89 replies to this topic

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Trauglodyte, on 19 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Utlimately, we've had this arguement put to bed by PGI the second that they added in the barrel art for ACs and Gauss on the K2. That was their subtle way of telling us that there would be no limitation put on weapon sizes in relation to the hard points.

It was also their way of getting the idiots crying that you cant fire a gauss through a machinegun port to shut up.

[tenderloving]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 19 April 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

It was also their way of getting the idiots crying that you cant fire a gauss through a machinegun port to shut up.

Isn't it amazing how people with differing opinions are idiots and they always cry? Hopefully scientists find the cause for that. Until they do we'll just have to pray that everyone has the same opinion as you.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

tenderloving, on 19 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Isn't it amazing how people with differing opinions are idiots and they always cry? Hopefully scientists find the cause for that. Until they do we'll just have to pray that everyone has the same opinion as you.

yes, I agree that those ppl who were crying that the k2 gauss was not possible just because the art guys hadnt gotten around to updating the art to reflect the weapon you have on the mech are idiots and whiners. Its funny, I dont SEE those threads anymore now that the art guys have updated that ability.

get off your high horse there buddy lol

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 19 April 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

tenderloving, on 19 April 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Isn't it amazing how people with differing opinions are idiots and they always cry? Hopefully scientists find the cause for that. Until they do we'll just have to pray that everyone has the same opinion as you.

Truth be told, it doesn't make sense that you can switch out a Machine Gun for a Gauss Rifle. But, here is a thing, in TT and in lore, the reason that mechs had variants was that because they were always out on the lines and, thus, didn't have access to a mech factory. We, on the other hand, essentially all have our own mech plant through which we can adjust the specs on our mechs. Its why you can put any size engine in a mech, change the internal structure and armor weight, and adjust loadouts on weapons. So, while it is ludicrous that a MG turns into a Gauss or a Small Laser turns into a PPC, it is perfectly acceptable in the scope that it isn't any different then taking your brand new Toyota 4Runner and sending it back through the plant to have it suspension upgraded, transmission altered, and possible dropping in a V12 aluminum allow engine block instead of the stock 6.

On top of that, the Devs have said in numberous threads that they're happy with the ingenuity of the player base when it comes to designing new mechs. We, on the other hand, don't like some of the builds because they're just nuts. But, like, that's just our opinion, man (had to do it). In all seriousness, though, we don't hate these builds because they're bad. We hate them because there is no cost attached to them. Heat, in a vacuum, isn't enough. Everyone agrees that poptarts are idiotic because they offer a ton of benefits with no drawbacks. Loading up 6 PPCs is just a horrible because the combination of Coolant Flush and the lack of heat penalties makes it just as free of drawbacks. Its akin to ECM+Streaks but on a much grander scale.

SO, if you can't adjust issue A, push for option B. Heat penalties, cockpit shake w/ JJs, and Streak fixes are much more beneficial in the long term game than asking the game developers to go back and redesign every hard point while also trying to figure out the acceptable intent of stock mechs.

[bigdaddynash]

ThatDawg, on 17 April 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

holy hell, that thing looks like a ***** with legs.....great.....now I'm going to have nightmares.......

Dong on legs FTW!

[Varnas]

***** n stuff, on 19 April 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Why wouldn't a hollander be able to carry a gauss and an XL engine? A gauss is only 7 crits and the XL engine takes up three in the sidetorsos. Just because it doesn't have one stock doesn't mean you can't have one.

Except using XL engine on the hollander in this game would be a ******* suicide, since that huge ******* gun would be a part of your side torso.

Raven doesn't have this problem

[Malora Sidewinder]

just want to point out that bigger weapons do not scale in terms of heat.

2 medium lasers is both lighter and more damaging than a single large, but takes up the same crit space.

however, 2 mediums generate more heat than a single large.

the more weapons you boat, the less heat efficient you become.

[Vapor Trail]

Just be glad you're not seeing the true "completely nuts" boats from TT.

Twenty small lasers. Short range single point firepower equivalent to Hex-Stalker alpha, with less heat loading, and light enough to be mounted on a chassis fast enough to strike and fade fairly easily. Twelve to fifteen tons of payload is enough to grant an alpha every ten seconds, and that's easily doable on a high speed Cicada chassis.

These things were nasty in BT, where they would get in behind your heavy hitters and chew their armor off their rear, and they were fast enough they were exceptionally hard to hit.

[DeadlyNerd]

What OP is saying is true to the core.

I've always advocated the need to restrict HPs by tonnage/number of missile pods/critical size and the need for those restrictions is specially showing now that people are placing PPCs in place of medium lasers and LRM20s in place of LRM10s, and getting away with it penalty free.(no, 2 salvos of 10s within 0.5sec is not a penalty, merely an undesirable graphical effect)

[tenderloving]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 19 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

yes, I agree that those ppl who were crying that the k2 gauss was not possible just because the art guys hadnt gotten around to updating the art to reflect the weapon you have on the mech are idiots and whiners. Its funny, I dont SEE those threads anymore now that the art guys have updated that ability.

get off your high horse there buddy lol

nobody was saying it wasn't possible because of the artwork, they were saying it SHOULDN'T be possible because of game balance, and that the mech was designed to carry light ballistics. The K2 is a direct fire support energy- you know what, I don't care anymore.

Not on a high horse, just trying to give you some perspective. Your opinions do not trump everyone else's, and there are numerous cases where the "whiners" turned out to be right (going to Open Beta too early, LRMageddon, Coolantgate)

[Terror Teddy]

The equalizer to the silly X6 LL Stalkers is a more prominent HEAT system.

+The more initial heat produced = the lower efficiency of heatsinks
+Add a heat scale that gives us penalties
+Reduce overall heatsink efficiency for every shutdown the mech suffers

[Satan n stuff]

Trauglodyte, on 19 April 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Utlimately, we've had this arguement put to bed by PGI the second that they added in the barrel art for ACs and Gauss on the K2. That was their subtle way of telling us that there would be no limitation put on weapon sizes in relation to the hard points.

This really only leaves us with the option of lobbying for heat penalties as a means to help counter idiotic builds. That you can run around with 4+ Lrg Laser/PPC builds and suffer no issues is beyond explaination to me. And it is, sadly, our only remaining trump card with which to deal with them.

Ever tried to run one of those? Especially with the PPC builds, you can't afford to miss even once. If your heat gauge goes over 50% in one alpha, you're gonna have heat issues.

[Joseph Mallan]

tenderloving, on 20 April 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

nobody was saying it wasn't possible because of the artwork, they were saying it SHOULDN'T be possible because of game balance, and that the mech was designed to carry light ballistics. The K2 is a direct fire support energy- you know what, I don't care anymore.

Not on a high horse, just trying to give you some perspective. Your opinions do not trump everyone else's, and there are numerous cases where the "whiners" turned out to be right (going to Open Beta too early, LRMageddon, Coolantgate)

Actually it was about the art too. I remember many a CB post saying, "You can't put a Gauss in a slot that a MG fills because it still looks like a MG!!!"

As far as Game Balance goes. If I strip out the tonnage and crits required to put 2 Gauss in a Mech that has 2 ballistic slots. I can. On TT there was no restrictions to what you put where, as long as the build fit the tonnage and crit restrictions.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 April 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Rofl]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Actually it was about the art too. I remember many a CB post saying, "You can't put a Gauss in a slot that a MG fills because it still looks like a MG!!!"

As far as Game Balance goes. If I strip out the tonnage and crits required to put 2 Gauss in a Mech that has 2 ballistic slots. I can. On TT there was no restrictions to what you put where, as long as the build fit the tonnage and crit restrictions.

As a long time TT player, that's not exactly true.

If you removed, for instance, the PPC from the marauder's left arm and the medium laser from it's right arm, and swapped it... technically you'd have the tonnage and crit space requirements, but that mech would have significant penalties (piloting and gunnery) even with amazing techs doing the work due to imbalance of both crit and weight from the mech being modified.

However, you could swap the PPC and Medium for an AC/5 with practically no problems.

Edited by Rofl, 23 April 2013 - 08:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Rofl, on 23 April 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

As a long time TT player, that's not exactly true.

If you removed, for instance, the PPC from the marauder's left arm and the medium laser from it's right arm, and swapped it... technically you'd have the tonnage and crit space requirements, but that mech would have significant penalties (piloting and gunnery) even with amazing techs doing the work due to imbalance of both crit and weight from the mech being modified.

I don't remember any penalty to piloting and gunnery for moving equipment in my 25 years of play! Quote me a rule (that was not a house rule) please. And I was demo rep for a while so I had to prove my knowledge of the game to be allowed to run World wide events!!!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 April 2013 - 08:54 AM.

[Rofl]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 April 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I don't remember any penalty to piloting and gunnery for moving equipment in my 25 years of play! Quote me a rule (that was not a house rule) please. And I was demo rep for a while so I had to prove my knowledge of the game to be allowed to run World wide events!!!

I believe it was the Total Warfare book (with the Timber Wolf on the front) in the same section as repair and modification. I'm at work so I don't have the book in front of me. If you do, you can check. Otherwise wait ~6 hours!

[Uspez]

The flexibility of the current system adds a lot of tweakablility and fun to the game even if it doesn't really make sense. The thing that bothers me is how it makes adding new mechs to the game mostly redundant.

I was looking through the list of light mechs on sarna last night and was having a hard time trying to figure out why we would even want most of them in the game at this point since they could have their equivalent built from one of the lights we currently have.

[Rofl]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 April 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

I don't remember any penalty to piloting and gunnery for moving equipment in my 25 years of play! Quote me a rule (that was not a house rule) please. And I was demo rep for a while so I had to prove my knowledge of the game to be allowed to run World wide events!!!

Overall Design Integrity
When BattleMechs are designed, their
components are placed in certain parts of
the ’Mech’s body for good reason. The
entire structure of the ’Mech must be balanced to support its
weapons and other equipment. Changing this arrangement
through customization can seriously upset the balance and hinder the performance of a ’Mech.
Therefore, the ideal customization replaces a component
with another component that takes up the exact same tonnage
and critical spaces in the same location of the ’Mech. For example, replacing an SRM-2 and a ton of ammunition with a medium
laser and a single heat sink (each item weighs 2 tons and occupies 2 critical slots) is easy enough. The balance of the ’Mech
and its internal-space allocation is maintained. Such customizations do not produce any additional modifiers or other problems.
More radical modifications can cause serious problems. If
the tonnage and critical-slot requirements of new parts do not
match the requirements of the parts removed, an additional
Technician Skill roll must be made to maintain the balance of
the design. Make a separate roll for each location that experiences a change in space and/or tonnage. If only the tonnage or94
critical space is altered,
add a +2 modifier to
the target number. If
both tonnage and critical space are altered in
the location, apply a +4
modifier. If using the
MechWarrior roleplaying
rules, apply a –2 modifier if the technician has
the Engineering Skill.
If the roll fails, the
design’s balance has
been disrupted by the
customization.
In the case of leg
and torso customizations, this imbalance
results in a +1 modifier
to all Piloting Skill rolls
for that ’Mech. This
modifier is not cumulative. Once the ’Mech is out of balance, any further tinkering
does not increase the +1 modifier.
If the arms or head are unbalanced, any weapon or physical
attack from those locations receives a +1 modifier. This modifier applies only to the specific affected location and can be
applied only once to any single location.
Design integrity can be restored to a ’Mech by a technician of a higher skill level. If an Elite technician cannot
maintain the design’s integrity, it has become irrevocably
unbalanced.
The design-integrity rule applies to BattleMechs only.
Conventional vehicles can be freely modified without loss of
performance, due to their open construction and stable
frames.

Sorry for the weird post, was pasting from a PDF. Anyone letting you move equipment around willy-nilly was either:
1. Simplifying the metagame so you could get into the action or
2. Using their own house rules, as you said.

Edited by Rofl, 23 April 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Rofl, on 23 April 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sorry for the weird post, was pasting from a PDF.

No apology necessary. What book is that out of?

[Joseph Mallan]

Uspez, on 23 April 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

The flexibility of the current system adds a lot of tweakablility and fun to the game even if it doesn't really make sense. The thing that bothers me is how it makes adding new mechs to the game mostly redundant.

I was looking through the list of light mechs on sarna last night and was having a hard time trying to figure out why we would even want most of them in the game at this point since they could have their equivalent built from one of the lights we currently have.

Ok That can explain why I didn't know this! I dropped out of TT shortly after TW was published. SO I didn't have to read the whole book forward and back! Thank you!