47 replies to this topic

[zencynic]

Let me spell out my intentions. I'm sure we will get way off topic, but I might as well try.

I am primarily talking about tabletop Battletech. Some of these trends continue into the PC title MW1-4. Some of them may continue into MWO. I am trying more for extrapolation rather than speculation.

There are a number of Weapons/Tech upgrades and options that have a strong, noticeable impact on mech design, modification, and in-game tactics. This is not necessarily a bad thing

There are a number of Weapons/Tech upgrades and options that have little noticeable impact on mech design, modification, and in-game tactics. This is not necessarily a bad thing

Not everything has to be a game-changer. Not everything has to be mostly cosmetic or personal style.

I would like to try to list the game-changers, and more importantly, see how they are balanced.

I will limit myself to the weapons/tech options listed in Ask the Devs 1

AC/20 - Forcing a piloting check to avoid being knocked down is a significant thing
Fairly well balenced imp by the weight/size/range of the weapon and ammo consideration

PPC - Unlimited Ammo, long range weapon
Balanced by minimum range - I will be interested to see how fast the projectile moves in MWO

ER PPC - Unlimited Ammo, longer range weapon
Balanced by heat

LRM 5, LRM 10, LRM 15, LRM 20 - A rare indirect fire weapon
Balanced by ammo considerations, weapon mass, and relatively low damage

Streak SRM 2 - never miss
I am eager to see how this plays out in MWO

TAG - Potentially game changing, but relies on mostly off the board factors. I will wait and see.

Jump Jets - Gets you where you want to go, a big part of making the most of everything else

XL Fusion Engines - Huge game-changers, making faster heavies and assaults viable and giving slower builds even more free tonnage for loadouts. Balanced by large C-bill cost and increased vulnerability to 3-strike-engine-death. I would not call this P2W, but I think its closer to the line than most of the other options discussed here.

Double Heat Sinks - Huge game-changers, skewing the mech design options in favor of energy weapons. (Imagine an upgrade that fired your missiles twice as fast or doubled your ammo per ton for AC 20)
I think the XL Engines are more powerful than this, but there is the concern that 2XHS have little inherent balance.

The cost increase is trivial. At lower numbers of use, they take up little to no extra space (a certain number of heat sinks fit in the mech engine). When using many, the fact that they eat up crit-slots is largely negated by the fact that energy weapons use very few crits.

I would be interested in other's thoughts.

[chumppi]

Either you're talking something you don't know squat about or you're breaking NDA. It's absolutely useless to post this kind of things while the game is still in beta. And even after that it's very... useless on public forums.

[WardenWolf]

I agree that DHS are a bit off the scale (but boy, do I love them!). Here is my idea for fixing that:

- The engine sinks a given amount of heat, based on engine size (bigger engine = more sinks, right?). However, the heatsinks in the engine are neither single nor double: they just are what they are. You can add *on top of that* either single or double heatsinks, or a mix of *both*. The doubles will cost more, and take up more space, but sink twice as much heat per ton.

This way, the imbalance of the engine alone suddenly sinking more heat doesn't come into play, and I think things would be much more balanced overall.

[grimzod]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I agree that DHS are a bit off the scale (but boy, do I love them!). Here is my idea for fixing that:

- The engine sinks a given amount of heat, based on engine size (bigger engine = more sinks, right?). However, the heatsinks in the engine are neither single nor double: they just are what they are. You can add *on top of that* either single or double heatsinks, or a mix of *both*. The doubles will cost more, and take up more space, but sink twice as much heat per ton.

This way, the imbalance of the engine alone suddenly sinking more heat doesn't come into play, and I think things would be much more balanced overall.

The bigger the engine the larger number of Heat Sinks are IN the engine and not placed in crit slots elsewhere. And the sinks in the engine and not in the engine must match, you can't mix. Mixing would be bad.

Edited by grimzod, 28 June 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[WardenWolf]

chumppi, on 28 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Either you're talking something you don't know squat about or you're breaking NDA. It's absolutely useless to post this kind of things while the game is still in beta. And even after that it's very... useless on public forums.

I disagree - right at the top of the post he stated this is mostly related to the tabletop game, but that things from that do flow over into the various MechWarrior games over the years.

[WardenWolf]

grimzod, on 28 June 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

The bigger the engine the larger number of Heat Sinks are IN the engine and not placed in crit slots elsewhere.

Yes, I know that is how the tabletop works - but it has never made physical sense to me. The engine takes up the same number of crits no matter its size (excepting XL models for the moment), but somehow an engine that is more powerful not only takes up the same amount of space but also has more heatsinks magically built in? And not just that, but if it is switched from single to double heatsinks it can still fit them? Just seems illogical.

Anyway, what I am suggesting is to get away from that mechanic a bit for better balance. Have an engine 'include' the ability to sink something like 8-16 heat, depending on its size (similar to how bigger engines have more room for heatsinks in them in the original rules). Those would be heatsinks in the engine, but they would not be affected by the choice of players later to add single or double heatsinks in addition to them.

[John Kerensky]

zencynic, on 28 June 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

XL Fusion Engines - Huge game-changers, making faster heavies and assaults viable and giving slower builds even more free tonnage for loadouts. Balanced by large C-bill cost and increased vulnerability to 3-strike-engine-death. I would not call this P2W, but I think its closer to the line than most of the other options discussed here.

Double Heat Sinks - Huge game-changers, skewing the mech design options in favor of energy weapons. (Imagine an upgrade that fired your missiles twice as fast or doubled your ammo per ton for AC 20)
I think the XL Engines are more powerful than this, but there is the concern that 2XHS have little inherent balance.

You have got about everything right except these two.

The only error on the XL Engines is that it is not "P2W", because they will be purchased with C-Bills (maybe you will alternatively be able to buy them with MC, but they will not be MC-exclusive, and therefore do not qualify for "P2W", which implies a required transaction of real cash for in-game prowess).

Double-Heat sinks destroyed the balance of the game. They have practically no down-side to get the majority of the benefit. Clan Double Heat Sinks do, in fact, have *zero* downside. XL Engines, in the case of the IS, you are dead if you lose a side torso. If Clan XL loses a side torso, he may not be dead, but he is on death's doorstep and pretty well-mauled, especially in TT where you lose the arm attached to the torso, which sadly seems to be left out. That is a balance. Getting essentially 10 free heat sinks just for changing heat sink type was broken beyond all reason. The 'free' 10 heat-sinks you get with your engine should never have been doubled. I hope and pray PGI has the cahonès to correct this decades-old mistake.

[Spleenslitta]

I know this isn't quite related to what you're talking about OP but i'll mention it anyways since it's a part of weapon balance.
The LRM's have these weight, critical slot and heat stats right?

LRM 5 - 2 Tons - 1 crit slot - 2 Heat
LRM 10 - 5 T - 2 crits - 4 H
LRM 15 - 7 T - 3 crits - 5 H
LRM 20 - 10 T- 5 crits - 6 H

See how unbalanced it is? You save 2 tons and 1 critical slot by taking 4x LRM 5's rather than one LRM 20.
Only disadvantage is 2 more heat points when you fire them all at the same time.
The LRM 5's are less likely to all be destroyed in one hit if the armor is destroyed too.

3x LRM 5's are better than one LRM 15 too. It saves you 1 ton and you only produce 1 more point of heat.

[Murphy7]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Yes, I know that is how the tabletop works - but it has never made physical sense to me. The engine takes up the same number of crits no matter its size (excepting XL models for the moment), but somehow an engine that is more powerful not only takes up the same amount of space but also has more heatsinks magically built in? And not just that, but if it is switched from single to double heatsinks it can still fit them? Just seems illogical.
.

So the engines are all the same physical volume, only being made out of increasing dense materials as you go from a 20 rating to 400?

The critical space is an abstraction - how vulnerable the systems are to damage - the more advanced (XL engines) being more vulnerable, for all they are lighter.

Going from the 275 engine (15.5 tons, could contain 11 of the heat sinks before allocating critical space by the 25 rating rule) to the 300 engine (19 tons, could contain 12 heat sinks) - it's a difference of 3.5 tons for another hidden HS from criticals - at the lighter end of mechs, less tonnage but also fewer weapons and systems to hide, this is more of a concern for heavies and assaults that could conceivably run out of critical space before maxing their tonnage if injudicious in design choices.

[grimzod]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Yes, I know that is how the tabletop works - but it has never made physical sense to me. The engine takes up the same number of crits no matter its size (excepting XL models for the moment), but somehow an engine that is more powerful not only takes up the same amount of space but also has more heatsinks magically built in? And not just that, but if it is switched from single to double heatsinks it can still fit them? Just seems illogical.

Anyway, what I am suggesting is to get away from that mechanic a bit for better balance. Have an engine 'include' the ability to sink something like 8-16 heat, depending on its size (similar to how bigger engines have more room for heatsinks in them in the original rules). Those would be heatsinks in the engine, but they would not be affected by the choice of players later to add single or double heatsinks in addition to them.

Simply put: The larger the engine the MORE HS can be fit INSIDE It instead of outside in the vulnerable critical spaces not as well protected by center torso armor.

It makes a lot of sense to me that way.

Murphy7, on 28 June 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

So the engines are all the same physical volume, only being made out of increasing dense materials as you go from a 20 rating to 400?

The critical space is an abstraction - how vulnerable the systems are to damage - the more advanced (XL engines) being more vulnerable, for all they are lighter.

Going from the 275 engine (15.5 tons, could contain 11 of the heat sinks before allocating critical space by the 25 rating rule) to the 300 engine (19 tons, could contain 12 heat sinks) - it's a difference of 3.5 tons for another hidden HS from criticals - at the lighter end of mechs, less tonnage but also fewer weapons and systems to hide, this is more of a concern for heavies and assaults that could conceivably run out of critical space before maxing their tonnage if injudicious in design choices.

And no the engines are not all the same volume. The same materials are used in each engine (see below for XL info) so why would their mass only increase when built to put out more power? There is no representation of volume in the game for an engine other than its critical slots. XL engines don't take up more space - but their shielding does. And you pay in tonnage for HS beyond the first, free, ten in an engine.

Edited by grimzod, 28 June 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[Voyager I]

LRM 5's are stupid efficient, but I don't think it will turn into a problem for us because of hardpoint restrictions. It'll just be a nice thing for light mechs to have, which I'm okay with.

[WardenWolf]

Spleenslitta, on 28 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I know this isn't quite related to what you're talking about OP but i'll mention it anyways since it's a part of weapon balance.
The LRM's have these weight, critical slot and heat stats right?

LRM 5 - 2 Tons - 1 crit slot - 2 Heat
LRM 10 - 5 T - 2 crits - 4 H
LRM 15 - 7 T - 3 crits - 5 H
LRM 20 - 10 T- 5 crits - 6 H

See how unbalanced it is? You save 2 tons and 1 critical slot by taking 4x LRM 5's rather than one LRM 20.
Only disadvantage is 2 more heat points when you fire them all at the same time.
The LRM 5's are less likely to all be destroyed in one hit if the armor is destroyed too.

3x LRM 5's are better than one LRM 15 too. It saves you 1 ton and you only produce 1 more point of heat.

This was true in TT, but the way this is going to be balanced in MWO is via hardpoints. Your average Catapult may only have one hardpoint for missiles in each arm, so you can do a LRM 10, 15, or even 20 on each side (depending on the rest of the loadout) - but you couldn't cram three or four LRM5s in each.

Also, this was partially balanced by having Artemis IV systems require extra tonnage on each launcher - thereby making bigger launchers more effective again.

[Murphy7]

Spleenslitta, on 28 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

I know this isn't quite related to what you're talking about OP but i'll mention it anyways since it's a part of weapon balance.
The LRM's have these weight, critical slot and heat stats right?

LRM 5 - 2 Tons - 1 crit slot - 2 Heat
LRM 10 - 5 T - 2 crits - 4 H
LRM 15 - 7 T - 3 crits - 5 H
LRM 20 - 10 T- 5 crits - 6 H

See how unbalanced it is? You save 2 tons and 1 critical slot by taking 4x LRM 5's rather than one LRM 20.
Only disadvantage is 2 more heat points when you fire them all at the same time.
The LRM 5's are less likely to all be destroyed in one hit if the armor is destroyed too.

3x LRM 5's are better than one LRM 15 too. It saves you 1 ton and you only produce 1 more point of heat.

That is an interesting point, that might be alleviated by the necessity for at least one ton of ammo for each system minimum, meaning your 4 LRM 5s require 4 tons of ammo to be equivalent to 1 LRM 20 with 1 ton of ammo - 12 tons vs 11 tons, and 8 total critical slots (each LRM 5 and each ton of ammo) vs 6 crits (LRM 20 and one ton of ammo). And just to make it a touch worse, if the ammunition is not communicable between the launchers in MW:O, losing one of the LRM 5's does not increase your ammo allotment for the remaining three, but could mean you are carrying a vulnerability of ammo storage for a destroyed weapon.

[ScrapIron Prime]

I want as many people as possible to take XL engines. That way I can laugh at them as their mech shuts down after I blast through a side torso.

Remember, the big balance on XL engines is the damage absorbtion capabilities of the mech. Light mechs become fragile as glass with them, Medium mechs absorb damage as if they're lights, heavies absorb damage as if they're medium, and assaults take damage like they're heavies. Why? because an XL engine has crits in both the right and left torsos, not just the center torso like regular engines. Three engine crits and you shut down.

[Spleenslitta]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

This was true in TT, but the way this is going to be balanced in MWO is via hardpoints. Your average Catapult may only have one hardpoint for missiles in each arm, so you can do a LRM 10, 15, or even 20 on each side (depending on the rest of the loadout) - but you couldn't cram three or four LRM5s in each.

Also, this was partially balanced by having Artemis IV systems require extra tonnage on each launcher - thereby making bigger launchers more effective again.

I was aware of the weapon slot thingie with MW:O.
Most mech sections that can mount weaponry seems to have 3 weapon slots. So that means the LRM 5's can still replace the LRM 15 quite effectivly.

But that part about the Artemis system. I didn't think of that. How much does the Artemis weigh?

[Murphy7]

grimzod, on 28 June 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

And no the engines are not all the same volume.

My question was rhetorical.

[Wolftrap]

Every wpn is okay except one....Arrow IV's and its childern(thunderbolts)....AC 20 dmg from across the map and if a narc beacon or tag is marking enemy mech.....it can't miss...unless ur lucky and have a stout building or teammate in the way. Artillery does not need to be in MWO.

Edited by Wolftrap, 28 June 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Spleenslitta, on 28 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

But that part about the Artemis system. I didn't think of that. How much does the Artemis weigh?

Artemis Fire Control is 1 ton per launcher. So for an LRM 15 it's 1 ton, and for three LRM 5's it's 3 tons. Eats up your whole savings.

[JP Josh]

i only fear energy boat mechs in two coditions. they are in water. and were on a ice planet.

[Glythe]

I've looked at the weapons thoroughly but never played the TT (sadly as I love that type of game).

Let's mention a few things for those who are not 100% up to date with that game.

The double heat sinks we will have available take up 3x as much space as a regular heat sink and provide double cooling per ton but use up more critical space. What you are really talking about here is a weight saving method for lighter mechs. When you start talking about bigger mechs the critical space becomes a lot more important than the weight. If you start building an Atlas you'll notice that you want single heat sinks NOT double heat sinks. I'm not sure where you start losing the advantage but if you start heavy then single heat sinks are probably the way to go. Notice that the weightier mechs already come with a higher price tag.

An easy way to balance the DHS issue is to increase the build value AND the cost for double heat sinks. Assault mechs already cost a ton; I see no issue with DHS and XL engines if they ramp up the cost of the mech so much that you could have almost just brought an Atlas instead. At that point the game does seem more balanced.... you can bring a heavy modified mech that will be more competitive at the cost of vastly increased CB for using it. Would you really rather be walking around in a 6 million Jenner when you could be using a 6 million CB catapult? I see DHS if tuned correctly in terms of Build Value and increased cost will make the lighter mechs more competitive. It won't be pay to win in the sense that you have something someone else couldn't buy from the store (maybe they didn't know they could modify their mech to that end result). This will work perfectly with the F2P model in that if you aren't good at running the build you will have to pay for the luxury with your wallet. I don't see an issue with heavily modified overpriced scouts as they can wear down bigger targets over time with good positioning and good teamwork. That would actually help to dismiss the "bigger is better" myth that is still floating around from some past Mech Warrior games.

As for the missile "min/maxing' someone already mentioned the Artemis difference. Another tuning point is that the ammunition will almost certainly feed into one launcher instead of splitting between them. One ton of ammo replenishes one launcher and everything is fine until there's no extra ammunition left. Your last reload if split in some manner will turn the launchers back into their weaker versions as some will have ammunition and the rest will be dead weight. While it might seem more fun to have more missiles imagine a +1 type system with improved missile lock from the Artemis and then imagine even better acquisition with NARC/TAG assistance from a scout. Suddenly you've got streak LRMs (or very close I would imagine).

If you want to toy with building a mech you can download this simple tool:

http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/

You can get a feel for what the difference is between a laser and a pulse laser in terms of weight/heat/damage.

JP Josh, on 28 June 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

i only fear energy boat mechs in two coditions. they are in water. and were on a ice planet.

The hardpoint system pretty much makes boating impossible (and that is a very good thing).

Edited by Glythe, 28 June 2012 - 10:42 AM.