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).
Again, I haven't suggested anything of the kind - please refrain from making things up and saying I've said them. What I'm saying, and correctly, is that the tabletop rulebooks are not an authoritative reference for this game - because it's a first-person 'mech shooter. So, quoting tabletop as an authority for how MWO is "supposed" to be is nonsensical - take what I hope is a clearcase example: Clans. You still find people on the Clanner side riding their little hobby horse around the forums, saying that the Clans are "supposed" to be overpowered, because tabletop and novels. To these guys, the real problem is that the Clans aren't powerful enough! When you cut through all the self-serving fantasy about how attractive to "people" it would be to fight the canonical Clans with Inner Sphere tabletop technology, they're making a very critical error.
What they're asking for is Megamek with 3D graphics (or MechWarrior Tactics with a publisher ) - and that's not this game. We're playing a shooter with a Battletech feel and background story; it is not a tabletop simulator, nor is it an online platform to LARP our fantasy Mechwarrior campaigns. We can and should use tabletop rules for flavor, starting points for balance, and the basic layout of the game - but we can't simply apply tabletop rules to this game and assume that any deviation isn't "supposed" to be.
Again, I haven't suggested anything of the kind - please refrain from making things up and saying I've said them. What I'm saying, and correctly, is that the tabletop rulebooks are not an authoritative reference for this game - because it's a first-person 'mech shooter. So, quoting tabletop as an authority for how MWO is "supposed" to be is nonsensical - take what I hope is a clearcase example: Clans. You still find people on the Clanner side riding their little hobby horse around the forums, saying that the Clans are "supposed" to be overpowered, because tabletop and novels. To these guys, the real problem is that the Clans aren't powerful enough! When you cut through all the self-serving fantasy about how attractive to "people" it would be to fight the canonical Clans with Inner Sphere tabletop technology, they're making a very critical error.
What they're asking for is Megamek with 3D graphics (or MechWarrior Tactics with a publisher ) - and that's not this game. We're playing a shooter with a Battletech feel and background story; it is not a tabletop simulator, nor is it an online platform to LARP our fantasy Mechwarrior campaigns. We can and should use tabletop rules for flavor, starting points for balance, and the basic layout of the game - but we can't simply apply tabletop rules to this game and assume that any deviation isn't "supposed" to be.
Here is the problem with what started all of this.
CASE is not working on anything, particularly the Clans since they get CASE for free and on all sections.
I brought up how I thought CASE didn't actually protect all the sections, just the torsos in the case of the Clans.
You jumped at the near mention of how anything worked in Battletech like I spoke about it as the word of God or how we had to follow it as a rule, when most of my suggestions are actually the opposite. You started with a large assumption about me and rely on way too many generalizations about anyone who has knowledge of or even played TT. Battletech is the only reference for this game and as many aspects from BT that can be held over without any issues, should. CASE is a minor thing though since ammo explosions outside of Gauss aren't terribly common (though the energy meta might have something to do with that). Either way, maybe if you didn't jump at anyone for even bringing up Battletech and its functionality as the devil for even bringing up source material, you chill the f*** out, this whole argument could've been avoided.
My view point was this, if the devs had translated CASE directly and I had turned out to be right about how CASE worked in TT, and people were just discovering thats how it worked, then the discussion would be about whether or not that rule works within this environment.
Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 02:57 PM.
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.
Mostly, you shouldn't - except with a few 'mechs like a DakkaCrab build that sports lots of ammo, or a build with a Gauss Rifle that wants to survive the destruction of the weapon.
WM Quicksilver, on 12 March 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:
When they say clan mechs have CASE for free, they mean only in the side torsos. CASE never prevented any damage transfer but from that side torso to the CT. If your arm or leg blew, all that damage transferred over to the torso until it hit the CT (provided you have CASE).
CASE II is the only protection you can ever get for protecting your side torsos from an explosion in the arm or leg.
Mcgral18, on 12 March 2015 - 04:43 PM, said:
Bruh...
Actually, THAT is what brought "this" on. If you misspoke, your apology is accepted - but no one is misrepresenting what you said.
You are responding to a post about how CASE works in MWO - and you're citing tabletop rules.
Hence,
Yes, because CASE is directly translated from BT, devs hadn't made any mention or ever done anything so far to change how it functions especially for Clans.
That is to say, so far, CASE works exactly like it does in BT and devs have never said anything as to it deviating from BT any time soon.....so mentioning BT rules is not verboten. My misconception that CASE on clans only protects the torso in TT was my only problem. Once the bug is fixed, CASE will function EXACTLY like it does in TT, so not sure what exactly your point is.
Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 03:29 PM.
Are you really going to sit there and try to revise the conversation? You didn't say "Well, in tabletop, CASE works like..." You said - and I'm going to beat you over your thick skull with the quotes - "When they say clan mechs have CASE for free, they mean only in the side torsos. CASE never prevented any damage transfer but from that side torso to the CT. If your arm or leg blew, all that damage transferred over to the torso until it hit the CT (provided you have CASE)." And, when you were told that CASE in-game was in all locations, with a screenshot, you still rattled on about the tabletop rules.
In fact, you continued to insist on tabletop rules, only acknowledging an error when you apparently looked them upand found out you were wrong about them!You only seem to care that your conclusion was faulty, and still insist on the improper method. This means that my criticism was perfectly valid - and still warranted. So do spare me the protestations of persecution, would you kindly, and cut out trying to revise history when I can see it all here on the thread.
Speaking of tabletop, you might wish to recall that details matter, particularly when you are addressing someone else's claims. If you pay poor attention to details, you risk making yourself a liar. For instance, I've not said that tabletop is not a reference for this game - I've said, and still say, that it is not authoritative regarding game mechanics. Battletech can and should, as I've said, be used as a starting point for game mechanics and other things - but many things that work in Battletech do not work well in an FPS environment, or at all. These things need to be altered or even scrapped to improve this game, which is why insisting that tabletop rules are operant even when shown screen shot evidence is simply flat out wrong. If you'd said, "well, in tabletop it works thusly, so I'd expect it to work like that here," I wouldn't have commented - but that's not what you did.
Are you really going to sit there and try to revise the conversation? You didn't say "Well, in tabletop, CASE works like..." You said - and I'm going to beat you over your thick skull with the quotes - "When they say clan mechs have CASE for free, they mean only in the side torsos. CASE never prevented any damage transfer but from that side torso to the CT. If your arm or leg blew, all that damage transferred over to the torso until it hit the CT (provided you have CASE)." And, when you were told that CASE in-game was in all locations, with a screenshot, you still rattled on about the tabletop rules.
Context matters a lot here, CASE is mentioned in several sources of BT as being applied everywhere to Clan mechs, I thought that CASE however only stopped ammo explosions if the ammo explosion had moved to the torso (meaning the CASE being "located everywhere" being misleading just like how FF explanations are misleading). Whether you accept that as my line or thinking does not matter, that was my faulty train of thought.
So yes, the conclusion being faulty is all that matters.
As for improper method, what method are you even talking about ?
Void Angel, on 13 March 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:
Speaking of tabletop, you might wish to recall that details matter, particularly when you are addressing someone else's claims. If you pay poor attention to details, you risk making yourself a liar. For instance, I've not said that tabletop is not a reference for this game - I've said, and still say, that it is not authoritative regarding game mechanics. Battletech can and should, as I've said, be used as a starting point for game mechanics and other things - but many things that work in Battletech do not work well in an FPS environment, or at all.
First, spare yourself the condescending BS, it does nothing for this conversation.
Second, alright, we agree on the whole TT being a source thing. As for being authoritative source, great, but that's not the point considering CASE is still meant to function like it does in TT. In this case then, TT does sort of matter since it is meant to copy the rules from it unless the devs do something that states or dictates otherwise. That is the whole point you seem to be ignoring, that the devs may have wanted it to function exactly like TT which would make it the authoritative resource.
Let's setup an example, let's assume that the devs meant the IS XL to die like it currently does, but wasn't in-game for some reason and they hadn't noticed the bug (if they didn't actually notice I would be worried, but not the point). Someone brings up the topic about why they aren't dying and I brought up how in TT they don't die from a side torso death. I'm wrong not because I brought up TT when it is clear they are meant to function that way, I'm wrong because they do in fact die from side torso death.
Void Angel, on 13 March 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:
If you'd said, "well, in tabletop it works thusly, so I'd expect it to work like that here," I wouldn't have commented - but that's not what you did.
I stated what I believe the functionality of CASE in TT CONSIDERING the fact that devs have never stated any intent to deviate from BT in the matters of CASE, specifically clan CASE.
Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 05:01 PM.
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:
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.
GMan created the term "Big Engine Stomp Meta" (BESM) to commemorate the situation.
Agility should probably be based primarily on tonnage, with some mechs getting quirks to be higher or lower than the "expected" average value for that weight (i.e. Gargles more agile than most 80 tonners).
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:
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.
Note that I'm talking about "in theory" things. The actual in-game outcome can often differ from what's expected... Still, I'll continue feeling that the issue is more due to specific item implementation rather than the system as a whole being not worth it.
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:
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.
I actually didn't mind MW4's hardpoint system that much, and it was kinda fun trying to mix-and-match to put junk in the right places. However, it could also be kind of weird sometimes, like letting Annihilators carrying 16 Machine Guns...
For hardpoints I'd want some type of system that tries to get the "best of both worlds" between MW4 and MWO. MW4's problem was that some mechs (like that Annihilator) could boat craptons of tiny guns when their "flavor" was to be a smaller number of big guns. On the opposite end is MWO where it's often best to cram in the biggest gun possible. Dat pendulum swing.
Wall of text for my own musings here:
Spoiler
I used to want hardpoints based on critical slot sizes, but then we have issues with some guns like the CERLL being only 1 slot and Clan LB-X ACs inexplicably being bulkier than Clan UACs. Also, I would have a weapon number limit per hardpoint as well as a size limit, so that we can allow for multiple smaller guns without allowing super spam like 16 MG Annihilators.
For size, I would use an arbitrary "class" system that is inspired mostly on critslots, but with some specific outlier weapons assigned differently for balance reasons. Something like this...
Class 1: Most of the 1-slot weapons in the game. Exception is the CERLL, which is bumped up to Class 2. Some guns like the Magshot may be bumped down from Class 2 to Class 1. 2-rated Autocannons would probably go here even for the bulkier Clan versions (helps give them a role of filling up small ballistic hardpoints).
Class 2: Most of the 2-slot weapons we have. The CERLL gets bumped up to here from Class 1 for obvious reasons. Probably make the Clan SRM6 fit here as well. Probably bump up most Clan LRM tube sizes by 1 class, with the LRM5 remaining at Class 1.
Class 3: Most of the 3-slot weapons in BT...
...etc. It would probably cap out at Class 10 or something.
Note1: Clan Ultra and LB-X Autocannons would share the same class as their own damage rating, despite their actual critical slot differences. Other exceptions may be made as I remember weird inconsistencies with item sizes. I dunno if I want to make an exception for Artemis missiles or not.
For determining the weapon number limit, I admittedly still have to think about that after switching to classes instead of strictly critslots. I guess it could do something where the combined classes from all guns in that hardpoint couldn't exceed the class of the whole hardpoint.
Example: Maybe something like giving a Catapult K2 a Class 5 energy in each arm with a weapon quantity limit of 2. You could add a single Heavy PPC + Capacitor (5 slot item) to each arm, normal PPC per arm as usual, 2 LL per arm, 2 ML, etc. For the guns you put in the K2's arms, their combined class sum couldn't exceed 5 (i.e. can probably do PPC + LL, but not 2 PPCs in a single arm).
This might be a bit complicated and obfuscated however.
As a side note, I think that it might be fair and flavorful for only regular Battlemechs to have size limits, while Omnis would keep the current sizeless system MWO has. That could be one potential way to balance/differentiate Clan Battlemechs from Omnimechs... IS BM's would be more lenient with inflation due to their obvious tech weaknesses and stuff.
*Note2: The new hardpoint system wouldn't remove the existing critslot system, it would just be a different overlay for determining what guns you could fit. Normal critslots would still be required for the rest of the process of building robots.
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:
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.
The Pouncer's engine isn't overly huge, it has the same speed as an Adder while being only 5 tons heavier.
For the rest, it's an issue right now but I'd prefer to try to find a way to make it not an issue rather than just stripping it out and making their speed profile closer to "normal" mechs in their classes.
For mechs that are overly mobile, this is partly an issue with our map/gamemode design where it's more about killing gundams and you only need a certain amount of mobility before adding more isn't really worthwhile to add more...
For slow ones like existing Clam lights, I'd like for them to somehow be shootier/tankier/dakkaier than their faster counterparts by a more meaningful margin. Also related is the issue of sub-250 engines, which is just adding insult to injury for low-engine robots...
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 12:28 PM, said:
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.
As I've said before, I think it's more an issue with specific item balance than the overall core idea of the system itself lacking. Trying to rebuild it all from scratch might take about as much time/effort as just buffing/nerfing/reworking the existing stuff...
GMan created the term "Big Engine Stomp Meta" (BESM) to commemorate the situation.
Agility should probably be based primarily on tonnage, with some mechs getting quirks to be higher or lower than the "expected" average value for that weight (i.e. Gargles more agile than most 80 tonners).
Very much agree, but I don't see it headed that way anytime soon considering this has been said since the Closed Beta days.
FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:
Note that I'm talking about "in theory" things. The actual in-game outcome can often differ from what's expected... Still, I'll continue feeling that the issue is more due to specific item implementation rather than the system as a whole being not worth it.
Maybe, I'd definitely like to see them do something to alleviate the separation between theory and practice though.
FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:
I actually didn't mind MW4's hardpoint system that much, and it was kinda fun trying to mix-and-match to put junk in the right places. However, it could also be kind of weird sometimes, like letting Annihilators carrying 16 Machine Guns...
For hardpoints I'd want some type of system that tries to get the "best of both worlds" between MW4 and MWO. MW4's problem was that some mechs (like that Annihilator) could boat craptons of tiny guns when their "flavor" was to be a smaller number of big guns. On the opposite end is MWO where it's often best to cram in the biggest gun possible. Dat pendulum swing.
Oh Im a fan of MW4 hardpoints, I just put that in there because MW4 is sometimes a four letter word in some discussions.
I do agree that a best of both worlds approach would probably be the best. I still prefer the overall approach of MW4 in that the only real allocation you do is with weapons and maybe you could add special equipment to that. I prefer the arbitrary approach though, it allows for more flexibility like mechs with hands and AC20s or PPCs in the center torso, stuff like that. Sure its a little non-canon but meh, having center/head hardpoints can ruin those hardpoints sometimes and at least when its arbitrary it can be adjusted.
FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:
The Pouncer's engine isn't overly huge, it has the same speed as an Adder while being only 5 tons heavier.
Well for the Pouncer I meant it shares the issue with the current lights in having too small of an engine, after all it is a 5 ton heavier Badder with JJs which is something to really get excited about. Still better than the Adder though.....
FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:
For the rest, it's an issue right now but I'd prefer to try to find a way to make it not an issue rather than just stripping it out and making their speed profile closer to "normal" mechs in their classes.
For mechs that are overly mobile, this is partly an issue with our map/gamemode design where it's more about killing gundams and you only need a certain amount of mobility before adding more isn't really worthwhile to add more...
For slow ones like existing Clam lights, I'd like for them to somehow be shootier/tankier/dakkaier than their faster counterparts by a more meaningful margin. Also related is the issue of sub-250 engines, which is just adding insult to injury for low-engine robots...
I'd disagree that different game modes would change the power of the overly huge engine mechs. The problem stems from there simply being better more optimized options, after all the difference in available tonnage after max armor between the Ice Ferret and the Arctic Cheater is 1 ton. That is the sole advantage of the Ice Ferret since the armor isn't a huge deal thanks to its increased size compared to what we hope the AC to be. Then when you consider the AC has ECM capability and 6 JJs to abuse, it just makes the Ice Ferret wish you could drop to at least Grendel speed (113.4kph) which would free up 5.5 tons to play with.
FupDup, on 13 March 2015 - 05:19 PM, said:
As I've said before, I think it's more an issue with specific item balance than the overall core idea of the system itself lacking. Trying to rebuild it all from scratch might take about as much time/effort as just buffing/nerfing/reworking the existing stuff...
Oh, they would never redo it all unless MWO2 is in the works so buffing/nerfing/reworking? is the only way to go. Still, one can dream about better days.....
Edited by WM Quicksilver, 13 March 2015 - 06:49 PM.
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 04:36 PM, said:
Context matters a lot here, CASE is mentioned in several sources of BT as being applied everywhere to Clan mechs, I thought that CASE however only stopped ammo explosions if the ammo explosion had moved to the torso (meaning the CASE being "located everywhere" being misleading just like how FF explanations are misleading). Whether you accept that as my line or thinking does not matter, that was my faulty train of thought.
So yes, the conclusion being faulty is all that matters.
As for improper method, what method are you even talking about ?
This right here sums up your entire half of our conversation - you insist on your opinion, despite being unable to understand my criticism. You can't even see, when your nose is rubbed directly in it, that your error wasn't simply misremembering tabletop - it was insisting on tabletop as an explanation for MWO, even when you were clearly told MWO's rules; with pictures. Rather, you misrepresent my statements several times, then accuse me of "condescending BS" for showing the slightest annoyance that you are repeating a claim I've already addressed.
Context does matter - and you ignore it to simply continue arguing against positions you don't even understand. /unfollow
it was insisting on tabletop as an explanation for MWO, even when you were clearly told MWO's rules; with pictures.
This is what you insist, but ignore the fact that MWO's rules in this case, are exactly like TT's and the pictures only reinforced that. This is my whole point...but it is apparent we will never agree and this has gone beyond the point of being silly.
I died with one side torso intact (CT gone) but I died from gauss explosion.
So the gauss explosion dmg transfered to my CT.
I did searching and found many conflicting answers. Either CASE stops all dmg except 1 ton worth of ammo (or all gauss dmg) or it just allows gauss dmg to pass (assuming it wasn't a bug).
Would like some clarification on this if possible.
P.S> If CASE allows 1 ton of ammo dmg to pass, it's completely useless and should be changed.
Is it possible that the crit did 2x or 3x damage? From what I remember, when internal damage is done to a component, there's a chance it will do 1x, 2x, or 3x damage. The damage could potentially take out the engine in that case.
Doesn't explain why the CT was destroyed though. Either the damage transferred (and it shouldn't). Or there is a bug with how it shows a engine being destroyed (which means CASE is working, but UI is bugged).
Is it possible that the crit did 2x or 3x damage? From what I remember, when internal damage is done to a component, there's a chance it will do 1x, 2x, or 3x damage. The damage could potentially take out the engine in that case.
Doesn't explain why the CT was destroyed though. Either the damage transferred (and it shouldn't). Or there is a bug with how it shows a engine being destroyed (which means CASE is working, but UI is bugged).
CASE is bugged with Gauss ATM, but as for the crits that's not quite how it works.
For each crit you roll, there's a chance to deal one through three. Each crit will deal the same amount of weapon damage Critical Damage, but only 15% of that Critical Damage will transfer to the Internal Structure.
For example, an AC20. For each crit it rolls, it deals 20 critical damage. There is a 3% chance for it to roll three crits, which means 60 critical damage. 60*15% is 9. That means it will deal 9 additional damage to the Internal Structure, for a potential total of 29 damage from a single shell.
Gauss explosions might be able to crit, which would have the same effect as an AC20 if that's the case.
0
WM Quicksilver, on 13 March 2015 - 10:27 AM, said:
) - and that's not this game. We're playing a shooter with a Battletech feel and background story; it is not a tabletop simulator, nor is it an online platform to LARP our fantasy Mechwarrior campaigns. We can and should use tabletop rules for flavor, starting points for balance, and the basic layout of the game - but we can't simply apply tabletop rules to this game and assume that any deviation isn't "supposed" to be.
?
