60 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 05:18 AM, said:

But what they IMO made wrong:
They changed the weapon weights in some cases to make more sense.
Ok, fine gameplay wise. But not good for a BT game, where suddenly some classic builds weren't possible no more.

That wasn't a problem...or am I wrong? You couldn't modify the Mechs - while it was unfamiliar to see a Warhammer firing its AC 10s...it couldn't be used by players to create some of the Madnesses i have seen in MWO... so for the most part you know about your enemy.

I still think playing a little bit with some weapon weight could be a interesting idea for MWO, too.
Leave the std canon pieces, alone, but create some derivates (more or less weight, but complete other HP of that items, and other dps ratios)
I think some mechs & players would like to have 6 Very Light Autocanons (small derivate for the Light AC [2])

Maybe they could perform better with haveing 5 Light Ac [2] but for symetric / aestetic aspects...6 is better as 5

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 April 2013 - 05:28 AM.

[Ragor]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

(post above / quoted for notification)

From a gameplay standpoint I totally agree.
Problem:
This is BT. The build rules are the holy book and no subject to change.

And MWLL followed its own buildrules strictly to not mess up the set balance.
But this moved many BT fans away from it since 'this is not BT anymore, this build is not possible.'

Examples for the changed build rules:
IS Gauss, light Gauss and AC/20 had been 1t (2t for AC/20) lighter than in TT.
All mechs were supposed carry XL engines by the weight but standard engines by the slots.
LPL had been 2t lighter.
Every mech had DHS and came with 10 engine DHS.

[Karl Streiger]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

From a gameplay standpoint I totally agree.
Problem:
This is BT. The build rules are the holy book and no subject to change.

And MWLL followed its own buildrules strictly to not mess up the set balance.
But this moved many BT fans away from it since 'this is not BT anymore, this build is not possible.'

Oh i was also distracted by the "NOT CANON" Builds. But i got used to it.
A 6 PPC Stalker is not canon too.

MWO should keep the canon weights and criticals for all weapons - so that a Canon Mech stay Canon.

But why not have some high grande / low grade weapons of the same weapon?
MWO TROs or TechManual - is not the bible nor a fixed rule - that can never change.

The LB 10 X alone is my proof.... its the only IS Autocanon of the LBX family - that is lighter, and have less crit over the Std AC.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 26 April 2013 - 05:45 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

Oh i was also distracted by the "NOT CANON" Builds. But i got used to it.
A 6 PPC Stalker is not canon too.

MWO should keep the canon weights and criticals for all weapons - so that a Canon Mech stay Canon.

But why not have some high grande / low grade weapons of the same weapon?
MWO TROs or TechManual - is not the bible nor a fixed rule - that can never change.

The LB 10 X alone is my proof.... its the only IS Autocanon of the LBX family - that is lighter, and have less crit over the Std AC.

why would one ever pick the "low grade" though, unless there were a RnR economy to give a reason?

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 April 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

why would one ever pick the "low grade" though, unless there were a RnR economy to give a reason?

Less weight because of cheap components... aluminium/light steel over ferro alloy...or something.
Less durable loading mechanism, less durable components some thing like that... for example 75% of the std weapons weight and 50% of its damage....

[Ragor]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

(...)
A 6 PPC Stalker is not canon too.

MWO should keep the canon weights and criticals for all weapons - so that a Canon Mech stay Canon.

But why not have some high grande / low grade weapons of the same weapon?
MWO TROs or TechManual - is not the bible nor a fixed rule - that can never change.

The LB 10 X alone is my proof.... its the only IS Autocanon of the LBX family - that is lighter, and have less crit over the Std AC.

... but that Stalker is possible to build with the TT build rules. (but wouldn't be that effective)
And as I stated in some post earlier in this thread (end of first page IIRC):
I am all for alternative versions of ACs with different behaviour.

But for me the buildrules (weight and slots) are no subject to change.

The LBX is different because it is a different weapon. Which should behave different in game as well.

But adding new weapons to an existing lore by a 3rd party IMO is a no go.
If they want new weapons, than they shouldn't have used the BT IP. Instead set up their own IP with their own lore.

But as I often state (and really mean it that way):
This is just my opinion and yours may differ. That is the whole point of opinions: Having discussions.
And discussions are not there to change anyones opinion but to understand the statements and reasoning of the other end of the table. And in the optimal case in the end all opinions mix up to a new and improved one.

Edited by Ragor, 26 April 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

But adding new weapons to an existing lore by a 3rd party IMO is a no go.
If they want new weapons, than they shouldn't have used the BT IP. Instead set up their own IP with their own lore.

CGL does the same.... there was hardly any side note during the reign of FASA when the SL Technologiy was redeveloped. For the most part it looked like the tech was just poping out from no where when Clans hit the IS.

CGL have corrected that facts during. Allready "new" technology or Mechs are available earlier. - Mortars, Rocket Launchers, or Mechs like the Ymir. However they didn't done the mistake to brought all their new stuff (HPPC, HAG etc. earlier) they just tried to get a hold in a time frame what virtually should have been the end of classic battletech.

I really like what CGL did when they looked in the past - the time of the Star League and even before... filling all those missing links and gaps with more information.
FASA Mech Development was Mackie -> Hoplite, now there are several other mechs (Bellerophon, Thunderbolt, Ostwar....)
FASA only told about the presuccessor of the Behemoth, CGL made it - so there are now mechs above 100ton in a time frame before the current time line.

But you are right its personal opinion, we are not the Inquisition - if they would have burned me allready - because I'm open to heretic ideas....I always try to stay true with the soul of BattleTech - see it above the figures. Because those figures are just abstractions.

Sorry I went a little off topic... but I really believe MWLL had done the same...they tried to keep the soul allive even when it means to break the chain towards abstract figures.

For example - lets predict the Atlas have a special AC and LRM loading system that is directly linked with its structure...because the Mech is build arround those weapons... isn't there any reason why the weapons shouldn't have a other behaviour?
The BattleTech weapons are standardized. Like it is with some ammunition in todays armys.
But while the AK 47 is a Assault Rifle and the M 14 or the G3 all are assault rifles with same caliber, with nearly the same performance but there are still difference. Same could have been part of BattleTech.

But the developers didn't make that step - you could hardly balance a gaming system with less resources - and without support of computers.
But I can imagin that there is a differnce between the Defiance MechHunter of the Atlas and the KaliYama Big Bore of the Hunchback. The Mechhunter weights 12tons...but have less ammunition, and improved capacitors for its arm medium lasers that - removed form the Mech - will have a weight of 2tons. The Big Bore - could have a weight of 16 tons but would have internal storrage of ammunition.
With both modifications. The overall weight is still the same - so the weapon still could be standardized.

[Inertiamon]

And we're talking about tabletop rules - they're not carved on stone tablets as far as I'm aware. If it makes sense to change the rules and the world to keep the franchise evolving then don't spare the horses I say. If noone had done so in the past then we'd not have half the stuff we do now.

People seem to respond to changes in guides that were simply crafted to make a table top game work in the 80's was if we were talking about the ten commandments.

Not that I give an ox about those either.

Edited by Inertiamon, 26 April 2013 - 06:37 AM.

[Theodor Kling]

Inertiamon, on 26 April 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

People seem to respond to changes in guides that were simply crafted to make a table top game work in the 80's was if we were talking about the ten commandments.

Because it´s BT. Sure some adjustent has to be made, the TT being turn based and all that. But within limits. If you throw the "holy canon" over boardyou probablycouldstill ake a great game. But not a BT game.

[Inertiamon]

No - that's a pure extension of your emotional attachment. Not that any opinion is less valid but it's only that. You really need to seperate the theme from the mechanics for design sake when transitioning from TT to a completely seperate medium.

I'm a fan for Hitchhikers Guide for example. A revered series for most scifi fans yet if they had dogmatically stuck to the tone and pace of the book for the radio, tv, film, plays, audiobooks, websites and comics then you'd have only ever had the radio version and it would have been crap.

[Inertiamon]

But then that's just my opinion and is worth sod all either

[Ragor]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

(quoted for notification)

Regarding your basic statements I totally agree with you.

And you example of the reallife assault rifles are very good ones.
Example BF3:
BF3 has dozens of weapons!! The variety is overwhelming.
Er... yes. Dozens of weapons which are basically the same and only differ in details.
Simply because these weapons are part of the assault rifle family.
All have roughly the same weight, range, spread and clip size.

And I totally agree, that the same situation is in the BTU among all the weapon family.

Spoiler

Ragor, on 25 April 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

Alternative versions of each (U)AC:
Example (U)AC/20
The players should be able to choose from the regular large bore (U)AC/20, firing one single shell. (like known from the TT rules)
Or they could go with a small caliber variant, firing whole clips but doing overall the same amount of damage. Aka burstfire. (like known from the novels)
(...)

But in the end all weapons of the same family would have roughly about the same weight and size.
My quoted example of the alternate versions for AC:
A large bore AC/20 would carry 7 large 203mm low velocity shells.
-> Firing once fires obviously one shell. Leaving 6 shots left.
A burst fire AC/20 could carry for example 140 65mm shots per ton. 20 shots per magazine.
-> Firing once fires a 20 shot burst within 0,8s. Leaving 6 bursts left.

This would be now a different incarnation of the AC/20.
But regarding the buildrules (and the code for ammo!) and the balance nothing would change.
Same, ammo, same weight, same slots, same heat, same range.

Overall less chances to **** stuff up or to trigger the whiners&flamers out of their gutter to start the next shitstorm.
It would be 100% in line with the canon of the BTU and the TT build rules.
But players would have more freedom in adjusting their loadout according their personal taste and it would bring more variety to the battlefield.

To clearify my stance:
Me is against 'breaking' with the ancient build rules of the (un)holy TT gods of the 80s (where nobody cared about logic and realism...), but totally for alternatives in the stats.

Edited by Ragor, 26 April 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Ragor, on 26 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

This would be now a different incarnation of the AC/20.
But regarding the buildrules (and the code for ammo!) and the balance nothing would change.
Same, ammo, same weight, same slots, same heat, same range.

Overall less chances to **** stuff up or to trigger the whiners&flamers out of their gutter to start the next shitstorm.
It would be 100% in line with the canon of the BTU and the TT build rules.
But players would have more freedom in adjusting their loadout according their personal taste and it would bring more variety to the battlefield.

My take on modifying weapons was based on this principle - a slider that allow you to adjust damage vs RoF - but DPS or HPS are not affected.
But when you stood at the cliff...and look down into the deep blue sea...you don't see danger - you see chances...and you think what if you modify weight, crits and heat too? What about range?

Then you jump - and you feel free like a bird...

Quote

To clearify my stance:
Me is against 'breaking' with the ancient build rules of the (un)holy TT gods of the 80s (where nobody cared about logic and realism...), but totally for alternatives in the stats.

Meh all i have to do is to push you from the cliff....

Small poison idea... do you think that the weapons of original BT was limited because of makers choice - or did they also wanted to have some room for players to generate own weapons like they did with mechs?
First weapons were limited by weigt and heat only...
But take the JM6 for example... a AC weighing 6 ton at base range of 8 for 2 damage and another one weighting 8 tons at base range of 6 and damage for 5....

That gap...between them.... what about 7tons base range of 7 for 3dmg. 4 Guns all the same size. So the very principle is boating. Did the same to a Zeus...taking some "house brew" medium range missiles 15... leaving place for replacing the Large Laser with a PPC so that the 3 primary weapons had a base range of 6.

[Black Templar]

Karl Streiger, on 26 April 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

What i found most interesting in MWLL were their weapon balance.

First the damage system was less abstract..to normal standard (simple linear hp(armor reduction) I figured out that 2 points of MWO armor are roughly the same as 150-170 points of MWLL....
Every Autocanon need on average 3 secs to deal the damage they are supposed to do in MWO.
The question was just how many shots you need to do that.

The most clever decision was to throw the fixed TT values out of the window.
Modify armor, heat and damage values - that they are harder to compare... and go only for the feeling....and the MWLL feeling is the same as in TT
You really need the same time with MWLL weapons as you would need with TT weapons to bring down an enemy.

that is what i liked most about it. mechs were pretty hard to kill in this game. assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

[Karl Streiger]

Black Templar, on 20 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

that is what i liked most about it. mechs were pretty hard to kill in this game. assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

I didn't played it that much... my former unit started training pre MWO - CB at MWLL... and taking down a single fafnir using a complete lance was a great experience....

It may not have been perfect but it was on a really good way to get there.

[Syllogy]

Black Templar, on 20 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

that is what i liked most about it. mechs were pretty hard to kill in this game. assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

Then people would only pilot Assault Mechs (we have seen this before during the Atlas Invasion).

It's not fun, it's not intense.

[Karl Streiger]

Syllogy, on 20 June 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

Then people would only pilot Assault Mechs (we have seen this before during the Atlas Invasion).

It's not fun, it's not intense.

Hm not automatically. I still think the only reason to use a Atlas or a Highlander is actual the chance to do more damage.... more damage = more money = more xp.
That is the reason why there are few lights and mediums...not because of survival.

When you have large maps - like alpine as a minimum - a atlas needs endless time to move towards a specific point.... a fast and mobile collection of medium and light mechs - don't have to fight they simple can out run them.

[Adridos]

Black Templar, on 20 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

Or a single well placed 2xAC/20 Devasator...

[Mudhutwarrior]

Black Templar, on 20 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

that is what i liked most about it. mechs were pretty hard to kill in this game. assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

Black Templar, on 20 June 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

that is what i liked most about it. mechs were pretty hard to kill in this game. assault mechs took a whole team's effort to take down and battles were so much more intense.

Here any sod in a lite just has to stay out of gunsights and he can take an assult down in short order. Just so totally ridiculous that a cheap lite can easily destroy a multi million assult. Told me right off that spending good money on an assualt is a fools errand. Like most everything here it makes no sense.

[Gaan Cathal]

Mudhutwarrior, on 20 June 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Here any sod in a lite just has to stay out of gunsights and he can take an assult down in short order. Just so totally ridiculous that a cheap lite can easily destroy a multi million assult. Told me right off that spending good money on an assualt is a fools errand. Like most everything here it makes no sense.

So much stupid it's not even funny.