704 replies to this topic

[Pater Mors]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

I'll be honest: it's been a long week at work, I'm tried, I saw an opinion I vehemently disagreed with, and I pounced. I pounced like the aggressive, arrogant ******* I typically become while arguing. You received a week's worth of unrelated hate, and for that I am truly sorry =[

You gave some well-written feedback, and I was a huge {Richard Cameron}. You're right, I'm ashamed, and there's no excuse. The kind of response you got is the kind of response trolls deserve.

I stand by the arguments I made, but not at all by the manner in which I made them. Your opinion is no less valid than mine, I sincerely appreciate the time you took to read the OP and give your feedback, and I hope you can eventually forgive me for letting the rabid homeless guy off the leash.

I know all too well that the first step in persuading someone is finding common ground, and that's the polar opposite of what I did. I'm clearly not perfect, and I'll work on staying off the forums when the rage is engaged.

Thanks for that. Apology accepted. Thanks for being a man about it. Not something that is often seen on these forums.

I had my own thread a while back regarding heat penalties doing much of the same thing your TCL system does and I just felt that it's more in line with Battletech and could be implemented easier. I was not trying to say that your idea was bad in any way because it's not and it's obviously very well thought out. I didn't include all my ideas in here because I didn't want to spam your thread with my heat penalty stuff as there's obviously a lot of other threads about that, but I would just like to say that having the Targeting Computer effected by heat and showing that through convergence issues/penalties among other things is something I strongly advocate for. We are simply approaching the same issue from different angles.

I also feel much less threatened by boated ballistics. Perhaps that's just my play-style? I feel that they already have huge disadvantages (shot leading, projectile flight time, ammo based etc some of these need some tweaking though, especially ammo explosion %) and I honestly don't get touched by the 'ballistic cheese builds' anywhere near as much as I do by the insta-gib super Alpha crowd which is 99% ERPPC's or LRM80 boats. I will always fear a Jagermech that has been kitted out in a versatile manner and piloted well, more than a cheese build AC40. They only ever get me when I've either got no cover or I walk around a corner right into one. Again, maybe this is just my play-style and other people are experiencing things much differently than I. Besides, I do have ideas how to work heat penalties in to ballistics anyway but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Homeless Bill]

Pater Mors, on 14 June 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Thanks for that. Apology accepted. Thanks for being a man about it. Not something that is often seen on these forums.

I had my own thread a while back regarding heat penalties doing much of the same thing your TCL system does and I just felt that it's more in line with Battletech and could be implemented easier. I was not trying to say that your idea was bad in any way because it's not and it's obviously very well thought out. I didn't include all my ideas in here because I didn't want to spam your thread with my heat penalty stuff as there's obviously a lot of other threads about that, but I would just like to say that having the Targeting Computer effected by heat and showing that through convergence issues/penalties among other things is something I strongly advocate for. We are simply approaching the same issue from different angles.

I also feel much less threatened by boated ballistics. Perhaps that's just my play-style? I feel that they already have huge disadvantages (shot leading, projectile flight time, ammo based etc some of these need some tweaking though, especially ammo explosion %) and I honestly don't get touched by the 'ballistic cheese builds' anywhere near as much as I do by the insta-gib super Alpha crowd which is 99% ERPPC's or LRM80 boats. I will always fear a Jagermech that has been kitted out in a versatile manner and piloted well, more than a cheese build AC40. They only ever get me when I've either got no cover or I walk around a corner right into one. Again, maybe this is just my play-style and other people are experiencing things much differently than I. Besides, I do have ideas how to work heat penalties in to ballistics anyway but that's a discussion for another thread.

My original response to you has been updated with brainpower and courtesy =D

People that can't admit their mistakes are weak. I ****** up, and all I can do is try to improve.

As you'll see in my response, I do like the lower heat capacity idea more than any other heat implementation. Mostly, I just don't like it because it doesn't touch ballistics.

And honestly, ballistics boats really aren't the big problem right now. We've only got two 65-tonners that can mount anything angry, and that's just not enough for the problem to show up in full force. What I would say is that AC/40 builds are far more effective than any other build of their tonnage. I would honestly rather see an Atlas or Highlander than a 40-Jager.

But mostly I'm thinking ahead. I'm thinking about potential 'mechs they could put in. I am convinced that once a ballistics assault goes in, **** is going to hit the fan. Or they'll avoid 'mechs that can do that, and that would be even more sad.

[Phaesphoros]

Hey Bill, what do you think of those?

Edit huh? something went wrong, update follows... fixed fixed

some TC load, loss of convergence:



heavy TC load, COF:

Edited by Phaesphoros, 14 June 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

I like your solution one hell of a lot more than what PGI is doing. I think if heat penalties go in, lowering the cap and raising dissipation is the way to go. It's a system-wide solution instead of their inane per-weapon stacking penalty. Heat values for individual things are best left alone in favor of something like this.

I'm not sure where I stand on penalties for running hot. I know it was there in tabletop, but I've been mulling over whether it's something that should be punished or not in realtime. I don't see running hot as a necessarily bad thing, unless you're always toeing the line. Over 80-90%, I'd be fine with seeing some penalties start to appear.

I have two big problems with reducing the heat cap and making it so that an alpha is dangerous:
1. It will be extremely punishing to new players. Even now, they only get a couple volleys before they overheat. Making it so that a single salvo could do damage to their 'mech seems like a bad way to go in my mind.
2. Alpha strikes are awesome. I really like seeing a 'mech fire everything it's got in a desperate bid to put out some damage. Not all the time, but not as infrequently as you'd like, either. I just think that alpha strikes and regular shooting should have a difference: one is for putting damage on a specific target and the other is for putting huge amounts of immediate damage on any part of a target - not just an act of desperation.

I completely disagree with you about ballistics. Ballistics and PPCs are the easiest weapons to put on target - you only have to aim once and click once. Lasers require you to keep them pointed at a component for the entire beam duration.

To me, duration and travel speed aren't the way to go on ballistics. Travel speed won't affect the in-your-face UAC/20s and reload duration isn't much of an issue when all you need to do is put one or two shots on target before it pops. And nerfing projectile speed will also make the Gauss far less useful. It needs to be useful when equipped single, but not overpowered when stacked.

I also dislike the random chance of blowing up as a way of balancing anything. Personally, I'd like to see more ammo explosions, too, but I think something more is needed as a core balancing mechanism.


They're still going to be OP, but at least they won't be able to core an Atlas with a single volley.

Thanks for taking the time to go back and address my post with thought. I appreciate it.

I also fully agree that PGI's current solution is convoluted and won't solve any problems, especially since they're setting the heat damage cap at 150%. That won't effect a single one of my builds or their Alpha Strike potential.

In my original heat penalty post I spoke about soft and hard penalties. Soft penalties are similar to your system in that while you're running hot for a significant period of time penalties start to accumulate on things like the Targeting Computer, engine capacity/twist speed etc but then disappear once you take some time to cool off. Hard penalties would be permanent after overheating past a set threshold (much lower than 150%).

I just want to address those two points you raised first:

1 - New players. Firstly I agree that a heat system is punishing to them, but it was punishing in TT and in all the original MW games and people still got on fine. I think that if the trial Mech system is scrapped and tutorials are implemented properly than this will become a moot issue. Thinking man's shooter remember? Getting punished a few times is how you learn to be a better pilot.
2 - I've always thought as Alpha Strikes as a last resort option but that's just my opinion. That last bit of payback when you know you're screwed anyway. But that being said, there isn't any reason that the heat cap has to be so low that Alpha Strikes aren't feasible. Just low enough to prevent the Super Alpha Meta that's currently in-game.

The thing about ballistics is they require a lot to use. I agree that it's easier to hit someone at close range and do full pinpoint damage with ballistics and that convergence is an issue here. However, ballistics are heavier, require more slots, require ammo (which can explode) and require skill to use against anything smaller than a Treb. My reasoning behind the ammo stuff was not to have random explosions, but that the current chance of an ammo explosion when shooting an un-armoured section is far too low for it to be a real penalty to a ballistic mech. 1 in 10 chance to die or be crippled from an ammo explosion is nothing. 3 or 4 in 10 is much more reasonable especially since you're essentially shooting the actual ammo box in that section. The reload/projectile speed stuff was just off the top of my head fluff as an example of a way of balancing ballistics without heat.

In the future we will have the bigger, badder Mechs that can pack huge amounts of ballistics and I think that some form of recoil penalty on convergence should be applied when firing multiples of large ballistics. Also ballistics mounted on different body parts need to suffer convergence. I don't care how good your gimble mounts are, you can't put two bullets through the same holes at four different distance levels in under 10 seconds. It's simple physics in that every single projectile is different and will fly differently. Barrels heat, imperfections effect flight etc etc and I think something like that needs to be done for ballistics convergence, especially at long range. CryEngine certainly supports it and it should have been done from the start rather than the hitscan system we basically have now.

Now let me address your actual OP for a minute:

Firstly, let me say that if it came down to it, I would support your system because it's a far better idea than anything PGI have come up with so far and better than a lot of other ideas I see on these forums. Under your system the game would be much more fun, tactical, varied and just generally better.

But, I worry that this is yet another system on top of what we already have and I feel like it can all be achieved using the systems currently in place. Heat penalties cover energy weapons/missiles and recoil/proper ballistics covers... ballistics

I feel that this would be more confusing for new players rather than less. I can understand why heat would negatively effect my TC. I can't understand why firing my weapons a lot would, since even current day weapon systems are designed to handle a specific high load. To me it seems a little bit arbitrary in that you have these values (whatever they end up being) that aren't really derived from anything other than the need to balance the game in some way which, okay if it comes down to it, is fair enough because I'd rather have a balanced PvP game than a canon one edit to clarify: If it can be done properly and adhere to canon though, that's what I'd support. It also opens the door for PGI to start selling things like a TCL Upgrade Module to increase the load your TC can take which then starts looking a bit like P2W (not saying you're advocating that, but I can see PGI doing it à la the original Coolant modules).

Anyway, sorry for my walls of text. Hope you can understand where I am coming from.

Edited by Pater Mors, 14 June 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Phaesphoros, on 14 June 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Hey Bill, what do you think of those?

Edit huh? something went wrong, update follows... fixed fixed

some TC load, loss of convergence:



heavy TC load, COF:

**** yes, dude. I think I actually forgot to comment earlier, but I really like the mock-ups. These are even better. I love your little icons for convergence. I also super-dig that the vertical crosshair goes away when convergence does. Two things I think it still needs:
1. The weapon group dots on the reticle should be green if you'll be at 100 TCL or lower, yellow for 101-200, and red for 200+ after firing (great idea, Tombstoner).
2. There needs to be some representation of the actual scale. Whether that be a number or bar or what is up in the air (graphical UI design is not my thing =[).

I really appreciate that you did this <3 Mind if I use your mock-ups in the OP / the massive article this thread was a testbed for?

Edited by Homeless Bill, 14 June 2013 - 09:24 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

I want to like this system, I really do. But I just can't get behind preemptive consequences to an action that hasn't been taken yet.

A prime example is the convergence penalty you want.

So the player fires a salvo of weapons within the acceptable TCS range. He's managing his TCS. Everything shoots as expected.

Now he wants to fire his second grouping. But he's a hair too quick, and now suddenly by one magic point on this scale, he gets no weapon convergence at all.

Keep in mind it -had- his weapons converged as he was aiming, but the moment he tried to pull that trigger (because the total of the values which hadn't even occurred yet was a touch too high); they all went haywire and instantly snapped out of convergence.

Or is the targeting computer just psychic? 'Oh no, I see you planning to fire more weapons than are allowed yet' *drops convergence*

Similar awkwardness applies to dropping missile locks.
*has lock* *fires missiles* TCS 80
*keeps lock as TCS drops* TCS 0
*sees a chance to add in some backup laser fire* TCS 60
*still has lock, tries to fire missiles again* *loses lock* Wha?

No matter how you slice a loss of missile lock that occurs because you tried to fire before you had enough TCS, it makes no sense. You had the lock. How did pulling the trigger on that lock now overtax the targeting computer?

Trying to preemptively penalize a player for an action is never going to make more sense than the punishing afterward that you dismissed as inferior earlier in this thread.

Action -> Consequence. However slightly, you're trying to put the consequence before the action, and I just don't see that as intuitive or working well.

Even if it seems to sound good when reading it. And it certainly does that. The thought and effort put into it show.

[shabowie]

Essentially what this system does is establish an upper limit of damage output all at once. As long as they looked through the math and had a proper damage over time curve with these various combinations I'd be for this.

[Sable Phoenix]

I started reading this post feeling extremely skeptical. By the end, you had convinced me totally. You are absolutely right that PGI has shot themselves in the foot introducing "convergence" in the first place, a system which never existed in the tabletop. Trying to use the existing TT systems to balance the newly-introduced system is doomed to failure. It must be addressed separately and with its own mechanics.

Good work, I'm impressed by the amount of thought that went into this. I think it's an elegant solution that addresses the real problem and introduces a balancing mechanic to more areas of the game than just the one it is designed to solve.

[BigMekkUrDakka]

TL DR but i like how much effort you put into it, but please shorten it or make it easier to read (ie less formatting like this)

[Demuder]

Homeless Bill, on 14 June 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

I would personally like to say thank you to everyone that has spammed the moderators and developers with this thread. Garth said he'd gotten five PMs about it this morning alone. <333

There's still hope then !?

Spades Kincaid, on 14 June 2013 - 10:19 PM, said:

I want to like this system, I really do. But I just can't get behind preemptive consequences to an action that hasn't been taken yet.

A prime example is the convergence penalty you want.

So the player fires a salvo of weapons within the acceptable TCS range. He's managing his TCS. Everything shoots as expected.

Now he wants to fire his second grouping. But he's a hair too quick, and now suddenly by one magic point on this scale, he gets no weapon convergence at all.

Keep in mind it -had- his weapons converged as he was aiming, but the moment he tried to pull that trigger (because the total of the values which hadn't even occurred yet was a touch too high); they all went haywire and instantly snapped out of convergence.

Or is the targeting computer just psychic? 'Oh no, I see you planning to fire more weapons than are allowed yet' *drops convergence*

Similar awkwardness applies to dropping missile locks.
*has lock* *fires missiles* TCS 80
*keeps lock as TCS drops* TCS 0
*sees a chance to add in some backup laser fire* TCS 60
*still has lock, tries to fire missiles again* *loses lock* Wha?

No matter how you slice a loss of missile lock that occurs because you tried to fire before you had enough TCS, it makes no sense. You had the lock. How did pulling the trigger on that lock now overtax the targeting computer?

Trying to preemptively penalize a player for an action is never going to make more sense than the punishing afterward that you dismissed as inferior earlier in this thread.

Action -> Consequence. However slightly, you're trying to put the consequence before the action, and I just don't see that as intuitive or working well.

Even if it seems to sound good when reading it. And it certainly does that. The thought and effort put into it show.

That is a valid argument, however you base it on the presumption that the Targeting Computer keeps constant convergence and missile lock on the target.

Since the TC is not "psychic" as you put it, it does not even converge the weapons until you actually pull the trigger. That might not sound right, but since we accept that maintaining lock and converging weapons on the target taxes the TC, maintaining lock and keeping constant convergence on the target with ALL weapons until you decide to fire one or all of them, would mean that the TC is constantly taxed with maximum penalties! So, if we accept Bill's system, the only way for it to work, is to accept that the convergence is calculated after you pull the trigger, not before.

Thus, overtaxing or not the TC and detrimental effects are calculated after you pull the trigger, and causality is maintained !

When it comes to missiles, the theory is the same, the TC keeps the target locked, but calculates flight paths after you pull the trigger. Depending on previous load and added load of the second shot, it either makes it or overtaxes itself. The loss of lock in this case is logical since the LRM guidance system is semi-active. The missiles while in flight are guided to the target by your mech, not by their on-board guidance system.

So the system is not theoretically unsound or illogical by any means.

Science fiction mumbo-jambo aside, it is a bit un-intuitive, in that the player has to actually know if the shot they take is going to overtax the TC by "memorizing" the TC values of their weapons - which is not bad imho, you have to know your mech buddy! There is no way of showing that before they actually take the shot. And in order to show the player whether their shot would overtax the TC we would need actually need either a "psychic" interface or a yes/no box : "Your shot is going to overtax the targeting system, do you want to take it ?"

[Pater Mors]

dimstog, on 15 June 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

, but since we accept that maintaining lock and converging weapons on the target taxes the TC,

I actually don't accept that because I can't imagine a single scenario where a Targeting Computer would not be designed to hold the full load of the chassis it was being installed into. Unless everyone is using stock standard generic Targeting Computers (which I doubt) then any computer is going to be powerful enough to handle all standard loadouts applicable to that chassis... otherwise... why bother installing that model? Why not get a better model? From a purely fluff perspective I don't think it makes any sense (but I also don't advocate balancing from a purely fluff perspective).

[Mahws]

Completely unconvinced at the start, completely convinced by the end.

Extra special great feature of the system is that it could (somewhat) negate the need for hardpoint size restrictions in balance by having differing TCL values for different mechs.
Giving the Awesome a TCL boost, or a reduction in the TCL costs for PPC could help to bring it back into the fold of used and loved mechs.

The only thing I'd suggest differently is dropping the lock on loss for SSRM/LRM and increasing the TCL cost for all missiles. Instead of losing your lock it increases spread, LRM/SSRM would bunch up less the more you fire (A LRM5 at short range would hit mostly the CT, 5xLRM20 would rain all over a 50m square area) and SRM would become dramatically less accurate when fired in mass. Mechs like the Catapult could have a missile TCL cost reduction quirk to help preserve their role as dedicated missile boats.

Edited by Mahws, 15 June 2013 - 12:44 AM.

[Demuder]

Pater Mors, on 15 June 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

I actually don't accept that because I can't imagine a single scenario where a Targeting Computer would not be designed to hold the full load of the chassis it was being installed into. Unless everyone is using stock standard generic Targeting Computers (which I doubt) then any computer is going to be powerful enough to handle all standard loadouts applicable to that chassis... otherwise... why bother installing that model? Why not get a better model? From a purely fluff perspective I don't think it makes any sense (but I also don't advocate balancing from a purely fluff perspective).

Actually this is pretty consistent with the lore behind the Battletech universe. The mechs we use and their technology are remnants of a previous era and are hardly being maintained. In fact the mechs we use are supposed to be repaired versions upon repaired versions upon repaired versions of the originals that came out of the factory. There are now "new" mechs. That's why year 3050 targeting computers cannot guide a missile and one shot a mech 8km away for example - while I am pretty sure it would be feasible even with today's weapons. It is absolutely possible that the TC we have installed on our mechs was not even intended for that use in the first place. Imagine using Apollo 13's navigational computer on a F35. There simply is no "better" model available.

From that point of view, it's not fluff at all. It's not that I want the game to follow the lore blindly, however, the lore and canon rules are there for a reason, to create a logical framework for the game.

[Vaan]

We need to implement fast.. Now's a trend of atlas with 4ppc and a gauss.. or stalker with 6ppcs on 70% of matches..

[Zyllos]

On regarding introducing removed convergence before CoF, why is that more effective than CoF first?

I know you said earlier because a CoF does not effect brawlers as much as missing convergence where missing convergence effects both brawlers and snipers (what about strikers and scouts? just throwing them out there), that is assuming that the CoF ridicule is displaying that CoF at further range.

But that is the problem, is that CoF for weapons at 800m or 200m? A CoF has to be centered around a specific distance because a CoF tuned at 800m will provide less spray up close while a CoF at 200m will provide spray at basically all distances. Also, at the brawler range, having a CoF would still effect them because they will be hitting locations they are not aiming at.

I look at this in the same light as jump jets right now. If you fire with jump jets, at range, your just going to miss constantly. Even with lasers, your going to be missing with 50%+ of the beam duration. Up close, you will get in more damage, but the issue is that it's still impossible to get the weapon to land where you need it to land, which still ups the survivability. And if the brawler is not killing it's target fast enough, that gives it's target and team more time to deal with the target up close and at range, especially if they are not having a high TCL.

So, basically, what I am asking is that I think it would be better to have just an expanding CoF up to the point where you just lose convergence, along with the CoF, which would make fighting basically impossible to achieve effectively, at any ranges.

I would also suggest that as the TCL goes up, and CoF increases, I would suggest making the lockon time last longer and time to lose lockon when not aiming at the selected target decreases down to instantly. Which would basically make it where if your ridicule ever leaves that box for any amount of time, you lost the lock and it will take even longer to gain the lock again. The only time I would make missiles impossible to lockon is if you lose convergence.

Just my input.

[Stimraug]

I support this great idea. Well done Bill.

[Traigus]

Pater Mors, on 15 June 2013 - 12:11 AM, said:

I actually don't accept that because I can't imagine a single scenario where a Targeting Computer would not be designed to hold the full load of the chassis it was being installed into. Unless everyone is using stock standard generic Targeting Computers (which I doubt) then any computer is going to be powerful enough to handle all standard loadouts applicable to that chassis... otherwise... why bother installing that model? Why not get a better model? From a purely fluff perspective I don't think it makes any sense (but I also don't advocate balancing from a purely fluff perspective).

Logic on this is a little iffy.

Are you piloting a stock mech? I doubt you have a "standard" loadout. I know I don't

We have our mechs so modified down to the skeleton, i'm surprised the gyros work. I'm almost positive some of my mechs will either keel over left or right, or just fall on their faces under the weight of what I put on them.


Maybe higher TCS coudl be a running stock bonus?

[edit for typos]

Edited by Traigus, 15 June 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

One thing to consider for new players - I don't think a heat cap coupled with a higher heat dissipation would cause them as many problems as the face now.

A higher dissipation would actually get mechs to generate about as much heat and dissipate as much heat as they were expected in the table top. Remember, a high damage alpha mech like the Awesome 8Q would take 3 turns just to suffer the first heat penalty. With the current heat capacity but doubled dissipation, the AWS-8Q would take forever to overheat in a firefight. A halved heat threshold, or one fixed at 30, should do fine. A heat cap of 30 would sitll allow "hotter" builds if you wanted, and without any heat penalties they'd be more effective than in the table top. That might be a problem, but not for new players - it's better to start oversinked and overheating rarely, than undersinked and overheating all the time. New players are probably expecting to be underpowered and not dishing out enough damage, but they are probably not expecting to be having their "toon fall asleep" all the time... And generally, in game design, taking away a player's control (which is what overheating done) is always a very "heavy" effect that needs to be used with care - certainly not something to be sprung on the noob player al lthe time.

Since for now, players still drive stock mechs as starter mechs, they won't suffer, simply because pretty much all stock mechs are reasonably heat efficient with doubled dissipation.

In the future, assuming they get a free, customizable starter mech, I would expect that the heat efficiency stat mght already give them valuable information and provide a meaningful hint to them.

[Pater Mors]

Traigus, on 15 June 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

Logic on this is a little iffy.

Are you piloting a stock mech? I doubt you have a "standard" loadout. I know I don't

We have our mechs so modified down to the skeleton, i'm surprised the gyros work. I'm almost positive some of my mechs will either keel over left or right, or just fall on their faces under the weight of what I put on them.


Maybe higher TCS coudl be a running stock bonus?

[edit for typos]

My point still stands but maybe I didn't put it across the way I meant to... You can customize the crap out of everything in your Mech but you leave the dodgy old TC in there? I don't think so. The TC would be optimized to take into account all the variations of the stock weapons that could be loaded onto the Mech. So if you take a Swayback for example, why would you install a TC with good missile or ballistics tracking? You wouldn't, you'd install one that could handle a large load of energy weapons. You take an A1, you're going to install a TC with great missile tracking etc. Or more likely, you're going to install a high end Targeting Computer and then run the appropriate software for the loadout you've chosen.

Anyway, it's all moot because it's fluff and we technically don't even have a TC that's visible or able to be modified in any way (aside from the addition of Artemis IV for missiles).

All of this just leads me back to my original points of disagreement with Homeless Bill's arguments in that; I agree with everything he wants to achieve, but I think everything can be done with modifications to the current systems without adding an additional, complex system on top.

dimstog, on 15 June 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Actually this is pretty consistent with the lore behind the Battletech universe. The mechs we use and their technology are remnants of a previous era and are hardly being maintained. In fact the mechs we use are supposed to be repaired versions upon repaired versions upon repaired versions of the originals that came out of the factory. There are now "new" mechs. That's why year 3050 targeting computers cannot guide a missile and one shot a mech 8km away for example - while I am pretty sure it would be feasible even with today's weapons. It is absolutely possible that the TC we have installed on our mechs was not even intended for that use in the first place. Imagine using Apollo 13's navigational computer on a F35. There simply is no "better" model available.

From that point of view, it's not fluff at all. It's not that I want the game to follow the lore blindly, however, the lore and canon rules are there for a reason, to create a logical framework for the game.

I do get what you're saying and while I am definitely not as proficient on BT Lore as some people, I did spend a huge chunk of my childhood reading BT stuff. However, that's just simply not what has happened or is likely to happen in this game. We have state of the art Mech's that are fully customizable in any way that we want them to be. If we're fully following lore then MWO is as broken as it gets and we basically already have OMNI Mechs. There's no systems in place now to simulate us having crappy old patchwork Mechs (aside from some peoples piloting skills! ).

Edited by Pater Mors, 15 June 2013 - 12:30 PM.

[Traigus]

Pater Mors, on 15 June 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

My point still stands but maybe I didn't put it across the way I meant to... You can customize the crap out of everything in your Mech but you leave the dodgy old TC in there? I don't think so. The TC would be optimized to take into account all the variations of the stock weapons that could be loaded onto the Mech. So if you take a Swayback for example, why would you install a TC with good missile or ballistics tracking? You wouldn't, you'd install one that could handle a large load of energy weapons. You take an A1, you're going to install a TC with great missile tracking etc. Or more likely, you're going to install a high end Targeting Computer and then run the appropriate software for the loadout you've chosen.

Anyway, it's all moot because it's fluff and we technically don't even have a TC that's visible or able to be modified in any way (aside from the addition of Artemis IV for missiles).

All of this just leads me back to my original points of disagreement with Homeless Bill's arguments in that; I agree with everything he wants to achieve, but I think everything can be done with modifications to the current systems without adding an additional, complex system on top.



I do get what you're saying and while I am definitely not as proficient on BT Lore as some people, I did spend a huge chunk of my childhood reading BT stuff. However, that's just simply not what has happened or is likely to happen in this game. We have state of the art Mech's that are fully customizable in any way that we want them to be. If we're fully following lore then MWO is as broken as it gets and we basically already have OMNI Mechs. There's no systems in place now to simulate us having crappy old patchwork Mechs (aside from some peoples piloting skills! ).

ABSOLUTELY!

Actually, the wechs we have are better better.then on paper Omnimechs already, Because Omnis have fixed armor,structur, engines and in some cases a few fixed weapons.

People are drooling over Omnis, but if we were to follow the rules they would be worse than what we have now, but have some universal hard points.


As for computers, ST computers are crappy, but I see your point. If I can jam an AC/20 in the same volume of space i can fit a MG, then I can throw in a better TC, or reprogram it and my gyro to not make my mech fall over with 30 tons of weapons on 1 side and 4 on the other.whatever too.

I'm good with Bill's idea, I'm good with cones of fire, but the silly crap PGI is heading for is just a showstopping ... whuh?

There is no bigger meta like rearm and repair (where the baby got thrown out with the bathwater, since it got implemented without any other meta gameplay to balance it out)

Everyone can do pretty much whatever they want to mechs.

Core mech structure can be upgraded on a whim.

Gameplay modes focus on dead mechs over all other considerations.

The game is painted intro a corner over a lot of bad choices made for short term over long term viability.


Even if costs were put in now,.. I know people with so many Cbills that any change is irrelevant to them, because of Beta really being release and no rollbacks.


Sometimes it all makes me a little depressed.

I miss my TT days, and old school tournaments.

Had my mechs, some were patched up badly and had any number of quirks (like the Unit rosters you could buy, Snord's Irregulars etc.) where replacements and whatever were listed specially for every mech. Bob's LL had 1 extra heat because of a bad repair roll, and Ed's ran 1 hex slower because it had a limp.

We had bonuses for really good repair rolls, and you could get a gun with +1 to hit because of a stellar tech. pulled a whammy when replacing your AC/10.

All the mechs had personality. You never got to build anything from scratch, but tried to keep your pilots alive, and maybe sidegrade to a less beat-up mech, or one that worked with your lance makeup better.

------
Tournaments were very different. I'd end up playing premade mech rosters vs. people that were playing "chess" BT. they would win the match, but have nothing really left at the end.

My favorites were weekend long eliminations, usually 3 rounds of elimination with a story. Usually you kept what mechs survived from round to round with minor repair time. You had a reserve force you could swap in to replace destroyed stuff, but the pilots were usually not good, and the equipment even worse.

-------------------

It was weird to see those" chess" type players wipe thermselves out in round 1. They would sometimes win, but have 1 mech left + reserves for round 2.

It was fun to see people from "Super mod-O-rama" backgrounds being completely unable top play stock, or nearly stock mechs. They were used to too much firepower and cheap movement. Jump a mech in, blow an opponent in a stock away, jump out... Not happening with a stock Stinger....they often overextended themselves or fell prey to min/max range holes.


MWO feel like it is made of ( and maybe by) those 2 groups of people, not the people I used to play with.

I wanted to be that guy who was pretty well known for Piloting a Cent, and people going, "great, it is good that the house rolled out the cash to get that guy into the fight". But in reality, I'm undertonned, undermodded, underalphad... and I own 30 mechs,... and am far more well known from my forum posts than my gameplay lol.

I've actually taken to Piloting a Hunch J recently so I stood out from the whole 4 mechs everyone drives.


--------------------------------------------
This game needs massive core system fixes to be MW, even more to be BT. I'd hate to see them screw it up for fast cash.

Edited by Traigus, 15 June 2013 - 01:24 PM.