281 replies to this topic

[Pht]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

I didn't say take all restrictions away. But arbitrary type restrictions are dumb. It's a hole in the side of the 'Mech, it doesn't know what kind of weapon you're cramming into it.

Actually, on non-omnimechs the weapons and equipment mount points are built into the skeleton (internal structure) from the factory; and there's also the consideration of energy hookups, ammo chains, structure related to recoil and such... etc. There's plenty of in-universe stuff on the difference between fixing something and actually re-engineering in something "new."

Xhaleon, on 05 December 2011 - 08:25 AM, said:

There's the MekTek extra slot types if ya like. Everything is already there in their edition of the MW4 system. Like I said before, convert it to actual criticals, then represent them in the MW4 style.

... are you making reference to my post in the second page of this thread?

Or to something else?

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

I like the layout tool but the distribution of additional critical location based on chassis mods is kind of unrealistic. I would rather see something like the following where the critical locations are predetermined and cannot be changed:

Chassis Mods (values are IS/Clan)
Type                    L Arm   L Torso  C Torso   R Torso  R Arm   L Leg   R Leg
Endo Steel              2/1       3/2          0/0           3/2         2/1       1/0        1/0
FF Armor                2/1       3/2          0/0           3/2         2/1       1/0        1/0
XL Engine               0/0       2/1          1/1           2/1         0/0       0/0        0/0
Double Heat Sinks  1/0       1/0          1/0           1/0         1/0       1/0        1/0 

Having a forced distribution means that you can't stack all of the mods into one chassis without seriously compromising your offensive weaponary.

[Pht]

VanillaG, on 07 December 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:

Having a forced distribution means that you can't stack all of the mods into one chassis without seriously compromising your offensive weaponary.

If they went the route I'm advocating here they would have to make each variant instead of just making one variant and trying to make a way to have it be able to make all the stock 'mech configs.

What do you mean by "chassis mods?"

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

What do you mean by "chassis mods?"

Anything that effects more than 1 section of a mech like the items I listed in the table. I guess that it should have been name "Chassis Upgrades". Based on your picture I was not fond that all of the FF Armor crits were located in just the Left Arm and Torso. Those really should be distributed across all sections of the mech because armor effect all sections. With both Endo Steel and FF armor you would only have 6 crits in the torsos and 4 crits in the arms left to mount weapons. This would force the pilot who tries to many upgrades on his chassis to make some hard choices.

You could bend the rules to state the if the chassis come with those options from the factory, they would follow the clan penalties regardless of where the chassis is created. Based on this rule you could have 2 options from the factory but only be able to realisticaly upgrade only 1 on an old chassis.

[Holmes]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 06 December 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

And maybe they have a very good reason for that?

"We'll add it at some point." Was the response I got.

[Tierloc]

Without a proper mechlab, this game won't last.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Tierloc, on 09 December 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

Without a proper mechlab, this game won't last.

I'd say the opposite really. At least when proper = unfettered changes as if you were building a mech from scratch.

[Tierloc]

I'm a big supporter of most of what the current mw4 mechlab has.

Types of weapon mount points (less omni slots, restrictions of size and type)
Weapon grouping (I can choose what to fire, when)
Multiple armor points (would like to see more, like a 6 ton center torso is really 3 2 ton panels)
Restricted electronics to chassis (not every mech with JJs, specific ones with bap/ecm capable)
Variable speed to cost per tons (making your 60 tonner weigh 54 tons so it's faster)
Adding heat sinks (would like to see heat sinks moved to the armor page, and applicable to specific sections)
Multiple configs (ability to save loadouts)


The more tools in my toolbox the better.

[VanillaG]

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

If they went the route I'm advocating here they would have to make each variant instead of just making one variant and trying to make a way to have it be able to make all the stock 'mech configs.

The more I think about it, this seems the more likely approach given a launch next summer. It is a lot easier to balance entire mechs with known loadouts then it would to be to try and balance out all of the variations that would be possible. Based on the canon the only mechs that allow rapid change out between different weapon configurations are omnimechs. They probably won't be appearing in players hands until sometime after launch so it gives the devs some time to come up with a balanced building system.

At launch you should be limited to approved variants of the same base mech. From there I would allow you swap a weapon with a variant of that same weapon type. For example if your mech was equipped with a medium laser you could only change it out with either a medium pulse laser or ER medium laser. I would not allow swapping out multiple mediums for larger or things like that. The only other parameters that you could change would be small adjustments in armor, heatsinks and ammo so you can fit into your weight allotment. That way every perceived benefit has a drawback.

Tierloc, on 09 December 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

The more tools in my toolbox the better.

The individual mechs become the tools, not the various configuration you can think up. Allowing any mech to become an omnimech gives you no incentive to ever buy an omnimech chassis when they become available.

[Holmes]

If there's no mech lab, I'm not even playing. That absolutely ruined MW:LL for me. It's my ******* mech, I'll customize it how I see fit.

[Mad Pig]

Can we have some kind of quirky sarcasm quipped NPC to interact with whilst spending hours in the mech bay fondling all the endo steel?

[CaveMan]

Holmes, on 09 December 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

If there's no mech lab, I'm not even playing.

Oh yes you will

[Holmes]

CaveMan, on 09 December 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

Oh yes you will

I understand your point, but I spent like 10 hours downloading MW:LL (I get ~114k/bs down) and then another 3-4 configuring my Joystick enough to work with the game. I then found out there was no MechLab. I played about 4 matches (did decent in one), and then promptly uninstalled that **** off of my hard drive.

I spent hours in the MechLab in the earlier games, configuring each mech for me and my lancemates to go into battle. Taking that away, to me, is an unspeakable act of defamation of the glorious Battletech. If there is no MechLab, I'm simply not playing. It would be a waste of time for me.

Honestly, if you can't put a MechLab in your game, you shouldn't even be handling the BattleTech license, because you're just going to make another MechAssault atrocity that I will have no part of. You might as well make a Star Wars game with no Force or light sabers. We'll call it "Storm Trooper Gun Range Family Vacation."

[Nik Van Rhijn]

And there is the basic dichotomy between the two types of player here. Those who accept that the "Mechlab" was never a proper part of the original BattleTech and that the game was never intended to enable you to build a custom mech instantly. It didn't matter in single player PvE, but makes it nearly impossible to easily balance for multiplayer, which is why MW LL is as it is. The others who want to have "G o d" mode in which you can build a new mech design (which is what you were able to do in MW) in a few minutes. What is wrong with using a different mech to carry out a different role? Or accepting that mechs aren't prfect and making the best of what you have?

[CaveMan]

Holmes, on 09 December 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

I spent hours in the MechLab in the earlier games, configuring each mech for me and my lancemates to go into battle. Taking that away, to me, is an unspeakable act of defamation of the glorious Battletech. If there is no MechLab, I'm simply not playing. It would be a waste of time for me.

With all due respect, I read posts like this and all I can think is:

Quote

I can't have my perfectly tailored ubermech, so I'm taking my toys and going home!

Which frankly is what your tech should say as you just asked him to do the equivalent of years of design work to practically design you a new 'Mech from scratch.

[Holmes]

Changing missile loadouts is building a mech from scratch? Maybe I want LR15 instead of LR10 or whatever. We shouldn't be limited by the tabletop. If I want to put 000 or 00 buckshot, or tear gas, or rubber bullet, etc rounds in my shotgun... that isn't building a shotgun from scratch.

[CaveMan]

Holmes, on 09 December 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

We shouldn't be limited by the tabletop.

Why not?

Quote

If I want to put 000 or 00 buckshot, or tear gas, or rubber bullet, etc rounds in my shotgun... that isn't building a shotgun from scratch.

Not even close to remotely the same thing. A 'Mech is not a gun that you load cartridges into. It's a complex machine with thousands of moving parts, each of which is carefully designed to distribute its weight and function while moving around and taking all kinds of damage. This isn't changing the ammo in your shotgun, this is changing your shotgun's bore, or converting a pump-action to semi-auto.

Let's say you do install an LRM-15 in place of an LRM-10. You've now got two tons of weight that has shifted around in the 'Mech. The whole thing is going to have to be recalibrated or it won't be able to stand. It took the Clans decades to solve that problem when inventing the OmniMech. The prototypes just fell over when you changed weapon pods.

This is to say nothing of the work you have to do to rearrange the missile feed system so it can now load the extra tubes without jamming, and finding room for the tubes themselves which is going to mean rerouting wiring harnesses, hydraulic lines, etc, and altering the internal structure to support the extra weight without creating a weak point in the armor.

[VanillaG]

Holmes, on 09 December 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

Changing missile loadouts is building a mech from scratch? Maybe I want LR15 instead of LR10 or whatever. We shouldn't be limited by the tabletop. If I want to put 000 or 00 buckshot, or tear gas, or rubber bullet, etc rounds in my shotgun... that isn't building a shotgun from scratch.

Except with unlimited customization you are saying that you want all that in you M-16, not your shotgun. After all they both weight about 7 pounds. Why even have different mech types just sell 1 chassis at each weight and be done with it.

[Haeso]

Even without customization, you're going to have boats that utterly decimate everything else, they may be not be as good as the optimized ones, but they'll still be better than everything else.

Either accept boating as part of the game, or limit the stock/variants to such a small number that it doesn't feel like battletech anymore.

There is of course one other option I've brought up a few times but never seemed to catch on. A more complex version of Battle Value. In the TT, your first Medium laser would cost the same as your tenth. What if the total tonnage/heat output of weaponry for each 'range' grouping made it more expensive on a curve, rather than the straight line of the past. Not just weapon based, as you'd still have the 3-4 ERPPC or 3-4 Gauss problem.

Using numbers from sarna:
LRM20: 181 BV
PPC: 176 BV
Gauss Rifle: 320 BV


Say you put an LRM20 onto an empty 'Mech, 181 more BV. Now say you add another LRM20, 362 BV. But if you went and added any other long range weapon, say a PPC or another LRM20, it would put you around 600~ BV rather than 540~. Then a fourth LRM20 would take you to 850~ BV rather than 720~ But if you went and added SRMs, Medium Lasers, High Caliber ACs, these would all cost normal as they're not in the same range bracket/weapon type.

To put it simply, beyond a certain point start curving the BV of equipment if they stack too heavily in one direction, and while some might call this arbitrary, I would call it logical. Battle Value isn't C-Bills, it's meant to balance the game - and in almost all situations specialization beats all purpose. So make BV reflect that, 'Mechs aren't inherently weak or vulnerable at short range even if they're all long range weaponry, especially if you take into account lance mates and focus fire etc. So let Battle Value make those boats cost what they should cost, not less than they should cost as they do now. Even in TT some 'Mechs are obviously better than others per BV and it's precisely because of the vacuum BV weights.

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 09:22 PM.

[CaveMan]

Haeso, on 09 December 2011 - 09:21 PM, said:

Even without customization, you're going to have boats that utterly decimate everything else, they may be not be as good as the optimized ones, but they'll still be better than everything else.

Yeah except the canon boats all suck by design. You can put 10 ERML on a 'Mech in TT but to do it without being an epic failure you need a slow 100 tonner that is a walking heat sink. Boating's only a problem if weapon/heat/targeting balancing is skewed a certain way. It could end up skewed the other way and single big guns might be dominant.