20517 replies to this topic

[Cferre]

Karl Streiger, on 30 April 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

But the Anihilator is lame...big...slow...and a weapon layout that will break balance even more - if it is possible.

This is inevitable. They have to deal with this at some point.

[FrostCollar]

SgtMagor, on 30 April 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

we could use a designated command mech(Cyclops), that can load all the electronics we could want. BAP,ECM, C3, IFF jammer (is this being considered?) , and if they add melee to the game along with collision it has 2 large hand actuators to pound mechs into submission

Bring in the KGC-010 then! The Command Crab.

[Strum Wealh]

Deskup, on 30 April 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Annigilator would screw the balance <- with that i actually probably agree. Still would root for ballistics.

Cferre, on 30 April 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

This is inevitable. They have to deal with this at some point.

Though, they could choose to deal with it the same way the BT canon dealt with it - by making the Annihilator exclusive to the Wolf's Dragoons (all of the design data left with the SLDF during their Exodus (following the fall of the Star League), the Clans stopped building them around the early-to-mid 2800s (the beginning of the Clans' "Golden Century", immediately following the death of Nicholas Kerensky), and no one in the IS besides the Dragoons had access to the blueprints or working models (with those that the Dragoons had being centuries old) until the Dragoons shared them with Clan Wolf-in-Exile during the WoB J***d), such that no one outside of the upper-most echelons of the Dragoons (which would be... the entire player base) can have one.

Same with ComStar-exclusive (and, later, WoB-exclusive) tech, for that matter (though, the they could also reserve ComStar as the Dev/Mod/GM faction, which would also keep ComStar and its associated higher-level tech out of the hands of the playerbase at large - and which already seems to be the case).

[SgtMagor]

FrostCollar, on 30 April 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Bring in the KGC-010 then! The Command Crab.

nice try but I don't think the howling masses will let the 2xAC20 100ton mech get the golden pass to production

[Strum Wealh]

SgtMagor, on 30 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

nice try but I don't think the howling masses will let the 2xAC20 100ton mech get the golden pass to production

Though, the KGC-010 is the Star League era dual-PPC/dual-LBX variant (and thus avoids the weapon-splitting issue that affects the other KGC variants and the AXM-1N, among others)... and is probably ComStar-exclusive at this point.

Though, consider the VTR-9A1 variant of the Victor and its potential for triple-AC/20 and/or triple-Gauss madness...

Quote

VTR-9A1 - a (non-LosTech) predecessor of the -9B, armed with an AC/20 (in the Right Arm; no Hand or Lower Arm Actuator), two Medium Lasers (both in the Left Arm; full actuator set), one SRM-4 (in the Left Torso), and two Machine Gun (one in each leg, likely to be moved to the respective side-torsos for MWO)

The Machine Guns for the Cicada's CDA-3C variant were moved from the legs to the side-torsos, so the VTR-9A1 variant of the 80-ton Victor (if implemented) could see the same change.

Such a change would give the VRT-9A1 at least one ballistic hardpoint in each of the Right Arm, Right Torso, and Left Torso (in addition to at least two energy hardpoints in the Left Arm and at least one missile hardpoint in the Left Torso).
And it's jump-capable, to boot.

As an example of what one could do with such a VTR-9A1...

Version 1

• Endo-Steel Chassis
  
• 240 XL Engine (top speed: 54 kph)
  
• Three Jump Jets (RT, CT, LT)
  
• Twelve tons of Standard Armor (75% of maximum)
  
• Ten Single Heat Sinks (one in the Head)
  
• Armament: x3 Gauss Rifles (RA, RT, LT) with x4 tons of ammo (all in legs)
  
• All tonnage and criticals used

Version 2

• Endo-Steel Chassis
  
• 320 XL Engine (top speed: 64.8 kph)
  
• Three Jump Jets (RT, CT, LT)
  
• Fourteen tons of Standard Armor (90% of maximum)
  
• Ten Single Heat Sinks (All in Engine)
  
• Armament: x3 UAC/5s (RA, RT, LT) with x7 tons of ammo (all in legs and arms), x2 MPLas (LA), x1 SSRM-2 (LT) with x1 ton of ammo (LA)
  
• All tonnage and criticals used

Version 3

• Endo-Steel Chassis
  
• 240 XL Engine (top speed: 54 kph)
  
• Three Jump Jets (RT, CT, LT)
  
• 11.5 tons of Standard Armor (74% of maximum)
  
• Ten Double Heat Sinks (nine in Engine, one in LA)
  
• Armament: x3 AC/10s (RA, RT, LT) with x5 tons of ammo (all in legs and RA), x2 MLas (LA), x1 SSRM-2 (LT) with x1 ton of ammo (LA)
  
• All tonnage used, 7 criticals remain

It is an Assault-class, jump-capable, triple-Gauss sniper.
It is a fast, Assault-class, jump-capable, triple-UAC/5 (plus back-up weapons) sniper/brawler.
It is an Assault-class, jump-capable, triple-AC/10 (plus back-up weapons) brawler.

And it's one of five timeline-appropriate Victor variants.

Need a lot of big guns? Vote for the VTR-9A1 Victor!

EDIT: Also, the VTR-9A variant (another of the five timeline-appropriate Victor variants) natively carries a Machine Gun in the Left Torso, in addition to the AC/20 in the minimally-actuated Right Arm - making it the Assault-class, jump-capable, dual-heavy-ballistics 'Mech that the heavier Highlander can't be.
So, there are two reasons for ballistics-lovers to advocate for the Victor...

(originally posted here on Feb. 12, 2013)

[Strum Wealh]

With regard to my previous post, this was tested in RemLAB, just to show that it could be done...

Proposed VTR-9A1 Victor, triple AC/20 modification

• Standard Chassis
  
• 160 STD Engine (top speed: 32 kph)
  
• Two Jump Jets (RT, LT)
  
• Eleven tons of Standard Armor (~71% of maximum)
  
• Ten Single Heat Sinks (x6 in Engine, x2 in CT, x2 in LA)
  
• Armament: x3 AC/20s (RA, RT, LT) with x5 tons of ammo (all in legs and Head)
  
• x2 CASE (LT, RT)
  
• All tonnage used, 6 criticals free

It's harder-hitting and (presumably) smaller (in terms of size/volume) than an Annihilator, and it can jump, and it's not limited to a single half-Clan merc-faction thing...

[SgtMagor]

I can't even imagine a 12 man drop with a lance of the VTR-9A1 3 gauss on each mech, and the other 2 lances as their wings scary stuff...

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 30 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

With regard to my previous post, this was tested in RemLAB, just to show that it could be done...

Proposed VTR-9A1 Victor, triple AC/20 modification

• Standard Chassis
  
• 160 STD Engine (top speed: 32 kph)
  
• Two Jump Jets (RT, LT)
  
• Eleven tons of Standard Armor (~71% of maximum)
  
• Ten Single Heat Sinks (x6 in Engine, x2 in CT, x2 in LA)
  
• Armament: x3 AC/20s (RA, RT, LT) with x5 tons of ammo (all in legs and Head)
  
• x2 CASE (LT, RT)
  
• All tonnage used, 6 criticals free

It's harder-hitting and (presumably) smaller (in terms of size/volume) than an Annihilator, and it can jump, and it's not limited to a single half-Clan merc-faction thing...

Strum Wealh, on 30 April 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

With regard to my previous post, this was tested in RemLAB, just to show that it could be done...

Proposed VTR-9A1 Victor, triple AC/20 modification

• Standard Chassis
  
• 160 STD Engine (top speed: 32 kph)
  
• Two Jump Jets (RT, LT)
  
• Eleven tons of Standard Armor (~71% of maximum)
  
• Ten Single Heat Sinks (x6 in Engine, x2 in CT, x2 in LA)
  
• Armament: x3 AC/20s (RA, RT, LT) with x5 tons of ammo (all in legs and Head)
  
• x2 CASE (LT, RT)
  
• All tonnage used, 6 criticals free

It's harder-hitting and (presumably) smaller (in terms of size/volume) than an Annihilator, and it can jump, and it's not limited to a single half-Clan merc-faction thing...

MinMax Warrior Online much? Hellacious punch, but dear god, zero battlefield endurance. Still, in the right time and place..... OUCH.

[Strum Wealh]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 April 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

MinMax Warrior Online much? Hellacious punch, but dear god, zero battlefield endurance. Still, in the right time and place..... OUCH.

'Tis more of a proof-of-concept - not the kind of 'Mech that suits my personal tastes, but a demonstrator of what could be done if the VTR-9A1 were implemented in the manner previously described (namely, by having each of the leg-mounted Machine Guns - and the associated ballistic hardpoints - moved up to the respective side-torsos, as was done for the MWO implementation of the CDA-3C).

Though, now that the sheer horrifying capability of the proposed VRT-9A1 has been put on full display, what are the odds that the Devs would implement each Victor variant except that one (assuming, of course, that the Victor is ever implemented in the first place)?

[Scrawny Cowboy]

SgtMagor, on 30 April 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

nice try but I don't think the howling masses will let the 2xAC20 100ton mech get the golden pass to production

But that unique chassis stance, and FD's sketch up... I'm craving me some heavy ballistic seafood!

[Sennin]

Strum, I respect what you are saying and I understand you are displaying what could be a reality but I doubt that even PGI would make such an unbalancing change as to move the ballistic hard points in the 9A1 from the legs to their corresponding torso locations. It would be more likely that they place both into one location or as additional points in the left arm. Otherwise, the ensuing fallout for doing as you suggest would probably force PGI to alter their locations after implementation, which they have done in the past in order to balance specific variants.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sennin, on 01 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

Strum, I respect what you are saying and I understand you are displaying what could be a reality but I doubt that even PGI would make such an unbalancing change as to move the ballistic hard points in the 9A1 from the legs to their corresponding torso locations. It would be more likely that they place both into one location or as additional points in the left arm. Otherwise, the ensuing fallout for doing as you suggest would probably force PGI to alter their locations after implementation, which they have done in the past in order to balance specific variants.

while I tentatively agree, it's going to have to be faced eventually. Thunderhawk will have those 3 Gauss if they don't do the Victor or Annihilator first.

[Sennin]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 May 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

while I tentatively agree, it's going to have to be faced eventually. Thunderhawk will have those 3 Gauss if they don't do the Victor or Annihilator first.

I agree that it will have to be faced eventually but I think the Thunder Hawk would be more readily accepted if it was ever implemented because it is a Thunder Hawk, not something less that is able to mimic it. The only players you would see chanting the Thunder Hawk is OP or asking why it was implemented would be the ones who have never seen it outside of MWO and/or have never had to deal with it before. Granted, this is just my opinion for now but I feel pretty strongly about it.

[Odanan]

Karl Streiger, on 30 April 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

For your first question:
Style...Love...and Peace
For MWO: the Zeus isn't that interesting...a 80t having a ballistic in some versions.
(Leonidas, 6Y, 6S)
Same for Banshee in MWO terms it is just a smaller Atlas with a higher engine Cap...
but in Terms of MWO... only dual ballistic Assauls make any sense...like you said the Annhilitor is such a Mech....

But the Anihilator is lame...big...slow...and a weapon layout that will break balance even more - if it is possible.

So... Victor!

EDIT: ninjaed by 2 pages.

Edited by Odanan, 01 May 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sennin, on 01 May 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

I agree that it will have to be faced eventually but I think the Thunder Hawk would be more readily accepted if it was ever implemented because it is a Thunder Hawk, not something less that is able to mimic it. The only players you would see chanting the Thunder Hawk is OP or asking why it was implemented would be the ones who have never seen it outside of MWO and/or have never had to deal with it before. Granted, this is just my opinion for now but I feel pretty strongly about it.

But that is forever the issue with unlimited slot option. One can essentially ALWAYS make something into a poor man's version of something else, and in the process, the mechs all start to lose what makes each one unique. Before the Jagermech, I was running a Cataphract-4X "UberJaeger". People essentially turned the Cat-3D into poor man's highlanders before the HGN launched. IMO, it's one more reason I favor "sized" Hard Points, to help maintain the unique flavor of each chassis, while still allowing a reasonable degree of customization. If you think MinMaxxing is bad now, try playing MWW3 with a competitive group. With unlimited customization option,s they essentially became the least diverse as the most "optimal" configs were discovered. Yet funnily enough, most of the people who hate on Sized HO say it won't stop boating (and then usually offer some really arcane an involved "heat stacking" solution, when it would eliminate all but essentially Streak and Medium Laser boats (and the Streaks are pretty well held in check with ECM).

Odanan, on 01 May 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

So... Victor!

this guy agrees

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 01 May 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

But that is forever the issue with unlimited slot option. One can essentially ALWAYS make something into a poor man's version of something else, and in the process, the mechs all start to lose what makes each one unique. Before the Jagermech, I was running a Cataphract-4X "UberJaeger". People essentially turned the Cat-3D into poor man's highlanders before the HGN launched. IMO, it's one more reason I favor "sized" Hard Points, to help maintain the unique flavor of each chassis, while still allowing a reasonable degree of customization. If you think MinMaxxing is bad now, try playing MWW3 with a competitive group. With unlimited customization option,s they essentially became the least diverse as the most "optimal" configs were discovered. Yet funnily enough, most of the people who hate on Sized HO say it won't stop boating (and then usually offer some really arcane an involved "heat stacking" solution, when it would eliminate all but essentially Streak and Medium Laser boats (and the Streaks are pretty well held in check with ECM).

Though I don't like how they dealt with LRMs and SSRMs (by blocking them with ECM), I agree with the hardpoint size thing. It would prevent boating of large weapons (like the 6 PPC Stalker freak). Imagine this:

(lE) Large Energy Hardpoint: any energy weapon.
(sE) Small Energy Hardpoint: Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Flamer.
(lM) Large Missile Hardpoint: any missile weapon.
(sM) Small Missile Hardpoint: SRM2, SRM4, SSRM2, LRM5, LRM10, NARC.
(lB) Large Ballistic Hardpoint: any ballistic weapon.
(sB) Small Ballistic Hardpoint: MG, AC2, AC5, UAC5

Stalker 3F:
RA: 2sE, 1sM
RT: 1lE, 1lM
H: -
CT: -
LT: 1lE, 1lM
LA: 2sE, 1sM

It would be the end of the Gaussapult, for instance, but variants (and chassis) would be much more unique. Even despised variants like the Stalker 3H and 4N could receive a boost in the form of more Large Hardpoints - making them truly desirable.

Hardpoint sizing won't prevent the boating of small weapons, but this doesn't looks like an issue in the game right now (Sniperwarrior Online).

Edited by Odanan, 01 May 2013 - 10:06 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 01 May 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Though I don't like how they dealt with LRMs and SSRMs (by blocking them with ECM), I agree with the hardpoint size thing. It would prevent boating of large weapons (like the 6 PPC Stalker freak). Imagine this:

(lE) Large Energy Hardpoint: any energy weapon.
(sE) Small Energy Hardpoint: Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Flamer.
(lM) Large Missile Hardpoint: any missile weapon.
(sM) Small Missile Hardpoint: SRM2, SRM4, SSRM2, LRM5, LRM10, NARC.
(lB) Large Ballistic Hardpoint: any ballistic weapon.
(sB) Small Ballistic Hardpoint: MG, AC2, AC5, UAC5

Stalker 3F:
RA: 2sE, 1sM
RT: 1lE, 1lM
H: -
CT: -
LT: 1lE, 1lM
LA: 2sE, 1sM

It would be the end of the Gaussapult, for instance, but variants (and chassis) would be much more unique. Even despised variants like the Stalker 3H and 4N could receive a boost in the form of more Large Hardpoints - making them truly desirable.

Hardpoint sizing won't prevent the boating of small weapons, but this doesn't looks like an issue in the game right now (Sniperwarrior Online).

Pretty much my thoguhts, though I might add one more H-Point Category: SUPPORT

Specifically for weapons dedicated to anti-personel/vehicle status, or non-offensive stuff, so it would possibly cover: MG, Flamer, TAG, AMS, and maybe NARC (even though it's big, I don't like it becoming another missile slot when it uses a totally differing feed and launch tube set up.)

funnily enough, we are almost identical in idea for the layout of the H-Points, and I used the same reasoning (even mentioned the Gausapult and Stalker-3F) in another post, where of course the answer was "ZOMG!!!! NERF TEH PPCzor!!!!!)

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 02 May 2013 - 04:03 AM.

[Colddawg]

didn't PGI say that they're looking into making an ECM hard point so it can't be moved around? What's to keep them from doing so with other items...

Although I agree with the sizing of hard points to keep people from boating an issue was brought up by one of my fellow gamers. If they limit the size of the hard points that will cause boating in the sense of people loading more of a smaller weapon than less of the larger weapons.

For example, instead of 2 AC 20's they would boat 3-4 AC 2's or AC 5's which put out more damage over time than the AC 20. Or 6 medium lasers compared to 2 PPCs which deal more d-o-t, again.

You could go even further by breaking this down into small medium and large weapon hard points. For example the CPLT-K2 is limited to MGs or AC-2s in the side torsos and medium to large energy weapons in the arms.

The Ravens' could be limited to small to medium ballistic weapons (up to AC-5).

I would agree that if they did this with missiles, by type (SRM/LRM) that it would be beneficial. Then on certain chassis there would be the "omni-missile" hard points which allow both-Like on the Centurion or Raven torso missile hard points.

Overall I think that this system would have more benefits than drawbacks. No more Gauss-apults or AC-20 Ravens or 2-3 gauss pop tarts while only creating issues with very few variants.

The devs just have to put their foot down and say "hey look. The size of this 'Mech won't allow this weapon or else the weapon wouldn't fit inside the confinements of the chassis's structure" but that's a dream in my opinion.


I'm still hoping for the Battlemaster as the next assault. Come on, PGI's changed their minds so many times it's not funny anymore. Who's to say that Alex's redesign wouldn't be varied enough that it pleases everyone?

Edited by Colddawg, 02 May 2013 - 05:23 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Colddawg, on 02 May 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

didn't PGI say that they're looking into making an ECM hard point so it can't be moved around? What's to keep them from doing so with other items...

Although I agree with the sizing of hard points to keep people from boating an issue was brought up by one of my fellow gamers. If they limit the size of the hard points that will cause boating in the sense of people loading more of a smaller weapon than less of the larger weapons.

For example, instead of 2 AC 20's they would boat 3-4 AC 2's or AC 5's which put out more damage over time than the AC 20. Or 6 medium lasers compared to 2 PPCs which deal more d-o-t, again.

You could go even further by breaking this down into small medium and large weapon hard points. For example the CPLT-K2 is limited to MGs or AC-2s in the side torsos and medium to large energy weapons in the arms.

The Ravens' could be limited to small to medium ballistic weapons (up to AC-5).

I would agree that if they did this with missiles, by type (SRM/LRM) that it would be beneficial. Then on certain chassis there would be the "omni-missile" hard points which allow both-Like on the Centurion or Raven torso missile hard points.

Overall I think that this system would have more benefits than drawbacks. No more Gauss-apults or AC-20 Ravens or 2-3 gauss pop tarts while only creating issues with very few variants.

The devs just have to put their foot down and say "hey look. The size of this 'Mech won't allow this weapon or else the weapon wouldn't fit inside the confinements of the chassis's structure" but that's a dream in my opinion.


I'm still hoping for the Battlemaster as the next assault. Come on, PGI's changed their minds so many times it's not funny anymore. Who's to say that Alex's redesign wouldn't be varied enough that it pleases everyone?

They already can do that. Boating Small and Medium Lasers in Hunchbacks and Awesomes back in Closed Beta is what brought about Engine Caps. Now that the mechs are slow, people don't generally fear those boats. We already see4-6 AC2, and while they can rattle you, people are not running in fear. Ditto the now slower Medium Lasers Hunchies and Awesomes.

Seriously, boating a ton of small weapons has so many inherent limitations (4-6 AC/2 spread damage all over, and literally overheat you in seconds.. and can't carry that much ammo) Medium and Small lasers have very limited range, and the mediums are another Overheat special (only without being able to safely shutdown 1 kilometer from the action)

Arguing that because something doesn't perfectly fix everything, so we should do nothing always makes me laugh.

[Adridos]

I thought you might like to see this.
Guess which awesome artist is making that cover art (it's still unfinished, but great already)?



I think the question of how will Mad Cat look has been finally answered.

Edited by Adridos, 02 May 2013 - 08:13 AM.