20517 replies to this topic

[TheArisen]

Odanan, on 13 February 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

The Huntsman has the same (slow) speed, tonnage and jumpjets of the Nova, more free tonnage (a lot, actually), but a worst selection of hardpoints. It's a good mech, but wouldn't mind to wait for it.

The Black Lanner fits in a "Totem" pack, has ECM (in the best possible location), MASC (remember, MASC will be very good in a few days), it's very fast (speed is life), has a great selection of hardpoints (see Black Lanner C left arm with 6 energy) and actually could mount some deadly (energy) builds. And above it all, I'm really looking forward for a Black Lanner by Alex Iglesias.

Analysis on both mechs:

Spoiler

The Lanner has 4 problems.
1. Slot starved, with masc, ecm, XL, endo, ferro I'm doubting it has much space left for weapons & DHS.
2. There's already a dominant 55 tonner.
3. Dependent on the "C's" left arm for good builds. If you lost that arm you'd basically be neutered.
4. Not enough tonnage to do anything other than boat energy.

The Coyotl on the other hand has tonnage and slots to do more. Also, the Clans need a 40 tonner.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 13 February 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Not the same thing...

I'm talking about changing the places that are locked up by Endo and FF.

The Prime has 2 slots open in the LT and 4 in the RT
The Alpha has one in the LT and 5 RT
The Beta has 2 in the LT and 5 RT
The Charlie has 0 in the LT and 7 in the RT
The Delta has 3 in the LT and 3 in the RT

When I say open space, I mean space not used by Endo/FF/XL Engine. It should always have the open spaces set by the base chassis, but it seems to be exempt from that, thus violating Omni-mech construction rules.

Understood.

Personally, I find no logic in locking ES and FF "critical locations". They should be dynamic (self-adjustable) like they are with non-omnimechs.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 13 February 2016 - 12:37 PM, said:

Understood.

Personally, I find no logic in locking ES and FF "critical locations". They should be dynamic (self-adjustable) like they are with non-omnimechs.

I can see both sides of the argument, for game play, yes floating makes sense, from production, it makes sense locked, same for Engine sizes and types. Battlemechs/Omni-mechs wouldn't be cavernous things, everything would have a place it would fit, and something as simple as changing manufacturers of a part could change how it fits.

[Odanan]

Metus regem, on 13 February 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

I can see both sides of the argument, for game play, yes floating makes sense, from production, it makes sense locked, same for Engine sizes and types. Battlemechs/Omni-mechs wouldn't be cavernous things, everything would have a place it would fit, and something as simple as changing manufacturers of a part could change how it fits.

But the FF and ES should not be locked because they are all over a mech. The thing was badly designed from the start. It should be something like this: if you have ES, your mech has 10 slots in each big location (instead of 12).

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 13 February 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

But the FF and ES should not be locked because they are all over a mech. The thing was badly designed from the start. It should be something like this: if you have ES, your mech has 10 slots in each big location (instead of 12).

Think of Endo being like a car frame, some places have more material than others, it'd be the same on mechs, some areas would be more reinforced than others. Not to mention cable management, heat sink locations, computers, gyroscopes, weapon mounts, ammunition storage bins, belt feeds from ammo bins to weapons requiring ammo, myomer and so on...

[Strum Wealh]

Odanan, on 13 February 2016 - 04:19 PM, said:

But the FF and ES should not be locked because they are all over a mech. The thing was badly designed from the start. It should be something like this: if you have ES, your mech has 10 slots in each big location (instead of 12).

Metus regem, on 13 February 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Think of Endo being like a car frame, some places have more material than others, it'd be the same on mechs, some areas would be more reinforced than others. Not to mention cable management, heat sink locations, computers, gyroscopes, weapon mounts, ammunition storage bins, belt feeds from ammo bins to weapons requiring ammo, myomer and so on...

Personally, I'd kinda prefer the "everything has a predetermined, mandatory critical location allotmant" system, like what Oda is describing.
NullSig & CLPS already do this.

• "The Null-Signature System does not weigh a significant amount, but takes up 1 critical slot in each of the BattleMech's locations except the head." (TacOps, pg. 336)
  
• "The light polarization shield system does not take up tonnage, but takes up 6 critical slots (1 in each of the 'Mech's limbs and 1 each in the left and right side torsos)." (TacOps, pg. 300)

IMO, the same logic should have been applied to some other systems.

• IS Endo-Steel would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Endo-Steel would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• IS Ferro-Fibrous would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Ferro-Fibrous would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• TSM would still require 6 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb and one crit in each side-torso.

I'd also like to have seen something similar done with ammunition versus weapon location, like "for each ammunition-fed weapon type, a critical slot containing ammunition for that weapon type must be allocated to the same location in which that weapon type is mounted, or an immediately-adjacent torso section: the corresponding side-torso if the weapon is located in a limb, or the center-torso if the weapon is located in a side-torso section or the head section. Only weapons of that type located in the same section or an immediately-adjacent section may draw from the critical space containing the ammunition."
Doing something like that emphasizes the more-practical "real robot" nature of BattleTech, by eliminating absurdities like "the 185mm autocannon in the 'Mech's left arm is fed by a single ton of ammunition located in the 'Mech's right leg" or "the missile launchers in both of the 'Mech's legs are fed by a single ton of ammunition located in the 'Mech's head".

Thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 13 February 2016 - 07:17 PM.

[Metus regem]

Strum Wealh, on 13 February 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

Personally, I'd kinda prefer the "everything has a predetermined, mandatory critical location allotmant" system, like what Oda is describing.
NullSig & CLPS already do this.

• "The Null-Signature System does not weigh a significant amount, but takes up 1 critical slot in each of the BattleMech's locations except the head." (TacOps, pg. 336)
  
• "The light polarization shield system does not take up tonnage, but takes up 6 critical slots (1 in each of the 'Mech's limbs and 1 each in the left and right side torsos)." (TacOps, pg. 300)

IMO, the same logic should have been applied to some other systems.

• IS Endo-Steel would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Endo-Steel would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• IS Ferro-Fibrous would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Ferro-Fibrous would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• TSM would still require 6 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb and one crit in each side-torso.

I'd also like to have seen something similar done with ammunition versus weapon location, like "for each ammunition-fed weapon type, a critical slot containing ammunition for that weapon type must be allocated to the same location in which that weapon type is mounted, or an immediately-adjacent torso section: the corresponding side-torso if the weapon is located in a limb, or the center-torso if the weapon is located in a side-torso section or the head section. Only weapons of that type located in the same section or an immediately-adjacent section may draw from the critical space containing the ammunition."
Doing something like that emphasizes the more-practical "real robot" nature of BattleTech, by eliminating absurdities like "the 185mm autocannon in the 'Mech's left arm is fed by a single ton of ammunition located in the 'Mech's right leg" or "the missile launchers in both of the 'Mech's legs are fed by a single ton of ammunition located in the 'Mech's head".

Thoughts?

This I am on board with, you should submit that to Catalyst Games.

[Strum Wealh]

Metus regem, on 13 February 2016 - 07:31 PM, said:

This I am on board with, you should submit that to Catalyst Games.

That assumes that CGL would be open to "pulling a White Wolf" and essentially scrapping the current incarnation of BattleTech and starting over with the lessons learned over the last three decades (see "oWOD versus nWOD")...

[Bishop Steiner]

Strum Wealh, on 13 February 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

That assumes that CGL would be open to "pulling a White Wolf" and essentially scrapping the current incarnation of BattleTech and starting over with the lessons learned over the last three decades (see "oWOD versus nWOD")...

And yet Old World of Darkness is 10x better than new..... (And funnily enough old first ed Btech is, too)

[Odanan]

Bishop Steiner, on 13 February 2016 - 08:35 PM, said:

And yet Old World of Darkness is 10x better than new..... (And funnily enough old first ed Btech is, too)

Ohhh killing "Old" WoD was the most stupid thing a company ever did to a franchise (next to the Highlander 2 and Alien 3).

[Odanan]

BTW, you could say Disney is doing the same with Star Wars. So many characters going to the sink (Fell, Thrawn, Stele, Katarn...). But when I think about the Vong and the Sun Crusher I don't feel that sad.

[ShadowbaneX]

Strum Wealh, on 13 February 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

IMO, the same logic should have been applied to some other systems.

• IS Endo-Steel would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Endo-Steel would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• IS Ferro-Fibrous would have required 11 rather than 14 critical spaces, and would have been allocated as two crits in each arm, one crit in each leg, two crits in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.
  
• Clan Ferro-Fibrous would still require seven critical spaces, and would have been allocated as one crit in each limb, one crit in each side-torso, and a single crit in the CT.

This is pretty similar to what the GM in my MechWarrior campaign came up with, save that IS FF takes 7 slots one per section save head, same as Clan for space, but still 1.2x vs. 1.12 for IS. The other change is that there's less room. Assaults are the same size, but for each category down they lose 2 slots for the arms & side torsos. So Heavies have 10, Mediums 8 & Lights 6. Cannon designs like the AC/20 Hunchback are done through crit sharing with the arm. There is an option to 'optimize' a mech which gives back 2 crit slots in each of those locations, but that's pretty expensive.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Odanan, on 14 February 2016 - 02:51 AM, said:

Ohhh killing "Old" WoD was the most stupid thing a company ever did to a franchise (next to the Highlander 2 and Alien 3).

There is no Highlander 2. There could be only one.

[Odanan]

ShadowbaneX, on 14 February 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

[/list]This is pretty similar to what the GM in my MechWarrior campaign came up with, save that IS FF takes 7 slots one per section save head, same as Clan for space, but still 1.2x vs. 1.12 for IS. The other change is that there's less room. Assaults are the same size, but for each category down they lose 2 slots for the arms & side torsos. So Heavies have 10, Mediums 8 & Lights 6. Cannon designs like the AC/20 Hunchback are done through crit sharing with the arm. There is an option to 'optimize' a mech which gives back 2 crit slots in each of those locations, but that's pretty expensive.

The quote changes for ES and FF are brilliant!

Other things that really bug me (only the hot topics):
- Inside engine heat sinks: should be deleted from the game. No matter the weight of the engine, it should dissipate 10 heat. The engine (no relation with heat sinks, which would be an extra). No, it wouldn't dissipate 20 heat if the mech has DHS. The DHS, as implemented, not only ruined the balance present in the components (there is no reason to do not bring DHS, except for the cost) but created heat-neutral mechs. I find the DHS as they are so hateful that I can't express myself right.
- Lighter autocannons are crap. If a mech carries AC/2 or AC/5, it stinks.
- Medium Lasers are too good (1 more heat would improve balance).
- LBX stinks. They are lighter and have better range, but do much less damage. And AP ammo for LBX? That simply makes regular ACs obsolete.
- WTF that 200 rounds for 1 ton of MG ammo? (see an earlie post about that) And talking about MGs, what's up with that 3 hex max range?
- Ammo explosion and critical "seeking", WTF? If you carry 1 ammo in a torso, for instance, and there is nothing more there, you are dead. Because the first critical in that location, no matter how roomy it is, will hit that ammo. For the Gods sake, scratch that "roll again".
- Why a 20 tons mech has the same number of criticals than a 100 tons mech? Why engines, no matter the weight, are of the same size? Why the Cicada has 12 criticals in that arm? Why the Hunchback doesn't have more citicals in the hump? Why all chassis of the same tonnage have the same maximum armor?
- You are at 10 meters of an Atlas and fire 7 weapons: all of them hit a different location. WTF?
- FF: should increase the maximum armor (instead of being a worst ES).

I love Battletech, but the guys behind it made no effort to improve and rationalize the system. It's very complicated, convoluted in some aspects and childishly simple in others.

[Strum Wealh]

ShadowbaneX, on 14 February 2016 - 08:52 AM, said:

The other change is that there's less room. Assaults are the same size, but for each category down they lose 2 slots for the arms & side torsos. So Heavies have 10, Mediums 8 & Lights 6. Cannon designs like the AC/20 Hunchback are done through crit sharing with the arm. There is an option to 'optimize' a mech which gives back 2 crit slots in each of those locations, but that's pretty expensive.

Odanan, on 14 February 2016 - 12:33 PM, said:

Why a 20 tons mech has the same number of criticals than a 100 tons mech? Why engines, no matter the weight, are of the same size? Why the Cicada has 12 criticals in that arm? Why the Hunchback doesn't have more citicals in the hump? Why all chassis of the same tonnage have the same maximum armor?

There were actually official rules for Critical Slot Limits based on weight class; they're found on pages 63-64 of Maximum Tech, Revised.

"Light ’Mechs enjoy a paradoxical advantage over heavier ’Mechs: relative to their small size, they have plenty of space to mount bulky equipment. This advantage becomes even more apparent with the advent of ferro-fibrous armor and other special items that require several critical slots to mount. Smaller ’Mechs can mount more of these special items than larger ’Mechs because smaller ’Mechs have more free critical space.
Using the Critical Slot Limits rule, each class of BattleMech except for assault ’Mechs loses a certain number of critical slots depending on its size. The Critical Space Limits Table shows how many critical slots must be marked off the record sheet for a ’Mech of each weight class. Mark off these slots at the bottom of each location’s set of critical slots. This rule only applies to newly constructed Level 3 BattleMech designs, and has no impact on existing designs."

• Very Light (10–15 tons): 3 RA, 3 LA, 3 RT, 3 LT, 1 RL, 1 LL
  
• Light (20–35 tons): 2 RA, 2 LA, 2 RT, 2 LT
  
• Medium (40–55 tons): 1 RA, 1 LA, 1 RT, 1 LT
  
• Heavy (60–75 tons): 1 RA, 1 LA
  
• Assault (80–100 tons): None

FASA & FanPro came to similar conclusions regarding differentiating 'Mech weight classes by internal volume (e.g. available crits), but did not think to use that system at the start (or come up with it early enough to have made the change practical without needing to "pull a White Wolf").

Edited by Strum Wealh, 14 February 2016 - 03:10 PM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Wow!

For the Ultimate Mech Thread, it is making it far down the list of threads. I think this was Page 6?

Crazy!

[Strum Wealh]

MeiSooHaityu, on 17 February 2016 - 08:04 AM, said:

Wow!

For the Ultimate Mech Thread, it is making it far down the list of threads. I think this was Page 6?

Crazy!

Well, the "hypothetical oBT vs nBT" discussion kinda fizzled-out... :/

So... how about that Rifleman?

[MeiSooHaityu]

It's very...um...rifle-y??

:/

[Odanan]

Strum Wealh, on 17 February 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

Well, the "hypothetical oBT vs nBT" discussion kinda fizzled-out... :/

So... how about that Rifleman?

Can do a good damage if you explore it's strengths. Good support mech.

Edited by Odanan, 17 February 2016 - 11:40 AM.

[wanderer]

I'm curious as to how well it's doing being a split-arm Dragon with the dual AC/5 mounts. It strikes me as having about the firepower of the quirked Wolverine without the one-arm-done weakness of the Dragon/Wolverine AC/5 shredders.

And higher mounts, too. When it hits C-bills, was thinking of taking the 3N out for a dakka spin.