66 replies to this topic

[MrJeffers]

Mystere, on 05 February 2016 - 08:57 AM, said:

But, but, but ... it says right there at the upper left side of this very page: "A BattleTech Game".

Is it all a lie?

All Mechwarrior games are BattleTech, but not all Battletech is mechwarrior.

[Hal Greaves]

forumwarrior alpha strike thread

[FupDup]

Gas Guzzler, on 05 February 2016 - 08:54 AM, said:

Lol, no, more like the whole thing about how TT values would be garbage in a FPS MechWarrior game. But whatever, you just keep being you.

A number of the TT values were poop even in TT itself, so that just adds more fuel to the fire...

[CDLord HHGD]

FupDup, on 05 February 2016 - 09:20 AM, said:

A number of the TT values were poop even in TT itself, so that just adds more fuel to the fire...

So nobody wants true DHS? Maybe I was wrong....

[FupDup]

cdlord, on 05 February 2016 - 09:22 AM, said:

So nobody wants true DHS? Maybe I was wrong....

I was referring to mostly weapons, like SL, SPL, AC/2, nearly all IS large-class lasers, etc.

[CDLord HHGD]

FupDup, on 05 February 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

I was referring to mostly weapons, like SL, SPL, AC/2, nearly all IS large-class lasers, etc.

I gathered but what specific TT value do you not like about..... Pick one and we'll discuss... For a long time I offered these ideas as separate, I combined them into one thread so people could see the whole picture because I agree, alone and separate, they don't make a lot of difference. Combined is where you get a better game.

[Quintus Verus]

1. No. (see 3)
2. No (see 3)
3. No - This isn't TT, its a FPS. If you unbalance game with full DHS and no heat penalty, then only mechs that are alpha strike heat neutral, will rule the battlefield. So a 32 (16DHS) 3 PPC Awesome can alpha and move with no heat penalty every round.) Realistic heat scale has no effect if the mech can vent all it's heat every round. The game will become, all about being heat neutral b/c that is what meta does.
4. If, by this you mean MW4 style, hard points? No. I like the current free reign of the mech lab. If you can fit it crit space and tonnage wise, you can sport it.
5. Yes. I think you should have to buy Techs, and AsTech's to support your mech stable, pay something for repair/reload, and add some kind of ammo or armor salvage.
6. No. I like the changes, Russ talked about in the last Townhall meeting better. Every round now, is skirmish, no matter what. With his proposed changes, you could wipe out other side but not meet your win conditions.
7. Indifferent.
8. Interesting idea. Don't like hard caps, but I do like "Set idea."
9. No to 10v12. I'd rather see 8v8 if anything. So a total of 32v32.
10. I'm sure when we get to that star data these will happen, but good heads up.
11. While the lore geek in me says, "YES!" The realist in me says, factions should have more control of where they go next instead. (Like you have 2 attack vectors you can choose from that have multiple planets to choose from. Can have historic battlefront weekends or weeks where lore is respected and only those corridors are open.
12. I'm going to wait and see if the rescale date Russ talked about works out. If it does, then this doesn't matter.

Bonus: I think this has already been nixed but I agree with you on size limits.

You obviously put a lot of effort into this, but your 12 step plan would cost way too much $$$ capital. PGI is too far down a certain path to strip out and do a complete overhaul.

Your PS comment about Hate will be reported is a little lame man. I agree with lets keep it constructive.

Edited by Quintus Verus, 05 February 2016 - 09:34 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 05 February 2016 - 09:26 AM, said:

I gathered but what specific TT value do you not like about..... Pick one and we'll discuss... For a long time I offered these ideas as separate, I combined them into one thread so people could see the whole picture because I agree, alone and separate, they don't make a lot of difference. Combined is where you get a better game.

There are plenty, the ACs are probably the best example because for the 2 to be useful it ends up being required to have a fast fire rate, something that is generally considered the purpose of the UAC2 and RAC2s. Basically holding to TT damage values at the very least ends up with some monkey business because TT was not created with intent of making each weapon worth its tonnage, and became more about using BV to balance bad weapons like the AC2.

You basically hamstring your ability to make this game more interesting and deep with regards to weapons the more you limit what you can change and use as a balancing mechanism. This is actually one of the reasons why I liked the MW4 mechlab as a whole because it tried to shift away from normal construction rules to add a little more flexibility for both flavor and balance. As far as I'm concerned, tonnage should be the only real limiting factor when it comes to balance of weapons and even then I'd be willing to make some concessions on the IS side so they are less awkward to balance in a few cases.

[CDLord HHGD]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 February 2016 - 09:34 AM, said:

There are plenty, the ACs are probably the best example because for the 2 to be useful it ends up being required to have a fast fire rate, something that is generally considered the purpose of the UAC2 and RAC2s. Basically holding to TT damage values at the very least ends up with some monkey business because TT was not created with intent of making each weapon worth its tonnage, and became more about using BV to balance bad weapons like the AC2.

You basically hamstring your ability to make this game more interesting and deep with regards to weapons the more you limit what you can change and use as a balancing mechanism. This is actually one of the reasons why I liked the MW4 mechlab as a whole because it tried to shift away from normal construction rules to add a little more flexibility for both flavor and balance. As far as I'm concerned, tonnage should be the only real limiting factor when it comes to balance of weapons and even then I'd be willing to make some concessions on the IS side so they are less awkward to balance in a few cases.

Ok, lets take a look at the ISAC2 specifically. I'll gather some numbers.

[CDLord HHGD]

cdlord, on 05 February 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Ok, lets take a look at the ISAC2 specifically. I'll gather some numbers.

Okay, taking just the aspects that are comparable here are the two AC2 lineups.

TT/MWO
Heat 1/0.8
Damage 2/2
Min Range 4/na
Short Rng. 1/8/na
Med. Range 9-16/na
Lng Range 17-24(720)/720
Ext. Range 25-32(960)/1440
Tons 6/6
Crits 1/1
Ammo/T 45/75

Heat: Take it back to TT because they only reduced it to compensate for ghost heat and I get rid of that.
Damage: The same
Minimum Range: Negligible
Short Range: Negligible
Medium Range: Negligible
Long Range: The same (with a 30m conversion for TT value).
Extreme Range: Revert to TT value.
Tons: The same
Crits: The same
Ammo: Keep MWO value (because we are also keeping double armor/structure).

Honestly I do not see much of a difference. Other than extreme range which is a crap shoot anyways, everything else is more or less equal.

[Queen of England]

cdlord, on 05 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Okay, taking just the aspects that are comparable here are the two AC2 lineups.

TT/MWO
Heat 1/0.8
Damage 2/2
Min Range 4/na
Short Rng. 1/8/na
Med. Range 9-16/na
Lng Range 17-24(720)/720
Ext. Range 25-32(960)/1440
Tons 6/6
Crits 1/1
Ammo/T 45/75

Heat: Take it back to TT because they only reduced it to compensate for ghost heat and I get rid of that.
Damage: The same
Minimum Range: Negligible
Short Range: Negligible
Medium Range: Negligible
Long Range: The same (with a 30m conversion for TT value).
Extreme Range: Revert to TT value.
Tons: The same
Crits: The same
Ammo: Keep MWO value (because we are also keeping double armor/structure).

Honestly I do not see much of a difference. Other than extreme range which is a crap shoot anyways, everything else is more or less equal.

You're ignoring cool down. The change between TT and MWO is massive and completely changed the character of the weapon. After modules and skills, the MWO version has about 17x the DPS.

Edited by Queen of England, 05 February 2016 - 10:13 AM.

[FupDup]

Queen of England, on 05 February 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

You're ignoring cool down. The change between TT and MWO is massive and completely changed the character of the weapon.

I wouldn't say "completely" changed it... Its character in TT was being bad, and that carries over to MWO just to a somehwat lower extent.


Personally though I'm a fan of an idea to make the AC/2 spit out two shells per click instead of one (each shell still does 2.0 damage) but with a slower cooldown. Say, make it between 1.5-2.0 second cooldown after firing 2 shells for 2 damage each (aka 4 damage per trigger pull).

Thus, the weapon's upfront alpha strike damage is improved by double, but it has a bit lower DPS in exchange. That would help keep its "long range poker" identity more intact.

Edited by FupDup, 05 February 2016 - 10:27 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Queen of England, on 05 February 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

You're ignoring cool down. The change between TT and MWO is massive and completely changed the character of the weapon. After modules and skills, the MWO version has about 17x the DPS.

Well, yes, ofc we're keeping cooldown. Did I say anywhere to use the TT round values or to do away with MWO's cooldown values?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 05 February 2016 - 09:49 AM, said:

Heat: Take it back to TT because they only reduced it to compensate for ghost heat and I get rid of that.

Heat was not dropped to compensate for ghost heat, it was dropped to make the ACs more equal in terms of damage per heat.

AC20 - 20 damage - 7 heat
AC10 - 10 damage - 3 heat
AC5 - 5 damage - 1 heat
AC2 - 2 damage - 1 heat

Notice the pattern? If they had done it right the first time, and accounted for the fact TT doesn't like decimals for obvious reasons, here is what it would be:

AC20 - 20 damage - 7 heat
AC10 - 10 damage - 3.5 heat
AC5 - 5 damage - 1.75 heat
AC2 - 2 damage - 0.7 heat -OR- AC2 - 2.5 damage - 0.875 heat

EDIT: Forgot AC20 is 7 heat in TT, adjusted the above accordingly.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 February 2016 - 10:30 AM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 February 2016 - 10:28 AM, said:

Heat was not dropped to compensate for ghost heat, it was dropped to make the ACs more equal in terms of damage per heat.

AC20 - 20 damage - 6 heat
AC10 - 10 damage - 3 heat
AC5 - 5 damage - 1 heat
AC2 - 2 damage - 1 heat

Notice the pattern? If they had done it right the first time, and accounted for the fact TT doesn't like decimals for obvious reasons, here is what it would be:

AC20 - 20 damage - 6 heat
AC10 - 10 damage - 3 heat
AC5 - 5 damage - 1.5 heat
AC2 - 2 damage - 0.6 heat

Actually, the AC/20's heat value was 7 in TT. Thus, the pattern of heat from biggest to smallest gun was previous gun's heat divided by 2, rounded down.

For example, 7 / 2 = 3.5, then that rounds to 3 for the AC/10. AC/5 is 3 / 2 = 1.5 --> rounds down to 1.

By this formula, the TT heat of the AC/2 should have actually been zero since 0.5 rounds down to 0.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 05 February 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Actually, the AC/20's heat value was 7 in TT. Thus, the pattern of heat from biggest to smallest gun was previous gun's heat divided by 2, rounded down.

For example, 7 / 2 = 3.5, then that rounds to 3 for the AC/10. AC/5 is 3 / 2 = 1.5 --> rounds down to 1.

By this formula, the TT heat of the AC/2 should have actually been zero since 0.5 rounds down to 0.

Already snuck that correction in, and yes, they should've made the AC2 zero heat, but apparently they couldn't allow that

cd, you also didn't address the problem with the overlap between AC2s an their counterparts (LAC2s, UAC2s, LBX2s, RAC2s, and HVAC2s).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 February 2016 - 10:34 AM.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 February 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

Already snuck that correction in, and yes, they should've made the AC2 zero heat, but apparently they couldn't allow that

It was made slightly worse by the fact that they double-shafted its ammo per ton. All the other ACs get 100 damage per ton of ammo, but the AC/2 only got 90 since it was 45 shots.

So it got shafted on heat, damage, AND ammo. The perfect trifecta of fail.

I also wonder how things would have turned out if they had kept a steady range formula...

AC/20: 9 hexes
AC/10: 15 hexes (+6)
AC/5: 18 hexes (+3)
AC/2: 24 hexes (+6)

If it were "normalized" at +6 per level, that would have become 9, 15, 21, and 27 respectively. I'd be okay with that...

Edited by FupDup, 05 February 2016 - 10:38 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 05 February 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

I also wonder how things would have turned out if they had kept a steady range formula...

AC/20: 9 hexes
AC/10: 15 hexes (+6)
AC/5: 18 hexes (+3)
AC/2: 24 hexes (+6)

If it were "normalized" at +6 per level, that would have become 9, 15, 21, and 27 respectively. I'd be okay with that...

It was probably to keep the 5 paired with the PPC because they had the same range. Not really a bad plan, but not really being worth pairing with considering the power of PPCs in Level 1 only games.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 05 February 2016 - 10:42 AM.

[Thorn Hallis]

I don't know if these 12 steps would "fix" MWO, but I know step 4 would kill it for me. If I wanted sized hardpoints, I'd play MW4.

[FupDup]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 05 February 2016 - 10:41 AM, said:

It was probably to keep the 5 paired with the PPC because they had the same range. Not really a bad plan, but not really being worth pairing with considering the power of PPCs in Level 1 only games.

It's kinda sad that even when ignoring the 10 free engine sinks, the PPC + heatsinks are almost as weight-efficient as 2 AC/5 in the end.

*AC/5 x 2 = 16 tons
*ammo = 1 ton, or you can grab 2 if you like
*Total = 17-18 tons, 2 points of net heat (ignoring 10 base sinks)

*PPC = 7 tons
*10 heatsinks = 10 tons
*Total = 17 tons, 0 points of net heat...and you could technically do this even with just the base 10 sinks for 10 tons less lol
*Also does that damage to one location instead of splitting it up...
*And no explosions to worry about...

Edited by FupDup, 05 February 2016 - 11:05 AM.