54 replies to this topic

[Lily from animove]

cdlord, on 18 December 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

Ugh, I can't imagine the meta-vomit we'd get. Thank GOD you aren't a developer for PGI/MWO.

but the metavomit is not related to being able to build a mech, if you make stuff stock people would then switch to the chassis/variant allowing the metavomit stock.

Your idea does not balance at all, it just shifts the issues form some mechs to others.

Tombstoner, on 18 December 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

Get rid of hit locations.... no more torso, arm, leg. no front or rear armor. Give mechs one armor pool. With a % chance of partial penetration for a % damage penetration to internals. That chance increases with damage taken. do this one thing and you will see a completely different game.

No sry this would entirely destroy the game as a "mechwarrior" game. shooting at sections and stuff is just a very vital part of what defined mechwarrior.

[CDLord HHGD]

Tombstoner, on 18 December 2015 - 07:05 AM, said:

It's not the mech lab. its already restrictive in the sense you cant change IS hard points. Give players full customization would be very bad. all youd see are min maxed PP FLD designs because thats what's works best in MWO.

It's the interaction between PP FLD alphas and TT mech design rules. Get rid of hit locations.... no more torso, arm, leg. no front or rear armor. Give mechs one armor pool. With a % chance of partial penetration for a % damage penetration to internals. That chance increases with damage taken. do this one thing and you will see a completely different game.

As it stands it way too easy to place your shots on the atlas CT. This is a major nerf.

The more I play it, the more I like the mechanics of World of Warships.

Lily from animove, on 18 December 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

but the metavomit is not related to being able to build a mech, if you make stuff stock people would then switch to the chassis/variant allowing the metavomit stock.

Your idea does not balance at all, it just shifts the issues form some mechs to others.



No sry this would entirely destroy the game as a "mechwarrior" game. shooting at sections and stuff is just a very vital part of what defined mechwarrior.

I would rather deal with a hoard of stock mechs with whatever restrictions on weight/class (remember 3/3/3/3?) than what we have now.

Edited by cdlord, 18 December 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Revis Volek]

Madcap72, on 17 December 2015 - 05:13 PM, said:

Some are inflated a bit, some are just shifted I.E. mechs that had rear facing hardpoints got moved to the front.

A TON of stuff sticks close to Sarna, just adapted to this game.

This also created the need for inflation on some of the other mechs because one with rear facing stuff now got TWO MORE up front. This i think was just a slight mistake because they didnt take a look at all 60 plus variants to say, oh wait...this one gets OP if we do this and rightly so, who has that time or that foresight.

The system we have isnt terrible, but MWO really reminds me of the Fast and Furious or Need for Speed Underground of the Mechwarrior Franchise.

Still mechs, still shooting, but we get flames and NOS (MASC) and to put a V8 (XL330) into just about any mech we want. Its fun, but like other said MWO is a different animal.

Edited by DarthRevis, 18 December 2015 - 07:20 AM.

[RussianWolf]

TLBFestus, on 17 December 2015 - 04:23 PM, said:

Careful, you know that that is probably just "their opinion at the time".

It's not like they were calling it a PILLAR of the game or anything.

Oops.....hold it.....forget I said that.

It's pretty easy to see that with so much flexibility in the loadouts that that has a huge effect on the degreee of difficulty of balance.

However if you restrict the mechlab, there are going to be even more deadbeat mechs in the game that can't compete with the better ones.

It ain't ever gonna happen but I'd like to see hard points with size limitations on them and then having a small stable of mechs you select prior to dropping in a series of maps. From those mechs you pick your best match to a map, then your next best on the next map, then the next until you run thru them all.

That would limit the times you get your optimum mech for a map and keep the diversity manageable and entertaining.

I mastered my Urbie in stock config. I say bring on a more limited mechlab. I'm ready.

Some of us have been asking for at least the sized hardpoints similar to MW4 for many moons. That would have allowed mechs to retain more of their character while also allowing you to change things and PGI could still inflate the number of hardpoints without as much damage. The shoulder on the 4P for example might only have 1 large HP and a bunch of small HPs. Right now, you can cram in as many large lasers as will fit the slots.

[Tombstoner]

kapusta11, on 18 December 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

If anything it has too little customization, we're stuck with old tech and this abomination called "hardpoints".

Hard points are not a bad design concept. The equipment needed for an auto cannon is different then for a PPC or a laser.
you cant simply stick weapons into slots. if however they where omni slots... different thing altogether. then it becomes ok i can put in 6 anything as long as i have space and tonnage

[Tombstoner]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 December 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

And with one quote,m im less interested in the game now

Expect things like lighter or stronger actuators 1-10% tweaks on specific things much like EVE. top to botom mech customization without altering weapon load-outs.... a wide range of weapon sub types can and do exist in lore but all have the same TT stats... that can now change adding customization and not be game breaking alterations.

I for one see hope in that quote. they do see the issues with MWO and i expect will design the new game with a MWO 2.0 port in mind.

[Tombstoner]

Lily from animove, on 18 December 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

but the metavomit is not related to being able to build a mech, if you make stuff stock people would then switch to the chassis/variant allowing the metavomit stock.

Your idea does not balance at all, it just shifts the issues form some mechs to others.



No sry this would entirely destroy the game as a "mechwarrior" game. shooting at sections and stuff is just a very vital part of what defined mechwarrior.

And you would be rewarded when you shoot an arm and damage penitents hitting the ppc destroying it. a single armor pool is the simplest way to partially correct for an incomplete TT port that left mech size a huge factor in TTK.

[Tombstoner]

cdlord, on 18 December 2015 - 07:19 AM, said:

The more I play it, the more I like the mechanics of World of Warships.

That system fits a TT mech design system far better then what we have now. its a good compromise between RNG TT and pin point FPS.

Auto cannons and missiles would have a chance to penetrate and lasers and PPC's destroy armor increasing chance to penetrate. This would make flamers and mg rather useful.

[Barantor]

If you wanted more 'authentic' types of mechs then the quirks would only apply to specific hardpoints and not the whole mech. This would allow the devs to tailor the mech more to a role without yanking all the customization out of folks hands.

If a mech has a PPC in it's arm in lore, then that arm mount is the place it gets the PPC buff, not the side torso energy points. If a mech has a bunch of SRMs in one torso, then that torso would be the place where the quirks happen. Much like how I imagine they could do it for the clans with A-R. Arm having X quirks and Prime-R. Arm having others.

The meta is just 'using the best' so you won't curtail it fully, but having things be a bit more lore appropriate than not would do a lot for the game IMO.

Edited by Barantor, 18 December 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Barantor, on 18 December 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

If you wanted more 'authentic' types of mechs then the quirks would only apply to specific hardpoints and not the whole mech. This would allow the devs to tailor the mech more to a role without yanking all the customization out of folks hands.

If a mech has a PPC in it's arm in lore, then that arm mount is the place it gets the PPC buff, not the side torso energy points. If a mech has a bunch of SRMs in one torso, then that torso would be the place where the quirks happen. Much like how I imagine they could do it for the clans with A-R. Arm having X quirks and Prime-R. Arm having others.

The meta is just 'using the best' so you won't curtail it fully, but having things be a bit more lore appropriate than not would do a lot for the game IMO.

I have been suggesting this since quirks were released. It makes no sense for a Thunderbolt with an ERPPC on the arm to receive ERPPC quirks on a shoulder where a flamer is mounted. Quirks are supposed to reflect desgn characteristics, and Thunderbolts do not have design characteristics that involve ERPPCs on the upper shoulder. The pooch was screwed.

Also, concerning the opening post of this thread, the Hairbrained quote is not really applicable to MW:O and the OP's main question is somewhat moot. A TT game has far less tactical depth than a shooter. The TT game has more strategic depth, but tactical depth is sorely lacking. Why? Because you cannot aim, and partial cover is not a valid system.

On a TT Mech, it doesn't matter if your Lasers are shoulder mounted or hip mounted; they have the same utility because you don't have to worry about shooting over a navel-high rock. And you don't have to worry about how weapon placement affects convergence, variable projectile velocity, target leading, split reticules, and other factors that tie into why Boating works best in a live shooter.

The limitations they are placing on the BattleTech mechlab can't really be directly compared to MW:O's mechlab, and the comparisons we do make have to be considered in the context of Shooter vs RNGRPG.

[General Taskeen]

NextGame, on 17 December 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

what are they going to put on the hunchback 4p? 3 medium lasers and a smiley face?

Har, har. You should know better as to what the answer is or you're being purposely obstuse.

Of course a Hunchback-4P in that (better) game will have exactly 8 ML and 1 SL, like its supposed to. What they mean by 'character' is likely not allowing stupid crap like yanking out the stock engine and putting in a huge Nascar engine or strapping on Large Lasers or PPCs (which no longer makes it a 4P but somethine else) OR allowing some other 50 ton Mech to mount the exact same things. If they do it would be in an 'unrestricted' tinkering mode. 'Character' is pretty clearly defined with each Mech and their variant stock loadouts in BT - its kind of too... obvious. MWO can't find its way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to actual BT and proper simulated custom rules as-is.

Like these Non-BT "metas" for example:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...666e3cb0f27782d
mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=48&l=7c037d10d8d67bbd4a429e296666e3cb0f27782d
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2764e4dd2edeb4d
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...cd3d6ce0117eafe

Clearly these Mechs have 'so' much character left that they are nearly the same thing, but look different, shooting their same weapons from different ports, quite magical. I mean why didn't Battletech think of that, pure genius make everything the same.

[Felbombling]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 18 December 2015 - 07:08 AM, said:

And with one quote,m im less interested in the game now

0bsidion, on 18 December 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

That was actually along the lines of what popped into my head once I read that quote. There are multiple examples of stock mechs boating a single weapon type, like oh, I don't know, every mech in the Resistance 2 pack, (except the Mauler), for instance. Loadouts straight from TT.

Lasers, more lasers and nothing but lasers, so help me God.

The quote is pertaining to kit-bashing energy boats, not getting rid of Mechs like the Grasshopper or Hunchback 4P. That is how I read it, at least.

[MechaBattler]

I wonder if they'll go with different manufacturers as a form of customization. I was kinda hoping that PGI would go that route with CW. Make different planets host to different production sites. And if your unit fights for it, they get rewarded with access to that site's variant equipment. BUT NOOOOOO. Instead we get c-bills and mechbays as reward for being "loyal". We should get unique variants for getting a high loyalty rank, one that can't be bought with cash or c-bills. Like a Cataphract or Vindicator for Liao.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

StaggerCheck, on 18 December 2015 - 12:00 PM, said:

Lasers, more lasers and nothing but lasers, so help me God.

The quote is pertaining to kit-bashing energy boats, not getting rid of Mechs like the Grasshopper or Hunchback 4P. That is how I read it, at least.

Dunno it read as less being able to build boats. Hopefully Im wrong

[Tarl Cabot]

Was going to ask if we know the length of rounds in the game but that may not be available yet.

Quote

Q: Is this going to be a port of the BT tabletop rules?
A: Our goal is to craft a combat system for BATTLETECH that’s the perfect blend of tactical depth, speed of play, and meaningful unit customization. As we did with our Shadowrun games, we intend to capture the *spirit* of the original tabletop rules, while designing the best PC game we can. That said, Shadowrun and BattleTech are very different games! For one thing, Shadowrunners like to hide behind cover, while ‘Mechs… squash cover. Expect turn-based combat in BattleTech to feel very different than a more cover-based combat system like Shadowrun’s.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 December 2015 - 06:27 PM.