The Mech Lab is half the battle keep it that way
#201
Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:31 AM
Swayback Mk 2
Mass: 50 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Succession Wars
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-F-D
Production Year: 3049
Cost: 3,712,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,258
Chassis: Unknown Standard
Power Plant: Unknown 200 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
10 Medium Lasers
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown
================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard 83 points 5.00
Engine: Fusion Engine 200 8.50
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Double Heat Sink 15(30) 5.00
Heat Sink Locations: 2 LT, 2 RT, 2 LA, 1 RA
Gyro: Standard 2.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor: Ferro-Fibrous AV - 169 9.50
Armor Locations: 1 HD, 2 CT, 2 LA, 5 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL
Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 16 24
Center Torso (rear) 8
L/R Torso 12 18
L/R Torso (rear) 6
L/R Arm 8 16
L/R Leg 12 24
================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Medium Lasers RT 15 5 5.00
5 Medium Lasers LT 15 5 5.00
Free Critical Slots: 2
BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 6 Points: 13
4 5 5 0 0 2 0 Structure: 4
Special Abilities: ENE, SRCH, ES, SOA
This is what you can produce (if you can afford it) It does 50 damage, alternating with 45 all day long and has more armour. WHy would you use anything else if you want a Hunchback style mech? Plus very litlle danger of missing.
#202
Posted 21 December 2011 - 05:56 AM
Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:
I don't need to know jack about the TT rules to know that they are not right for a video game. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the board game functions differently, and therefore has a rule set tailored specifically for a boardgame. Stop crying.
You should take your own advice. The only thing you have done from the start is do just that about the game that mechwarrior comes from and the rules associated with it. PGI has already said they would be sticking as close to the TT rules as possible.
Edited by Black Sunder, 21 December 2011 - 06:07 AM.
#203
Posted 21 December 2011 - 06:28 AM
Red Beard, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:
}{avoc, on 21 December 2011 - 05:22 AM, said:
#204
Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:12 AM
#205
Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:41 AM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:
Unless I missed something, you have 7 tons free, which would allow you to bump the engine to a 250 and keep you from needing to allocate space for 2 of the heat sinks. It still leaves you 2 tons to play with. By using Ferros instead of endo, you are sacrificing 2 tons to play with as well (well 1.5 technically speaking, but you can shunt 1 pt from the head and a little from the legs and you wouldn't really notice the difference).
So, Endo instead and a 5/8 rating you get 4 extra tons and 8 extra critical slots to play with. So you could add 2 more HT sinks and 2 more medium lasers. Standing still you have a 2pt heat buildup and 60 damage per turn for 4 turns without any ill effect or 2 turns while running.
But seriously though, you are just trying to reverse engineer the nova (clan tech) at that point and what is really enabling you to do this is the existence of the double heat sinks and endo steel. IE you are just highlighting the difference between a bad design (IS) versus a good design (clan). Lighter mechs get lasers and missiles. Heavy mechs get cannons. The devs just didn't think about the what and how really when they came up with it (regardless of how iconic the hunchback is).
#206
Posted 21 December 2011 - 08:57 AM
Nik Van Rhijn, on 21 December 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:
I see what you did and although it is for urban warfare you are discounting the possibility of a rear assault and you could have also added electronic gear to help you out in such an environment such as a Beagle. The long range comment I made mostly has to do with using Large Lasers or PPCs in the urban area incase you see a mech down the street beyond your laser's range.
As the person above me pointed out, you look like you were recreating the Nova which really needs clan tech to work or a higher tonnage chassis.
#207
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM
Kay Wolf, on 21 December 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:
That's your opinion.
Quote
I already know all that I need to know. A TT game's rule set do not belong in a video game. If anything, MWO should borrow the ideas of combat from the TT, and apply those in the most reasonable, implied mechanical way. That said, your viewpoint is way out in left field, as you are a jaded veteran of the old sims. I have the good fortune of not having my opinion tainted by the older, inferior MW games.
Quote
That's funny. You only want to read the opinion of those that agree with your, powerfully biased opinion? Somehow I am not surprised.
Edited by Red Beard, 21 December 2011 - 09:07 AM.
#208
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:15 AM
One trick ponies are simply that. Yes if they get to where they need to be, they can be nasty, but they are easy to predict and work around typically.
#209
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:15 AM
I like the idea of it being about the Lance's over-all composition, not just about raw firepower.
I am assuming the DEV are going to concern themselves with the "us" factor when all is said and done. imho
Edited by MaddMaxx, 21 December 2011 - 09:18 AM.
#210
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:18 AM
MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 09:15 AM, said:
With custom designs, it is easier to build a cohesive team. With stock designs you have to cherry pick to get the same effect.
#211
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:27 AM
Black Sunder, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:
Mechs becoming gun bags isn't ridiculous. It happened in previous games. Sure there may be potential counters, but people are very much sheep and run for whatever is OP. My main worry is that unlimited customization facilitates abuse of broken game mechanics. In a perfect world it shouldn't matter, but there is going to be OP weapons. There always are.
Phades, on 21 December 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:
I think the larger issue will end up being trying to explain why a player can't custom job a machine to their play preference instead of forcing them into a specific machine and variant instead and producing the same end result.
There are many bad TRO designs. However limited customization would allow you to fix most of the glaring flaws. Just not have free reign.
Quote
BV has to assume that you pick the right tool for the job. Otherwise it breaks worse if the terrain doesn't match whatever you consider standard. BV is modified by pilot skill. No reason why we can't do that in MWO. Give every player a rating through an elo system. Use the skill rating to modify the BV of your mech just like the you normally do.
#212
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:34 AM
Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:
Interesting enough there have been plenty of games that directly implement board games rules into video games and are successful. The Baulders gate series for example, and almost any DnD based game is a pretty literal translation of the TT rules. I know it goes the other way too some TT games have taken mechanics straight out of MMORPGs. Its pretty much proven that a TT game's rules can transfer well to a video game, so stop making blanket statements. If you want to argue that the battletech TT rules won't transfer well to a video game you best get to reading them.
#213
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:38 AM
TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:
TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:27 AM, said:
TheRulesLawyer, on 21 December 2011 - 09:34 AM, said:
Edited by Phades, 21 December 2011 - 09:39 AM.
#214
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:44 AM
Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 09:05 AM, said:
You do yourself a disservice. Claiming how awesome ignorance is because you're not tainted by knowledge... I don't even know how to describe that without being inflammitory. Red, you make the rest of us Video gamers look dumb with these comments. It's partially why TT players get all riled when you speak, because it sounds like unintelligent people have uneducated ideas about the game, and you represent young videogamehood.
People who are against the TT rules haven't picked them up. They are an outline for a million different possibilities that could happen in Mech on Mech (and other) combat, movement, and environment. They are an awesome, well thought out guidline, complete with extreme minutia for any kind of combat. When some discounts them as useless, and leans upon their own understanding... well that's just terrible. It's like trying to put a building without plans because "I've seen buildings go up before:" I am sure, 100% sure that the TT rules are sparking all kind of ideas in the devolopers. Its impossible not to, once you pick them up.
#215
Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:55 AM
the fact is that as has been mentioned there are many successful games that have gone from electronic formats to pen and paper formats and vise versa.
examples being the balders gate, and various other D&D or advanced D&D titled games, such as pools of radience etc
there are also games that have not worked out as well (in many peoples opinion) such as the DDO game where they essentually took the name and slapped it on a game with only a vague resemblance to the source material.
plus from many other things I have seen some people want to take ALL the ... complexity out of the "meta" game and reduce MWO to a variation of paper rock sizzors where you can INSTANTLY tell what the other side has as soon as you ID their units. I am sorry that is NOT battletech or mechwarrior to me, I do NOT want another mechassault which frankly while a decient to good game was IMO a horrible "battletech" game
#216
Posted 21 December 2011 - 10:09 AM
Phades, on 21 December 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:
Sure, break points are one of the things they could fix going to a PC. Unfortunately it would also break many TRO designs. However it would be interesting if an engine gives you X amount power and your tonnage varied it, even unused tonnage and expended ammo. I think there may be optional rules to cover some of this. Honestly a lot of the TT to RT conversion issues are addressed in the more advanced rules that people rarely play with.
Quote
Yah ELO isn't perfect, but its the best we have. I've never come across a better overall ranking system. Perhaps it could track Elo per class and have a minimum difference between your min and max scores?
Quote
Some of the TT to video game translations are as close as you can get without actually playing with dice and paper. RPGs tend to the the class with the most adherence to the original rules. Alot of those there are still dice rolls and you can get combat logs that match up to the original TT. Then there are games that literally make an electronic version of the board game (Settlers of Catan, ticket to ride, Carcassone). But yes there is usually some amount of translation. The point is that saying TT rules never work in a video game just isn't true. I expect some translation of the battletech TT rules for sure. We aren't going to be playing a turn based tactical game. It'll be a real time first person sim and that means some stuff just won't work.
#217
Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM
Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL
#219
Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:07 AM
MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:
Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL
They do it in LoL. Its not as accurate as a individual elo, especially as player numbers go up. Works pretty much the same way there. I don't think individual performance within the match is considered. Just the win or loss.
#220
Posted 21 December 2011 - 11:14 AM
MaddMaxx, on 21 December 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:
Q&A 2 is up. Yaahooo! BBL
Many more variables, I'd expect. Like one for the classical ELO rating, another for the Mech-specific one of your pilot, yet another for "unit performance" one. (The latter meaning you might be somewhat penalized for having an exceptionally well working lance, but hey, more challenging that way!) Plus "X" others I cannot imagine right now. Now throw all that together and try to get a 12 vs. 12 setup done. So adding up all this individual variables to a set "rating" (modified if you try to join with a whole lance of 4 Mechs) and trying to get 2 balanced teams for a match from that. And the whole thing of course with 2 sets of varaibles, being based 60% on the Mech piloted and 40% on the pilot (I think 60/40 would be a good ratio, only so much a really good pilot can do to overcome unfavourable odds.)
Might take the matchmaker a bit, but I'd rather have it balanced than silly and wait a minute or three, instead of only 10 seconds.
17 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 17 guests, 0 anonymous users