18 replies to this topic

[Ph30nix]

ive been wondering this, im sure its a "balance" thing but in realiity it just kills alot of potential variety. There are loadouts you can do with some mechs that your options are to either take a useless weak filler weapon or go with unused tonnage.

Example im trying to level Atlas's ddc is good, i have the Ds basics done and im trying ot get the basics on the R done i dont feel like doing the same builds in the R as the DDC and D, so for giggles i did 4 ppc or 4 LL, i end up having alot of tonnage left over even after filling every empty slot with heat sinks.

I just dont get how a 100 ton mech like the atlas would have the same number of critical slots as a 25 ton commando thats about 1/3 its height.

It shouldnt even be a Balance issue, you already have hard point restrictions, you already have weight restrictions.

Oh wait heres a better example, The Hunchback.... This poor guy has to run around with 1 or 2 of his side torsos sticking an extra 5-10 meters above his damn head and he doesnt even get extra Critical slots to show for it.

I know PGI will probably never change it at this point even though it wouldnt realy cause any extra work for them to rebalance anything keep the stock loadouts how they are now and do critcal slot numbers by at least class so
lights stay with 53
mediums get say 58
heavys get 63
assaults get 68

so the mediums would get say
1 extra critical in each torso
1 in each leg
heavies would get
1 each arm
1 each leg
2 each torso
assaults get
2 each arm
1 each leg
3 each torso

im sure people are gonna rage at even the thought of this, and will create hypothetical boogymen that will be created by this insanity,

OMG 6PPC STALKER WOULD BECOME UNSTOPPABLE!!!!!

or something like that, but the current heat/weight/hard point restrictions would still put adaquite limitations on the mechs. This would just allow a bit more variety to be used and explored.

[Bishop Steiner]

I think there were optional rules for Crits by weight class in one of the Level 3 rules supplements, and I must say, I think it makes a great bit of sense. But, I think they would also then have to remove Ferro as a crit user (which it shouldn't anyhow), and maybe mildy revisit how engine crits are assigned (because apparently a mech can't be designed around an engine to take into account the bulk and still leave room for stuff, lol. Makes sense on a mech you upgrade to an XL in, not so much one you start with.)

[verybad]

Because it's a game and there has to be a balancing system that prevents larger mechs from always being the best?

[Skyfaller]

Ive always wondered why heavy and assault mechs are so fast actually. I find it silly I can run my stalker at 65kph.

[627]

Because this is Mechwarrior - these are the building rules from TT. I'm not a die hard TT vet (never played it actually) but we need some basics to build on.

Without it, this wouldn't be machwarrior, just "another game with big robots shootin stuff"

[Volthorne]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 April 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

I think there were optional rules for Crits by weight class in one of the Level 3 rules supplements, and I must say, I think it makes a great bit of sense. But, I think they would also then have to remove Ferro as a crit user (which it shouldn't anyhow), and maybe mildy revisit how engine crits are assigned (because apparently a mech can't be designed around an engine to take into account the bulk and still leave room for stuff, lol. Makes sense on a mech you upgrade to an XL in, not so much one you start with.)

Firstly, considering Ferro is supposedly "bulkier" than standard armor, having that extra bulk on the outside might interfere with actuator performance and movement in general. But we have all this extra internal space between the frame (to which the armor is mounted) and the internal components (which are suspended from/attached to the frame somehow), so if we move the extra bulk to the inside, it solves all the problems of possible mobility issues! At least, that's what I think the reasoning is.

Secondly I believe there are advanced rules whereby you can force X number of Ferro crits per location, which could be a valid option to explore.

Edited by Volthorne, 29 April 2013 - 01:35 AM.

[ThinkTank]

Ph30nix, on 28 April 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

The Hunchback.... This poor guy has to run around with 1 or 2 of his side torsos sticking an extra 5-10 meters above his damn head and he doesnt even get extra Critical slots to show for it.
.

Mechs are not that big. 5-10 meters is about 15 to 30 feet. The tallest mech, the Atlas, is only 12- 16meters tall, depending on the source. That's a little taller than your average telephone pole (~12 meters) or 3-5 story building (~ 9-15 meters) Maybe you meant to say feet, but in any case, mechs are smaller than you might think.

To math nerds: these are approximations based on various sources. It's to give a good sense of scale and not to give my slide rule a workout.

[Karl Streiger]

yes TT is the basic...we knew that.
So a critical is just a volume size that depends on the mech... hm no that didn't work...because a AC 20 has same volume for a Commando as for a Atlas....

And again ... you have to understand the reason why there are just 12 or 6 critcials.

First reasons d6
Second reason: they have to fit on a A4 sheet

Do we play with dice? - hardly
Do we need the Mech Crits to fit on a A4 sheet? - NO

So Bigger Mechs could have more internal room? Depends...because a bigger Mech has also bigger muscels, bones and joints.

So considering that a Atlas may have 20 internal slots on his legs... 4 are for the Hip, 4 are for the upper leg activator, 4 are for the lower leg activator, 4 are for the feet. Remaining 4 Slots
Look at the Commando: 5 internal slots per leg: 1 for Hip - to feet leavin a single remaing slot for the leg.

In the end it stays the same bigger mechs have more room as smaller mechs. But vital parts are also more easy to hit.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Should mechs have different amounts of crit slots based on tonnage? Probably.

Will is happen? Not a chance.

[Kraven Kor]

Yeah, I can see it now, Atlas running around with ES, FF, DHS, Artemis, AND a full compliment of weapons. No thanks

And again, the combination of tonnage + crits means that, yes, Assault mechs can and do fit "more stuff" than smaller sized mechs.

[Bishop Steiner]

Volthorne, on 28 April 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Firstly, considering Ferro is supposedly "bulkier" than standard armor, having that extra bulk on the outside might interfere with actuator performance and movement in general. But we have all this extra internal space between the frame (to which the armor is mounted) and the internal components (which are suspended from/attached to the frame somehow), so if we move the extra bulk to the inside, it solves all the problems of possible mobility issues! At least, that's what I think the reasoning is.

Secondly I believe there are advanced rules whereby you can force X number of Ferro crits per location, which could be a valid option to explore.

"firstly" that might make sense on a field mod. A factory refit would take extra bulk into account, and shape the plates accordingly.

[Elyam]

It is an artificial constraint, but one that has worked quite well and will remain with BT until the system undergoes major evolution at some future day.

[Belorion]

Its all part of the meta. Sometimes the assaults are the hardest to fit lots of weapons into. I find heavies the easiest to load out.

[Tex1013]

Mech design rules in tabletop, which have become, to one extent or another, the baseline for the design rules for virtually every version of mechwarrior, were based around several assumptions, at least from my own player standpoint

#1 - Design rules were for fun and experimentation. In the first versions of Battletech (before the multi-tiered rules) They were *not* properly balanced to fit within the range of canon mechs. You know all those complaints you get about the urbanmech, and the stock spider, and the stock this/that/theotherthing?...THOSE are the mechs that the basic game design was balanced around.

Part of the reason so many people are so against some of the really unbalanced builds in MWO, is because once you push the limits of the design rules, you come up with combinations of weapons/heat/armor that the majority of the game just wasn't designed to handle in a balanced manner

Most mechs were designed around one primary system (close range or long range), then they had a supplementary weapon system (or two, if they were big enough) at the other range. Then you shoved in some med or small lasers to fill in the rest of the space, and maybe some machine guns or a flamer for lore purposes (all designed as anti-infantry weapons that the game kept telling you was an issue but never really came up )

Hunchy - AC20 (short range), and then some med lasers to fill in space
Dragon - AC5 and LRMs (long range) and some med lasers to fill in space
Battlemaster - awwww yeah...ppc (for long range), srm (for short range) and some med lasers to fill in space (and a couple of machine guns for lore/fit the stolen macross picture or wherever it was from)

and so on
*boated* designs in original TT were mostly specialized support weapons. The Archer, the Firestarter, the Awesome - these were mechs that had a very specific storyline role (long range fire support, terrain denial and just plain silly, and PPC'S BABY!!) and were generally quite vulnerable without other mechs to support

2 - I can't *prove* it, as I have no input from the designers, but TT design rules were basically an insight into how mechs got built for the canon designs (in fact, there were a few designs that if you faithfully followed all the design rules as printed, "cheated" a little bit on tonnage ), and allowed you to experiment with *ideas*. What would happen if I got rid of these mostly lore-based machine guns and put a couple extra heatsinks in there? What would happen if I switched out all the LRM's on my archer and built an SRM archer instead?

problem was, these hypothetical designs, *your* hypothetical designs, weren't necessarily built with an eye to balance against all the other mech models in the game. And it *was* possible, even with the set design principles, to build mechs with crazy loadouts that you could use to exploit a particular vulnerability, or support a particular playstyle, etc, etc, AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A BAD THING!!

problem is, now we have MWO - and MWO is *expected* to be a relatively fair, balanced, semi-competitive environment - but, because of the design system, which is taken from an existing design system, which wasn't *entirely* built to be balanced, people can now build mechs with such heavily prioritized game changing factors, that to compete, people HAVE to build to counter the overbalanced playstyle. And that can be frustrating, AND contradictory to the point of a mech-customization system.

Or, try to think of it like this...

MWO - "We're going to give you a mech design system, so you can build any mech your pretty little heart desires!"
PlayerA - "Awesome!!! I like light mechs with lasers - I'll build that!!"
Player B - "cool - I hate light mechs, I'll build a 6ppc stalker that only has to hit once with an alpha and it'll annihilate any light it hits!!"
Player A - but I wanna play lights!!"
Player B - cool! more easy kills for me!
Player A - You're a jerk!
Player B - yah?! you wanna beat me - build a 6ppc stalker like I'm building - then you can kill me just fine.
Player A - but I...LIKE...LIGHTS!!f

and so on and so forth

customizing mechs is one of my favorite aspects of Mechwarrior. But, it's also one of the most serious issues as far as overall game balance is concerned...and so being very, VERY careful about what allows what is important.

Almost none of this is directly related to the OP - So, think about this - I'm personally *against* increasing the amount of available space, or reducing it for smaller mechs, primarily for the following reason;

I like *limits* in mech design. Sometimes I think there should be more limits. I find that managing to build a mech that is effective, and fun, while working within certain mechanical limitations and restrictions, is one of the challenging aspects of mech design. I think the current system works pretty well - it's worked, in one form or another, *pretty well* for 3 mechwarrior games (there wasn't any design option in the first mechwarrior pc game), and while it may not be perfect, it DOES seem to reasonably well give lights, meds, heavies, and assaults, the generally appropriate mix of weaponry, speed, and armor that I've come to expect from the franchise.

there are any number of real world justifications you can use to mollify yourself over why the mechanics work the way they do, just as you can concoct any number of real world justifcations for why the system should be different. But in the end, I think it's pretty okay as is, could, in my own opinion, use a few *more* limitations, and again, I feel the game would get even *more* unbalanced if we unlocked a few more restrictions on mech design.

So no, I wouldn't be in favor of expanding critical slots, as much as it might make some of my own design ideas easier

and no, there's not TLDR version of this...

[Lord Psycho]

I believe most of the mech's space is actually taken up by the chassis/internal structure of the actual mech. you could say that for the weight that is required, e.q. an Altas with a standard structure has a weight of 10 tons, that 10 tons would be quite complicated to build to hit the profile size and general design of the atlas. that complication will make up more space thenit actually seems so a "standardized" critical slot system is formed such that any weapon takes up that amount on each mech.

Also I think each mech is supposedly wired differently so even an AC20 may be oh so big you need more interfaces and anchors and other junk to fit it properly in an atlas then say ... a spider.


edit: also power interfaces can factor in. due to the allotment of different engine sizes per mech chassis it could need different power regulators and the like to correctly power each weapon with the ammunition feed.

another thing isthe ammunition feed system in each mech is custom designed to fill up each mecha certain way, so that takes a certain set amount of space percentage wise per mech also. ( isn't it great you can store your ammo anywhere and it still gets to your mech some how?)

Edited by Lord Psycho, 29 April 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Merky Merc]

Because space magic that's why.

[Karl Streiger]

Kraven Kor, on 29 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Yeah, I can see it now, Atlas running around with ES, FF, DHS, Artemis, AND a full compliment of weapons. No thanks

And again, the combination of tonnage + crits means that, yes, Assault mechs can and do fit "more stuff" than smaller sized mechs.

Not exactly...
You have to convert it too.
A ton of armor have a cubic volume of 1...and a ton of ferro fibrous have a cubic volume of 1.18.
So if you convert it the ferro fibrous of the Commando will consume fewer crits.

However as you can see... it is not possible to say...hey remove two crit for lights, and a crit for mediums.
That didn't work.

[Voidsinger]

Having consistent crit slots means:

No need to scale Ferro-fibrous and Endo-steel critical slots by actual mech mass.
Internal Structure takes care if armour scaling.
Allows for other flat costs like ignoring square/cube law for internal structure.
It's simplified.
Doesn't really make too much difference.
It all comes from tabletop.

Keep in mind mech form is purely artistic licence.
Most mechs don't push criticals to the limit in tabletop.
Ferro-fibrous and Endo-steel are the huge crit eaters, and they should scale by mech size.

[kuangmk11]

Think of it this way, all the stuff you put in crit slots doesn't really take up much space. A 'mech isn't a cargo truck, its full of things that make it work, that tiny amount of space left over is where your stuff goes.