5 replies to this topic

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

Doesn't it makes more sense, to fix the slots used for endo and ferro? The modification is for the hole mech, so it shouldn't be possible to let for example the slots in the arms free while all the used slots are in the side torsos and legs. This system would be more restrictive, so people think twice, before adding endo and ferro.

For example:
1 slot left arm
1 slot right arm
1 slot head
2 slots right leg
2 slots left leg
2 slots left torso
2 slots right torso
3 slots center torso

The only problem is, there are not enough slots in the center torso and head.

So my second solution is:

For just endo OR ferro:
0 slot head
1 slot each arm
1 slot each leg
(2)3 slots each side torso (each gets one from the center torso)
(3)1 slots center torso (2 included in the side torsos)

For both equiped:
1 slot head
2 slot each arm
2 slots each leg
(4)6 slots each side torso (each gets two from center torso)
(6)2 spots center torso (4 included in the side torsos)

Another thought is, to give different mech sizes different count off total slots. So a 30 light should has less space avaible than a 90t assault.

[Paigan]

Realistically: yes
However: It's a game

It is designed intentionally to give more freedom for building loadouts.

If you wanna start looking at Battletech from a realism point of view ... you very quickly have to rofl and throw the whole thing in the trashbin.

[Lykaon]

MasterBurte, on 22 July 2015 - 12:51 AM, said:

Doesn't it makes more sense, to fix the slots used for endo and ferro? The modification is for the hole mech, so it shouldn't be possible to let for example the slots in the arms free while all the used slots are in the side torsos and legs. This system would be more restrictive, so people think twice, before adding endo and ferro.

For example:
1 slot left arm
1 slot right arm
1 slot head
2 slots right leg
2 slots left leg
2 slots left torso
2 slots right torso
3 slots center torso

The only problem is, there are not enough slots in the center torso and head.

So my second solution is:

For just endo OR ferro:
0 slot head
1 slot each arm
1 slot each leg
(2)3 slots each side torso (each gets one from the center torso)
(3)1 slots center torso (2 included in the side torsos)

For both equiped:
1 slot head
2 slot each arm
2 slots each leg
(4)6 slots each side torso (each gets two from center torso)
(6)2 spots center torso (4 included in the side torsos)

Another thought is, to give different mech sizes different count off total slots. So a 30 light should has less space avaible than a 90t assault.

MWO uses published Battletech mech variants and many of those will not conform to any fixed endo/ferro slots rendering those variants incompatable with MWO if ferro/endo required fixed slots for Inner Sphere mechs.

Since the omnimechs that have endo/ferro have fixed slots that are identical for Battletech and MWo this problem does not apply to them.

Using your examples for instance a requirement to have one slot allocated to each arm renders Inner Sphere AC20s and endo/ferro incompatable.Since there are published mech variants that do have these two components they would become unavailable for use in MWo if such a mechanic were added.

Edited by Lykaon, 22 July 2015 - 01:04 AM.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

Yes but it applies to the non omnimechs. Maybe fixed slots would prefent to much powercreep. I think we don't have to copy paste all the TT rules, but we can copy a aystem as it is intended. Balancing becomes easier when you have a realistic system in your back.

[Paigan]

MasterBurte, on 22 July 2015 - 01:08 AM, said:

Yes but it applies to the non omnimechs. Maybe fixed slots would prefent to much powercreep. I think we don't have to copy paste all the TT rules, but we can copy a aystem as it is intended. Balancing becomes easier when you have a realistic system in your back.

"realistic" *cough*

Your suggestion would make it a little bit more realistic.
But how about:

- Why does a 20 tonner have the same amount of "space" as a 100 tonner? ever thought about that? It's nonsense, for simplicity's sake (rolling 2x1d6 for determining critical hits etc).
- Where are the super fancy high tech targetting systems that can one-shot every enemy from miles away with perfect accurary and make cheesy "piloting" by a human being superfluous? -> nonsense
- Why do components have homogenous "armor points" instead of fine-grained plates that either withstand a hit (hardly any damage) or not (instant internal structure damage)? (THAT is how armor works. Not "points").
- How can a 500kg jump jet lift a ~30 ton mech in the air? Where is its fuel? Space magic?
- If such tiny jump jets are so magically potent, why does not EVERY mech have at least equiped one or two?
- Why can't there be a 3 ton laser? 3.5 ton laser? 9.5 ton laser? 1.5 ton Jumpjet? 1.75 ton jumpjet? LRM-12? SRM-20?
- And to kill it all off: jets with the same technology would be a 100 times superior to funny walking leg-tanks. And track-tanks would be 10 times more efficient, smaller, faster, etc.

Again:

BT is fiction, fantasy, cheesy by design and (by both intention and incompetence) ridiculously unrealistic, even to a point where it's getting painful even for a game (that's why I left it ~15 years ago. Only MWO brought me back).

There is absolutely NO point in trying to make it any more reasonable or even "realistic".
BT's core rules and lore are, all things considered, utter bull$hit.

One either likes the rest enough to stay or not.


My advice: don't try to "fix" some tiny parts of it. It's never going to happen and all your effort is just wasted.

Edited by Paigan, 22 July 2015 - 01:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Paigan, on 22 July 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

Realistically: yes
However: It's a game

It is designed intentionally to give more freedom for building loadouts.

If you wanna start looking at Battletech from a realism point of view ... you very quickly have to rofl and throw the whole thing in the trashbin.

And then you go and look at MW and realize... nothing new there either.