private matchmaking in which all variables can be controlled (to support the competitive players who want a balanced experience), implement specific restrictions for leagues and ladders (to put people on a 'level' playing field), and make the PUG queues more varied with a whole lot of randomness and variability in 'Mech chassis.

I would love to be playing a variety of 'Mechs to fill a variety of roles. Unfortunately, right now there is really one role, killing stuff, and some 'Mechs do this far better than most (in each weight class).

[Xanquil]

Even though I don't think it would do much to "fix" any of the problems currently in the game, (pinpoint alpha for one) I do think it should be done. The reason why is to keep weapons with in mech geometry. Plain and simple, the shape of any given chassis should dictate what can be placed where. Doing this will also help PGI as it would make room for even more mech chassis to be released. (different base loadouts =different choices for customization)