75 replies to this topic

[Haeso]

Willis Kerensky, on 30 November 2011 - 04:10 PM, said:

Are we even sure that BV will be prevalent in this game? Remember, this is not TT. As much as we'd all like it to be.

No we aren't. But they would be fools not to use some sort of Battle Value even if it's totally made up numbers by them rather than using TT numbers.

[Black Sunder]

Willis Kerensky, on 30 November 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

I'd rather be able to make my mech look unique, than go up against god knows how many players who decide to rock as many flamers as they can fit on their mech.

Kill them with PPCs.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

Battle value balances weapons and Chassis automatically.

Yeah, that explains why they're completely trashing the BV system in the TT.... because it works so well

[Willis Kabrinski]

BV's for customized mechs would really cause problems for matchmaking purposes (in terms of having a fair match). As I imagine not everyone's going to have hangars with 30+/- mechs in it. You have to think about simplicity of use paired with enjoyment. If you're spending more time figuring out how to get things sorted than acquiring kill rings for your ppc;

A) That doesn't suit the business model

B.) Doesn't seem much fun does it?

I'd love to be able to totally customize my IS mechs and just rock a Gladiator Prime when I'm not. I just don't think it plausible.

You have to remember that for this to succeed it can't cater only to TT and MegaMek players. It needs to be accessible to people are used to playing games like WoT and CoD and the like. That's where the money is.

Edited by Willis Kerensky, 30 November 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yeah, that explains why they're completely trashing the BV system in the TT.... because it works so well

My money is on it being BV 3, but instead of calculating individual equipment costs it'll break down into "each point of movement costs A, each point of armor costs B, each point damage with max range 9 or less costs C, etc.". Faster to add up but less accurate overall.

A big difference between TT BV and what they can do here is on the fly adjustment. It's a lot easier to change costs and formulas for an online game than it is for printed books across multiple languages.

[Kudzu]

Willis Kerensky, on 30 November 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

BV's for customized mechs would really cause problems for matchmaking purposes (in terms of having a fair match). As I imagine not everyone's going to have hangars with 30+/- mechs in it. You have to think about simplicity of use paired with enjoyment. If you're spending more time figuring out how to get things sorted than acquiring kill rings for your ppc

How do you figure it'll be an issue? As long as the overall BV of each side is close to even (say with 5% of each other) you'll get a good fight.

[Willis Kabrinski]

I'm not saying it's impossible, just needlessly more difficult.

[Haeso]

Cavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yeah, that explains why they're completely trashing the BV system in the TT.... because it works so well

BV doesn't work perfectly solely because 'Mechs don't work in a vaccum. A boat with the same BV as a 'Mech with many weapons of different ranges and types, the boat will always be more effective outside of extreme circumstances. BV doesn't take into account many things, it just uses a X component = Y. A more complex method is required. I'm not suggesting use the BV's of the tabletop directly, I'm saying use the idea of the system.

Also the rules for customization and making your own 'Mechs were very poorly thought on in regards to balance, the technical details were fairly well thought out, but everything else? Nope.

Kudzu, on 30 November 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

How do you figure it'll be an issue? As long as the overall BV of each side is close to even (say with 5% of each other) you'll get a good fight.

Not to mention with things like Off-Map artillery and other minor fight to fight purchasable options, you can shore up those small gaps, or you could elect to take total less BV in exchange for greater C-Bill rewards.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 04:51 PM.

[Willis Kabrinski]

I think there's too little available information to make many of these feasible topics of discussion. Apart from being "I wish/hope it's like this" threads.

Although, again, balance also depends on how many units are in the fights as well.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

[EDMW]CSN, on 28 November 2011 - 09:22 PM, said:

Chassis restriction
1) Not allowed to change their engines rating
2) Not allowed to change their armor type or armor tonnage
3) Not allowed to change their fix amount of base heatsinks or change heatsink types.
4) Not allowed to change or relocate internal structure. Endo-steel crits should be strictly fixed.
5) Not allowed to remove or relocate any additional fixed equipment on Omnis. Some Omnis have fixed MASC or even ECM. Those CANNOT be removed.

So basically you trade out full customization for ease of switching load outs and maintenance.

completly agree with this, would like to see some real omnimechs. also dont want to see clan tech suffer at all (wuld take away variety). i personaly think its quite balanced.

[Frantic Pryde]

You know, one thing I just thought of that I think might be interesting... special IS vs Clan mission objective/scoring. Basically, special objectives for clan VS IS games... like delay tactics and guerila warfare. The IS doesn't necessarily need to wipe out the clan force, just survive for a certain amount of time while dealing a certain amount of damage (so it doesn't turn into all out hide and seek). This idea could be elaborated on quite a bit... but I think that sounds quite fun and its pretty much what happened in canon.

[Jad Ivask]

Hunter McGee, on 29 November 2011 - 09:09 AM, said:

I will agree to almost all of this, but I still firmly desire for the Clanners to be Non-Player Options. Let us be the underdogs for once. Let us fight like the IS really did. Let us bleed to get our feet back under us like the IS did. (Human Psychology Professor Now Speaking): It is human nature to want more power, more options, to be stronger than everyone else, richer than everyone else, and have the ability to crush our opponents with minimum force used. Most people, (Not All) would desire to have that power if the Clans were allowed to be played. I know they have said that there will be no Player ~vs~ Environment options at start, but how about trying to make then Clans the Environment to stop the Mass Exodus of the Inner Sphere pilots suddenly becoming Clanners? Also, the Clans had their own built in negative... Zellbrigen. Now how in the name of all that is holy do you force a person sitting at a computer to follow Clan honor rules??? You cannot. So yes, allow us to salvage Clan tech and use it as we can, pay higher prices for re-fits, repairs and make it VERY rare and VERY hard to get. But please no Clan players. I think that is a disaster waiting to happen. One option might be for a fully Clan only server. (World) Allow the Clanners to fight each other, keep the field level for the rest of us. Shouldn't be too hard once they work out the kinks in MWO. Just some thoughts...

I like the idea of all Clan and all IS servers. Then occasionally bridge them for "invasions" and wars.

[Paladin1]

Cavadus, on 30 November 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

Yeah, that explains why they're completely trashing the BV system in the TT.... because it works so well

Actually it does work and work well I might add. The reason that Herb is replacing it is because it's a PitA to calculate. There's somewhere over 2000 different `Mech designs now and each one has to currently be done by hand. That's causing production bottlenecks and keeping CGL from releasing products on schedule.

That's the real reason it's being replaced, not because it doesn't work.

[Xhaleon]

Paladin1, on 01 December 2011 - 05:55 AM, said:

Actually it does work and work well I might add. The reason that Herb is replacing it is because it's a PitA to calculate. There's somewhere over 2000 different `Mech designs now and each one has to currently be done by hand. That's causing production bottlenecks and keeping CGL from releasing products on schedule.

That's the real reason it's being replaced, not because it doesn't work.

But... SSW does the job just fine. And its free. And if they wanted to, they could make an official one that included everything and lacked any bugs. And it would take just a week or so for a semi-competent programmer to make that.

[Paladin1]

Xhaleon, on 01 December 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

But... SSW does the job just fine. And its free. And if they wanted to, they could make an official one that included everything and lacked any bugs. And it would take just a week or so for a semi-competent programmer to make that.

I'm aware of that, I'm just relaying what I heard in the Battlechat last week. Trust me, I've long wondered what's going on inside Herb's head, but have no actual desire to delve into that radioactive morass anytime soon so I'll just have to wait and see.

[Kudzu]

Xhaleon, on 01 December 2011 - 06:06 AM, said:

But... SSW does the job just fine. And its free. And if they wanted to, they could make an official one that included everything and lacked any bugs. And it would take just a week or so for a semi-competent programmer to make that.

You're forgetting that new system = new edition= new sales.