20517 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

DocBach, on 23 January 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Javelin would be a great addition - a light with jump and tons of missile hard points = jumping streakboat aka can of RAID for bugmechs like Spiders, Cicadas

DocBach, on 23 January 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

How many Firestarters are actually going to have flamers, though?

The advanced configuration, does have ECM, though, which could make it a little useful. But I think the food chain needs something that can hunt other lights better, especially little ******* ones with ECM.

Most Jav variants are basically Oxides with less armor (although maybe slightly better hitboxes?). Kind of boring, and one-trick-ponies. The Firestarter is a lot more versatile due to having energy hardpoints (ML boating) and has the potential to give the Jenner a run for its money. And with a bunch of ML, it'll be able to put the pain on other lights almost as well as a SSRM2 totting Javelin (plus better damage to big targets).

[DocBach]

The 3025 Javelin can come with four missile slots, the 3050 version can come with three but ECM, and the F version comes with lasers same as the Firestarter.

[Spheroid]

^ The Oxide is flightless, the Javelin can jump. That alone is a huge difference.

[Whatzituyah]

The OP post makes me sad its like as if I want to disagree with him at some points but he says the truth it will make me look like an {Dezgra}. I mean even if someone says that its not possible doesn't mean that the developer can't put it in! There is already some non cannon stuff in here like the IS access to FF armor early. *Unless they are really bad mechs like the urban mech I understand* But my point is if someone on the forums its impossible in a cannon story line PGI already went off that cannon stuff. they edit to put more heroes in that don't exist or adjust values for balance that don't make it cannon either. Basically cannon doesn't translate well to a from tabletop to a online game so why should it matter what the OP says can or can't be in the game?

Edited by Whatzituyah, 23 January 2014 - 06:53 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

Whatzituyah, on 23 January 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

The OP post makes me sad its like as if I want to disagree with him at some points but he says the truth it will make me look like an {Dezgra}. I mean even if someone says that its not possible doesn't mean that the developer can't put it in! There is already some non cannon stuff in here like the IS access to FF armor early. *Unless they are really bad mechs like the urban mech I understand* But my point is if someone on the forums its impossible in a cannon story line PGI already went off that cannon stuff. they edit to put more heroes in that don't exist or adjust values for balance that don't make it cannon either. Basically cannon doesn't translate well to a from tabletop to a online game so why should it matter what the OP says can or can't be in the game?

Ferro-Fibrous Armor was rediscovered by the IS (specifically, the Draconis Combine) in 3040; MWO is currently roundabout 3050.

As for which 'Mechs can or can't be in-game: PGI has established a clear pattern of requirements for a given 'Mech to exist within MWO, which takes into account both BT lore (e.g. "Did this 'Mech chassis/variant exist in some significant numbers in ~3050?") and game mechanics (e.g. "Are there enough common/non-Hero variants for this chassis for it to work with the Pilot Tree system?").

That certain 'Mechs like the Uziel and the Mauler (not enough common/non-Hero variants until much later in the BT timeline) or the Enforcer (not enough common/non-Hero variants in BT, at all) are unlikely to be included anytime soon, if ever, is unfortunate but not-unexpected, given what we know of the selection criteria.

[Bishop Steiner]

DocBach, on 23 January 2014 - 04:15 PM, said:

How many Firestarters are actually going to have flamers, though?

The advanced configuration, does have ECM, though, which could make it a little useful. But I think the food chain needs something that can hunt other lights better, especially little ******* ones with ECM.

well, unless they seriously propagate hard points, what realistically will hunt lights better...... 2-3 ssrm racks (remember some of the mechs they never gave extra hardpoints to) or up to 6 medium lasers and ballistics?

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 23 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

Ferro-Fibrous Armor was rediscovered by the IS (specifically, the Draconis Combine) in 3040; MWO is currently roundabout 3050.

As for which 'Mechs can or can't be in-game: PGI has established a clear pattern of requirements for a given 'Mech to exist within MWO, which takes into account both BT lore (e.g. "Did this 'Mech chassis/variant exist in some significant numbers in ~3050?") and game mechanics (e.g. "Are there enough common/non-Hero variants for this chassis for it to work with the Pilot Tree system?").

That certain 'Mechs like the Uziel and the Mauler (not enough common/non-Hero variants until much later in the BT timeline) or the Enforcer (not enough common/non-Hero variants in BT, at all) are unlikely to be included anytime soon, if ever, is unfortunate but not-unexpected, given what we know of the selection criteria.

yup.

I do still take exception to being able to swap in and out endo steel though. I think, like on the OmniMechs, that should be locked, since that is the bloody mech's skeleton, and not something realistically a tech with a scaffold and cherry picker could switch. That would be a long, intensive job that would essentially require rebuilding the whole mech from the ground up. and Since mechs have unique chassis, would require having that entire unique chassis custom fabricated.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 January 2014 - 07:25 PM, said:

yup.

I do still take exception to being able to swap in and out endo steel though. I think, like on the OmniMechs, that should be locked, since that is the bloody mech's skeleton, and not something realistically a tech with a scaffold and cherry picker could switch. That would be a long, intensive job that would essentially require rebuilding the whole mech from the ground up. and Since mechs have unique chassis, would require having that entire unique chassis custom fabricated.

Agreed - see here, here, and here.

Quote

As oft-maligned as it it, I must confess that I feel that the hardpoint system of MW4 was a step in the right direction (albeit not a terribly well-implemented one), as it would represent the restriction of the size and type of weapon(s) or equipment that may be mounted in a given location as a function of how the mounts on, and reinforcements of, the individual 'Mech's frame (skeleton) are set up (which would vary even between different individual 'Mechs that are variants of the same type; an ANH-1A Annihilator, an ANH-1Z Annihilator, an ANH-4P Annihilator, and a "Gausszilla" would have substantially different (in terms of available mounting and reinforcement points) skeletons between them, despite all of them being Annihilators).

Quote

If I take a "standard" MAD-3R Marauder and replace the PPCs with ER-PPCs (with that being the only change made), is it now a whole new variant or just a "modified MAD-3R"?
If I take the same 'Mech as above and replace the Medium Lasers with Small Pulse Lasers, is it now a whole new variant or still just a "modified MAD-3R"?
If I take the same 'Mech and replace the AC-5 and one ton of standard (HEAP) ammo with an AC-2 and two tons of ammo (one ton of standard (HEAP) and one ton of tracer), is it now a whole new variant or still just a "modified MAD-3R" (even though I've now removed all of the original weapons)?

Now, let's go back to our original, unmodified MAD-3R.
Suppose I change the heat sinks (it starts with 16) from standard ("single") heat sinks to double heat sinks (with that being the only change made). Is it now a whole new variant or just another "modified MAD-3R"?

We could continue this into a Ship of Theseus argument/paradox.

Depending on how "variant" is defined.
I, for one, would define it as being based on the internal structure and the arrangement of mounting points on said internal structure; as such, a MAD-3R and all 'Mechs that use a similar internal structure model with a similar hardpoint layout to it would be the same "variant" regardless of actual weapons load (Large Lasers in place of the PPCs, Gauss Rifle in place of the autocannon, and so on) while something like a MAD-9M and all 'Mechs that use a similar internal structure model with a similar hardpoint layout to it would be the same "variant" regardless of actual weapons load (PPCs in place of the Large Lasers, LRM-10s in place of the SRM-6s, and so on), with the -3R based variants and the -9M based variants being two variants of the Marauder.

Quote

Rather than cars, though, I believe aircraft would make a somewhat better example - one can change the engine and replace paneling easily enough, but attempting to modify - or completely replace - the airframe introduces a slew of new issues related to registration and airworthiness.

Also, being able to swap out everything brings about a "Ship of Theseus" situation - at what point can one no longer say that what they've got is the original BattleMech/variant?

Not allowing modification of the internal structure (from standard to Endo-Steel, or vice versa) also rationalizes why the hardpoints of any given 'Mech variant are (presumably) fixed and immutable...

[Odanan]

Sure, in MW2:M you could modify everything in a mech (thus making all mechs of the same tonnage effectively the same mech), BUT, even for replacing a single laser you needed to pay a lot of money.

The money system in MWO is very harsh*, but in an ideal game I would like to see a player spending money and time to replace anything in a variant. The bigger the modification (replacing a machinegun with a gauss rifle, for instance), the bigger would be the time and the money.

Want to change the internal structure for endo steel? It will cost you some million C-Bills and several days without playing with that mech.

(Adding animated techs working on the mech during the modification time would be a plus.)

*IMO, you should earn at least 3x more c-bills per match.

[stjobe]

As I've pointed out in numerous places, there are changes and then there are changes.

Swapping a CPLT-C1's 2xLRM-15 for 4xSRM-6 to get the Butterbee is one thing; it's using 24 of the original 30 tubes, it's about the same weight (12 tons for the SRM-6s, 14 tons for the LRM-15s), and it doesn't take much of a stretch to see how it could be done in the field.

Now imagine a CPLT-K2 swapping out the MGs for AC/20s. That's 500 kg MGs that's getting replaced with 14,000 kg autocannons. 1 ton replaced with 28 tons. Just how will it fit? How do you do that in the field at all?

Short answer: You don't, it won't, and it shouldn't. A 2xAC/20 Catapult isn't a K2, it's something else.

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 24 January 2014 - 03:20 AM, said:

Sure, in MW2:M you could modify everything in a mech (thus making all mechs of the same tonnage effectively the same mech), BUT, even for replacing a single laser you needed to pay a lot of money.

The money system in MWO is very harsh*, but in an ideal game I would like to see a player spending money and time to replace anything in a variant. The bigger the modification (replacing a machinegun with a gauss rifle, for instance), the bigger would be the time and the money.

Want to change the internal structure for endo steel? It will cost you some million C-Bills and several days without playing with that mech.

(Adding animated techs working on the mech during the modification time would be a plus.)

*IMO, you should earn at least 3x more c-bills per match.

Indeed - standard (that is, non-OmniTech) 'Mechs should have a "customization cost" where every component switch between savepoints costs c-bills - e.g. switching out a CN9's LRM launcher for an SRM launcher should cost some number of c-bills (charged upon hitting the save button), and switching that CN9's SRM launcher back to the original LRM launcher should also cost some number of c-bills (again, charged upon hitting the save button).

Of course, OmniMechs would have severely-reduced customization costs (or even no customization costs at all) with regard to pod-based equipment - "easy customization" translates into "cheap customization" for pod space, as is part of the point of OmniTech - with the base equipment (Engine type/rating, structure type, armor type/amount/distribution, etc) still being locked-down.

Though, I am still of the opinion that standard 'Mechs should have had certain elements of their base setup (specifically, those elements where modification would have required a Class F refit in BattleTech - "change in internal structure, engine, gyro, and cockpit types") should have been locked down in the first place as well; IMO, it simply shouldn't be possible to turn a stock (XL 300 engine, ES structure) CN9-D loadout into an exact duplicate of a stock (STD 200, standard structure) CN9-A loadout, with only the upper-bound of the CN9-A's engine rating limit preventing the reverse from also being a perfect duplication.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

As I've pointed out in numerous places, there are changes and then there are changes.

Swapping a CPLT-C1's 2xLRM-15 for 4xSRM-6 to get the Butterbee is one thing; it's using 24 of the original 30 tubes, it's about the same weight (12 tons for the SRM-6s, 14 tons for the LRM-15s), and it doesn't take much of a stretch to see how it could be done in the field.

Now imagine a CPLT-K2 swapping out the MGs for AC/20s. That's 500 kg MGs that's getting replaced with 14,000 kg autocannons. 1 ton replaced with 28 tons. Just how will it fit? How do you do that in the field at all?

Short answer: You don't, it won't, and it shouldn't. A 2xAC/20 Catapult isn't a K2, it's something else.

exactly.

In fact,. you would have to redesign and reinforce all the supports in the skeleton, as machinery of this natured is engineered around it's load out. It it designed with .5 ton mgs for load bearing, and for the stress of repeat firings of a .50 caliber to 20mm round. NOW you are tossing on something 28 times heavier, that generates infinitely more shear stress when fired (approximately the difference between a M2 machine gun and a Rhinemetal 120mm tank cannon). It would destroy the skeleton. Not to mention totally unbalanced the machine, stress the gyros because of the weight distribution, etc.

An in game example would be the Hunchback. By removing the ac20, it becomes an entirely new model, such as the 4P because the modifications made to swap from 13 heat sinks and a 14 ton ballistic to 6 tons of lasers in the shoulder and an additional 10 or so heat sinks, are legion. Not a field modification, as it were. Whereas switching the AC20 for a Gauss, while potentially tedious, is likely not as major an endeavor.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 24 January 2014 - 05:28 AM.

[John MatriX82]

stjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 04:02 AM, said:

As I've pointed out in numerous places, there are changes and then there are changes.

Swapping a CPLT-C1's 2xLRM-15 for 4xSRM-6 to get the Butterbee is one thing; it's using 24 of the original 30 tubes, it's about the same weight (12 tons for the SRM-6s, 14 tons for the LRM-15s), and it doesn't take much of a stretch to see how it could be done in the field.

Now imagine a CPLT-K2 swapping out the MGs for AC/20s. That's 500 kg MGs that's getting replaced with 14,000 kg autocannons. 1 ton replaced with 28 tons. Just how will it fit? How do you do that in the field at all?

Short answer: You don't, it won't, and it shouldn't. A 2xAC/20 Catapult isn't a K2, it's something else.

You could simply say "K2 can reach up to 10 ballistic critical slots". Do that, you can go dual AC5 or UAC5 OR use a single AC 20 (all the crits are eaten up by the ac 20 - the ballistic slot in the other torso becomes unusable). Given the thing has already PPCs you could also be more strict like 8 crits and so on.

Suddendly each variant and chassis could be re-balanced and each one could get the a different flavor.. like HBK 4G with 12 ballistic slots (AC 20 + dual MG) while the 4H could be limited @ 7 (GR or AC10 @ max, no AC 20 because it's the exclusive for the 4G within the chassis).

The same could be done for energetic critical slots. We could get rid of ghost heat, rebalance how heat and DHSs work and a lot of good stuff like rebalancing all weapons without the need to consider uber boats..

Missiles wouldn't be able to fire off multiple salvoes and would be limited to the available tubes. Do you have 6 tubes? LRM5 or SRM6. Full stop. That section with 6 tubes @ max has dual missile hardpoint capability? Fine, you can add a LRM5 and a SRM6 (tubes are shared but you can't exceed the number of tubes with both SRMs and LRMs). So a CTPL A1 could go around maxed with dual LRM15 and 4xSRM6. Still dangerous, but not as dangerous as 36 SRMs (max is 28) or with LRMs above 30.

A cent A with my sys could go around with a single LRM10 and SRM6+SRM4 -> full srm is SRM4x2+SRM2 or LRM5x2+SRM6 (10 tubes max).

Stalkers would not exceed [10+5]x2 (10 in the arm, 5 in the side torso) besides the 3H that would be a better lrm boat allowing [20+5]x2 (20 in the arm,5 in the side torsoes).

I'd like a similar system because it still allows a lot of flexibility (EG: stalkers could remove LL from side torsoes and replace those in the arms - if you "fix" hardpoint size then it may become too strict) and at the same time few mechs could barely reach 3 PPCs at once, LRMs would hardly go past 50 at once (thus bringing a 15 could still be useful because the weapon system isn't tuned to deal with LRM70-80 or more boats).

Edited by John MatriX82, 24 January 2014 - 05:41 AM.

[ssm]

Strum Wealh, on 23 January 2014 - 07:14 PM, said:

Ferro-Fibrous Armor was rediscovered by the IS (specifically, the Draconis Combine) in 3040; MWO is currently roundabout 3050.

As for which 'Mechs can or can't be in-game: PGI has established a clear pattern of requirements for a given 'Mech to exist within MWO, which takes into account both BT lore (e.g. "Did this 'Mech chassis/variant exist in some significant numbers in ~3050?") and game mechanics (e.g. "Are there enough common/non-Hero variants for this chassis for it to work with the Pilot Tree system?").

That certain 'Mechs like the Uziel and the Mauler (not enough common/non-Hero variants until much later in the BT timeline) or the Enforcer (not enough common/non-Hero variants in BT, at all) are unlikely to be included anytime soon, if ever, is unfortunate but not-unexpected, given what we know of the selection criteria.

Well, If I've been asked about one thing in MWO that I'd want the most, it wouldn't be CW, UI 2.0 or DX11 - it would be revamp of Pilot Tree system enabling us to have mechs without three available variants.

We're losing too much of iconic designs without any sensible reason, and I 'm pretty sure it could be done without loosening the grind.

Edited by ssm, 24 January 2014 - 05:45 AM.

[stjobe]

Yes, the "limit customization to number of tubes" is a pretty good one for missiles (and the current implementation of tubes in MWO is really silly; 1xLRM-15 in a CN9-A fires in two volleys, but 3xLRM-10 fires in one? LOLWUT?).

Restricting ballistics and energy by crit slots in some way is probably also a workable idea; in the case of the K2, it has a 1-slot ballistic in the side torsos, so it could fit a MG or an AC/2, but nothing bigger.

[Bishop Steiner]

stjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

Yes, the "limit customization to number of tubes" is a pretty good one for missiles (and the current implementation of tubes in MWO is really silly; 1xLRM-15 in a CN9-A fires in two volleys, but 3xLRM-10 fires in one? LOLWUT?).

Restricting ballistics and energy by crit slots in some way is probably also a workable idea; in the case of the K2, it has a 1-slot ballistic in the side torsos, so it could fit a MG or an AC/2, but nothing bigger.

not sure I fully agree with tube count as a limiter in all. For one thing, lrms and srms are different diameters to begin with, and thus would use different feed systems. Many mechs, like the battlemaster it's attacked on box, so wapping one box for another would not be too difficult. Weight and crits in the way John Matrix mentioned, I do think has potential. I usually adhere to sized hardpoints for simplicity sake. I mean, you want to have sensible customization, how come having hands and lower arm actuators take up space, but not tonnage? Gonna guess each hand on an atlas weighs between a half ton and a ton. The reason? Starts making conversions too much like work, lol. So using a simple methodology, and not layers of simple, I think makes the most sense. (Perhaps had MWO leaned more toward a SIM as many of us had originally hoped, a deeper format for customization would have been ideal).

I still think sized hardpoints do what is desired just fine, but the max crits per weapon class has some potential too. (though it seems some things are being preemptorally decided. Why does a HBK-4H get only 7 ballistic crits, a mech built around a 12 ton gun, while a CPLT-K2 you recommend 10 ballistic crits for a mech built around two half ton weapon systems? One issue with MWO is there are getting to be too many "exceptions" to the rules to begin with (which just highlights how poorly some of the rules decisions PGI made were to begin with, and now we get the legion of bandaid fixes.)

[John MatriX82]

stjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

Yes, the "limit customization to number of tubes" is a pretty good one for missiles (and the current implementation of tubes in MWO is really silly; 1xLRM-15 in a CN9-A fires in two volleys, but 3xLRM-10 fires in one? LOLWUT?).

I've spread that idea anywhere but ghost heat is sooo way better

stjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 05:43 AM, said:

Restricting ballistics and energy by crit slots in some way is probably also a workable idea; in the case of the K2, it has a 1-slot ballistic in the side torsos, so it could fit a MG or an AC/2, but nothing bigger.

Yes I was just wondering to say that you could allow something bigger tha dual AC2s, but rendering impossible to mount dual AC20s or GRs.

Stalkers normally have 2+2 energy crit slots (arm+side torso) so the total is 8. Don't allow any upgrade (those things already have enough hardpoints ), you can go 4xLL @ max (two energy hardpoints are lost) or 2xPPC+2ML. To me 4 LLs aren't a big issue, but 5 or 6 can be. This system prevents those things, so awesome could be Awesomes because of 3PPC goodness. Without ghost heat.

Bishop Steiner, on 24 January 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

I still think sized hardpoints do what is desired just fine, but the max crits per weapon class has some potential too. (though it seems some things are being preemptorally decided. Why does a HBK-4H get only 7 ballistic crits, a mech built around a 12 ton gun, while a CPLT-K2 you recommend 10 ballistic crits for a mech built around two half ton weapon systems? One issue with MWO is there are getting to be too many "exceptions" to the rules to begin with (which just highlights how poorly some of the rules decisions PGI made were to begin with, and now we get the legion of bandaid fixes.)

You know I'm not a TT knowledge-man, I just see that the 4H comes with an AC10, given that it has more hardpoints than the 4G, the latter should be "awarded" AC20 capability vs what the 4H should do, otherwise guys like me wouldn't even bother with the 4G skipping it altogether and use the 4H instead of this (because I can get the AC 20 with more energy backups in the 4H).

The idea of the K2 with 10 crits it's not "exception"; I think that things like MGs, AC5s and AC2 are something like "tier I", tier 2 is UAC5+LBX+AC10, tierIII GR and AC 20. So in my idea an heavy mech could be allowed to have a slight upgrade capability because it may be able to fit also an AC5 or similar things instead of an mgun. It's always "spitting numbers" thingy, whatever

Edited by John MatriX82, 24 January 2014 - 06:02 AM.

[Butane9000]

I'm putting my bets on the new light being the Javelin. Assuming they fix missiles soon or down the road this will be unique among the lights (save for the Oxide).

[Odanan]

Butane9000, on 24 January 2014 - 06:02 AM, said:

I'm putting my bets on the new light being the Javelin. Assuming they fix missiles soon or down the road this will be unique among the lights (save for the Oxide).

Firestarter, Javelin and Urbanmech are great candidates.

- Firestarter: very powerful light mech that could become the "Shadow Hawk of the lighties";
- Javelin: good small missiles boat, promising light hunter, but would certainly make the Commando entirely obsolete;
- UrbanMech: it would probably be awful, even with a lot of quirks, but has a huge fan base and would take the role of "joke Mech", "challenge Mech" and "humiliation Mech".

I will be very happy with any of these 3.

[Butane9000]

Odanan, on 24 January 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

Firestarter, Javelin and Urbanmech are great candidates.

- Firestarter: very powerful light mech that could become the "Shadow Hawk of the lighties";
- Javelin: good small missiles boat, promising light hunter, but would certainly make the Commando entirely obsolete;
- UrbanMech: it would probably be awful, even with a lot of quirks, but has a huge fan base and would take the role of "joke Mech", "challenge Mech" and "humiliation Mech".

I will be very happy with any of these 3.

I do believe the Hussar should be on the list. I seriously don't think the Urbanmech is likely due to having to revamp the engine systems. Though personally I would love for them to do away with the minimum heat sink requirement to give the Locust and light mechs more build versatility.

Edited by Butane9000, 24 January 2014 - 07:11 AM.