20517 replies to this topic

[Metus regem]

Summon3r, on 25 March 2015 - 07:44 AM, said:

i always liked the avatar, and the sunder was pretty devastating no? i was assuming the IS mechlab would not change and they could swap engines and SHS to DHS

That's the trick right? If they give IS Omni's the ability to swap pods AND engines/structure/Heaksink type/armour, how would they handel Clan Battlemechs?

I mean if they don't give the IS Omni's the ability to do those things, they might have some hard issues with the mechs even being viable.

[Strum Wealh]

Metus regem, on 25 March 2015 - 07:59 AM, said:

That's the trick right? If they give IS Omni's the ability to swap pods AND engines/structure/Heaksink type/armour, how would they handel Clan Battlemechs?

I mean if they don't give the IS Omni's the ability to do those things, they might have some hard issues with the mechs even being viable.

Arguably, we're able to do too much with non-Omni 'Mechs, anyway - IMO, anything that would constitute a "factory-grade" refit (e.g. Class E & Class F refits, per Strategic Operations) should have been locked down from the get-go.

Quote

Class E Refit (Factory): This kit lets players change the type of myomer installed, install CASE, and/or increase the unit’s Quality Rating one level.

Class F Refit (Factory): This kit lets players change a unit’s internal structure type (all locations), engine type, gyro type, or cockpit type. If a fusion engine is replaced by another type of power plant, i.e. Fission or ICE, then the total number of heat sinks mounted should be adjusted as indicated on the bonus heat sink table (see p. 71, TM).

- Strategic Operations, pg. 188

[Metus regem]

Strum Wealh, on 25 March 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

Arguably, we're able to do too much with non-Omni 'Mechs, anyway - IMO, anything that would constitute a "factory-grade" refit (e.g. Class E & Class F refits, per Strategic Operations) should have been locked down from the get-go.

I've often said, it should be like this:

Battlemechs:

• · Fixed weapon mounts
  
• · Fixed engine size
  
• · Fixed structure size
  
• · Hardwired equipment

Omnimechs:

• · Pod space (to be used for weapons/equipment)
  
• · Fixed structure
  
• · Fixed armour type
  
• · Fixed heatsink type
  
• · Some Hardwired equipment
  
• · Fixed engine size

But then again, I'm not a game designer, and never pretend to be one.

Edited by Metus regem, 25 March 2015 - 08:45 AM.

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 25 March 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

Arguably, we're able to do too much with non-Omni 'Mechs, anyway - IMO, anything that would constitute a "factory-grade" refit (e.g. Class E & Class F refits, per Strategic Operations) should have been locked down from the get-go.

I like to customize my mechs (that's half the fun) but how the game is, mechs lost their identity. I'm OK with players being able to upgrade SHS to DHS and Std. Engine to XL Engine, but a Firestarter (a mech that runs 97.2 km/h stock) running at 150 km/h is certainly too much.

How it should be from the beginning (and it's never too late to apply this):

• Engine: only upgrade or downgrade to the maximum of one engine up (in terms of TT). For instance, the Firestarter has a 210 Engine, so the maximum Engine should be the 245 (118.8 km/h without speed tweak) and the minimum 175 (86.4 km/h without speed tweak). Some chassis (like the Panther and UrbanMech) would be penalized, and people would have to learn to play safer with light mechs, but the game would be more close to the lore.
  
• Hardpoints: MWO was a big advancement in locking the hardpoints for weapon category (MW2 and MW3 had no restriction for mounting weapons whatsoever; and MW4, although adding "hardpoints", completely changed the weapons stats and the builds), but the hardpoint inflation should be decreased a little.
  
• Armor: the maximum armor should be somewhat limited by the stock armor too. Glass cannons like the JagerMech should not be able to mount full armor or full armored mechs, like the Atlas, should not be deployed with almost half of the armor removed.
  
• Quirks: I understand quirks help balancing the variants, but they should not be extreme (like the early Thunderbolt PPC) and should benefice the stock weapons, instead of some meta build.

Edited by Odanan, 25 March 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 25 March 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

I like to customize my mechs (that's half the fun) but how the game is, mechs lost their identity. I'm OK with players being able to upgrade SHS to DHS and Std. Engine to XL Engine, but a Firestarter (a mech that runs 97.2 km/h stock) running at 150 km/h is certainly too much.

How it should be from the beginning (and it's never too late to apply this):

• Engine: only upgrade or downgrade to the maximum of one engine up (in terms of TT). For instance, the Firestarter has a 210 Engine, so the maximum Engine should be the 245 (118.8 km/h without speed tweak) and the minimum 175 (86.4 km/h without speed tweak). Some chassis (like the Panther and UrbanMech) would be penalized, and people would have to learn to play safer with light mechs, but the game would be more close to the lore.
  
• Hardpoints: MWO was a big advancement in locking the hardpoints for weapon category (MW2 and MW3 had no restriction for mounting weapons whatsoever; and MW4, although adding "hardpoints", completely changed the weapons stats and the builds), but the hardpoint inflation should be decreased a little.
  
• Armor: the maximum armor should be somewhat limited by the stock armor too. Glass cannons like the JagerMech should not be able to mount full armor or full armored mechs, like the Atlas, should not be deployed with almost half of the armor removed.
  
• Quirks: I understand quirks help balancing the variants, but they should not be extreme (like the early Thunderbolt PPC) and should benefice the stock weapons, instead of some meta build.

I don't mind being able to alter the amount of armour on a mech, as you are often trading armour for firepower or speed, but never both.

[CDLord HHGD]

Odanan, on 25 March 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

I like to customize my mechs (that's half the fun) but how the game is, mechs lost their identity. I'm OK with players being able to upgrade SHS to DHS and Std. Engine to XL Engine, but a Firestarter (a mech that runs 97.2 km/h stock) running at 150 km/h is certainly too much.

How it should be from the beginning (and it's never too late to apply this):

• Engine: only upgrade or downgrade to the maximum of one engine up (in terms of TT). For instance, the Firestarter has a 210 Engine, so the maximum Engine should be the 245 (118.8 km/h without speed tweak) and the minimum 175 (86.4 km/h without speed tweak). Some chassis (like the Panther and UrbanMech) would be penalized, and people would have to learn to play safer with light mechs, but the game would be more close to the lore.
  
• Hardpoints: MWO was a big advancement in locking the hardpoints for weapon category (MW2 and MW3 had no restriction for mounting weapons whatsoever; and MW4, although adding "hardpoints", completely changed the weapons stats and the builds), but the hardpoint inflation should be decreased a little.
  
• Armor: the maximum armor should be somewhat limited by the stock armor too. Glass cannons like the JagerMech should not be able to mount full armor or full armored mechs, like the Atlas, should not be deployed with almost half of the armor removed.
  
• Quirks: I understand quirks help balancing the variants, but they should not be extreme (like the early Thunderbolt PPC) and should benefice the stock weapons, instead of some meta build.

100% agree!

[Summon3r]

Odanan, on 25 March 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

I like to customize my mechs (that's half the fun) but how the game is, mechs lost their identity. I'm OK with players being able to upgrade SHS to DHS and Std. Engine to XL Engine, but a Firestarter (a mech that runs 97.2 km/h stock) running at 150 km/h is certainly too much.

How it should be from the beginning (and it's never too late to apply this):

• Engine: only upgrade or downgrade to the maximum of one engine up (in terms of TT). For instance, the Firestarter has a 210 Engine, so the maximum Engine should be the 245 (118.8 km/h without speed tweak) and the minimum 175 (86.4 km/h without speed tweak). Some chassis (like the Panther and UrbanMech) would be penalized, and people would have to learn to play safer with light mechs, but the game would be more close to the lore.
  
• Hardpoints: MWO was a big advancement in locking the hardpoints for weapon category (MW2 and MW3 had no restriction for mounting weapons whatsoever; and MW4, although adding "hardpoints", completely changed the weapons stats and the builds), but the hardpoint inflation should be decreased a little.
  
• Armor: the maximum armor should be somewhat limited by the stock armor too. Glass cannons like the JagerMech should not be able to mount full armor or full armored mechs, like the Atlas, should not be deployed with almost half of the armor removed.
  
• Quirks: I understand quirks help balancing the variants, but they should not be extreme (like the early Thunderbolt PPC) and should benefice the stock weapons, instead of some meta build.

100% agree

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 25 March 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

I don't mind being able to alter the amount of armour on a mech, as you are often trading armour for firepower or speed, but never both.

Oh, I agree you could add more armor or remove a little armor. I just wanted there was a limit for that, some percentage based on the stock armor. That way, Catapult, Thunderbolt and JagerMech, for instance, would have different maximum armor values. Currently, the max armor is only limited by the mech's tonnage.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 25 March 2015 - 10:54 AM, said:

Oh, I agree you could add more armor or remove a little armor. I just wanted there was a limit for that, some percentage based on the stock armor. That way, Catapult, Thunderbolt and JagerMech, for instance, would have different maximum armor values. Currently, the max armor is only limited by the mech's tonnage.

And payload / engine size... but in TT, a 65t mech has the same max armour as any other 65t mech, it was engine size and weapons load that changed the flavor of a mech by a ton.

I'd rather see something like the Thunberbolt quirked to be able to take a beating, like give it a passive damage reduction, for the Catapult give it 50% more missile capacity, Jagger give it more AC round capacity.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 25 March 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

And payload / engine size... but in TT, a 65t mech has the same max armour as any other 65t mech, it was engine size and weapons load that changed the flavor of a mech by a ton.

in TT, mechs are locked with their stock loadoutrs. Unless you want to spend millions of C-Bills to change anything. My defense for the armor limitation in MWO is the simple existence of a engine limitation, or a weapon limitation (hardpoints).

Metus regem, on 25 March 2015 - 11:45 AM, said:

I'd rather see something like the Thunberbolt quirked to be able to take a beating, like give it a passive damage reduction, for the Catapult give it 50% more missile capacity, Jagger give it more AC round capacity.

I have mixed feelings about those armor and resistance quirks in MWO. I get the feeling these are only in the game because some mechs have bad hitboxes...

[CDLord HHGD]

How did this thread slip to page 5???

Saw some interesting reasoning for bringing in the Flea (hey, isn't the Flea a Dragoons mech?)

Wonder if there's any thoughts on a Mercenary Mech Pack...
Flea (Dragoons)
Wolfhound (Kell Hounds)
Hatchetman (Blue Blazers)
Annihilator (Dragoons)
Plus others I can't quite think of right now...

[Odanan]

cdlord, on 31 March 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

How did this thread slip to page 5???

Saw some interesting reasoning for bringing in the Flea (hey, isn't the Flea a Dragoons mech?)

Wonder if there's any thoughts on a Mercenary Mech Pack...
Flea (Dragoons)
Wolfhound (Kell Hounds)
Hatchetman (Blue Blazers)
Annihilator (Dragoons)
Plus others I can't quite think of right now...

Thanks for the bumping.

The Dragoons have enough mechs for their own pack:

Odanan, on 12 November 2014 - 10:28 AM, said:

Wolf Dragoons Pack:

- Light: Firefly (or Falcon)
- Medium: Hoplite
- Heavy: Flashman (or Gallowglas, depending on the timeline)
- Assault: Annihilator
Reinforcements/Reward: Imp, Shogun

The problem with the Flea is: if it has MASC, it will break the game's engine speed barrier. If it doesn't have MASC, it will just be a Locust clone... Can't we just forget this one?

Edited by Odanan, 31 March 2015 - 05:02 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Odanan, on 31 March 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

Thanks for the bumping.

The Dragoons have enough mechs for their own pack:

The problem with the Flea is: if it has MASC, it will break the game's engine speed barrier. If it doesn't have MASC, it will just be a Locust clone... Can't we just forget this one?

NEIN! The Flea shall have it's day!

One of the ideas was to limit engine size so it wouldn't be able to achieve the needed 171kph without MASC thereby freeing up tonnage for armor/weapons. Wasn't MASC an attempt to have your cake and eat it too?

Sarna said:

For Inner Sphere 'Mechs, MASC takes up a number of critical spots equal to a 'Mech's tonnage divided by 20, rounded up, and an equal tonnage. For Clan 'Mechs, MASC takes up a number of critical spots equal to a 'Mech's tonnage divided by 25, rounded up, and an equal tonnage. MASC is a single piece of equipment, unlike Endo Steel or Ferro-Fibrous armor, and the critical spaces must be allocated to a single location. Destruction of that location or a critical hit to the MASC will destroy the equipment.
When its successfully activated, the MASC allows the unit to run at double its standard walking speed (adjusted for modifiers such as damaged leg actuators, etc.) for that turn. Though obviously unreliable if used continuously, if used wisely it can have a devastating effect in combat.

Edited by cdlord, 31 March 2015 - 05:40 PM.

[Odanan]

cdlord, on 31 March 2015 - 05:35 PM, said:

NEIN! The Flea shall have it's day!

One of the ideas was to limit engine size so it wouldn't be able to achieve the needed 171kph without MASC thereby freeing up tonnage for armor/weapons. Wasn't MASC an attempt to have your cake and eat it too?

We need to do the math. Flea's stock engine is 120 (97 km/h without speed tweak) - it would need the maximum engine set as ~150 so it wouldn't break the ~170 km/h speed barrier when with MASC activated. That way, yes, it's viable.

But it is sooo boring. And very rare mech (no impact in the Battletech universe). Same tonnage of the Locust and ballistics + energy combo for all variants. Did I mention it even looks like the Locust?

[Ovion]

Stock, yes.

But we have a mech lab.

[CDLord HHGD]

Still want the Flea no matter what anyone says...

How about a case for the IIC mechs? Give the Clanners some choice in IS mechs and entice them to spend their precious space bucks on IS mechs as I envision the IIC variants to exist on the same tree as the standard IS variants.

Wonder how many Clan players out there do not own any IS mechs (alt. accounts excluded)......

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 25 March 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

in TT, mechs are locked with their stock loadoutrs. Unless you want to spend millions of C-Bills to change anything. My defense for the armor limitation in MWO is the simple existence of a engine limitation, or a weapon limitation (hardpoints).

That's not really the case, Oda.

• Class A: field refit kit ("can be attempted with little or no access to support facilities") allowing for replacement of a single already-present weapon with one of the same type (energy/ballistic/missile) and similar or lesser size (# of criticals)
  
• Class B: field refit kit ("can be attempted with little or no access to support facilities") allowing for replacement of a single already-present weapon with one of a different type (energy → ballistic or missile, ballistic → missile or energy, missile → energy or ballistic) and similar or lesser size (# of criticals)

According to StratOps, replacing a weapon on a non-OmniTech 'Mech can be done in-the-field with little more than the replacement weapon, the right toolbox, and a hoist (or plenty of strong backs).

Note that it takes a Class C refit to overcome the size restriction, and a Class D refit to create a new weapon mount (that is, to install a new weapon where there was not a weapon previously mounted) - and both of those are "maintenance-level" refits (e.g. "requires access to the equipment and resources found in the appropriate type of transport cubicle") that cannot be done in the field.
For example, removing a Hunchback's AC/20 and replacing it with an AC/10 is relatively easy (as a fairly basic Class A refit), but mounting a Machine gun underslung to it requires adding a second ballistic hardpoint where there was only one (now occupied by the AC/10), and so is far more difficult (in this case, as a Class D refit).

The main advantage of OmniMechs was, essentially, that one could do a number of maintenance-level refit tasks (but not all of them) as field-level refits (which meant they could be done for minimal time & monetary costs, while also increasing the flexibility of the particular 'Mech).
Of course, the trade-off was that the factory-level refits ("requires a production facility capable of producing the unit in question") & the remaining maintenance-level refits were made completely impossible for OmniMechs.

So, contrary to seemingly-popular belief, BattleTech canon DOES have a concept of limited weapon hardpoints, though the implementation that PGI created for MWO is essentially an inversion of BT's Class B refit - while the Class B refit makes hardpoints "size-locked but type-free", PGI's implementation is "type-locked but unsized".

Personally (and very much in hindsight), I would have preferred to have seen PGI go with a Class A implementation for standard BattleMechs (that is, to make hardpoints type-locked AND size-locked for non-OmniTech 'Mechs), and having OmniMechs make use of the current switchable pod system combined with a Class B implementation (that is, similar to what they have now but with "size-locked but type-free" hardpoints), as I feel that this would have solved (via prevention) a number of the previous (and current) "'meta' abuse" issues as well as enhanced the "flavor" difference between the two tech bases.

Thoughts?

[CDLord HHGD]

Strum Wealh, on 01 April 2015 - 03:55 AM, said:

Thoughts?

This is some good info. Too bad it's too late for MWO to implement. Imagine, stock mechs only unless you mount the appropriate class refit module. I could get behind a mechanic like this.

[Odanan]

Did you see this?

MWO April's 1st 2015 joke.

The sad thing is: if they implemented a MOBA game mode for MWO, it would be a hit. How it would work?

- Maps have 2 bases with destroy-able buildings, like tank garages and helipads that spawn AI tanks and VTOLs. These vehicles would move to the enemy base in pre-defined lanes. Destroying a building would stop the spawning there.
- The player's teams need to overcome the defenses and destroy the enemy base.
- Works well with Dropship mode (deck of 4 mechs) and in CW-style maps (but with 2 bases instead of 1).

If PGI needs an encouragement to create such singular game modes (like this, Solaris, singleplayer and a "build your mission mode"), they could make them available only for players with premium time activated.

[CDLord HHGD]

I can haz a MWO MechCommander version?