81 replies to this topic

[ShadowedR]

sokitumi, on 06 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

And that could fun it's own way... but it wouldn't be mechwarrior.

You hit on a very important point right here.
BattleTech vs Mechwarrior.

TT vs PC (ok ok console, w.e)

They are the same and yet not.

3rdworld, on 06 November 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Armor limits don't make any sense whatsoever.

Armor over max should just take up internal space.

Try stacking Endo steel on your car. At some point, you just can't add anymore.
Your car's internal structure would collapse on itself.
That or your engine just won't budge.

[3rdworld]

ShadowedR, on 06 November 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Try stacking Endo steel on your car. At some point, you just can't add anymore.
Your car's internal structure would collapse on itself.
That or your engine just won't budge.

That would generally be known as the chassis weight limit. Not the armor limit.

[DaZur]

ShadowedR, on 06 November 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

3. Linear development in the overall performance of mechs would indeed create a bland game, thats why I want to see differences between chassis such as Centurion, Trebuchet and Hunchback.

While I agree in principle, I think too often the reality is, particularly as it pertains to medium mechs... There is not enough tonnage and slots to allow for a broad spectrum diversity in design.

In short... There is only a finite number of conceivable configurations available while maintaining a viable product. Sure you can sacrifice speed and or armor to create outlier configurations but those have sizable disadvantages.

TL:DR - Medium Mechs = 5 gallon buckets and 10 gallons of stuff...

If you took all medium class mechs and sorted them based on weapon configuration... You'll find more than 60% of them are essentially the same configuration + or -...

Edited by DaZur, 06 November 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[ShadowedR]

3rdworld, on 06 November 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

That would generally be known as the chassis weight limit. Not the armor limit.

Which is fair. Correct me if I am wrong, but MW4 let you stack armor until you reached your weight limit?

Anyway, there are still other factors to consider too - like replacing an LRM reloading mechanism doesn't REALLY contribute to armor, all that much. Also, the myomer muscles need room to move and certain other systems too. Such as your gyro stabilizer. Also, you can't throw 20tons of endo on the left hand side of your mech and nothing on the right. You'll just fall over, snapping the myomer muscles in your leg or breaking your torso moorings.

Not against, just saying

[ShadowedR]

DaZur, on 06 November 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

While I agree in principle, I think too often the reality is, particularly as it pertains to medium mechs... There is not enough tonnage and slots to allow for a broad spectrum diversity in design.

In short... There is only a finite number of conceivable configurations available while maintaining a viable product. Sure you can sacrifice speed and or armor to create outlier configurations but those have sizable disadvantages.

TL:DR - Medium Mechs = 5 gallon buckets and 10 gallons of stuff...

Sure, but a CN9 was designed to be a cavalry unit: OK-ish weaponry, focusing mainly on short/medium fights. But the main idea is to be speedy about supporting your flanks / flanking other lances.
A Hunchback wasn't designed to be all that in terms of speed, but to fit an AC/20.
So, in terms of differences, I'd suggest raising the armor cap on hunchies and let centurions get away with a bit more speed on lower rated engines.

I might be wrong about their intended design purpose, but you get the idea

[Joseph Mallan]

sokitumi, on 06 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

That's my whole point. Giant robots moving (relatively) slowly, and shooting at panels -> Will feel like BT no matter how a-retentive strict adherence to numbers they get.

Somehow I think BT purists would be totally ok with MW not being a FPS at all, using a V.A.T.S-like system from fallout. Totally based on math.

And that could fun it's own way... but it wouldn't be mechwarrior.

The problem with your thinking is MechWarrior is real time BattleTech. So for it o be Of BattleTech it needs to feel like BattleTech. That is different from being a TT game.

[Vodrin Thales]

sokitumi, on 06 November 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

Like for ex. MW2, 3, 4? They had no problems seeing the problems of converting an apple into an orange. And each of those was a 4star AAA game of it's time.

I'm not sure you're using the phrase "based on" correctly.

And had most of the same problems that MWO does, in some cases to a higher degree.

[3rdworld]

ShadowedR, on 06 November 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

Which is fair. Correct me if I am wrong, but MW4 let you stack armor until you reached your weight limit?

Anyway, there are still other factors to consider too - like replacing an LRM reloading mechanism doesn't REALLY contribute to armor, all that much. Also, the myomer muscles need room to move and certain other systems too. Such as your gyro stabilizer. Also, you can't throw 20tons of endo on the left hand side of your mech and nothing on the right. You'll just fall over, snapping the myomer muscles in your leg or breaking your torso moorings.

Not against, just saying

I don't see the myomer would have more trouble moving a 15ton gauss on the arm, than 4-5 more tons of armor.

My point is that Ferro-Fibrous shows us that armor is capable of being mounted in the internal space.

I just think it would be neat to see an atlas with very little weapons walking around a huge damage soak. Would allow mechs with massive hitbox problems to alleviate the issues by up armoring the problem areas. And add more depth to the mechlab and loadouts.

Edited by 3rdworld, 06 November 2013 - 08:08 AM.

[FupDup]

3rdworld, on 06 November 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

--
My point is that Ferro-Fibrous shows us that armor is capable of being mounted in the internal space.
---

Actually there is even a TT item that does this. It's goes by the name of Modular Armor. Basically, it's a 1 ton, 1 slot piece of equipment that adds 10 armor points to the mounted location (MWO has doubled armor, so 20 here). Each location could only hold 1 piece of it, though (torsos must decide between rear or front), and for some odd reason it gave a movement/piloting penalty to the mech carrying it (even though we can cram Gauss Rifle onto light mechs easily, somehow 1 slab of armor screws everything up).

[Joseph Mallan]

DaZur, on 06 November 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

While I agree in principle, I think too often the reality is, particularly as it pertains to medium mechs... There is not enough tonnage and slots to allow for a broad spectrum diversity in design.

In short... There is only a finite number of conceivable configurations available while maintaining a viable product. Sure you can sacrifice speed and or armor to create outlier configurations but those have sizable disadvantages.

TL:DR - Medium Mechs = 5 gallon buckets and 10 gallons of stuff...

If you took all medium class mechs and sorted them based on weapon configuration... You'll find more than 60% of them are essentially the same configuration + or -...

Wolf Trap
Centurion
Griffin
Vindicator
Bushwacker
Clint
Gladiator (medium IS Mech Not Clan Assault)

7 Medium Mechs with near identical performance.

Hellspawn
Apollo
Trebuchet
Whitworth

4 More that fill the role of Missile support. 11 Mechs with similar capabilities.

[3rdworld]

FupDup, on 06 November 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Actually there is even a TT item that does this. It's goes by the name of Modular Armor. Basically, it's a 1 ton, 1 slot piece of equipment that adds 10 armor points to the mounted location (MWO has doubled armor, so 20 here). Each location could only hold 1 piece of it, though (torsos must decide between rear or front), and for some odd reason it gave a movement/piloting penalty to the mech carrying it (even though we can cram Gauss Rifle onto light mechs easily, somehow 1 slab of armor screws everything up).

I wouldn't limit it to 1 per location, but thanks, didn't know there was a canon example.

[ShadowedR]

3rdworld, on 06 November 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

I don't see the myomer would have more trouble moving a 15ton gauss on the arm, than 4-5 more tons of armor.

My point is that Ferro-Fibrous shows us that armor is capable of being mounted in the internal space.

I just think it would be neat to see an atlas with very little weapons walking around a huge damage soak. Would allow mechs with massive hitbox problems to alleviate the issues by up armoring the problem areas. And add more depth to the mechlab and loadouts.

For sure.

It would be a blast to mount a LL or two and just fill the rest up to the max.
But there are certain limits to were and how you can mount the armor.

Maybe say, you can fill up armor to x% of your available space.
Make a separate armor item that acts like a heatsink -> drag and drop it into your mech and you get x armor to that portion of your mech.

Meh, maybe we'll see something along those lines.

FupDup, on 06 November 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

Actually there is even a TT item that does this. It's goes by the name of Modular Armor. Basically, it's a 1 ton, 1 slot piece of equipment that adds 10 armor points to the mounted location (MWO has doubled armor, so 20 here). Each location could only hold 1 piece of it, though (torsos must decide between rear or front), and for some odd reason it gave a movement/piloting penalty to the mech carrying it (even though we can cram Gauss Rifle onto light mechs easily, somehow 1 slab of armor screws everything up).

What he said

[Almond Brown]

Joseph Mallan, on 06 November 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

stuff

"I'm already hearing that the Shadow Hawk is turning out to be a beastly Medium."

more stuff

Truly amazing what a mere 5 tons extra will do for a Medium Chassis. Imagine a 55T Hunchback with that same 2t of extra armor and 3t left for "other" "stuff".

[ShadowedR]

Almond Brown, on 06 November 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

Truly amazing what a mere 5 tons extra will do for a Medium Chassis. Imagine a 55T Hunchback with that same 2t of extra armor and 3t left for "other" "stuff".

We'll just, nonchalantly, stack in on top of the cockpit. Nobody will notice a PPC there. Nobody.

[Joseph Mallan]

Almond Brown, on 06 November 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

Truly amazing what a mere 5 tons extra will do for a Medium Chassis. Imagine a 55T Hunchback with that same 2t of extra armor and 3t left for "other" "stuff".

This

Becomes This

[Almond Brown]

3rdworld, on 06 November 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

I don't see the myomer would have more trouble moving a 15ton gauss on the arm, than 4-5 more tons of armor.

My point is that Ferro-Fibrous shows us that armor is capable of being mounted in the internal space.

I just think it would be neat to see an atlas with very little weapons walking around a huge damage soak. Would allow mechs with massive hitbox problems to alleviate the issues by up armoring the problem areas. And add more depth to the mechlab and loadouts.

And this may be more a perception thing. My take is like this. FF is armor like other armors but due to its bulky nature, its mounting requires, for a visual think of it as, the use of Lag bolts to mount, thus consuming internal space (the long(er) bolts interrupt what would otherwise be long continuous channels within the frame that can be used for other "stuff", versus the STD armor that bolts directly to the external Frame and does not interfere with said internal spaces and can be used for other things.

Endo-Steel on the other hand is a structural material, bulkier and as such takes up more internal space.

[Fuzzbox]

I agree the game still needs balancing, but you threw TT (aka Battletech) out of the window so you have made it impossible to answer sensibly.

All I can say is that not all 'Mechs where created equally, but that is life not a balance issue.

[ShadowedR]

Ingrid, on 06 November 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

I agree the game still needs balancing, but you threw TT (aka Battletech) out of the window so you have made it impossible to answer sensibly.

All I can say is that not all 'Mechs where created equally, but that is life not a balance issue.

By clinging to TT in its entirety you are doomed to make nothing more than copy that is juxtaposed into an environment that wasn't part of the original design.

TT should be evaluated and used as a blueprint. The mechanics that make sense in a Real Time First Person environment should be integrated into MWO.
Other mechanics should be revised and reworked until a suitable, balanced feature can be implemented.

Edited by ShadowedR, 06 November 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[Riptor]

sokitumi, on 06 November 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:

Like for ex. MW2, 3, 4? They had no problems seeing the problems of converting an apple into an orange. And each of those was a 4star AAA game of it's time.

I'm not sure you're using the phrase "based on" correctly.

Are you kidding me?

MW 2.. Medium lasers where king.. no sense in using ANYTHING else.. you would just rapid fire down anything in seconds because they here using original armor values.

MW3: Again a nightmare in multyplayer.. no reason to take specific mechs because you would only go for the highest tonnage in a single weightclass.. nothing else mattered due to full customisations. Mechs where nothing more then glorified skins for a given tonnage. Also medium lasers where king once again.

MW4: Jump sniping up the bazoo.. it wasnt fun playing multyplayer because of the fragging coolant flushes + jumpjets + ER PPC spam.. atleast gauss rifles where so big that you had problems fitting more then 2 on a mech but that friggin black knight with 4 or 5 ER PPCs coring you out in two salvos... yeah.. once more it was ***** in multyplayer.

You are comparing games that where made first and foremost with single player in mind where balance doesnt mean jack ****. Aslong as the AI doesnt use cheeze no ones gonna cry foul in a single player game.

Youre comparing single player games with HORRIBLE multyplayer balance to a multyplayer only game.

You know what else was entirely multyplayer? Table top battle mech. And while indeed some stuff does not translate into a real time shooter like game the base values of weapons and armor are infact a good base for a shooter game. Thing is that once again the influence of pin point accuracy on a system that was made for random hit locations was underestimated.

Thats the only problem and has persisted throughout the first iterations of mechwarrior. This segmented damage model simply does not work very well if you split the center torso in three different zones, nor does it make much sense either.

Edited by Riptor, 06 November 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

For me it was Large Pulses and SSRMS for the win in MW2.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 November 2013 - 09:31 AM.