56 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

WM Quicksilver, on 12 March 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

Im talking about TT, Clan CASE only prevented damage overflow from the Side Torso -> Center Torso.

We are not talking about Tabletop here.

Move along.

Kristov Kerensky, on 12 March 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

It's not a bug, you have no CASE to stop the damage caused by the gauss rifle itself exploding, the weapon doesn't come with CASE. Simple fix is to put half a ton of AMS ammo in with the gauss weapon itself, no more sudden death because a gauss rifle in your side torso got hit and blew up, which it will ALWAYS do. Clans don't get to just PUT CASE somewhere, it's built into the ammo bins, except of course for gauss ammo, which doesn't explode and gauss rifles are only supposed to have a slight chance of exploding if damage, not the 90% chance that MWO has, so there's no CASE included with them either.

This has been this way all along folks, Atlases, Catapult K2s, any Mech that put a gauss in the side torso, no CASE, you are dead once that gauss rifle gets hit. Dire's have the same problem and have since they were put in, I learned quickly to put 1/2 ton of AMS ammo where ever I have a gauss rifle on my Clan Mechs.

You say it's not a bug, and then go on to describe a bug. By design, Clan 'mechs have CASE everywhere - you should not have to add explosive ammunition to the location in order to make it work.

This should be emailed to support@mwomercs.com

PS: Gauss Rifles are "supposed" to have a 90% chance to explode, because we are playing MWO, not tabletop. Classic Battletech, as they're calling it now, is not an authoritative reference for this game.

Edited by Void Angel, 12 March 2015 - 05:17 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alright, I was wrong, Clan CASE does prevent damage transfer from limbs to side torso in TT.

Void Angel, on 12 March 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

We are not talking about Tabletop here.

Move along.

If you want the clans to keep there advantage especially when it comes to CASE you do. Since I was wrong and it does protect limbs in TT, you very much want to keep that.

Since we aren't talking about Tabletop here though, my vote is that they fix the problem and then fix CASE to be placed on any area of an IS mech to make it more useful or something.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 12 March 2015 - 05:27 PM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

I dunno, that gauss explosion mechanic pisses me off anyway.

Having it get knocked out almost immediately when armor is gone is totally fine.

Having it explode, and not only destroying that component, but destroying the internals of the component next to it is getting a little ridiculous.

IMO, CORE RULE IGNORE, and remove the BOMB aspects of a Gauss rifle completely and make it even easier to crit so its non-functional ASAP as armor is gone if need be.

That or at least allow Case to contain or vent the explosion without destroying that section completely when it gets critted.

[Something Wrong]

Similar unexplained deaths seem to sometimes happen in IS mechs too.

Important part starts at 32 seconds

[FupDup]

Mister D, on 12 March 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:

I dunno, that gauss explosion mechanic pisses me off anyway.

Having it get knocked out almost immediately when armor is gone is totally fine.

Having it explode, and not only destroying that component, but destroying the internals of the component next to it is getting a little ridiculous.

IMO, CORE RULE IGNORE, and remove the BOMB aspects of a Gauss rifle completely and make it even easier to crit so its non-functional ASAP as armor is gone if need be.

That or at least allow Case to contain or vent the explosion without destroying that section completely when it gets critted.

I could see the IS Gauss being made more durable than the Clan Gauss to make up for being a lot heavier and slightly bulkier, but I don't think the Clan Gauss really needs a buff...


Improving IS CASE would be kinda nice too, given that it takes up weight and slots...

Edited by FupDup, 12 March 2015 - 07:33 PM.

[Mcgral18]

IS C.A.S.E. is also borked:

[FupDup]

Mcgral18, on 12 March 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

IS C.A.S.E. is also borked:

Rekt.
Clothes game.

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 12 March 2015 - 07:42 PM, said:

IS C.A.S.E. is also borked:

Can't contain mah Gauss Rifle... it exploded on meeehhh

[Void Angel]

WM Quicksilver, on 12 March 2015 - 05:25 PM, said:

Alright, I was wrong, Clan CASE does prevent damage transfer from limbs to side torso in TT.


If you want the clans to keep there advantage especially when it comes to CASE you do. Since I was wrong and it does protect limbs in TT, you very much want to keep that.

Since we aren't talking about Tabletop here though, my vote is that they fix the problem and then fix CASE to be placed on any area of an IS mech to make it more useful or something.

Who said anything about keeping or leaving tabletop rules? My point is that every time someone pops up with words to the effect of "tabletop says this, so this MWO mechanic is supposed to work this way," that person is making a nonsensical argument, and should put the rulebook for the other game down in order to look at this one.

[Torgun]

I'm surprised people even bother with CASE, since that 10% explosion chance is really not worth worrying about overall. Just drop most of your ammo in the legs, because when you get legged you seldom survive anyway.

[Alexander Garden]

Yeah this is a bug.

Filed!

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 13 March 2015 - 10:05 AM, said:

Who said anything about keeping or leaving tabletop rules? My point is that every time someone pops up with words to the effect of "tabletop says this, so this MWO mechanic is supposed to work this way," that person is making a nonsensical argument, and should put the rulebook for the other game down in order to look at this one.

Honestly if I had my choice, we'd go back to MW4 mechlab and completely dump almost all the mech construction rules because they are badly designed for an FPS like this. The reason we havn't is because of Battletech rules and PGI's compliance with them for the most part thus why I even brought that up and because it is sort of a imbalance considering the power of clam tech right now.

Suggesting that we completely ignore all Battletech rules is akin to suggesting we go back to the days of Mechassault, you have to keep to some of them or at least keep with the spirit of the rules, otherwise it is Mechwarrior in name only (ie Mechassault).

[Metus regem]

Alexander Garden, on 13 March 2015 - 10:26 AM, said:

Yeah this is a bug.

Filed!

I'll bet a million C-bills, that the game right now, doesn't think a Gauss explosion is being treated as an ammo explosion, so C.A.S.E. isn't doing it's job right...

[FupDup]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:

Honestly if I had my choice, we'd go back to MW4 mechlab and completely dump almost all the mech construction rules because they are badly designed for an FPS like this. The reason we havn't is because of Battletech rules and PGI's compliance with them for the most part thus why I even brought that up and because it is sort of a imbalance considering the power of clam tech right now.

Suggesting that we completely ignore all Battletech rules is akin to suggesting we go back to the days of Mechassault, you have to keep to some of them or at least keep with the spirit of the rules, otherwise it is Mechwarrior in name only (ie Mechassault).

I actually think that "most" of the construction rules are either good (i.e. weight and critslots are fun to mix-match) or have no net negative impact (neutral).

There are definitely a few I'd like to change however (namely sub-250 engines and their external sinks...).

Edited by FupDup, 13 March 2015 - 11:09 AM.

[Monky]

I've lost timbers to Gauss in the arm explosion coring out my CT, something will shear the right arm off and bam, death to ammo explosion when the Gauss is in right arm, no ammo of any kind in the mech other than Gauss, which is in the same location as the rifle itself. Here's a screenshot of it happening the other night;

http://i.imgur.com/ddCF1fa.jpg

Once again Gauss is in the RIGHT ARM not the RT. Further, my LT still exists and the CT is the destroyed component causing the death.

EDIT: Derp this is in my Gargoyle, but same dang thing with the Gauss bug, verified to be in the arms because there's no side torso ballistics in the Gargoyle

Edited by Monky, 13 March 2015 - 11:01 AM.

[AcePaul]

Cross posted from the other CASE thread going on. Further confirmation:
I just lost a Std engine Grid Iron with case and Gauss in the torso to a Weapon Explosion. lol

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 10:29 AM, said:

I actually think that "most" of the construction rules are either good or have no net negative impact (neutral).

There are definitely a few I'd like to change however (namely sub-250 engines and their external sinks...).

It depends, limiting how many heat sinks an energy boat can take in an environment that tries to force heat management by making it incredibly hard to be completely heat neutral is silly. Then again with the insane heat threshold we have that would be a bad idea considering the power of laser boats and especially the power of ERMLs in the current meta.

Then you have arm actuation which really hampers anything with a hand imagine if a hand arm could mount an AC20 and have articulation. I say this because some of the best mechs have been mechs without any lateral articulation (Stalker, Jager, Blackjack) and are generally placed high up because of that, SCat and Cauldron Born will enjoy this as well with their cockpit level arms.

The sub-250 engine rule is also a little weird.

Criticals for armor and internals are just bad as a balancing factor, it would make more sense to give the Endo vs Standard and Ferro vs Standard debate actual gameplay effects rather than make it a mechlab only deal.

Edit: Any weapon that requires it being split between sections, since it stops us from getting the weapon in this game.

Omnimech construction rules cause too many problems for what little they add to the game imo. I'd much rather see a variant system like IS mechs and just get hardpoint inflation with customization.

tl;dr - Rather than say the mech construction rules, I really should've said critical system, I dislike the critical system.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 11:51 AM.

[PrometheusTNO]

Metus regem, on 13 March 2015 - 10:28 AM, said:

I'll bet a million C-bills, that the game right now, doesn't think a Gauss explosion is being treated as an ammo explosion, so C.A.S.E. isn't doing it's job right...

I would bet 2 million CBills that is has nothing to do with CASE, but rather a bug in the Gauss explosion damage and transfer routine. Like it's bypassing all the checkpoints, including CASE.

I've been losing full-health side torsos to Gauss explosions in my arms.

[FupDup]

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

It depends, limiting how many heat sinks an energy boat can take in an environment that tries to force heat management by making it incredibly hard to be completely heat neutral is silly. Then again with the insane heat threshold we have that would be a bad idea considering the power of laser boats and especially the power of ERMLs in the current meta.

I attribute the difficulties here more to the heat system as a whole rather than having to find space to stuff heatsinks. Paul once actually said that he believes heat efficient mechs would be "highly exploited" by players with knowledge of how to build them. It's a pretty funny and sad quote...

Paul, in ATD #43 said:

Answer from Paul: There are no current plans to change the heat threshold towards TT values. Are we hard set against it? No, just at the moment there’s no need to do this.

Playing with a higher rate of cooling makes a lot more builds become heat neutral. A lot of heat neutral builds results in mid-range damage applied at a constant rate over time. This mechanism would be highly exploited by those with knowledge of building efficient heat neutral Mechs.

^^This quote here is why we can't have nice things.


Also, a funny but admittedly a bit imbalanced loophole in the construction system is the ability to fit more sinks with bigger engines. You install a tech upgrade to get some free weight, use that weight to upgrade the engine and move some heatsinks into it, then you might have enough space for another upgrade...

While min-maxing I found out that the legendary Wubhawk could actually accomodate both Endo and FF at the same time if it could upgrade its engine to a XL375. It would be able to carry 27 dubs in the process. For comparison, the current Wubhawk uses XL340, Ferro, and Standard Internals with 28 dubs... This process is what allows mechs like the Mad Cat to be the way that they are.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Then you have arm actuation which really hampers anything with a hand imagine if a hand arm could mount an AC20 and have articulation. I say this because some of the best mechs have been mechs without any lateral articulation (Stalker, Jager, Blackjack) and are generally placed high up because of that, SCat and Cauldron Born will enjoy this as well with their cockpit level arms.

Some actual perks for having hands (beyond crit-padding) would be nice. Melee is probably something we'll never see, but maybe little passive bonuses like reduced screen shake (use dem hands/arms to stabilize self) and slightly better climbing might help.

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

The sub-250 engine rule is also a little weird.

I hate that rule so much...

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Criticals for armor and internals are just bad as a balancing factor, it would make more sense to give the Endo vs Standard and Ferro vs Standard debate actual gameplay effects rather than make it a mechlab only deal.

In theory, things that affect your build in the mechlab do carry over in-game at least somewhat, because they affect your ability to equip other items...the issue is that sometimes you gain more than you lose (i.e. Endo vs Standard Internals).

*In theory* it would work out as a tradeoff, because the mechlab is a zero-sum game (if you add something somewhere, you usually have to remove something from somewhere else).

It's just that the specific values/abilities for each item could use some redesigning...

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

Omnimech construction rules cause too many problems for what little they add to the game imo. I'd much rather see a variant system like IS mechs and just get hardpoint inflation with customization.

I've actually grown to accept or even slightly like the *idea* of the Omni system (not necessarily the specific execution of it).

It's like playing Mister Potatohead with giant stompy robbits, and trying to "make use of what you got" and build around that. It adds a degree of "flavor" to mech building, contrasted with something like MW3 where it was basically total anarchy. The issue here is that, as we know, FASA gave some mechs really poopy base chassis...

To help out with this, I think that all hardwired items should function more effectively than removable items, because they're kinda permanently stuck in...it makes sense for them to have more reinforced connections to the fusion reactor and what not. Maybe something like a 20% multiplier for those items? I dunno, that number is just arbitrary.

Also, there is a "snowball effect" created here as a result of the previous quote box about Endo/FF/etc...if those items were better balanced against each other, lacking certain tech items wouldn't be such a handicap in the first place. Some of these points we're talking about have a ripple-effect of consequences...

WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 11:18 AM, said:

tl;dr - Rather than say the mech construction rules, I really should've said critical system, I dislike the critical system.

I think it's *mostly* okay and I like slotting my guns and stuff into place. It has a modular feel to it sort of like playing with Legos and swapping out parts, trying to put the right stuff in the right place... I just think that some items need rebalancing rather than taking out the whole critslot system.

Edited by FupDup, 13 March 2015 - 12:12 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

Also, a funny but admittedly a bit imbalanced loophole in the construction system is the ability to fit more sinks with bigger engines. You install a tech upgrade to get some free weight, use that weight to upgrade the engine and move some heatsinks into it, then you might have enough space for another upgrade...

While min-maxing I found out that the legendary Wubhawk could actually accomodate both Endo and FF at the same time if it could upgrade its engine to a XL375. It would be able to carry 27 dubs in the process. For comparison, the current Wubhawk uses XL340, Ferro, and Standard Internals with 28 dubs...

This goes hand in hand with the sub-250 problem and I definitely agree it is weird why this is even allowed. Combined with the fact that maneuverability is also tied to engine size, it really creates a bad environment for anything that can't mount a large engine.

FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

In theory, things that affect your build in the mechlab do carry over in-game at least somewhat, because they affect your ability to equip other items...the issue is that sometimes you gain more than you lose (i.e. Endo vs Standard Internals). *In theory* it would work out as a trade, because the mechlab is a zero-sum game (if you add something somewhere, you usually have to remove something from somewhere else).

It's just that the specific values/abilities for each item could use some redesigning...

The trade-off just isnt there though since like above, if you mount endo and have no criticals left over afterwards, you can still always upgrade the engine since very few run it at max. The trade-off just doesn't occur often to the point I think it adds depth, it just adds complexity to mech construction just as a holdover from Battletech.

Combined with a change to the engine heat sink rule, it just feels like changing all that to fix the system would be more difficult or pointless than just creating a new system to fit the needs of the FPS translation. It is the reason I prefer the hardpoint system of MW4 which was more arbitrary which is a good thing because it gives developers a bit more control. I do want to point out that a new system doesn't have to be like MW4 or introduce sized hardpoints, the point is that the newer system would be more flexible than the current one when it comes to balancing from mech to mech or adding flavor. Imagine if the the Dragon 5N could actually have the lower arm actuator as well as manage to fit 2 UAC5s in that arm to actually make better use of its quirks, stuff like that.

FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

I've actually grown to accept or even slightly like the *idea* of the Omni system (not necessarily the specific execution of it).

It's like playing Mister Potatohead with giant stompy robbits, and trying to "make use of what you got" and build around that. It adds a degree of "flavor" to mech building, contrasted with something like MW3 where it was basically total anarchy. The issue here is that, as we know, FASA gave some mechs really poopy base chassis...

To help out with this, I think that all hardwired items should function more effectively than removable items, because they're kinda permanently stuck in...it makes sense for them to have more reinforced connections to the fusion reactor and what not. Maybe something like a 20% multiplier for those items? I dunno, that number is just arbitrary.

Also, there is a "snowball effect" created here as a result of the previous quote box about Endo/FF/etc...if those items were better balanced against each other, lacking certain tech items wouldn't be such a handicap in the first place. Some of these points we're talking about have a ripple-effect of consequences...

I like the Mr Potatohead approach, though I wish it wasn't strictly a part of Omnimechs, I think it would be cool for all mechs to be that way (with some sort of balance system in place mind you). At the same time, Endo and Ferro aren't the real problem I have with the omnimech restrictions though. Hardwired equipment is to a degree, but being relegated to unoptimized engines is the main problem I have with it.
The clam lights and Ice Ferret immediately come to mind that barring crazy quirks, are going to stay at the bottom of the clan totem poll simply because the person who was helping design these was nuts. Then you have mechs like the Phantom, Pouncer, and the Black Lanner that will all be punished because of their overly large engines should they get added. Now even with adjustable engines they may never be top tier clan mechs (though the Phantom stands a good chance) but it still feels like a rather arbitrary handicap for these mechs.

FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

I think it's *mostly* okay and I like slotting my guns and stuff into place. It has a modular feel to it sort of like playing with Legos and swapping out parts. I just think that some items need rebalancing rather than taking out the whole critslot system.

I enjoy it, but I don't think it is necessarily healthy for gameplay in general. It is more of a puzzle that does have a correct solution thanks to the snowball effect which is not the point of complexity. Everytime I think about the Battletech mechlab I think of the Extra Credits video on complexity and depth, it feels like it is there simply to make it more complex rather than actually add depth to the game.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 12:30 PM.