213 replies to this topic

[Torquemada]

I think you're missing the point Xenok. For example given we can already mount large ballistic weapons on a Raven, what would be the point of a Hollander? You have to remember specialist Mech's like the Hollander are supposed to be the ONLY light Mech (at 35t) that has a chassis designed to be able to mount a large ballistic. Please take a look at a basic image of a Hollander below to see how extremely modified a light chassis has to be to be able to mount an LBX10 or a Gauss Rifle:


This is why this change is required, quite simply where would a Raven fit such a huge weapon? If this sort of change isn't implemented, then all Mechs become largely homogenous. There's barely any point running some of the existing variants already, as more Mech's are added there will be little to no point in using those because there will be little or nothing to distinguish them from existing Mechs. If this idea is used, then different chassis' can be designed for different uses.

The D-DC is a good example, most use dual-UAC5 currently, yet all of the extra electronics inside a D-DC vs. a D means it shouldn't actually be able to mount two large ballistic weapons. Instead the D-DC should have a maximum ballistic capacity of 8 slots or 16 tonnes, while the D variant isn't limited at all. As it stands there's almost no point using a D over a D-DC, yet if that one hard point change to fit in with the chassis variant design was made, both would have a place and would have quite different weapon load outs.

[Xenok]

Torquemada, on 18 March 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I think you're missing the point Xenok. For example given we can already mount large ballistic weapons on a Raven, what would be the point of a Hollander? You have to remember specialist Mech's like the Hollander are supposed to be the ONLY light Mech (at 35t) that has a chassis designed to be able to mount a large ballistic. Please take a look at a basic image of a Hollander below to see how extremely modified a light chassis has to be to be able to mount an LBX10 or a Gauss Rifle:


This is why this change is required, quite simply where would a Raven fit such a huge weapon? If this sort of change isn't implemented, then all Mechs become largely homogenous. There's barely any point running some of the existing variants already, as more Mech's are added there will be little to no point in using those because there will be little or nothing to distinguish them from existing Mechs. If this idea is used, then different chassis' can be designed for different uses.

The D-DC is a good example, most use dual-UAC5 currently, yet all of the extra electronics inside a D-DC vs. a D means it shouldn't actually be able to mount two large ballistic weapons. Instead the D-DC should have a maximum ballistic capacity of 8 slots or 16 tonnes, while the D variant isn't limited at all. As it stands there's almost no point using a D over a D-DC, yet if that one hard point change to fit in with the chassis variant design was made, both would have a place and would have quite different weapon load outs.

Sorry, not missing the point. I never used the mechs stock in tabletop either. They were always customized. The Holander is the only mech that comes standard with a large calabur balistic but you can stick them on whatever you want in table top. take that away and this is no longer MechWarrior. It was what ruined the Mech Assult games and why would we go back down that road.

If the DDC should have electronics in the torso, then there should be critical slots used up by said electronics. I would be fine with adjusting the number of critical slots available in a mech, or using some of those slots for something the mech has extra over another mech, but limiting the flexibility of mech design further than the hardpoints is a lousy idea at best and extreemly distructive to the game at worst as MW4 (to a lessor degree) and all the Mech Assults showed.

[Torquemada]

The tabletop rules explicitly prevent heavy ballistics being mounted on most light and medium Mech chassis, to quote: "Most ACs are too heavy to mount on Recon / Strike or Hunter Killer 'Mechs." They handle this is a very basic strict way, by assigning weapons to different groups, if your Mech isn't allowed to mount a specific group of weapons that is the end of the story. For light Mechs there are very few chassis allowed to mount any autocannons, even AC2's. Would you prefer this much more basic all encompassing system, so all MWO weapons are categorised and then we could only mount strict weapon groups to a given Mech?

Personally I find the raw Battletech rules a little too restrictive for the purposes of MWO. This is why I think an alternative such as individual cusomisation of Mech hard points to include, where required, a maximum critical slot allocation per hard point or maximum tonnage per hard point. This way we can have a more flexible system (such as being able to mount AC2's on lights) yet also have a means of differentiating one chassis from another and for balancing chassis' where issues are discovered due to over the top loadouts.

[Karl Streiger]

Why not both restrictions.

You have a base of 7ton and 3 Crit in the K2s arm.
you may have a tollerance of additional 50
so that you may be able to mount up to two large lasers instead of the PPC.

Question: What about reduced weight and crits?
Should it be possible to mount 4 Medium Laser?
Betteronly 3...because you did not overexceed the weight?
Would be interesting however...so you mount a Large Pulse Laser and because weight is in check...you can have 1 additional crit and 3 additional tons....resulting in the mount of 1 Medium Pulse Laser and a Medium Laser.


The Mechlab would be much more complicated...but I'm pretty sure it is not a Limitation..because you still have endless of combinations...with this conditions.

However i would throw the ammount of hardpoints away...but i highly suggest that you seperate the missile slots into general, SRM and LRM slots.

A look at arms weapon of the Atlas could be interesting too.
You hardly can mount anything else as a medium laser into the arms of the Atlas D and DDC...so variation comes only in form of variation of ballistic and missile weapons.
RS and K however are able to carry larger weapons -> 7.5tons and 3crits are possible.


EDIT:
working things out...

the stock mech comes with BASE requirements like: crit and mass of a weapon...additional you have the hardpoints. When you meet those base requirements you get allready called 50% more crits and more mass and a additional hardpoint.

Example C1 (now with 2 Hardpoints)

With mounting of a LRM 15...you have automatically the abillity to mount any 1 crit size missile weapons.
With the mounting of a LRM 10 and a LRM 5 however you got again the abillity to mount any 1 crit size missile weapon.

To boat smaller weapons is not possible: because you can not mount more as 2 SRM 4 or 2 SSRM2 or 2 LRM 5 into each arm. So you better stay with the big guns: 2 LRM 10 or 1LRM 10 and a single SRM 6.

In exchange you can hardly do anything with the lasers.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 March 2013 - 05:44 AM.

[Steel Talon]

MW:T done gr8 job with very simple system where is easy to represent loadouts visually aswell.

[Xenok]

Torquemada, on 18 March 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

The tabletop rules explicitly prevent heavy ballistics being mounted on most light and medium Mech chassis, to quote: "Most ACs are too heavy to mount on Recon / Strike or Hunter Killer 'Mechs." They handle this is a very basic strict way, by assigning weapons to different groups, if your Mech isn't allowed to mount a specific group of weapons that is the end of the story. For light Mechs there are very few chassis allowed to mount any autocannons, even AC2's. Would you prefer this much more basic all encompassing system, so all MWO weapons are categorised and then we could only mount strict weapon groups to a given Mech?

Personally I find the raw Battletech rules a little too restrictive for the purposes of MWO. This is why I think an alternative such as individual cusomisation of Mech hard points to include, where required, a maximum critical slot allocation per hard point or maximum tonnage per hard point. This way we can have a more flexible system (such as being able to mount AC2's on lights) yet also have a means of differentiating one chassis from another and for balancing chassis' where issues are discovered due to over the top loadouts.

First, no one I ever played with ever used that rule. Second yes, it would be vastly preferable to have mech chassis limits than crappy limitations on hard points. If PGI wanted to limit all lights from using weapons heavier than 8 tons, that would be much better than creating weight or slot limits on hard points. Further limiting hard points would suck, it would as has all ready been proven (Mech Assault) turn the game into an arcade dud. Worst Idea ever.

using the AC20 raven for an example, is it a powerful build? No, the basic 3L is much better, or the Basic Jenner-D build is better. The Jenner can hit harder (4 ML, 2 SRM4 = 40 point rather than 20) so this is not an issue with imbalance (and it was not in the TT either). Its an issue with a small group of people that cant deal with the idea that an AC20 can be mounted on a raven.

Now Better than both of these would be to code in recoil into the game. Have each weapon have a recoil rating and each mech have a recoil rating, when the weapons fired have a hire recoil than the mech, you have a chance to be knocked down by firing the weapon(s). This method would allow for a person to run the raven with an AC20 but at the risk of being knocked down for doing so. Better system than any of the above as it does not say cant, it simply says make choice and live with the consequences. I am not saying I want this system btw, only that its better than those proposed and discussed in this thread.

Karl Streiger, on 19 March 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

Why not both restrictions.

You have a base of 7ton and 3 Crit in the K2s arm.
you may have a tollerance of additional 50
so that you may be able to mount up to two large lasers instead of the PPC.

Question: What about reduced weight and crits?
Should it be possible to mount 4 Medium Laser?
Betteronly 3...because you did not overexceed the weight?
Would be interesting however...so you mount a Large Pulse Laser and because weight is in check...you can have 1 additional crit and 3 additional tons....resulting in the mount of 1 Medium Pulse Laser and a Medium Laser.


The Mechlab would be much more complicated...but I'm pretty sure it is not a Limitation..because you still have endless of combinations...with this conditions.

However i would throw the ammount of hardpoints away...but i highly suggest that you seperate the missile slots into general, SRM and LRM slots.

A look at arms weapon of the Atlas could be interesting too.
You hardly can mount anything else as a medium laser into the arms of the Atlas D and DDC...so variation comes only in form of variation of ballistic and missile weapons.
RS and K however are able to carry larger weapons -> 7.5tons and 3crits are possible.


EDIT:
working things out...

the stock mech comes with BASE requirements like: crit and mass of a weapon...additional you have the hardpoints. When you meet those base requirements you get allready called 50% more crits and more mass and a additional hardpoint.

Example C1 (now with 2 Hardpoints)

With mounting of a LRM 15...you have automatically the abillity to mount any 1 crit size missile weapons.
With the mounting of a LRM 10 and a LRM 5 however you got again the abillity to mount any 1 crit size missile weapon.

To boat smaller weapons is not possible: because you can not mount more as 2 SRM 4 or 2 SSRM2 or 2 LRM 5 into each arm. So you better stay with the big guns: 2 LRM 10 or 1LRM 10 and a single SRM 6.

In exchange you can hardly do anything with the lasers.

Its been done, go play Mech Assult, and to a much lessor degree mechwarrior 4. MechWarrior 3 was the best in the series for the very reason that this kind of crap was not done.

[Karl Streiger]

Xenok, on 19 March 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

MechWarrior 3 was the best in the series for the very reason that this kind of crap was not done.

Oh i thought MechWarrior 3 was the best in the series because it was more simulation as any other Mechwarrior Game before and after.

[Xenok]

Karl Streiger, on 19 March 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Oh i thought MechWarrior 3 was the best in the series because it was more simulation as any other Mechwarrior Game before and after.

Part of the reason it was a simulation and not an arcade like shooter was the customization of Mechs. As much as is possible we should not limit what can be done with the mech, but make it a choice with both positive and negitive conseqences. This idea is somewhat like the weapon slots of MW4 and even more so like the ones in Mech Assult games. It was destructive to the games simulation aspects and created the feel of a shooter. This would simply do the same thing. Its a road this franchise went down before and the suggestion that we should go down it again is bad.

[Ialdabaoth]

So, here's an interesting compromise:

Restrict hard points based on slots, but create new Efficiencies that 'unlock' a specific kind of hard point for a specific chassis.

For example, if each chassis had the following Efficiencies:


Beam Warrior - Each Energy hardpoint gains +1 space. (You must still follow all tonnage and critical space limits) Full unlock: Each Energy hardpoint gains another +1 space.

This means that you now have an Efficiency progression of:

(Small Laser, Medium Laser) -> (Large Laser) -> (PPC)

Big Guns - Each Ballistic hardpoint gains +4 spaces. (You must still follow all tonnage and critical space limits) Full unlock: Each Ballistic hardpoint gains another +4 spaces.


This means that you now have an Efficiency progression of:


(Machine gun, AC/2) -> (AC/5, Ultra AC/5) -> (AC/10, LB/10X, Gauss) -> (AC/20)

Missile Massacre - Each Missile hardpoint gains +2 spaces. (You must still follow all tonnage and critical space limits) Full unlock: Each Missile hardpoint gains another +2 spaces.


This means that you now have an Efficiency progression of:

(SRM2, SRM4, SSRM2, LRM5) -> (SRM6, LRM10, LRM15) -> (LRM20)

Or with Artemis:


(SSRM2) -> (ASRM2, ASRM4, ASRM6, ALRM5, ALRM10) -> (ALRM15) -> (ALRM20)

Without these Efficiencies, you're limited to whatever weapon sizes would normally fit into those hardpoints.

Making these Efficiencies makes sense from an in-universe perspective, because you need to understand how your chassis is going to handle a new weapon before you can just strap in and expect to fire that weapon intuitively (and it abstractly represents the extra time your technicians need to spend reworking your 'mech so the $&*# thing will fit).

From a game perspective, it turns AC20 Ravens and other absurdities into late-game hilarity rewards, without making them ubiquitous.

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 19 March 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Torquemada]

Ialdabaoth, on 19 March 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Without these Efficiencies, you're limited to whatever weapon sizes would normally fit into those hardpoints.

I'm not 100% sure I understood what you meant, but I like the idea a lot. Would I be right in saying this is how you suggest it works?
Mech A - Has a LT single energy hard point equipped with a medium laser for stock. Without the proficiency, only a medium or small laser will fit. With proficiency number one you now have two critical slots for that laser hard point so now have the option to also mount large lasers. With the second rank of the efficiency there are now three critical slots so you can now also opt to use PPCs
Mech B - Has a single LT ballistic slot equipped with an AC2. This means with two proficiencies it can now fit up to a 7 critical slot weapon, so a maximum of AC10 or Gauss, but unable to equip AC20.

[Ialdabaoth]

Torquemada, on 19 March 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

I'm not 100% sure I understood what you meant, but I like the idea a lot. Would I be right in saying this is how you suggest it works?
Mech A - Has a LT single energy hard point equipped with a medium laser for stock. Without the proficiency, only a medium or small laser will fit. With proficiency number one you now have two critical slots for that laser hard point so now have the option to also mount large lasers. With the second rank of the efficiency there are now three critical slots so you can now also opt to use PPCs
Mech B - Has a single LT ballistic slot equipped with an AC2. This means with two proficiencies it can now fit up to a 7 critical slot weapon, so a maximum of AC10 or Gauss, but unable to equip AC20.

You got it! That's exactly how I envision it. Although the numbers might tweak a little, so that the AC20 can be reached eventually. Also, I just edited the Ballistic number from +3 per to +4 per, so that you can fit an Ultra AC/5 after the first Efficiency.

The slot progressions for Energy go
1 -> 2 -> 3

while the slot progressions for Ballistic go
1 -> 5 -> 9 -> 13 (well, 12 really)

And the slot progressions for Missile go
1 -> 3 -> 5 -> 7

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 19 March 2013 - 12:01 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Xenok, on 19 March 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

Part of the reason it was a simulation and not an arcade like shooter was the customization of Mechs. As much as is possible we should not limit what can be done with the mech, but make it a choice with both positive and negitive conseqences.

Ah that is the interesting part....negative consequences. As far as i can remember (mostly single player)... spike heat was a real issue...you were hardly able to fire two large energy weapons without real heat problems....even with decent heat sinks.
With better tech however the consequences became less and less important. With shortage of ammunition or spare parts you take what ever was possible...i can remember to swap out the ER-Large Laser of my Bushwacker when i got a Large Pulse laser...sacrifice of range for less heat and more damage.

How could a restriciton or even a open lab could turn the game into a shooter. When players have the choice to mount a AC 20 into the arms of a Catapult...they will do. They won't say...hey one big gun on a BattleMech designed as energy boat is enough - they would take what ever is possible.

The only way to keep such I-Win behaviour in check is to ballance all possible variants. So for example...with 10 valid combination of energy weapons...without ability to mount any large ballistic - only the preference of a player decide.
Next thing is it forces combinations...it is hardly possible to build a config with just one kind o weapon...to get the maximum of weight and crits you have to combine larger and smaller weapons... for example we see catapults with LRM 15 and LRM 5 or catapults with dual LRM 10 or SRM 6 and SRM 4...but we will hardly see...mono culture builds with 6 weapons of a kind

However MechLab is just one area of ballance...and i have to admit not even the most important part

[focuspark]

I need a third option of other because I think hard points should have an upper and lower bounds on size/weight AND should allow (in some cases) for a better mix of weapons.

Example: K2 should be as follows:

LA: energy/ballistic hard point 5t - 15t, 2 - 7 crits

LT: energy hard point 0.5 - 5t, 1 - 2 crits + ballistic hard point 0.5 tons, 1 crit

RT: energy hard point 0.5 - 5t, 1 - 2 crits + ballistic hard point 0.5 tons, 1 crit

RA: energy/ballistic hard point 5t - 15t, 2 - 7 crits

This would allow the K2 to have big, direct fire weapons in it arms and smaller support weapons in it torsos. Doesn't reduce the chassis viability but does keep its art more simple. Yes, it makes the AC/20 cat impossible.

[focuspark]

Actually... let me revise my above statement. Hard points should just list the possible weapons available for them. Again with the K2 arms they should fit { LL, PPC, ER-PPC, LPL, AC/10, LBX-10, Gauss } and the torsos should fit { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL } and { MG, Flamer }. This way the artists know exactly what models to make and we can get in game models that describe what we're up against.

[UberFubarius]

focuspark, on 19 March 2013 - 12:46 PM, said:

I need a third option of other because I think hard points should have an upper and lower bounds on size/weight AND should allow (in some cases) for a better mix of weapons.

Example: K2 should be as follows:

LA: energy/ballistic hard point 5t - 15t, 2 - 7 crits

LT: energy hard point 0.5 - 5t, 1 - 2 crits + ballistic hard point 0.5 tons, 1 crit

RT: energy hard point 0.5 - 5t, 1 - 2 crits + ballistic hard point 0.5 tons, 1 crit

RA: energy/ballistic hard point 5t - 15t, 2 - 7 crits

This would allow the K2 to have big, direct fire weapons in it arms and smaller support weapons in it torsos. Doesn't reduce the chassis viability but does keep its art more simple. Yes, it makes the AC/20 cat impossible.

Like the idea of limiting crit-space and tonnage (personally, I would go for just crit-slot limit, perhaps a pool of crit-slots per mech section shared across all hardpoints).
The suggested K2 layout seems... a bit too restrictive on what you can put on it and a bit OP (in essence, gauss guns in arms? I thought Jaegermechs are the specialists in ballistics).

[UberFubarius]

focuspark, on 19 March 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Actually... let me revise my above statement. Hard points should just list the possible weapons available for them. Again with the K2 arms they should fit { LL, PPC, ER-PPC, LPL, AC/10, LBX-10, Gauss } and the torsos should fit { SL, SPL, ML, MPL, LL, LPL } and { MG, Flamer }. This way the artists know exactly what models to make and we can get in game models that describe what we're up against.

I really don't think K2 should be allowed to have gauss gun in arms. That makes K2 better as a ballistic support mech than the Jaeger (although Jaeger could probably shove themselves full of AC/2s).
I suggest the current hardpoint setup. But restrict each side-torso section to 5 crit-slot shared by both the energy and ballistic hard points (so you can have 1 U/AC5, 1AC5+Med/Small Laser, 1 AC2 + Large Laser, or 1 AC/2 + PPC).

[Homeless Bill]

To me, this is a necessary move in the long-run. The more 'mechs they release, the more redundant many will become. Even now, the Jagermech is dangerously close to the Cataphract in many ways.

In addition, it makes some 'mechs inferior due to their design (the Hollander and Hunchie are victims of this because everyone tries to take out the right torso). Why should other 'mechs get the benefits of being able to mount a big-*** weapon, but none of the structural downsides?

Aside from those problems, it's vastly changing the roles of 'mechs (which isn't a huge deal, but I don't like it, either). The Awesome was built as a PPC boat, but it's outshined by the Stalker simply because the Stalker can mount PPCs that it shouldn't be able to fit.

I would be more okay with the current system if they changed the models based on the fitted weapons (like they just did with the K2). Seeing a Stalker with four big-*** tubes on its arms instead of those tiny laser ports would quell my what-the-**** reaction.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 21 March 2013 - 02:02 AM.

[MasterErrant]

you know the simple straight forward way to do this is to revert to the MW4 hardpoint model. the raven gets a four space ballistic hard point and you can put any combination of four crits of ballistics simple it works and of all things...it's not stupid.
The MWT model is in between but even it's rather stupid.

[Torquemada]

The MW4 system had some serious issues. Namely it enabled insane boating. For example if your mech had two ballistic hard points each with 10 critical slots, that would allow you to fit e.g. 20 machine guns. In many ways the MWO system is inherently better because you limit the maximum number of weapons able to be installed on a mech, the downside currently is you don't restrict the weapons that can be fitted, so any given ballistic slot can fit any single weapon up to and including AC20 unless it's on the arms in which case this is normally restricted due to servo's etc. A balance between the two system should be the better optimised system and hopefully prevent some of the current imbalance issues.

[Steel Talon]

MasterErrant, on 22 March 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

you know the simple straight forward way to do this is to revert to the MW4 hardpoint model. the raven gets a four space ballistic hard point and you can put any combination of four crits of ballistics simple it works and of all things...it's not stupid.
The MWT model is in between but even it's rather stupid.

Problem with mw4 system is even harder to visually represent loadouts than with present one.