378 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

Keifomofutu, on 18 May 2013 - 07:28 PM, said:

You know what should be awesome? An Awesome.

You'd think a "vanguard assault" Mech, in its stock config, would hold its own in this game. Hit boxes too big, and over-all too wide. A 4 PPC Stalker is sadly better at PPC Boating than a 'canon' PPC Awesome boat.

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 May 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[Aegic]

General Taskeen, on 18 May 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

You'd think a "vanguard assault" Mech, in its stock config, would hold its own in this game. Hit boxes too big, and over-all too wide. A 4 PPC Stalker is sadly better at PPC Boating than a 'canon' PPC Awesome boat.

I agree completely. There are a few ideas on this floating around. This is mine.

Aegic, on 12 May 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Keep the current hardpoint system and add restrictions on hardpoint size.

Add weapon sizes.

Hardpoints can use ONLY weapons their size and smaller.

Example:AS7-D has a 2 Ballistic hardpoints in the right torso. Make both of those 2 "Heavy" Ballistic hardpoints. It can equip the largest ballistics in the game, the already in place slot slot mechanic will ensure it cannot have 2x AC/20s but it can have one and a machine gun. You can also have 2x "Medium" Energy hardpoints in the torso and 2x "Heavy" Energy hardpoints in the arms.

A K2 might have 1 "Small" or "Medium" Ballistic hardpoint in each torso, which would limit them to machine guns and smaller sized autocannons say UAC/5-AC/2. While having "Heavy" Energy hardpoints in the arms would allow it to equip any energy weapons there.

An Awesome may have 3 "Heavy" Energy hardpoints and be able to equip PPCs and all other energy weapons in those slots while a Stalker would have "Medium" Energy hardpoints only and be limited to medium lasers and smaller.

Remember more weapons will be released as time goes on making these groups more varied.

Just possible examples of classification.

Energy
Heavy-ER Large Laser, Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, ER PPC, PPC.
Medium-Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser.
Small-Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Flamer.

Ballistic
Heavy-AC/20, Gauss Rifle.
Medium-AC/10, LBX AC/10, Ultra AC/5, AC/5
Small-AC/2, Machine Gun

Missile
Heavy-LRM/20, LRM/15, SRM/6
Medium-LRM/10, SRM/4
Small-LRM/5, SRM/2, Streak SRM/2

Example Mechs
AS7-D
1 Heavy energy hardpoint in each arm (total 2)
2 Medium energy hardpoints in the center torso
2 Heavy missile hardpoints in the left torso
2 Heavy ballistic hardpoints in the right torso

HGN-733C
2 Heavy ballistic hardpoints in the right arm
2 Medium energy hardpoints in the right torso
2 Heavy missile hardpoints in the left torso
1 Heavy missile hardpoint in the left arm

TLDR:Add weapon classifications "Light-Medium-Heavy" to the existing hardpoint system and classify each weapon accordingly/fairly/realistically. The slots that each weapon take up will ensure balance.

This system will also PROMOTE hero mechs and their unique hardpoints and further diversify builds we see in the field.

[White Bear 84]

The spider is too big, its just to easy to hit. I cant play in it because its the size of a light mech it needs to be reduced in size.

Not to mention my wang. Way too big. Please shrink my wang to a more appropriate size.


Note: Mech sizes are fine. Anyone who has gone up against a cent know that they can last pretty darn long in a brawl - why make it harder to kill them?

[General Taskeen]

White Bear 84, on 22 May 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Note: Mech sizes are fine.

NOPE.AVI

[SmokinDave73]

PGI should defenitely re evaluate the in game size of the mech's they a proportioned and scaled horribly but I dont see them doing it anytime soon seeing that they can not even keep deadlines planeed 3 months in advance.

[oldradagast]

Yes.

The Centurion and Trenchbucket are nearly as big as the Highlander, a properly scaled 90-ton mech. This is grossly out of size, and picky details such as "they are slender from the side" just don't cut it. They just feel wrong when you look at them, and are much larger targets than they should be based upon their armor, which only hinders the already limited viability of Mediums in the game.

The Stalker is a bit undersized, though I think it's power comes more from staggering weapons payload, ideal boating design, and the overlap of huge side torsos that provide some damage reduction to the small slender torso when the sides torsos are lost. All mechs have this, but the Stalker is hard to hit square-on.

While we're at it, revisit the Awesome's hitboxes (if we can't get it resized) - the whole mech is practically torso, which is why it dies easily and people don't play them.

Edited by oldradagast, 07 June 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

oldradagast, on 07 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

The Centurion and Trenchbucket are nearly as big as the Highlander, a properly scaled 90-ton mech. This is grossly out of size, and picky details such as "they are slender from the side" just don't cut it. They just feel wrong when you look at them, and are much larger targets than they should be based upon their armor, which only hinders the already limited viability of Mediums in the game.

The canonical Centurion is about 10-11 meters tall (baed on the head assembly being the same size as a BMC Mini), while the canonical Atlas is about 14 meters tall (the upper limit as stated by the BT Line Developer; also, the same as the length of a fencing strip).

The MWO Atlas is 18 meters tall (three meters, or ~1.29x, taller than its canonical counterpart).

If the MWO Centurion is at the same scale (~1.29x), it should be on the order of 13-14 meters tall.
If the MWO Centurion simply has three meters added to the height of its canonical counterpart, it should still be on the order of 13-14 meters tall.

While the Centurion should be noticably smaller than the Atlas, the difference should not be, say, a factor of two.

oldradagast, on 07 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

The Stalker is a bit undersized, though I think it's power comes more from staggering weapons payload, ideal boating design, and the overlap of huge side torsos that provide some damage reduction to the small slender torso when the sides torsos are lost. All mechs have this, but the Stalker is hard to hit square-on.

oldradagast, on 07 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

While we're at it, revisit the Awesome's hitboxes (if we can't get it resized) - the whole mech is practically torso, which is why it dies easily and people don't play them.

From the hitbox thread:

Awesome:


Stalker:


The Awesome's hitboxes are pretty much where one would expect them to be, given its geometry.
The "problem" (insofar as it is such) with the Awesome is that people try to use it in close-quarters combat despite the 'Mech being very specifically not designed to be a brawler, but a sniper, and then not understanding (or wanting to understand) that the particular 'Mech is simply not the right tool for the brawling job.

The Stalker, while slightly heavier than the Awesome, is also a hunched-over design that exchanged height for length/depth; it makes sense that it might be noticeably shorter than the Awesome (or the heavier Highlander) while also being far longer/deeper.
However, the Stalker seems odd at times because of the way its side-torso hitboxes extend so far forward, leaving very little in the way of a center-torso (which ls already capable of being very heavily armored).
Personally, I would have made the top half of what is currently the forward portion of the side-torso part of the center-torso instead, but that's just me...?

[General Taskeen]

Nope, Awesome was a Vanguard Mech with a skinny torso, also kicked and shot ppc's at min-range in TT. An Awesome Mech did not become feared in 'canon' by being short-bussed by being made semi-trailer wide and staying at the back:





The difference is pretty clear, the MWO version is very, very WIDE in comparison. Besides the Atlas, the Awesome is my favorite Assault Mech from Battle Tech, and its look is saddeningly less imposing and awesome as the Awesome from Battle Tech. Its totally gimped.

Edited by General Taskeen, 17 June 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Actually, sitting in the back (with one or more escorts, no less) and providing sniping, direct-fire bombardment, and long-range covering fire is exactly how the Awesome came to be feared in the BT/MW canon.

Quote

Designed for ranged combat against opposing heavy 'Mechs, the Awesome carries out that assignment well. Its three Kreuss PPCs can heavily damage or destroy many opposing BattleMechs in one salvo (usually fired in a two-out-of-three salvo sequence to reduce heat problems). The Small Laser and the heavy left-arm Battle Fist can cause heavy damage at point-blank ranges where the PPC weapons are less effective.

(TRO 3025 (original edition), pg. 104)

Likewise, it's weakness has always been the combination of being slow and cumbersome & being relatively ineffectual in close-quarters combat.

Quote

To achieve the Awesome's superb offensive and defensive capabilities, maneuverability was sacrificed. With its heavy structure, the Awesome is slow and cannot react to attacks from the rear as well as can BattleMechs with a greater number of weapons. It is also susceptible to damage in its legs, which could easily immobilize it or make it topple.

(TRO 3025 (original edition), pg. 104)

Quote

The Awesome is effective when used for the purposes its designers had in mind. If the 'Mech is mishandled or poorly screened from flanking enemy units, however, it will not be able to fight off lighter 'Mechs quickly enough to keep from being surrounded.

(TRO 3025 (original edition), pg. 104)

Quote

As with every BattleMech, the Awesome is not without flaws. While devastating at range, it is less efficient in point-blank combat, where its PPCs have a harder time connecting with the target. It only has a Diverse Optics small laser and its left fist to fall back on in that situation. Its reduced mobility makes it vulnerable to flanking attacks by faster opponents who eagerly seek to get clear of the PPCs. While they face some of the thickest rear armor found on any BattleMech, the lack of rear facing weapons, or of a weapon mount on the Awesome’s left arm, have given many MechWarriors a fighting chance against it.

(TRO 3039, pg. 154)

The Awesome was only ever a "vanguard 'Mech" (where it should be noted that the term "vanguard" is not used in reference to the Awesome in any official sources) insofar as being included in the first wave of an operation, where its role was to provide long-range fire support and sniping services; it was never meant to take point in any operation where close-quarters combat was expected to be the dominant form of engagement.

Moreover, the Awesome has always been a wide-bodied design (especially with regard to 'Mechs at or near the same weight, such as the Victor, Charger, and Hatamoto-Chi); while the MWO rendition might have altered the relative proportions of CT to side-torsos, it did not change the basic fact that the whole body is rather wide relative to its height.

original Awesome artwork (TRO 3025 & TRO 3039)


Awesome in action (Classic BattleTech Universe)

[Tie Ma]

add quickdraw to that list

[Strum Wealh]

Tie Ma, on 18 June 2013 - 02:58 PM, said:

add quickdraw to that list

And if the MWO Atlas is 18 meters tall and the MWO Centurion "should" be on the order of 13-14 meters tall, how tall would you propose making the MWO Quickdraw?

[FupDup]

Strum Wealh, on 17 June 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Lots of stuff about the AWS being a sniper mech.

The problem with that is that the Stalker is a vastly superior mech for that role. Reasons:

1. It presents a much smaller target profile when peeking over the hill to shoot.

2. Its weapons are mounted very high up, allowing it to stay behind cover better. The Awesome has to expose itself much more, especially when using arm-mounted weapons.

3. The Stalker has better hardpoints (namely more arm-mounted energy weapons).

4. The Stalker is heavier (and thus more armed and armored; the speed disadvantage is negligible for assault-class snipers).



The first three of those points are factors that TT never considered, so your TT descriptions as to what the Awesome's role is are invalid (and the Stalker is a vastly superior sniper regardless). Many mechs in TT had bodies incongruent with their "intended role."

[Tennex]

Strum Wealh, on 18 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

And if the MWO Atlas is 18 meters tall and the MWO Centurion "should" be on the order of 13-14 meters tall, how tall would you propose making the MWO Quickdraw?

about the same size as the heavy mechs that are heavier than it..

and u know what, i'm going to go for bonus points and say smaller than the other heavy mechs that are heavier than it.

[Asmudius Heng]

To me the clear outlier for size is the lights.

Mediums are pretty big, so are heavies and assaults, the difference between tonnage and volume for these mechs is close - but there are some exceptions that are clearly a little off.

It is LIGHTS that are super small in comparison.

Lights need to be small so they do not get hit much as long as they have speed - but the problme then is that mediums get shafted because they take a big step up in size and do not get much of an advantage vs heavier mechs like lights do.

While they all need to be looked at lights are far smaller in comparison to other mechs for thier tonnage.

If we increased them they would die easier and people would not take ligths as much though i hear people say.

This is true, but lights gat an artifical inflation of thier survivability right now pushing the least survivable mechs to be the mediums IMO

Someone is going to lose out always - but the lack of tonnage restrictions means artifical help to lights to make them more 'competative' killers.

[FupDup]

Asmudius Heng, on 18 June 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

To me the clear outlier for size is the lights.

Mediums are pretty big, so are heavies and assaults, the difference between tonnage and volume for these mechs is close - but there are some exceptions that are clearly a little off.

It is LIGHTS that are super small in comparison.

Lights need to be small so they do not get hit much as long as they have speed - but the problme then is that mediums get shafted because they take a big step up in size and do not get much of an advantage vs heavier mechs like lights do.

While they all need to be looked at lights are far smaller in comparison to other mechs for thier tonnage.

If we increased them they would die easier and people would not take ligths as much though i hear people say.

This is true, but lights gat an artifical inflation of thier survivability right now pushing the least survivable mechs to be the mediums IMO

Someone is going to lose out always - but the lack of tonnage restrictions means artifical help to lights to make them more 'competative' killers.

Or, instead of making lights even easier to hit (ERPPCs require very little leading, SSRMs and lasers don't need leading at all), we could just make mediums smaller than they currently are. Ideally, they should only be a little bit larger than lights and noticeably smaller than heavies.

Lights don't need nerfing, and nerfing them won't even do anything to help mediums.

[Asmudius Heng]

FupDup, on 18 June 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

Or, instead of making lights even easier to hit (ERPPCs require very little leading, SSRMs and lasers don't need leading at all), we could just make mediums smaller than they currently are. Ideally, they should only be a little bit larger than lights and noticeably smaller than heavies.

Lights don't need nerfing, and nerfing them won't even do anything to help mediums.

Making mediums smaller is a band aid fix though, the issue is the convergence of weapons not the weapons themself.

Also mediums do not go as fast for the most part and being smaller will help but i dont know by how much.

I am happy if they DO resize mediums mind you at least the comparative scale between weight classes would be more balanced so i do not disagree - but i think that sometimes people want all mechs to be equal killers and that trade offs in size, manoeuvrability, armour and firepower are a perfect equation that makes a commando as good as an Atlas.

It doesnt.

The system we are basing everything off makes small fast mechs VERY useful in many ways, but they get stomped on by larger mechs by and large. We need a system of LOGISTICS that mean taking a light is a boon for your team in terms of what it can do - but also the fact they are cheaper, less tonnage or something. Mediums to not just lights.

Most of these arguments do not take into account the broader reach and scope of a balance equation and so a change in isolation my not do what was hoped.

If mediums were to shrink that is a change in isolation - but yes its a better one than most suggestions i just think there is a lot more to it if that clarifies my intent

[FupDup]

Asmudius Heng, on 18 June 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Making mediums smaller is a band aid fix though, the issue is the convergence of weapons not the weapons themself.

Also mediums do not go as fast for the most part and being smaller will help but i dont know by how much.

I am happy if they DO resize mediums mind you at least the comparative scale between weight classes would be more balanced so i do not disagree - but i think that sometimes people want all mechs to be equal killers and that trade offs in size, manoeuvrability, armour and firepower are a perfect equation that makes a commando as good as an Atlas.

It doesnt.

The system we are basing everything off makes small fast mechs VERY useful in many ways, but they get stomped on by larger mechs by and large. We need a system of LOGISTICS that mean taking a light is a boon for your team in terms of what it can do - but also the fact they are cheaper, less tonnage or something. Mediums to not just lights.

Most of these arguments do not take into account the broader reach and scope of a balance equation and so a change in isolation my not do what was hoped.

If mediums were to shrink that is a change in isolation - but yes its a better one than most suggestions i just think there is a lot more to it if that clarifies my intent

Part of the "equal killers" thing comes from that each mech takes up one player slot each. This isn't like TT where you could use low-BV units to Zerg rush/spam people. I don't think PGI has any intent on adding BV or making mediums and lights take up fewer player slots.

Tonnage matching in the future (it's planned I believe) will help to an extent but it isn't going to make more players want to use those smaller mechs. Mediums and lights are just going to have to wait in the matchmaking que for a while because nobody wants to play the weaker classes because they're just not as fun because all this game consists of is combat and cap-trolling.

PGI also seems to be fairly intent on keeping convergence, as they once said that they were keeping it "in favor of skill," (their words) so hitboxes are going to matter for quite a while.

[Asmudius Heng]

FupDup, on 18 June 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Part of the "equal killers" thing comes from that each mech takes up one player slot each. This isn't like TT where you could use low-BV units to Zerg rush/spam people. I don't think PGI has any intent on adding BV or making mediums and lights take up fewer player slots.

Tonnage matching in the future (it's planned I believe) will help to an extent but it isn't going to make more players want to use those smaller mechs. Mediums and lights are just going to have to wait in the matchmaking que for a while because nobody wants to play the weaker classes because they're just not as fun because all this game consists of is combat and cap-trolling.

PGI also seems to be fairly intent on keeping convergence, as they once said that they were keeping it "in favor of skill," (their words) so hitboxes are going to matter for quite a while.

Which is why they need better in game rewards for lower weight classes - or objectives in the game that are more rewarding for those with less guns.

Logistics will keep the tonnage down if it is enforced - or it could give greater rewards for those who do not overton - i do not have a solution but since we do not have a BV system they need to be thinking of ways to make the game fun for all classes but encourage the usage of more variety of mechs.

I am happy to wait for Dropship mode and CW to see if they implement something like this that works. I am simply stating that lights are clearly the ones that were shrunk intentionally an that is a short sighted decision in favour of the things we are talking about.

[FupDup]

Asmudius Heng, on 18 June 2013 - 07:49 PM, said:

Which is why they need better in game rewards for lower weight classes - or objectives in the game that are more rewarding for those with less guns.

Logistics will keep the tonnage down if it is enforced - or it could give greater rewards for those who do not overton - i do not have a solution but since we do not have a BV system they need to be thinking of ways to make the game fun for all classes but encourage the usage of more variety of mechs.

I am happy to wait for Dropship mode and CW to see if they implement something like this that works. I am simply stating that lights are clearly the ones that were shrunk intentionally an that is a short sighted decision in favour of the things we are talking about.

I personally wonder how they're even going to do tonnage matching. It's going to be one of two ways for sure:

A. No static limit. It just matches you with an enemy team that is equal/close to equal to your weight whether it's all one class or mixed-and-matched.

B. A static, pre-set limit that all teams must conform to.


If PGI just so happens to choose option A (only time will tell), then mediums and lights will still be quite uncommon as they are now (assault and heavy teams will just get matched against assaults and heavies); but, on the bright side, at least your enemy will have to be correspondingly lighter as a result.




I agree with the more objectives thing, but I'm not very hopeful of PGI cooking up anything tasty in that regard. I'm sticking to things like hitboxes and what not because the likelihood of PGI removing convergence (and adding proper logistics stuff, to a lesser extent) is almost nonexistent, meaning that it gives us a much more solid and tangible measuring stick than using things which may or may not be implemented.

Edited by FupDup, 18 June 2013 - 08:00 PM.

[Adridos]

FupDup, on 18 June 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

1. It presents a much smaller target profile when peeking over the hill to shoot.

The first three of those points are factors that TT never considered, so your TT descriptions as to what the Awesome's role is are invalid (and the Stalker is a vastly superior sniper regardless).

Actually, TT did consider the Stalker's profile and gave anyone shooting at it +1 attack "debuff" (the basic roll to hit was highered by one) just because of the profile.

As far as Stalker being all around superior, yes, it is... they allowed us to make just about anything from the mechs we get and it's only logical that as long as speed is constant or very close, the heavier is always better.