24 replies to this topic

[Waking One]

Mixed bag there, although the heat idea is a sound one and often mentioned in my group. Would fix so many issues it's not funny.

Praehotec8, on 16 June 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I think most of these are pretty good changes, but not the crosshair shake. Decreased accuracy at high temps is fine, but I can't stand the way the crosshair shake looks. It's just irritating.

Needs to be an expanding crosshair instead of this.

[slide]

As a founder I thought that you would remember that LRM's were fire and forget. Maybe you missed it.

The current "must keep a lock" was one of the early nerfs to LRMS and an attempt to introduce skill to LRM use. When they were fire and forget, it was possible to lock on, fire, switch target, fire, rinse and repeat. It would actually increase missile hit rates (probably more than double) which will see the forums light up with complaints about LRMs. Even with a longer lock on it wouldn't change the fact that fire and forget would be OP for LRM's. Also you would almost never have to leave cover to fire them. The easiest way to describe it would be "think streak LRM20".

Like most your other suggestions tho.

[MustrumRidcully]

If we lowered the heat capacity and/or set it to a fixed value and raise dissipation, I would actually not be opposed to making engine heat sinks always be treated as single heat sinks (that's 0.2 dissipation per second).

The biggest power boost in Battletech probably comes from getting 10 completely free heat sinks when you switch to doubles.
In the table top, there might be reasons it was needed other than sell power creep (say, making a game where mechs have more firepower), but we don't really need it in MW:O.

We can later decide what to do with Clan DHS... Maybe they could still be IS DHS +1s, or they get a "sideways" penalty, like having them deal 5 damage over 5 seconds when destroyed, representing a corrosive coolant leaking out or something.

[arghmace]

Okay, sorry, I forgot that many get nauseated by the crosshair shake
So expanding crosshair is indeed a better option.

Although... with a bit of more thought I came to the conclusion that better penalty at 75% heat would be a slight decrease - maybe 5% - to all maneuverability. So max speed, acceleration, deceleration, leg twist and torso twist and jump jets all would take a slight hit. At over 100% if you override shutdown this penalty could be upped to 10%. And while we're at it, the same penalty could be added to weapon recycle times as well.

Edited this to first post and also added another shutdown override clause to the end.

Edited by arghmace, 17 June 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[arghmace]

This here may cause some mixed feelings but I'm adding another idea to first post. I actually saw the main idea for this somewhere here in this forum so the credit goes to someone else. Feel free to come and say hi

13. Soft hard point sizes

There should be two different sizes of weapons and weapon hard points. Small and large. But the limit in hard point size shouldn't be hardwired, you could work around it by paying a bit extra. This way free customization is not killed but we do get some more variety to mech variants, they represent better what they're designed for and boating and cheesy builds can be curbed a bit.

Whenever you put a large weapon to a small hard point, you have to pay 10% more tonnage rounded up to closest half ton. So a 5 ton weapon retrofitted to a too small hard point would weight 5.5 and a 7 ton weapon 8 tons. Basically you have to do some tinkering to make the weapon fit, some extra support structures and such.

Energy weapons: PPC's and Large lasers are large, the rest small.
Ballistics: Gauss and AC20 are large, AC10 should probably be considered small.
Missiles: LRM20 and LRM15 are large, even SRM6 should be small, I think.

Let's take STK-3F for instance. It would have large energy hard points in side torsi and in the arms one large and one small. Or maybe all in arms small? Well, let's go with one and one for now. So if you wanna go for 4 PPC's, the normal way would be two in the arms and two in the torso. If you wanna put them all to your arms, you gotta pay 2 extra tons.

The ballistic hard points in CPLT-K2 are small so if you wanna equip Gausses, they weight 16.5 tons each.

STK-5M could perhaps maintain large missile hard points in its arms but those in the torso are certainly small. So you cannot strap on 5 x LRM15 in that chassis without paying a bit extra.

Edited by arghmace, 17 June 2013 - 10:37 AM.