413 replies to this topic

[Alex Wolfe]

MaddMaxx, on 06 December 2011 - 06:46 PM, said:

The whole point of the Stock/Factory builds was mentioned. The Battlefield was rife with a mix of enemy gear. Infantry, Tanks, Aerospace etc. so a BattleMech had to be designed with this in mind to a certain extent. Yes, many, when facing just other BattleMechs, seem to be outclassed and in many cases they are, but in the IS, both sides faced the same Battlefield issues I noted above.

What the likely cause of some of the more mundane weapons load-outs was the result of having a battle go badly for a single weapon type design if suddenly faced by smaller but more numerous opponents.

The 1 weapon type custom job, say ERML or ERLL will have to use its heavy heat based weapon(s) to overkill the smaller units. It may get one every shot but has to cool in order to keep fighting. Before long it will simply be over-run.

Whereas a Stock design could use one of its alternative weapons to deal with those threats and save the heavy heat weapons for the larger prey.

I hope they stay Timeline, allow basic mods to the Stock chassis they provide, so everyone has an even playing field early on then let the "Dogs of Custom Wars" out of the bag. You won't make everyone happy ever so best to take it slow as going back from Full throttle never works...

Well, I'll bite one more time, but... my point wasn't "why are factory variants mixing weapons", it's "why are some weapons so puny in past games (TT and otherwise) that many stock variants wouldn't be able to defend thenselves at any range, from anything". I just want the trash weapon buffed, so that factory variants could indeed work like you described.

Realistically thinking, a mech so outgunned like many factory variants are with their small lasers and SRM2s and single LRM5s would be discontinued and back to the drawing board pretty much immediately, after the people notice that a medium mech has trouble fending off a Harasser.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 07 December 2011 - 09:41 AM.

[guardiandashi]

alex Wolfe

from what I am seeing is you are argueing why put "worthless" weapons on?

the fact of the mater is there are no "worthless" weapons in battletech, there are some ... sub optimal ones but thats not the same thing.

the fact of the matter is some weapons work out to be better than others.

examples:
lasers
small laser 0.5 ton 1 crit, 3 damage 1 heat, 1/2/3 range
medium laser 1.0 ton 1 crit 3 heat 5 damage 1-3/4-6/7-9 range
large laser 5 tons 2 crits 8 heat 8 damage 1-5/6-10/11-15 range
ppc 7 tons 3 crits 10 heat 10 damage 3* 1-6/7-12/13-18 ranges * minimum range

srm launchers
srm2 1 ton 1 crit 2* damage 2 heat 1-3/4-6/7-9 range
srm4 2 ton 1 crit 4* damage 3 heat 1-3/4-6/7-9 range
srm6 3 ton 2 crit 6* damage 4 heat 1-3/4-6/7-9 range
*srms do 2 damage per missile that hits, and every hitting missile rolls individually for hit location

as you can see from those examples each weapon has its good and not so good points

the lasers trade heat to damage ratios and weight for range
the srm's are close to constant in efficiencys and do "scatter damage" their big aadvangage is that when the armor gets thin ... or non existant they do small amounts of damage all over... the better to break things without destroying everything

[Alex Wolfe]

guardiandashi, on 07 December 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

alex Wolfe

from what I am seeing is you are argueing why put "worthless" weapons on?

the fact of the mater is there are no "worthless" weapons in battletech, there are some ... sub optimal ones but thats not the same thing.

the lasers trade heat to damage ratios and weight for range
the srm's are close to constant in efficiencys and do "scatter damage" their big aadvangage is that when the armor gets thin ... or non existant they do small amounts of damage all over... the better to break things without destroying everything

Well, it does look OK on paper. What I mean though is that the drawbacks of the biggest bore/small boatable weapons have, so far, been negligible in real-time Battletech games. Unless some big balance/system changes are made (as opposed to iterating on previous values, like other Mechwarrior games did), we're about to see a repeat of "80% of mechlab is junk, and so are stock variants".

[MaddMaxx]

Just to add to guardiandashi's point I added one more factor. "Cost"

Now one would say a House has lots of cash, but remember, these things were MASS produced from factories much like our cars are today. Although almost all cars work the same way do the same thing (transport peeps), why are there so many Makes and Models? The same as why there were so many Makes and Models of Mechs. Each has a different purpose or client base.

examples:
lasers
small laser 0.5 ton 1 crit, 3 damage 1 heat, 1/2/3 range - Cost 11,250C-Bills
medium laser 1.0 ton 1 crit 3 heat 5 damage 1-3/4-6/7-9 range - Cost 40,000C-Bills
large laser 5 tons 2 crits 8 heat 8 damage 1-5/6-10/11-15 range - Cost 100,000C-Bills

Perhaps if we have to Pay for the replacement weapons and or system (although that creates have's and have not's) it may curb the urges some get to have ALL Mechs they build be 5 ER-LL or 4 ERPPC or etc etc ad-nausea which is what created the useless weapons phenomena in those other games in the first place.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 07 December 2011 - 10:56 AM.

[The unnamed one]

I say a mix of both, like hard weapon ports on non-omnimechs and be able to put any weapons anywhere on the mech but thy need to wait awhile to sync the gryo back up.

[Terick]

Black Sunder, on 05 December 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I don't like thinking either. It makes my head hurt.

Interestign you think that requires no thinking.

I think that this wold be the best choice for battlemechs. Ohh.... you can't make that mech look like what you want and min/max the systems... suck it up!

There is more challenge in taking a stock mech or one of the variants and using it as opposed to modifying a mech.

Personally I think that it should take a LOT (read 20% of mech cost at least) to pay the techs to modify the mech and require control of a major mechyard. It should also take a few days for a minor weapons swap (LL to replace a PPC) or a week for a major change (replacing the PPC with an LRM15). This isn't something that is done in the field for Battlemech.

The cost to making a nonstandard variant of a mech should be prohibitive. There should be fast templates for some changes. Going from a CRD-3R to a CRD-3L should be easy. The 3L is a major variant used by the CC and hence anyone in CC should be abel to swap to that variant easily.

Omnimechs are another matter. They are designed to be changed on the fly. I would make a it faster to 'refit' to a standard pod variant over going to a customized variant. This reflects on the techs being acustomed to making certain modifications. Certain parts should be like the battlemech, the Avatar DC built omni has a pair of hard mounted Medium lasers. If you want to change those it is the same as making a change on a battlemech. The fluff states that removing those lasers on the Avatar keeps the targeting computer from functioning correctly... so a negative if you change it might be in order for some omnimechs

In no case should somethings be changed. Endo-Steel and Ferro Fibrous armor slots are stuck. Those come from having the armor on the basic chassis of the mech. You can't move the internals for ES or FF anywhere you want. Even omnimechs aren't allowed to move those around.

People in the IS are going to complain about lack of flexibility, suck it up! That is why Omnimechs are superior to battlemechs.

As for the model on how to make the changes. Would go with a cross between MW3 and MW4. Like MW3 you have to balance out where stuff goes that you add or remove (no more adding 20 double heatsinks plus 6 PPCs)

Like MW4 certain systems just weren't meant to fit in some places. But you should be able to replace the PPC on a WHM with an AC/10 IF you want to send the mech to the bay long enough and have the parts and cash to make the mods. The MW4 would affect how similar two systems are and how long it takes to make the changes. Every change has to add time. For battlemechs. this should quickly add up in cost of tech pay and in how long the mech is out for.

On another point there should be chances of criticals against ammo and it should take room. If you filled one torso with ammo and the other guy hits it and goes through the armor... you should have a chance of watching your mech go BOOOMMMMM!!!!

[Terick]

guardiandashi, on 07 December 2011 - 10:22 AM, said:

the srm's are close to constant in efficiencys and do "scatter damage" their big aadvangage is that when the armor gets thin ... or non existant they do small amounts of damage all over... the better to break things without destroying everything

This why for those of us that design mechs for campaigns are hole punchers or crit seekers. Then there are some weapons that are in between.

SRMs and great for going in to areas that the armor is gone and causing criticals (breaking the equipment in the section) or ammo explosions.

Hole punchers make those holes in the armor. Good example are PPCs and AC/20. They tear off a lot of armor in one go and make a hole for SRMs to go in and break stuff.

[Terick]

Alex Wolfe, on 07 December 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

Realistically thinking, a mech so outgunned like many factory variants are with their small lasers and SRM2s and single LRM5s would be discontinued and back to the drawing board pretty much immediately, after the people notice that a medium mech has trouble fending off a Harasser.

This will greatly depend if they implement melee.

Lets take the SHD-2H.
55 tons, moves at 5/8/3
AC/5, ML, LRM-5 and SRM-2

Looking at the guns it is junk.... has minor damage in all areas.

The real strength of the SHD has enough jump to keep moving and that it is 55 tons. It can kick hard and punches well. The placement of the ML on an arm isnt' ideal for punching... but it is ok.

The SHD is a bralwer, it closes and kicks/punches things to death. It has a little damage to help it get there, but people forget about it because it doesnt have much in the way of guns.

Now a SHD-2K that replaces that AC/5 with a PPC.... now it is a much better design in my book. But it will get fired at a lot more because of that PPC.

the other 'classic' 55 tonners are similar, the WVR-6R has spread damage but is best at melee and has more jump. The GRF has good long range and then can brawl well.

[Mechteric]

The best argument I have against a MW2 style "open" configuration is it makes no sense to be able to have 12 medium lasers on a Centurion, and all of them are in the left and right torso (since arms are more easily shot off, why would you put them there). It just doesn't work and its silly.

[Alex Wolfe]

MaddMaxx, on 07 December 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

Just to add to guardiandashi's point I added one more factor. "Cost"

Indeed, a good in-universe point. It would still mean that everyone would hate piloting stock mechs, since they'd just be "walking coffins" (as their bosses skimped out on the guns, and now they're not being able to fend for themselves).

Besides, so far MW games have been single player with MP pretty much tacked on, some balance problems may have gone under the radar, but I don't think this state will fly anymore. The players would simply play for a bit, amass money, and then it's ERLL party all around again.

By the way, in MechCommander 2, for example, while not entirely optimal, stock configs work quite well with the balance there (which in turn was undermined by the free-for-all mechlab though, so boats still reigned supreme in MP I hear), so the balancing I'd prefer seeing can definitely can be done.

Terick, on 07 December 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

This will greatly depend if they implement melee.

Lets take the SHD-2H.
55 tons, moves at 5/8/3
AC/5, ML, LRM-5 and SRM-2

Looking at the guns it is junk.... has minor damage in all areas.

The real strength of the SHD has enough jump to keep moving and that it is 55 tons. It can kick hard and punches well. The placement of the ML on an arm isnt' ideal for punching... but it is ok.

The SHD is a bralwer, it closes and kicks/punches things to death. It has a little damage to help it get there, but people forget about it because it doesnt have much in the way of guns.

Now a SHD-2K that replaces that AC/5 with a PPC.... now it is a much better design in my book. But it will get fired at a lot more because of that PPC.

the other 'classic' 55 tonners are similar, the WVR-6R has spread damage but is best at melee and has more jump. The GRF has good long range and then can brawl well.

Frankly, I haven't thought of that, good point. I'd still have them remodel it to fit the ranged nature of Mechwarrior so far (bringing fists to a cannon fight), but that explanation makes a good bit of sense.

[IceSerpent]

I think the issue of boating may be resolved by limiting the number of weapons in a given location - similar to what MW4 has, but without an ability to replace that PPC with a bunch of medium lasers. Switch between different weapons of the same type (i.e. AC/10 <--> AC/20 on a Centurion) can be easily done (you might have to remove other weapons and/or tweak number of heat sinks), replacing that AC/20 with twin AC/2s or a missile launcher is plain impossible unless you get a different variant of that mech. In other words, if you have a mech with large laser + medium laser config in the arms, you can replace it with other 1-2 energy weapons (taking weight/heat into consideration), but if you want to put a Gauss rifle in there, you need to get a new mech variant that has a ballistic slot in that arm. Same if you want 4 medium lasers - have to get a variant that can take 4 (smaller) barrels in that location.

[Cyttorak]

I also agree with the rundown of the SHD-2H, but since there's not going to be melee, I'd rather the devs just leave it out...same as the hatchetman.

[Terick]

One of my favorite things in CBT is Melee, not just DFA, but punching, pushing and other fun stuff.

I do hope melee is in there. If melee isnt' then a lot of the stock mechs need to be changed or never implemented. The hatchetman being an obvious one, but th Axeman and a number of the models built to face the clans. Since the clanners aren't melee really. . It also makes the battle armor less powerful... nothing like having a leg attack hit your assault mech and ripping the Hip out....

[Raeven]

This poll makes me sad. MW4 ruined customization.

[IceSerpent]

Raeven, on 07 December 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

This poll makes me sad. MW4 ruined customization.

MW2/3 has shown that unrestricted customization results in all mechs of the same weight being identical all-weapons-in-the-torso boats with different skins. MW4 merely attempted to fix the problem. It wasn't perfect, but it was way better than MW2/3 style.

[Havoc2]

MW4 had the most "realistic" MechLab.

What is needed (IMO) is a combination of MW4 and MW2. Certain hardpoints on Battlemechs can only accept energy/ballistic/missile weapons but stuff like ammo and heatsinks need to be included in the weapon placement AND critical restrictions.

So no more MW2 style where all your weapons were in your torso, but ammo and heatsinks were in your arms and legs.

If you want to put 2 LLAS in your left torso, you should be required to fit some heatsinks there too.

I'd also like to see efficiency lost when heatsinks are damaged/destroyed but that might be too much to hope for.

[verybad]

Terick, on 07 December 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

This will greatly depend if they implement melee.

They already said that it WON'T be, at least innitially and that it would have to be balanced carefully.. I personally don't want it, and I think punch bots is rather dorky.

Raeven, on 07 December 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

This poll makes me sad. MW4 ruined customization.

MW2 and MW3 didn't have mech classes, they just had tonnage configurations. If you actually played the game online a lot, then you would probably change your mind. MW2/MW3 customization was absolutely boring. Just because it matches the TT game doesn't make it better. If you want table top, just play MegaMek, it seems to have everything you want.

Edited by verybad, 07 December 2011 - 01:37 PM.

[SensualBubblegumX]

MW4 Style Mech Customizing. And maybe as an added bonus Mech Assault 2 style controls for pad players.

[Agasutin]

verybad, on 07 December 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

They already said that it WON'T be, at least innitially and that it would have to be balanced carefully.. I personally don't want it, and I think punch bots is rather dorky.

It's not a punch bot, it's a chawp-shawp! Axmen luls! Inner Sphere fun times!

Edited by Agasutin, 07 December 2011 - 02:53 PM.

[Haeso]

Alex Wolfe, on 07 December 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

Indeed, a good in-universe point. It would still mean that everyone would hate piloting stock mechs, since they'd just be "walking coffins" (as their bosses skimped out on the guns, and now they're not being able to fend for themselves).

Besides, so far MW games have been single player with MP pretty much tacked on, some balance problems may have gone under the radar, but I don't think this state will fly anymore. The players would simply play for a bit, amass money, and then it's ERLL party all around again.

By the way, in MechCommander 2, for example, while not entirely optimal, stock configs work quite well with the balance there (which in turn was undermined by the free-for-all mechlab though, so boats still reigned supreme in MP I hear), so the balancing I'd prefer seeing can definitely can be done.

Then implement real loss a la salvage. Problem solved.