Jump to content

Ultimate Mech Discussion Thread

BattleMech Balance

20517 replies to this topic

#6861 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 24 January 2014 - 07:10 AM

View PostOdanan, 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.


#6862 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 24 January 2014 - 07:53 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 24 January 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:




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 :ph34r:


The most basic field refit rules allowed for weapons of the same class to be installed, but they had to be the same critical slot size or smaller. So, that HBK-4G could carry the AC20, but that 4N couldn't.

A lot of the customizations we and are allowed in MWO would be building brand new designs that would require a factory line, if we went by the rules of the lore.

I think hardpoint size restrictions for Inner Sphere 'Mechs would be a great shake up of things. If people wanted to still use PPC's en-masse, they'd have to use the Awesome!

#6863 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 24 January 2014 - 08:13 AM

View PostDocBach, on 24 January 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

I think hardpoint size restrictions for Inner Sphere 'Mechs would be a great shake up of things. If people wanted to still use PPC's en-masse, they'd have to use the Awesome!

Which was why the Awesome was built in the first place :ph34r:

(Although until MWO's heat system gets a much needed overhaul, the Awesome will never be as awesome as it should...)

#6864 DocBach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 4,828 posts
  • LocationSouthern Oregon

Posted 24 January 2014 - 08:19 AM

PPC's aren't at a bad spot currently. The reason you don't see Awesomes as PPC boats is because you can do the same thing on any other 'Mech that had a medium laser to be pulled off for one.

#6865 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 24 January 2014 - 08:26 AM

View PostDocBach, on 24 January 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

PPC's aren't at a bad spot currently. The reason you don't see Awesomes as PPC boats is because you can do the same thing on any other 'Mech that had a medium laser to be pulled off for one.

I was referring to the 12.6 extra Ghost Heat if the Awesome fires all three of its PPCs at once, but that's also a good point.

#6866 FireSlade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 24 January 2014 - 09:43 AM

View Poststjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:

I was referring to the 12.6 extra Ghost Heat if the Awesome fires all three of its PPCs at once, but that's also a good point.

Simple solution is not to fire all 3 off at once. I have been running ERPPCs instead of the PPCs (been running 11-17 DHS) to get ready for Clan mechs and the heat is manageable as long as I do not group fire them. Besides people seem to **** their pants when they keep getting hit by a quick stream of PPC fire (even more so when they see the "ER"). It is funny when I see everyone chaining their ballistic/missile weapons and never group firing but when it comes to the PPC they cannot seem to understand that it runs too hot to do that and they are losing damage potential; where as the ballistics/missiles/lasers lose damage potential when chaining them.

Edited by FireSlade, 24 January 2014 - 09:44 AM.


#6867 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 24 January 2014 - 12:20 PM

View PostDocBach, on 24 January 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:


The most basic field refit rules allowed for weapons of the same class to be installed, but they had to be the same critical slot size or smaller. So, that HBK-4G could carry the AC20, but that 4N couldn't.

A lot of the customizations we and are allowed in MWO would be building brand new designs that would require a factory line, if we went by the rules of the lore.

I think hardpoint size restrictions for Inner Sphere 'Mechs would be a great shake up of things. If people wanted to still use PPC's en-masse, they'd have to use the Awesome!


Or basically sacrifice a lot of energy hardpoints to bring one or two (speaking of mechs coming with mostly mlasers or a few of them and a few larges).

EDIT: by the way I was wondering than doing the above, would be a good thing for PGI in terms of sales. Because you could end up willing to keep every single chassis variant you've exped, because it can do things the other cannot.

I don't know if I'm alone or what, but to save mechbay space I do often get rid of unused or redundant variants. Recently, with the Shawks, I've got rid of the 2H (I don't like 3xAC2) because 5M and 2D2 can do practically anything that I'm interested into when compared to the 2H.

With my system, given the triple ballistc slot of the 2H, maybe the latter could be the only shawk AC 20 - capable, while the others won't be able to do that.. and that would mean an extra mechbay to keep that variant for PGI. Though they do not deserve it, but with a similar system in place, probably mechs would be more varied among all the players.

Edited by John MatriX82, 24 January 2014 - 12:25 PM.


#6868 FireSlade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,174 posts
  • LocationStrana Mechty

Posted 24 January 2014 - 01:44 PM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 24 January 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:


Or basically sacrifice a lot of energy hardpoints to bring one or two (speaking of mechs coming with mostly mlasers or a few of them and a few larges).

EDIT: by the way I was wondering than doing the above, would be a good thing for PGI in terms of sales. Because you could end up willing to keep every single chassis variant you've exped, because it can do things the other cannot.

I don't know if I'm alone or what, but to save mechbay space I do often get rid of unused or redundant variants. Recently, with the Shawks, I've got rid of the 2H (I don't like 3xAC2) because 5M and 2D2 can do practically anything that I'm interested into when compared to the 2H.

With my system, given the triple ballistc slot of the 2H, maybe the latter could be the only shawk AC 20 - capable, while the others won't be able to do that.. and that would mean an extra mechbay to keep that variant for PGI. Though they do not deserve it, but with a similar system in place, probably mechs would be more varied among all the players.

Personally I hate 3 AC2s because of the heat and speed that you burned through ammo. What keeps me keeping to keep my redundant chassis is that I try to keep each mech doing something different. Like I run this on my 2H but on my other mechs I run something different; so that if I need a long range sniper/harasser then I use my 2H but if I want a brawler I run my 2D2 or my 5M. But other people just use what works and dump the rest so PGI using some hardpoint restrictions would probably force people to buy more bays so that they can have a varying selection. Plus the Awesome would be used as something other than a missile boat.

#6869 Jenkss

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 175 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:32 PM

View PostDocBach, on 24 January 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:


The most basic field refit rules allowed for weapons of the same class to be installed, but they had to be the same critical slot size or smaller. So, that HBK-4G could carry the AC20, but that 4N couldn't.

A lot of the customizations we and are allowed in MWO would be building brand new designs that would require a factory line, if we went by the rules of the lore.

I think hardpoint size restrictions for Inner Sphere 'Mechs would be a great shake up of things. If people wanted to still use PPC's en-masse, they'd have to use the Awesome!


I don't see how hardpoint size restrictions could possibly be a bad thing. Bring on sized hardpoints and weapons. Plenty of people have posted lengthy descriptions of such a system and I for one don't understand what could be bad about bringing that in.

Goodbye ridiculous PPC builds, hello more lore friendly designs. You can't go around saying how important the lore is regarding the number of varients and mech release dates, but completely overlook the weapon side of things and the roles the mech was designed for.

Mechs like the Awesome which are poor to average now, would suddenly have a place again. Some builds would be no longer possible (2xPPC and AC5 Shadowhawk for example), but they should never have existed in the first place.

#6870 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 24 January 2014 - 02:47 PM

View PostJenkss, on 24 January 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Mechs like the Awesome which are poor to average now, would suddenly have a place again. Some builds would be no longer possible (2xPPC and AC5 Shadowhawk for example), but they should never have existed in the first place.

Which really raises the question "what is a 'mech variant"? When is a customized SDH-2H no longer a SDH-2H? If you change the internal structure, armour, heat sinks, jump jet capacity, engine, and weapons load out, is it still the same variant?

By using e.g. Refit Kits, or by employing some sort of sized hardpoints, PGI could make variants matter more, and be more distinct than they currently are.

#6871 Jenkss

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 175 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:52 PM

View Poststjobe, on 24 January 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

Which really raises the question "what is a 'mech variant"? When is a customized SDH-2H no longer a SDH-2H? If you change the internal structure, armour, heat sinks, jump jet capacity, engine, and weapons load out, is it still the same variant?

By using e.g. Refit Kits, or by employing some sort of sized hardpoints, PGI could make variants matter more, and be more distinct than they currently are.


Exactly. What's the difference then other than hardpoint layout? Everything becomes essentially the exact same mech with minor hardpoint, hitbox and internal/external model changes.

Right now, everyone seems to think that the Panther is a poor choice for a light. However with hardpoint sizes, "sure it only manages 64km/h before speed tweak, but it can carry a PPC"

#6872 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 24 January 2014 - 03:54 PM

I remember making this awhile ago:

Posted Image

The theory behind it is. You have X number of hard points on a variant. Each hard point has a total size and space allocated to it. However hard point types are shared. So if you put a LRM20 in each arm you would not be able to fit another missile type weapon because all of the allocated missile hard point slots are taken.

So with this set up above this Jagermech could use the following weaponry:

Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC2, AC5, UAC5

Now no longer could the Jager A use an AC20 in each arm. It just doesn't have the ballistic space for it. and the lasers?

Energy: Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, Flamer, TAG

It can't use PPCs. Not that this couldn't be adjusted at a later time. The other thing to factor in is the fact that these spaces can be taken up by upgrades such as Ferro Fibrous and Endo Steel. So deciding on weaponry becomes more important before deciding on upgrades.

With missiles and artemis there are too many weapon combos. But ultimately you cannot put a LRM20 + Artemis on the JM6-A above due to the lack of an additional slot. Personally I think this would be a pretty good system.

Edit: Here are the other 2 Jagers under the system. Notice the differences between them?

Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by Butane9000, 24 January 2014 - 04:05 PM.


#6873 MonkeyDCecil

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 426 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 06:47 PM

View PostButane9000, on 24 January 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

I remember making this awhile ago:

Posted Image

The theory behind it is. You have X number of hard points on a variant. Each hard point has a total size and space allocated to it. However hard point types are shared. So if you put a LRM20 in each arm you would not be able to fit another missile type weapon because all of the allocated missile hard point slots are taken.

So with this set up above this Jagermech could use the following weaponry:

Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC2, AC5, UAC5

Now no longer could the Jager A use an AC20 in each arm. It just doesn't have the ballistic space for it. and the lasers?

Energy: Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, Flamer, TAG

It can't use PPCs. Not that this couldn't be adjusted at a later time. The other thing to factor in is the fact that these spaces can be taken up by upgrades such as Ferro Fibrous and Endo Steel. So deciding on weaponry becomes more important before deciding on upgrades.

With missiles and artemis there are too many weapon combos. But ultimately you cannot put a LRM20 + Artemis on the JM6-A above due to the lack of an additional slot. Personally I think this would be a pretty good system.

Edit: Here are the other 2 Jagers under the system. Notice the differences between them?

Posted Image
Posted Image


This needs to be in the game.

Edited by MonkeyDCecil, 24 January 2014 - 06:47 PM.


#6874 JudgeDeathCZ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 1,929 posts

Posted 24 January 2014 - 11:34 PM

@ Butane9000 It looks like MW3 system combined with MW4 system which looks nice.It takes away some veriety but will bring more lore-wise mechs :P .
I like it.

#6875 Butane9000

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 2,788 posts
  • LocationGeorgia

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:39 AM

View PostJudgeDeathCZ, on 24 January 2014 - 11:34 PM, said:

@ Butane9000 It looks like MW3 system combined with MW4 system which looks nice.It takes away some veriety but will bring more lore-wise mechs :P .
I like it.


Some variety is a nice trade off for more useful and unique variants I'd say.

#6876 Phoenix Branson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,173 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 25 January 2014 - 07:44 AM

Hussar has a good chance. Only time will tell. :P

#6877 John MatriX82

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,398 posts
  • LocationItaly

Posted 25 January 2014 - 09:45 AM

View PostButane9000, on 24 January 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

I remember making this awhile ago:

Posted Image

The theory behind it is. You have X number of hard points on a variant. Each hard point has a total size and space allocated to it. However hard point types are shared. So if you put a LRM20 in each arm you would not be able to fit another missile type weapon because all of the allocated missile hard point slots are taken.

So with this set up above this Jagermech could use the following weaponry:

Ballistic: Machine Gun, AC2, AC5, UAC5

Now no longer could the Jager A use an AC20 in each arm. It just doesn't have the ballistic space for it. and the lasers?

Energy: Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, Flamer, TAG

It can't use PPCs. Not that this couldn't be adjusted at a later time. The other thing to factor in is the fact that these spaces can be taken up by upgrades such as Ferro Fibrous and Endo Steel. So deciding on weaponry becomes more important before deciding on upgrades.

With missiles and artemis there are too many weapon combos. But ultimately you cannot put a LRM20 + Artemis on the JM6-A above due to the lack of an additional slot. Personally I think this would be a pretty good system.

Edit: Here are the other 2 Jagers under the system. Notice the differences between them?

Posted Image
Posted Image


This system is somewhat more strict than my own. I'd still like the capability to slap bigger guns whenever I have enough critical slots, but at the expense of carrying other big stuff.. so in the end a Jag could end up with an AC 20, but the other arm is limited to an AC 10 or a GR or even something smaller.

Quickly thinking, in my head a JM6-DD comes with UAC5 + AC 2 = 6 crit slots, but has a third hardpoint.

Let's suppose to award to that hardpoint another critical slot for a total of 7+7 crits. The thing could go dual GR, dual AC10 (both eating up 7 crits). You can't use any further ballistic hardpoints in those arms, because you've ran out of them.

But if you want you can slap an AC20 in one arm, and the other arm could still mount an AC5 (10+4 crits) or AC20+3xAC2s (10+3 crits). This without "sizing" the hardpoints. In few words critical slots would behave dynamically like ENDO or FF crits do, moving themselves around (where there are the proper hardpoints of course).

A JM6-S would probably be more limited (no GR capability) but those side torsoes could allow dual Large Laser while the DD cannot. Dual Large laser in my system means also that you can use 1xPPC + 1 Mlas in total. It still allows to mount bigger stuff if you want but few weapons of that kind.

JM6-A would allow 15 lrms max per arm (10+5 or 15) or LRM15+SRM6 or 2xSRM6s, ballistics would be limited up to an AC5 or stay @ 1 crit (1 Mgun or AC2), side torsoes to MLs, MPLs.

Edited by John MatriX82, 25 January 2014 - 09:50 AM.


#6878 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 25 January 2014 - 10:19 AM

View PostJohn MatriX82, on 25 January 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:


This system is somewhat more strict than my own. I'd still like the capability to slap bigger guns whenever I have enough critical slots, but at the expense of carrying other big stuff.. so in the end a Jag could end up with an AC 20, but the other arm is limited to an AC 10 or a GR or even something smaller.

Quickly thinking, in my head a JM6-DD comes with UAC5 + AC 2 = 6 crit slots, but has a third hardpoint.

Let's suppose to award to that hardpoint another critical slot for a total of 7+7 crits. The thing could go dual GR, dual AC10 (both eating up 7 crits). You can't use any further ballistic hardpoints in those arms, because you've ran out of them.

But if you want you can slap an AC20 in one arm, and the other arm could still mount an AC5 (10+4 crits) or AC20+3xAC2s (10+3 crits). This without "sizing" the hardpoints. In few words critical slots would behave dynamically like ENDO or FF crits do, moving themselves around (where there are the proper hardpoints of course).

A JM6-S would probably be more limited (no GR capability) but those side torsoes could allow dual Large Laser while the DD cannot. Dual Large laser in my system means also that you can use 1xPPC + 1 Mlas in total. It still allows to mount bigger stuff if you want but few weapons of that kind.

JM6-A would allow 15 lrms max per arm (10+5 or 15) or LRM15+SRM6 or 2xSRM6s, ballistics would be limited up to an AC5 or stay @ 1 crit (1 Mgun or AC2), side torsoes to MLs, MPLs.

i like a lot about you r idea, but find myself still holding back from fully endorsing it. I think part of the problem comes from the Jagermech example.

Let's use the DD. As you state, 7 crits per arm for ballistics. All good. My issue (and it's more because I am OCD) is now, an arm designed around 2-3 light ballistics, could conceivably be made to hold a weapon far larger than designed for, because the crits would migrate. I am fine with the DD mounting a Gauss in the arm, because it has 7 ballistic crits. I am not really fine with it being able to "borrow" crits from another location to be able to fit an AC20 there though, or a gauss and an AC5, or Gauss and 2 ac2. The one arm becoming reinforced and more spacious to accommodate, whilst the other essentially atrophies just bothers me. It also still allows for a mech like say the hunchback to take 3 small mounting points for energy, and suddenly have one spot reinforced enough for a PPC using all 3 slots, while the structural points for the other 2 lasers disappear.

I know it's silly to overthink IRL engineering on a game full of space magic, but while I like the concept, that also makes me dislike it. I guess to my mind a structural mount meant for a single 1 ton medium laser, or .5 ton MG getting buffed to hold a 5-7 ton Large Laser or PPC, or the like is... off.
I like the thought of each mech maybe having so many of said crit slot in each location though, so for instance on a Stalker,( 2 large laser, 4 medium, for 4 crits per torso) , you could still mount 2 large per toros, or a large and 2 mediums, or a PPC and 1 medium, etc. But I dislike the LT borrowing an energy crit form the RT so now said stalker can pack 2 ppc in one torso, and one large in the other still. It's semantics, I know. I guess I am ok with a Jenner being able to use the 2 energy it has in the arm to mount a large laser, but not so much into it borrowing one to mount a PPC in one arm. (Plus this would give a mech like the Jenner F a new lease, as the only Jenner capable of mounting a ppc, which would distinguish it and possible compensate more for the lack of missile)

Perhaps a better example might be the HBK 4P. 6 mediums in the rt, 1 each in the head and each arm. 9 total. With your migration, it's no issue for instance, to make it a 3 PPC mech, with a ppc in each arm, and one in the rt. I dislike that for many reasons. One, because the arms were never engineered for that, and a swap between a 1 ton and a 7 ton weapon is pretty extreme, even down to returning a gyro for the weight redistribution (something I know TT never thought about either), but also because it changes the nature of the mech too drastically IMO. Now if you used the basic concept of your crits as a sizing method, but did not allow migration, you could still use 2 PPC, though only in the RT (coincidentally for the same 14 tons the rt was engineered around) and then spread mediums or smalls in the other locations. This would further distinguish the 4SP, as being the only HBK able to carry large lasers in it's arms. Thus giving even more reason to use the various variants for differing roles.

IDK, your idea is still better than what we have, but I think it is still a little too easy to take a mech totally outside the role it was conceived for. That is why I still tend to favor sized hardpoints. It has the same elegance in simplicity your proposal has, with less chance for abuse. I like the thought of your basic idea with the crits fixed to their locales more, but IDK if it would be too convoluted or "limiting" for people. Although listening to the cries for unlimited customization makes me think that most who feel that way realistically have no clue of which they speak anyhow.

#6879 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,210 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:03 AM

Simple sized hardpoints would be... simpler.

#6880 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 25 January 2014 - 11:06 AM

View PostOdanan, on 25 January 2014 - 11:03 AM, said:

Simple sized hardpoints would be... simpler.

yeah, kinda why I champion them. I would love to make it as uber sim like as possible, but considering the gaping gaps in logic in the source game, especially post 3050, that is unlikely. (3025 was overall pretty well balanced, actually). So I embrace a mix of logical, but simple. Small and Large Hardpoints I just think do it easiest.





41 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 41 guests, 0 anonymous users