213 replies to this topic

[Big Giant Head]

Oh yes another I saw another problem
Is when there are crit spaces left in hardpoint slot and they are " trapped" ( so if I put LL and ML in Awesomes torso those two crit spaces are "trapped" between LL and ML)

Fix:
There should be like sub-menu for weapons, when you are finished you close it, then weapons are stacked next to each other so there are no trapped spaces

[Karl Streiger]

I like the idea of slots - or call it interfaces.
What i like most at your idea - is to link the available place in one location directly to the hit size of this location.
Would be interesting when - players of Catapults find there self suddenly with tiny side locations but a much place in center torso.

I have played a little bit with the interface idea.
Lets say: in general a Mech has interfaces for each weapon kind, heatsinks and ammunition.
Those places are fixed.

Every Mech may have 48 cubic units. (criticals)
light mechs have less, assault more units.

each upgrade reduces the number of interfaces and cubic units.
Maybe the upgrade vom STD to XL may cost a Light mech 1 cubic unit while a assault have to pay 4 cubic units for this.

Mechs like awesome are full with interfaces.
the reduction of cubic untis will automatically reduce the number of interfaces.

hard to explain - i try to make a simple picture.



The idea is that you don't have to waste time with the distribution of ES or FF or XL criticals. it happens automatically.. in this case each upgrade cost 10 cubic volumes. Because the AWS have no much room it reduce the number of heatsinks.
As you can see - the double grey - heatsink slot - can take 2 single heat sink or 1 double heat sink (yes only 2 crits) but you can not use it in propper way - maximum of heatsinks in this example are 21 double heatsinks for the Awesome - you can not mount more actually eighter.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 12 July 2013 - 04:15 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

I got to admit, you kinda suck at explaining
But no, I see the point and I think it should have been done way before because current "dynamic armor slot" or "dynamic structure slot" werent properly distributed.
Whole mech was acting like 1 gigantic component, so that no matter where you put your desired weapon or equipment those "dynamic slots" shift back and forth like rollercoaster

They should break crit slot distribution in pieces (components)

I like the amount of work you've put in crit slot distribution - but Im sorry I still don't get it
is it:

• 1 cubic = 2 crit slot

Maybe Im little confused :S

See first thing they did wrong is they set same amount of crit slots on every component ( every component is the same ) except head and legs ofc
So lets focus on that first
The next thing we should do is determine percentages for every chassis component.
Example: we must determine every components

• number of critical slots per component for every mech
  
• "dynamic armor"/"dynamic structure" distribution percentage
  
• armor distribution (hate the idea that huncbacks right torso is treated the same as his left in point of armor)
  
• hardpoints (done)

Dynamic armor"/"dynamic structure" distribution percentage:

I suggest that we try with 16.666% on every components since that is original disribution for ES and FF (currently)

And then try to see what percentage would go for FF because its not so effective:

• first we divide tons that FF will save with tons that ES saves (of any mech) to get another percentage 72%
  
• then that percentage (72% actually 0.72) multiply with 16.666% and we get 11.999%
  
• So to sum up: 16.666% for ES and 11.999% for FF

Number of critical slots per certain component for every mech

This is a though one.
Every chassis is different, has different component sizes, actually its not though but it will take a long time for this to make and a lots of hours in front of screen to configure this in paint/ photoshop because you have to think carefully for every chassis.

Armor distribution

Is not that though, once we deal with crit slots its easy

Example (huncback):

right torso has X% crit slots more than left
right torso has X% armor more than left

Overall armor has to stay the same so we have to subtract form left torso and add
How much to subtract: its easy just 1/2 of X% and add that 1/2 to desired right torso
To sum up:

• left torso lost 1/2 X%
  
• right torso gained 1/2 X%
  
• which makes it 2/2 X%

Maybe I could trow in some pictures

[Pht]

BGH, do you realize that you don't even have to build an entirely new system?

The mech building & customization system from the Tabletop game plus a few more restrictions tailored to the VG format will work just fine; besides having 30 years of testing on it.

[Big Giant Head]

Pht, on 12 July 2013 - 05:45 PM, said:

BGH, do you realize that you don't even have to build an entirely new system?

The mech building & customization system from the Tabletop game plus a few more restrictions tailored to the VG format will work just fine; besides having 30 years of testing on it.

Do you realize that mechs critical slots and armor distribution is out of balance?

Edited by Big Giant Head, 13 July 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Xenok]

Big Giant Head, on 13 July 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Do you realize that mechs critical slots and armor distribution is out of balance?

How? Seems to work rather well to me.


This idea was tried in the MechAssault XBox games. They are the biggest failures of the franchise and this is the main reason why. MechWarrior is about having flexibility in the design of your own battlemech. The hard point system is more restrictive than It should be, but needed in order to make different revisions of chassis possible and thereby create a money generation engine. Note, its not needed for balance, just for money generation. Getting to restrictive on where and what can be mounted will make this MechAssault. If you want to play MechAssult please go do it as there will be no modernization of failed MechAssault titles. If you want Mechwarrior I, II, III and to a lessor extent 4 then play MWO; it is a modernization of those titles. Major difference between the two. A flexible mech design system or something like one of the many ideas on this thread. The flexible system created successful games, a successful franchise and the inflexible ones killed it.

[Big Giant Head]

Xenok, on 13 July 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:

How? Seems to work rather well to me.


This idea was tried in the MechAssault XBox games. They are the biggest failures of the franchise and this is the main reason why. MechWarrior is about having flexibility in the design of your own battlemech. The hard point system is more restrictive than It should be, but needed in order to make different revisions of chassis possible and thereby create a money generation engine. Note, its not needed for balance, just for money generation. Getting to restrictive on where and what can be mounted will make this MechAssault. If you want to play MechAssult please go do it as there will be no modernization of failed MechAssault titles. If you want Mechwarrior I, II, III and to a lessor extent 4 then play MWO; it is a modernization of those titles. Major difference between the two. A flexible mech design system or something like one of the many ideas on this thread. The flexible system created successful games, a successful franchise and the inflexible ones killed it.

If I was creative director or whatever, I wouldnt put any hardpoint limitations. System would be something like MWtactics has.
I would treat every components as piece of metal
Yes, I agree with you in R&R system
No variants and that stupid mech tree.
No uneven armor distribution

[Big Giant Head]

Not every chassis is same, so distribution of armor and crit spaces shouldnt be the same either

Number of critical slots stays the same
Number of armor points stays the same


Here are some critical slot distributions


If I divide number of critical slots in component with number of critical slots in upper part of mech ( which includes RA, RT, CT, LT, LA)

for example lets take RT which has 15 CS and divide with 48 (number of crit spaces in RA, RT, CT, LT, LA)
Ill get 31,25%, now that percentage (0,3125) multiply with all armor (in RA, RT, CT, LT, LA) which is 224, Ill get 70 armor points in RT
others:

• RA: 18,5
  
• RT: 70
  
• CT: 56
  
• LT: 60,5
  
• RA: 18,5

Now for the ES and FF "dynamic armor" distribution
Simple:

ES takes up 16,6666% of crit slots of each component

FF takes up 11,9999% of crit slots of each component

Dynamic armor stays solid in all components - doesn't shift its self on other components like crazy
I tested this on Catapult and increased his CT, lowered his side torsos,...

Edited by Big Giant Head, 13 July 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

In my opinion they should increase PPC crit size to 5, and LL/LPL to 3 that would definitely balance whole PPC boating

[Pht]

Big Giant Head, on 13 July 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Do you realize that mechs critical slots and armor distribution is out of balance?

... I wasn't referring to the current mechlab.

I was referring to the mechlab concept linked in my sigline.

Big Giant Head, on 13 July 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

Do you realize that mechs critical slots and armor distribution is out of balance?

... I wasn't referring to the current mechlab.

I was referring to the mechlab concept linked in my sigline.

[Redwood Elf]

Big Giant Head, on 13 July 2013 - 06:06 AM, said:

In my opinion they should increase PPC crit size to 5, and LL/LPL to 3 that would definitely balance whole PPC boating

Boating isn't the problem, alpha-strikes and convergance are the problem. I think DHS should be reduced to 2 crit spaces to reflect the fact that they're not DHS at all, they're not even 1.5HS...not likely to happen though.

[Ialdabaoth]

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.

But. PPCs, heat sinks, etc. have a history behind them, and an Inner Sphere PPC is 7 tons and 3 criticals. Period.

If you want to balance PPCs, create a comprehensive hard point restriction system, and return them to generating 10 heat / 15 for ER's.

[Redwood Elf]

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.

But. PPCs, heat sinks, etc. have a history behind them, and an Inner Sphere PPC is 7 tons and 3 criticals. Period.

If you want to balance PPCs, create a comprehensive hard point restriction system, and return them to generating 10 heat / 15 for ER's.

Meh on the hardpoint restrictions, but I have no idea what they were thinking by reducing the heat they generate...and then creating this totally artificial Ghost Heat kludge instead of just putting their heat back where it was supposed to be in the first place.

[Big Giant Head]

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.

But. PPCs, heat sinks, etc. have a history behind them, and an Inner Sphere PPC is 7 tons and 3 criticals. Period.

If you want to balance PPCs, create a comprehensive hard point restriction system, and return them to generating 10 heat / 15 for ER's.

First this isnt battletech and it will never be

[Zarlaren]

Have weight restrictions like light mechs can only use light weight weapons. Cause a Raven with a AC/20 is rediculous my Victor can't even use a AC/20 on the 9K varient and it is a 80ton mech. Slots is alright as it but making limits to weight would be better cause it would strip the AC/20 raven build and go to AC/2's or AC/5's instead cause it would make more since due to the nature of how heavy a weapon should be. In reality a raven wouldn't be able to pick up a AC/20 let alone fire it without recoil sending it flying a ways. Now a Atlas yes a AC/20 would work cause the Atlas can support the weight of the weapon and recoil. Overall increase the weight of weapons but keep slots and hardpoints as it.

I'd say just make weapons heavier. Even in maps with Zero Gravity possible future maps it would not matter cause the weapon would be installed in a mechlab with normal earth like gravity so it would still be limited by weight. A 35 ton raven would not exceed 35 tons by making weapons limited by weight would be a easy fix to absurd or the so called nuts build like a AC/20 Raven or Commando with ERPPC's. If the mech can't lift it it can't use it.

Edited by Zarla, 06 August 2013 - 04:30 AM.

[GammaGauss]

If a raven is carrying an AC20 it is just a super urbanmech and i don't see the problem.
Also a 35 tns mech could not carry a 16 tns gun but could carry 16tns of miscelaneous weapons?
Mechs are equiped with the Gyro for a reason.
Anyway a Raven with an AC20 will die or will run out of ammo in no time.


Now the problem come because we are allowed to chaneg the mech and if you know that universe well you should know how painfull it is to change a battlemech. and the resuslt is almost always a critical failure.
So if you'r asking me we should even allowed to edit a batlemech until the clan and their modular weapons.

Edited by GammaGauss, 06 August 2013 - 04:28 AM.

[Zarlaren]

GammaGauss, on 06 August 2013 - 04:24 AM, said:

If a raven is carrying an AC20 it is just a super urbanmech and i don't see the problem.
Also a 35 tns mech could not carry a 16 tns gun but could carry 16tns of miscelaneous weapons?
Mechs are equiped with the Gyro for a reason.
Anyway a Raven with an AC20 will die or will run out of ammo in no time.


Now the problem come because we are allowed to chaneg the mech and if you know that universe well you should know how painfull it is to change a battlemech. and the resuslt is almost always a critical failure.
So if you'r asking me we should even allowed to edit a batlemech until the clan and their modular weapons.

This made no since to me. In my opinion a AC/20 should weigh as much as 24 or 34 tons instead of the 14 tons it is now. And the ammo be 2 or 3 tons per slot instead of one ton for the AC/20.

[Zarlaren]

The concept of a raven with a AC/20 is like a human lifting a truck on his back then joggin a marathon it just nuts.

[Redwood Elf]

Zarla, on 06 August 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Have weight restrictions like light mechs can only use light weight weapons. Cause a Raven with a AC/20 is rediculous my Victor can't even use a AC/20 on the 9K varient and it is a 80ton mech.

Go ahead and take an AC20 on a raven...you'll be out of ammo long before you're a real threat, and you won't have the tonnage left for much more than a small or medium laser as a backup weapon...and that's if you sell off some of your already light armor in addition to all your heatsinks.

And it's spelled "Ridiculous" - the root word is "Ridicule"

(that example won't even launch...need more heat sinks...so you'd need to strip off a couple tons more armor)

Edited by Redwood Elf, 06 August 2013 - 06:44 AM.

[Lord of All]

Redwood Elf, on 06 August 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Go ahead and take an AC20 on a raven...you'll be out of ammo long before you're a real threat, and you won't have the tonnage left for much more than a small or medium laser as a backup weapon...and that's if you sell off some of your already light armor in addition to all your heatsinks.

And it's spelled "Ridiculous" - the root word is "Ridicule"

(that example won't even launch...need more heat sinks...so you'd need to strip off a couple tons more armor)

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