8 replies to this topic

[RedDragon]

Question for the Devs: Is it planned to include (some time down the road, most likely not at launch) some of the Advanced Rules offered by the various rulebooks? Some of the items I'll list below have already been discussed here, but I intend this thread as a general topic to discuss the pros and cons of the so called "level 3 rules" (especially for equipment - the rules are to be found in previous rulebooks and in the newest iteration Tactical Operations).

Some points that come to mind:

• Disabling a PPCs Field Inhibitor (enabling the PPC to fire at targets closer than 90m): As I understand, as of now PPCs don't have a minimum range, but maybe later on this will change. So turning off the FI may present a way of using a PPC in close combat, but with the risk of permanently destroying the weapon and damaging the location it is mounted in.
  
• Overcharging a PPC: Dealing massive damage with a single shot while destroying the PPC and potentially exploding it with additional damage to the own mech.
  
• Turning off Gauss-weapons to prevent them from exploding when critically hit.
  
• Hot-loading missiles: If LRMs end up with minimum range this could be a way of using them in close combat with the drawback that they will explode if the launcher gets a critical hit and the LRMs themselves are not as accurate when fired.
  
• Rapid-firing MGs and Autocannons: Higher rate of fire but more heat and the chance of destroying the weapon while doing so.
  
• Dialling down the power for energy weapons, making them generate less heat but also doing less damage.
  
• ECMs generating "ghost targets" to confuse the enemy.
  
• Heat-sink coolant failure: When a mech is run too hot for too long, the coolant will loose efficiency. (this could be combined with Coolant Trucks to refresh the coolant)
  
• Special munitions for missiles/ACs (but those have often been discussed a lot already)

All in all those are minimal additions to the game that shouldn't have a big impact at all. For example if turning off the Inhibitor on a PPC would be so useful that everyone always does it, that would be too much. In fact those "tweaks" shouldn't be useful at all in most situations.They should rather only be usable/reasonable in certain (rare) situations where a Mechwarrior decides to risk a PPC exploding by overcharging for that bit more damage needed to bring down the enemy Atlas with a last salvo.
I think such options would give the game a lot more depth and provide the players with more decisions than just pressing the trigger or not and add to the feeling of playing a simulation rather than a shooter.
As already mentioned, those most likely are considerations for the time after launch, but IMO it would be great to have such little details in the game later on because it would certainly add to the flair and it could also add a way for players to show skill and daringness in piloting a mech that "normal" gameplay can't provide.

[zencynic]

Many of your suggestions have already been implemented in the newest rules set and/or are options, but in the form of new/experimental equipment, rather than toggleable functions on standard gear..

For field inhibitors on PPCs and hot loading LRMs, I think you might be misunderstanding what "minimum" range means in the table top rules. At or within the minimum range, you receive a penalty to hit, but no reduction in damage.

Over-charging a PPC would be a PPC capacitor.

"ECMs generating "ghost targets" to confuse the enemy" This is actually in the new rules, but you forgo your ECM protection. This is actually something I would like to see eventually in MWO.

Rapid firing ACs would ne Ultra or Rotary ACs.

As you said, these " "tweaks" shouldn't be useful at all in most situations.They should rather only be usable/reasonable in certain (rare) situations." I agree with this sentiment, but disagree with how useful most of your suggestions are. I think you underestimate their value.

I would like to see lots of advanced equipment in MWO eventually. I would also like to see an "upgrade" option for some equipment. Maybe pay C-bills to turn your AC/20 into an Ultra AC/20 or your medium laser into and ER medium laser, etc.

[RedDragon]

zencynic, on 17 June 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

Many of your suggestions have already been implemented in the newest rules set and/or are options, but in the form of new/experimental equipment, rather than toggleable functions on standard gear..

As I wrote, all those rules are actually found in Tactical Operations. No misunderstanding on my side here. Minimum range is negated by hot-loading/turning off Field Inhibitor so you won't suffer a negative to-hit modifier. How that could be implemented in MWO is up to the Devs and depends on whether there is a minimum range and how it actually affects the weapons.

Rapid firing ACs are not Ultra-ACs. A normal AC can be fired at double speed but you risk jamming the ammo and exploding the ammo while doing so.
That's a good example why I wrote "not useful in most situations". If it would be implemented, rapid-firing your AC shouldn't replace an Ultra-AC. It should be an option for desperate pilots to get an extra bit of damage out with a high risk of jamming the weapon and even damaging your own mech.
So it would be up to the Devs to make sure those additions are only usable in certain situations and you really have to think about using them.

[Deaths Charger]

yes i agree with those statments. but swaping out that lrm/20 for 4 lrm/5(s) would mean in the long run . if u lose 1 luancher uill still 3 left. not the whole fraged lrm/20 in the process. there 4 gauranting that at least 4 missle will hit every tyme as long as u have lock. same thing goes 4 the streak srm(2/4/6) paks. hmm the same thing can be tried out with the lasers az long az yr mech can handle the heat!!!!!!!!!

[zencynic]

RedDragon, on 17 June 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

As I wrote, all those rules are actually found in Tactical Operations. No misunderstanding on my side here.

hmm, I've been poking around Tac Ops quite a bit these last few weeks, gearing up for a TT campaign. Most of these options seem to be from the the Other Combat Weapons and Equipment section Advanced Combat chapter (p99). That section starts off by saying that these optional rules enhance the capabilities of certain weapons and equipment. Bonuses such as these need to be balenced, not clutter up the UI, or overwhelm a new player with too many options. I would think that a pilot skill tree would be a decent mechanism for this. Use some XP for perks in the 'Electronic Warfare' section and get your ghost ECM images. Unlock some in the 'Energy Enthusiast' and gain the option of dialing down your lasers or over loading your PPCs. Etc

As far as misunderstandings, I was referring more to minimum range issues you referenced such as, "Disabling a PPCs Field Inhibitor (enabling the PPC to fire at targets closer than 90m)" I thought simply mentioning what minimum range actually did in table top Battletech would help. I didn't explain very clearly what I thought you you were thinking, and why I said what I said. That way lies madness.

[Death Mallet]

Meh a lot of that stuff seems like more controls in the game for minimal additional gameplay experience.

[RedDragon]

zencynic, on 17 June 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

hmm, I've been poking around Tac Ops quite a bit these last few weeks, gearing up for a TT campaign. Most of these options seem to be from the the Other Combat Weapons and Equipment section Advanced Combat chapter (p99). That section starts off by saying that these optional rules enhance the capabilities of certain weapons and equipment. Bonuses such as these need to be balenced, not clutter up the UI, or overwhelm a new player with too many options. I would think that a pilot skill tree would be a decent mechanism for this. Use some XP for perks in the 'Electronic Warfare' section and get your ghost ECM images. Unlock some in the 'Energy Enthusiast' and gain the option of dialing down your lasers or over loading your PPCs. Etc

As far as misunderstandings, I was referring more to minimum range issues you referenced such as, "Disabling a PPCs Field Inhibitor (enabling the PPC to fire at targets closer than 90m)" I thought simply mentioning what minimum range actually did in table top Battletech would help. I didn't explain very clearly what I thought you you were thinking, and why I said what I said. That way lies madness.

No offence taken, just wanted to point out that the rules come directly from the book

Actually, the idea of implementing those via the skill-tree sounds quite good, I hadn't thought about that.
Again, the Devs would have to balance this carefully, but I don't think those options would be too powerful. All of them come with a downside that balances the gain you can get out of them.

Death Mallet, on 17 June 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Meh a lot of that stuff seems like more controls in the game for minimal additional gameplay experience.

Welcome to the world of simulations

[Death Mallet]

RedDragon, on 18 June 2012 - 02:42 AM, said:

Welcome to the world of simulations

It's not a simulator, its a game.

The point of a simulator is to replicate, as closely as possible, the actual real-life controls/handling of a (in this case non-existent) machine for training purposes. It's not supposed to be fun, and generally isn't.

This is a game about big walking tanks in the far future. Its supposed to be fun.


. . . and the OP suggestions don't add much to the fun of the game.

But they do add more player "overhead" as well as waste coding and development time better spent on additional content like new mechs and maps.

Edited by Death Mallet, 18 June 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[RedDragon]

Death Mallet, on 18 June 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

It's not a simulator, its a game.

The point of a simulator is to replicate, as closely as possible, the actual real-life controls/handling of a (in this case non-existent) machine for training purposes. It's not supposed to be fun, and generally isn't.

This is a game about big walking tanks in the far future. Its supposed to be fun.


. . . and the OP suggestions don't add much to the fun of the game.

But they do add more player "overhead" as well as waste coding and development time better spent on additional content like new mechs and maps.

Well, your view on simulations is a rather sad one and I'd wager not many people here share that view, but ok, that's you opinion.

But may I quote the Devs?

Quote

Since our key platform is the PC, it only makes sense to really bring the simulation control system back for seasoned players, with the option to have easy access configurations for newer players.

Add to that the fact that you wouldn't have to use those features if you'd rather play a point-and-click game, I don't really see a reason why they shouldn't be implemented if the Devs manage to balance them.