102 replies to this topic

[jeffsw6]

Wouldn't everyone just buy DHS, downgrade the engine slightly to maximize armor, and play one of a handful of stock variants that have reasonable armaments? The concept is cool but I do not think the selection of stock mechs is really there to make it fun yet.

If I had to choose one, though, I think I would go with Heavy Metal. It has a surprisingly sane stock load-out and can be converted from XL to STD while staying within your semi-stock rules.

[Roadkill]

Buckminster, on 09 April 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

I'd rather see a 3025 play mode. Slight tweaks to the weapons/armor, but no endo steel, no ferro fibrous, no double heat sinks, no gauss, no streaks, no AMS, no ECM...

Agreed. 3025 time frame is more interesting, in no small part because there are no Clan Mechs on the horizon.

Buckminster, on 09 April 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

Granted, no DHS would require PGI to rethink their heat model, as SHS are completely not viable.

Not true. SHS are completely viable provided everyone is forced to use them. It does make for a slower-paced game and you have to be a little less aggressive when customizing your Mech, but SHS are completely viable as long as DHS are not available.

[Harrison Kelly]

No. I've never met a Stock Mech that I liked.

[TheForce]

jeffsw6, on 09 April 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

play one of a handful of stock variants that have reasonable armaments?

So far out of all the people that answered yes, only 20% would take the OP stock mechs, and 80% would play a variety.

[Zphyr]

Played hundreds and hundreds of games with nothing but stocks trials. It's not bad, just not optimized.

[Chip Danger]

SMDMadCow, on 09 April 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

I would play a STOCK only game sure, but not semi-stock.

Agreed

[Spheroid]

I would play 3025 mode. Should be added as a CW option. Could be fluffed as an battle out in the periphery somewhere.

[DocBach]

would play completely stock, but not semi-stock -- semi-stock is still customized and optimized, voted no.

Edited by DocBach, 09 April 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[HammerForge]

Certainly would play stock, would be a transition to learn, everything is slower and runs hotter and does less damage.

Semi-Stock, really depends on the rules, I mean is removing a ML of a AC20 hunchie allowed so I can add ammo? Because 1 ton of ammo isn't enough. I think it would cause more issues on what is and isn't SEMI-stock though, and probably wouldn't work.

[Jman5]

No I wouldn't. I enjoy customization to the full extent.

[Buckminster]

Roadkill, on 09 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Not true. SHS are completely viable provided everyone is forced to use them. It does make for a slower-paced game and you have to be a little less aggressive when customizing your Mech, but SHS are completely viable as long as DHS are not available.

Fair enough I suppose, but I'd be afraid that we'd see a map full of mechs that overheated after firing 2-3 salvos of their weapons - especially on any of the more energy-heavy builds. My K2 has twin ERPPCs and twin MGs and still overheats with 22 DHS - that should *never* happen.

[Sir Wulfrick]

Yes, but only as an optional game mode.

[Buckminster]

TheForce, on 09 April 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

Given your second point, semi-stock may be even closer to canon stock than the MWO stock mech designs...want to do the math?

Quick run through Mechlab took the Heat scale from 1.11 for a stock K2, to 1.48 with DHS.

According to Smurfy's, the max sustainable DPS goes from 2.69 (with a 27% cooling efficiency) to 4.58 (with a 46% cooling efficiency). I know this is based more on constant alpha strikes, which isn't how the mechs are supposed to be run, but it still gives some numbers to the difference.

[Shumabot]

Buckminster, on 09 April 2013 - 11:16 AM, said:

Quick run through Mechlab took the Heat scale from 1.11 for a stock K2, to 1.48 with DHS.

According to Smurfy's, the max sustainable DPS goes from 2.69 (with a 27% cooling efficiency) to 4.58 (with a 46% cooling efficiency). I know this is based more on constant alpha strikes, which isn't how the mechs are supposed to be run, but it still gives some numbers to the difference.

"isn't how the mechs are supposed to run"

And yet that's what everyone is going to do because it's better than not doing it.

[Mackman]

I voted "yes", because I'd at least try it out. I doubt it'd be anywhere close to my main activity, though, for a couple reasons:


1: If you ran a mech that actually performs reasonably well in stock config, you'd get called out and mocked as a "min-max warrior" constantly: I don't want to play a game type where optimizing your mech is villainized.



2: The weapons layout on many mechs makes very little sense and merely wastes tonnage: The Stalkers, for instance, all pack in so much weaponry as to be practically unplayable in a stock config. I wouldn't want to cripple myself.

Edited by Mackman, 09 April 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[Buckminster]

Shumabot, on 09 April 2013 - 11:18 AM, said:

"isn't how the mechs are supposed to run"

And yet that's what everyone is going to do because it's better than not doing it.

The current convergence mechanics make big alphas payoff - but based on the old TT it wasn't feasible. Take the old standby of a Warhammer - 32 heat, up to 34 if you were running. You'd only dissipate 18 of that, so after two turns you'd be shut down, would probably have had your ammo cook off, and 90% of what you shot wouldn't have done anything due to the differences in ranges and the bell curve of the dice mechanic.

So I suppose when I say "how they aren't supposed to run", I should have said "wasn't how it was played in TT". The heat/to hit/damage payoff is a lot different when you are looking at absolute math from dice. You don't fire those medium and small lasers at long range, the slim odds of hitting meant that you were usually just making heat.

Edited by Buckminster, 09 April 2013 - 12:34 PM.

[Lord Ikka]

Make stock the only way to play in Solaris. Stock Mechs and TT armor.

[Shumabot]

Buckminster, on 09 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

The current convergence mechanics make big alphas payoff - but based on the old TT it wasn't feasible. Take the old standby of a Warhammer - 32 heat, up to 34 if you were running. You'd only dissipate 18 of that, so after two turns you'd be shut down, would probably have had your ammo cook off, and 90% of what you shot wouldn't have done anything due to the differences in ranges and the bell curve of the dice mechanic.

So I suppose when I say "how they aren't supposed to run", I should have said "wasn't how it was played in TT".

Which is a flawed analogy in and of itself since the TT randomization and gameplay mechanics do not translate into a live videogame at all. They're a conceptual basis, but the math and gameplay of the TT is impossible to translate into live for many very valid reasons. The moment you no longer adhere to the math of the base TT game analogies that use it to state how things "should" function start to break down and become inapplicable at a fundamental level.

Edited by Shumabot, 09 April 2013 - 12:37 PM.

[Shumabot]

I think PGI has kinda run into a weird place where they refuse to change direct damage numbers on iconic weapons like PPCs and AC20s and instead use things like heat scaling to make them less unique or cumbersome. A ppc that does 15 damage with a longer cooldown and twice the heat is suddenly a very, very different weapon. A 30 damage ac20 with a cooldown nearing 8 seconds is functionally very different than the current semi spammable iteration that only feels powerful in pairs. The need to please TT players at face value and attempt to design around them in the background is damaging to this game.

[Buckminster]

Shumabot, on 09 April 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Which is a flawed analogy in and of itself since the TT randomization and gameplay mechanics do not translate into a live videogame at all. They're a conceptual basis, but the math and gameplay of the TT is impossible to translate into live for many very valid reasons. The moment you no longer adhere to the math of the base TT game analogies that use it to state how things "should" function start to break down and become inapplicable at a fundamental level.

I'm not saying "this isn't true to TT it needs to change" - it took some time but I've come to accept it. I was more saying that stock canon builds are generally considered terrible in MW:O because of this fundamental gameplay difference. PGI's implementation of heat and convergence lead to a very fundamental change in gameplay, where big alphas are less risky, because the chance to hit is based on your skill and not on a dice mechanic. The canon mech designs were not based on big alphas, but were typically designed to have a variety of weapons that covered a variety of ranges, so that you'd have 'ideal' weapons at each range band.

Shumabot, on 09 April 2013 - 12:37 PM, said:

I think PGI has kinda run into a weird place where they refuse to change direct damage numbers on iconic weapons like PPCs and AC20s and instead use things like heat scaling to make them less unique or cumbersome. A ppc that does 15 damage with a longer cooldown and twice the heat is suddenly a very, very different weapon. A 30 damage ac20 with a cooldown nearing 8 seconds is functionally very different than the current semi spammable iteration that only feels powerful in pairs. The need to please TT players at face value and attempt to design around them in the background is damaging to this game.

The issue here is that PGI said "we're trying to make a sim that is based on TT values", so it's what a lot of people expected. I think PGI screwed the pooch when they decided to double armor, because it lead to a lot of other changes that needed to be made - increasing damage on missiles, increasing ammo counts per ton, etc. - that really took away some of the 'feel' that people were looking for.

Edited by Buckminster, 09 April 2013 - 12:51 PM.