Jump to content

Reasonable Ways To Flesh Out Lots Of Future Tech.


26 replies to this topic

#1 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 06 October 2016 - 01:17 PM

Honestly, I'm disillusioned enough that I don't think PGI will take note, and I don't think these concepts will get anywhere. [EDIT: PGI has said new tech IS coming so here's fingers crossed this thread had influence over how it gets implemented or at least the decision to bring it in, showing how simple some things can be achieved with respectable balance.] However, it's stuff I've been pondering on and off for quite a while, so I figured I'd put the concepts here on the Forums.

Simply put, there are quite a few weapons and equipment that already exist in canon but aren't in the game, yet. Some may be a bit out of timeline, but that doesn't remove the validity of the idea behind their implementation . . . it just doesn't mean we would see it right away. We're already getting mechs that are pushing well beyond the "timeline" of MWO, so tech expansion is only a matter of time.

Some things are obvious. Eventually we'll probably see the missing IS ER weapons, Streaks, LBX, and Ultra autocannons. They can simply be implemented in the same fashion as the counterparts that already exist. That's all well and good. Here are suggestions for other things that we don't have, yet, but could certainly get now or in the future.

Take note that numbers are provided for numerous systems to act as examples, and are not something that I’m stating should be absolutely set in stone.

1. IS Tech - Mech Rifles:
Spoiler


2. IS Tech - Magshot:
Spoiler


3. IS Tech - Rocker Launchers:
Spoiler


4. IS Tech - Binary Laser Cannon (Nicknamed Blazer):
Spoiler


5. IS Tech - MRM Systems:
Spoiler


6. IS Tech - MML Systems:
Spoiler


7. IS Tech - Light/Heavy/Snub PPC:
Spoiler


8. IS Tech - Light/Heavy Gauss:
Spoiler


9. IS Tech - Light Fusion Engion (LFE)
Spoiler


10. Clan Tech - Heavy Lasers:
Spoiler


11. Clan Tech - Micro Lasers:
Spoiler


12. Clan Tech - ATM Systems:
Spoiler


13. Clan Tech - HAG Systems:
Spoiler


14. Clan Tech - Anit-Personnel (AP) Gauss Rifle:
Spoiler


15. Either Tech - Mech Mortars:
Spoiler


16. Either Tech - XL Gyro:
Spoiler


17. Either Tech - Small Cockpit:
Spoiler


18. Either Tech - Hardened Armor:
Spoiler


19. Either Tech - Reactive Armor:
Spoiler


20. Either Tech - Reflective Armor:
Spoiler


21. Either Tech - Stealth Armor:
Spoiler


22. Either Tech - Laser Anti-Missile System (LAMS):
Spoiler


23. Either Tech - Angel ECM:
Spoiler


24. Either Tech - Bloodhound Active Probe:
Spoiler


25. Either Tech - Plasma Weapons:
Spoiler


26. Either Tech - Rotary Autocannons:
Spoiler


27. Either Tech - Flamer Series:
Spoiler


Any and all constructive feedback and discussion would be greatly appreciated. Remember, this is theorycrafting and attempting to get more equipment (for the present and future) into MWO in as simple of methods as possible. We don't need to throw huge piles of massively complex or complicated mechanics onto things that have simple options of implementation. Also, again remember that the numbers are for example and discussion purposes, only, and are not absolute definitive numbers that I’m demanding be put in place.

Edited by Sereglach, 13 January 2017 - 09:51 PM.


#2 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 14 October 2016 - 11:26 AM

Over a week and not a single comment. I guess I should be surprised, but I'm not.

Regardless, I figured I'd put up all my personal notes on how to implement lots of Battletech equipment in as simple of ways as possible. Here's hoping that at least the devs take note of it at some point.

#3 Odanan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 8,198 posts
  • LocationBrazil

Posted 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM

Thanks for compiling that info.

My thoughts are:

Some weapons are way out of timeline now, but if PGI is really going to add MW4 mechs next year, I suppose they will be jumping to the 3060s.

Well, I've been advocating for new weapons for some time, specially the mech Rifles, Mortars and Laser AMS. I think those would be pretty interesting in the game.
  • Mech Rifles: low weight ballistics - a great option for lighter mechs. Since the IS autocannons behave like these rifles should (single round), PGI could give them a different flavor: make them much like some light cannons of real life (can quickly shot some rounds and then have a long reloading of the "magazine").
  • Mech Mortars: no need to add any special mechanic. Fire in arc much like the LRMs, but without lock or guidance.
  • Laser Anti-Missile System: an interesting choice for those who don't want to carry ammo (and have cool loadouts).
All those three are available in our current timeline (LAMS only for the Clans right now).

Some weapons, like the Rotary Autocannon, were terribly balanced (meaning not balanced at all) in TT (and not very well implemented in the MW4 iterations). I don't see how an UAC that can re-shot 3x more could work in MWO, even if the jamming chance was absurd.
Some weapons/tech don't add anything new (like the HAG or the Rocket launchers - which are basically how the semi-guided SRMs were implemented in MWO) or would just make others obsolete, without a necessary trade-off (like the Angel ECM).
And finally, some weapons would require a lot of coding and changes, like the ATMs.

About the futuretech equipment (new types of armor and engines), I find them very interesting and hope PGI adds them to the game when the time jump is done.

Edited by Odanan, 20 October 2016 - 06:51 PM.


#4 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 20 October 2016 - 07:10 PM

View PostOdanan, on 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Thanks for compiling that info.

Glad someone finds it useful. Thank you for taking note. I know it's a lot, but maybe PGI can find some useful items in there. I tried to keep implementations of some things as simple as possible, but PGI really needs to start thinking about these things now instead of 3 months before they want to implement any of it (like with the Clans).

View PostOdanan, on 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Some weapons are way out of timeline now, but if PGI is really going to add MW4 mechs next year, I suppose they will be jumping to the 3060s.

That's one reason why I said that even if PGI is going to wait on some of the weapons/equipment, it's at least worthwhile -now- to look at simple, reasonable, and balanaced solutions for implementing the equipment well in advance. I think had PGI taken that approach long ago, we would have been in a much better place the second the clans were released, instead of deciding to release the mechs/tech first and then deciding to try to figure out how to balance it.

View PostOdanan, on 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Well, I've been advocating for new weapons for some time, specially the mech Rifles, Mortars and Laser AMS. I think those would be pretty interesting in the game.
  • Mech Rifles: low weight ballistics - a great option for lighter mechs. Since the IS autocannons behave like these rifles should (single round), PGI could give them a different flavor: make them much like some light cannons of real life (can quickly shot some rounds and then it has a long reloading of the "magazine").
  • Mech Mortars: no need to add any special mechanic. Fire in arc much like the LRMs, but without lock or guidance.
  • Laser Anti-Missile System: an interesting choice for those who don't want to carry ammo (and have cool loadouts).
All those three are available in our current timeline (LAMS only for the Clans right now).

Interesting concepts for some of the stuff.

If you look at what I've mentioned a little more closely I put the mech Rifles as reasonably close to their TT implementation, but focused on their "cheap" implementation to just make them a bit less DPS oriented compared to the autocannon counterparts. Great burst damage for an ambush, but not really sustainable DPS in a brawl. I suppose our concepts are similar in that way. It would be interesting to sit down and hash out the two concepts and see how they'd compare.

Mortars aren't really a special mechanic, they fire like LRM's (lore even says they're guided mortars) but really high arcs, fast flight speed, and AMS doesn't affect them. Those advantages are easily offset with very long reload times that emphasizes their support role.

LAMS . . . yeah . . . just needs to happen. Some of the 2 and 3 AMS capable mechs out there could really lay down some missile suppression if they didn't have to worry about ammo stores getting burned up within 2 minutes of the fight.

View PostOdanan, on 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

Some weapons, like the Rotary Autocannon, were terribly balanced (meaning not balanced at all) in TT (and not very well implemented in the MW4 iterations). I don't see how an UAC that can re-shot 3x more could work in MWO, even if the jamming chance was absurd.
Some weapons/tech don't add anything new (like the HAG or the Rocket launchers - which are basically how the semi-guided SRMs were implemented in MWO) or would just make others obsolete, without a necessary trade-off (like the Angel ECM).
And finally, some weapons would require a lot of coding and changes, like the ATMs.

If you look at what I did for the Rotary autocannons in detail, you might think otherwise. They'd make amazing burst-weapon options, but would still be out-DPS'd in extended engagements due to the way the jamming would work. However, I completely agree that they were broken in TT . . . but one of the biggest reasons they were made broken was because the potency of energy weapons had gotten completely out of control by that point.

While some weapons really don't bring a *lot* to the table, they can still be implemented in reasonable fashion without too much effort. That's one reason why I mention them as I do. It also allows for PGI to actually get the tech in game and not have to make quite as many apocryphal variants just to keep from having to implement new tech.

Angel ECM doesn't need to make Guardian/Clan ECM obsolete, and I also outline how that can be done as long as PGI implements the ECM fix that we know they already have. It was part of the big mech rebalance PTS runs, if you remember those.

Lastly, you're overthinking the ATM's and MML's . . . PGI could easily crank them out without any special coding or multiple ammo types. They've already got the code for damage loss over range. All PGI needs to do is shift it to missile weapons and create quick drops at various range increments instead of the extended drop-off . . . not unlike the clan's LRM "wind-up" when within 90m. That tech makes lots of weapons like Heavy/Snub PPC's, Heavy Gauss, and the aforementioned missile launchers all easily viable.

View PostOdanan, on 20 October 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

About the futuretech equipment (new types of armor and engines), I find them very interesting and hope PGI add them to the game when the time jump is done.

Same, and they're just too easy to implement. XL Gyros, Small Cockpits, XXL Engines (not on the list and not needed, the TT implementation can be carried over as-is), and all the armor types would go a long way to bring some much needed defensive options into the game.

#5 a gaijin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,003 posts
  • LocationUS Naval Base, Yokosuka, Japan

Posted 20 October 2016 - 07:58 PM

No new weapons or tech should be added and here's why:

PGI has not been able to correctly balance the already implemented weapons/tech and they've been tweaking/peaking and trying to balance them since 2012!
Unsuccessfully.

As much as I like MWO and give PGI an 'A' for effort, it is utter nonsense to add more workload to the apparently already full plate.

Instead of adding more weapons or mechs PGI should be focused on adding more interesting play modes and streamlining what's already in the game.

Edited by Lone Wanderer, 20 October 2016 - 07:59 PM.


#6 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 20 October 2016 - 09:17 PM

View PostLone Wanderer, on 20 October 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

No new weapons or tech should be added and here's why:

PGI has not been able to correctly balance the already implemented weapons/tech and they've been tweaking/peaking and trying to balance them since 2012!
Unsuccessfully.

As much as I like MWO and give PGI an 'A' for effort, it is utter nonsense to add more workload to the apparently already full plate.

Instead of adding more weapons or mechs PGI should be focused on adding more interesting play modes and streamlining what's already in the game.

Funny enough, but balance concepts are already basically taken care of in most of the suggestions given, so there's no reason to dismiss it outright just because of that.

Also, the people (namely Paul Inouye) tweaking/designing weapon and equipment stats aren't the same people designing game modes or the maps that go with them. Again, no reason to dismiss looking at weapons or equipment outright, especially when I take the time to keep the suggestions as simple to implement as possible.

It's like the development and releasing of mech packs. It's never going to end because, 1. it's their revenue stream and 2. it's completely unrelated to anything else. In this case game balance can and should continue to go on even when map and game mode designers are working elsewhere. We just won't see most of this equipment implemented anytime soon because a lot of it (most) is still outside PGI's currently declared timeline. However, that will change; and this tech will be needed when that time comes.

Just because your opinions on what PGI should be doing lie somewhere that's completely unrelated to the thread doesn't mean the contents of the thread should be dismissed outright.

Edited by Sereglach, 20 October 2016 - 09:19 PM.


#7 a gaijin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,003 posts
  • LocationUS Naval Base, Yokosuka, Japan

Posted 20 October 2016 - 09:46 PM

More play modes actually adds *more fun* to this game than adding more variety to the already satisfactory amount of weapon systems.

I'd spend real world $$ for more play modes.

I would *not* spend that for more weapon systems, more stupid quirk tweaks, additonal inane modules, or more mechs. Though out of all those a few more mechs would be easiest to implement and might generate some real-world revenue.

Better mission-based (as in copying missions from legacy MW games) play modes would be worth $$ to me and I imagine other peple that miss feeling like they were playing an actual MW game in the BT universe circa Refusal War/Twilight of the Clans era.

Adding more weapon systems to MechWarrior team Deathmatch doesn't actually help anything or make the game better.
But adding fun play modes does. It's as simple as that.

Edited due to spelling errors. Thanks to siri's awesome auto"correct."

Edited by Lone Wanderer, 20 October 2016 - 09:48 PM.


#8 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:46 AM

View PostLone Wanderer, on 20 October 2016 - 09:46 PM, said:

More play modes actually adds *more fun* to this game than adding more variety to the already satisfactory amount of weapon systems.

I'd spend real world $$ for more play modes.

I would *not* spend that for more weapon systems, more stupid quirk tweaks, additonal inane modules, or more mechs. Though out of all those a few more mechs would be easiest to implement and might generate some real-world revenue.

Better mission-based (as in copying missions from legacy MW games) play modes would be worth $$ to me and I imagine other peple that miss feeling like they were playing an actual MW game in the BT universe circa Refusal War/Twilight of the Clans era.

Adding more weapon systems to MechWarrior team Deathmatch doesn't actually help anything or make the game better.
But adding fun play modes does. It's as simple as that.

Edited due to spelling errors. Thanks to siri's awesome auto"correct."

No offense, but you're missing the point, good sir or ma'am.

1. What you're talking about doesn't match up with PGI's revenue system, period. They make money off mechs, and that is it. They won't make people buy maps because then it causes problems with segregating their player-base. Think what happened to the Halo series where the base gets segregated based on who does or doesn't buy map packs. Granted, Halo can afford that, but MWO can't.

2. Again, the people working on weapons, equipment, quirks, and anything else for balance tuning have NOTHING to do with making the game modes or mechs. They're completely independent. It's just like the fact that you can't take a UI engineer and suddenly have them start working on making maps. They're independent from one another.

3. PGI makes money off mechs; and eventually they're going to run out of mechs that are available in timeline. Therefore PGI will need to push the timeline forward to continue putting out mechs and making money. When they do that they're going to need the tech in game to make the mechs. It's like what happened with the Clans. New weapons and equipment are inevitable. It's better for PGI to have plans that will be reasonably balanced, in advance, then to have a panicked move to push the equipment into the game with haphazard balancing right before it's released . . . like what happened with the Clans and "basic" Clan technology.

Therefore, regardless of what you *want* to spend money on, that's not what PGI uses for revenue. Just imagine if Skirmish and Domination needed to be bought in order to play them in MWO. The player base would be segregated by the people who do or don't have the game modes bought. However, for people who want to support PGI's development of game modes, they buy mech packs; and those mech packs will eventually require the new equipment that goes into making those mechs work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, with that said, I cordially request bringing the conversation back on topic. If you have feedback on the types of equipment mentioned in the OP, then please comment on it. If all you want to do is advocate for other game modes, I cordially request taking up that conversation in an appropriate thread.

Edited by Sereglach, 21 October 2016 - 08:47 AM.


#9 a gaijin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,003 posts
  • LocationUS Naval Base, Yokosuka, Japan

Posted 21 October 2016 - 10:44 AM

Good reply, but no joy.

Topic is pointless. Does not add anything good to the game.


#10 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:15 PM

View PostLone Wanderer, on 21 October 2016 - 10:44 AM, said:

Good reply, but no joy.

Topic is pointless. Does not add anything good to the game.

I asked nicely, but apparently that didn't get through.

This is a thread about weapons and equipment, not whatever you want and demand. You've got your threads. Stick to them, and don't waste time in this one, unless you have something constructive to add. However, given how you've been copy/pasting the same useless reply into every thread that isn't about what you want, I already know that you have nothing useful to add.

Therefore . . . get lost.

----------------------------------------------------------------

There's actually quite a slew of people who are angry that PGI has been making non-canon variants of recent mechs specifically because they're refusing to add mechs with new tech.

However, they're running out of viable options for even half-canon mech releases. Eventually they'll bump the timeline, which means they'll need to introduce the technology that goes with it.

Also there's a lot of people who just want the new tech, period, so there's more to play with then the same limited weapon systems and equipment we already have.

The premise of the thread is to actually discuss reasonable ways of doing that.

#11 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 13 January 2017 - 09:18 PM

While it has been quite some time, I figured it'd be worth bringing this thread back up to try and renew discussion on tech for MWO. With PGI's official announcement that the timeline is advancing and that new tech is coming, the implementation of any tech should be taken into serious consideration as to how it can be implemented with as little headache as possible and with balance being an utmost concern.

Again, any and all constructive discussion is very welcome.

#12 Willothius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 187 posts
  • LocationThe Great Mechbay In The Sky.

Posted 14 January 2017 - 08:47 AM

Interesting suggestions, although my general response to many of these would be:
If it doesn't really add something new, why bother...?
I get that you've taken 'easy to implement' as a general guidline, but there's just so much more to do with this stuff if you're a bit creative and think out-of-the-box, even with mechanics that are already in-game now!
Also, I'm kinda ignoring Lore/TT here, as that's what PGI is already doing with their weapons anyway.

So, find below my own replies and thoughts!

1. IS Tech - Mech Rifles:
2. IS Tech - Magshot:
14. Clan Tech - Anit-Personnel (AP) Gauss Rifle:
SMALL BALLISTICS!
Lighter ballistics indeed really could use some gaps filled.
Could be as straightforward as these, nothing fancy required, just a few extra flavours to fill the gap of lightweight options for Ballistic hardpoints!

3. IS Tech - Rocker Launchers:
5. IS Tech - MRM Systems:
6. IS Tech - MML Systems:
12. Clan Tech - ATM Systems:
15. Either Tech - Mech Mortars:
MISSILES!
My opinion: having more missile based weapons would only be good if they truly bringsomething new to the table. Simply having "medium range" variants of what we already have..? meh.
Also the ammo-changeable things, would give nice new options, but I find it also a bit boring; It takes away from having to really choose your range/niche.
Here's an idea;

-Dumb-firing missiles, but able to lock trajectory AFTER they were fired.
Would give awesome new options, like corner firing/arcing! Would have to be medium range, fitting in between SRMs and LRMs not only in range/speed/damage, but also firing-mechanics!

4. IS Tech - Binary Laser Cannon (Nicknamed Blazer):
10. Clan Tech - Heavy Lasers:
11. Clan Tech - Micro Lasers:
LAZORS!
If you're gonna add a bunch of lasers but stick to the same boring heat/dmg/duration flavours, why bother? we've got most of the grounds covered, they don't sound like truly adding new fighting mechanics, just.. more build options of the same (especially if we do get more IS ER lasers).

Instead, there's so much more you could do with them,
Here's an idea (actually what Pulse Laser should be doing, I think) of how an alternative firing mechanism could add something new to lasers:

1) Click-and-hold to start firing; very short, individual pulses, a bit further apart then the current SPL/MPL/LPL line, but without the 'classic' cooldown before you can refire. Very high DPS, but massive heat buildup! Release click to stop the pulse-flow.

2) Another option is a recharge mechanics similar to JumpJets; Keep firing those pulses fast, but that drains your bar.

3) Could even go for a miniature version of the Gauss-charge mechanics; keep trigger pushed to charge several pulses, releasing them in bigger burst than simply singel-clicking fire button.

All methods give you an option to fire pulses in a way more controlled, pin-point way, that's pretty easy to implement, but a total new experience, rather than just having a 'normal' laser with a slightly different duration/range/heat.

7. IS Tech - Light/Heavy/Snub PPC:
8. IS Tech - Light/Heavy Gauss:
This I would love to see as regular expansion of the current weapon-palette!
(along with other regular expansions expansions like more IS UACs and LBXs)

9. IS Tech - Light Fusion Engion (LFE)
Hmm, I kinda like the current all-or-nothing option that regular IS XL poses, but I guess it could be a nice middleground, although very hard to balance this so it's not simply superior over STD engines..

18. Either Tech - Hardened Armor:
19. Either Tech - Reactive Armor:
20. Either Tech - Reflective Armor:
21. Either Tech - Stealth Armor:
ARMOUR!
Adding some of these could really nicely bring out the whole rock-paper-siccors mechanism!
(You pick reactive armour and go for the SRM brawlers, but damni, now you're getting picked apart by some ERLL snipers!)
Only Stealth I don't see adding much. rest almost seems ready to drop in a PTS right away!

22. Either Tech - Laser Anti-Missile System (LAMS):
23. Either Tech - Angel ECM:
24. Either Tech - Bloodhound Active Probe:
HI-TECH STUFF!
All of these are probably way too complex to be added currently.
Not to implement (well.. it's PGI so..) but they just wouldn't bring much actually new to the game, just more intricate variations on the same.

26. Either Tech - Rotary Autocannons:
This also sounds great! Instead of the shotgun LBXs or PinPoint regular ACs you get a stream of slugs. Sounds very much like clan ACs right now, but I see this could really bring something nice to the table. Actually, this is what I also meant by my Pulse Laser charge-thingy suggestion above..

Edited by Willothius, 14 January 2017 - 08:50 AM.


#13 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 14 January 2017 - 09:59 AM

View PostWillothius, on 14 January 2017 - 08:47 AM, said:

*snip*

This is some interesting feedback to give. Thank you, first and foremost, for the time and consideration.

A lot of your feedback puts us at a point of opinion differentiations. Some of the things, which you're saying won't do anything unique, others (myself included) feel that they do add unique flavors to the game. That's just a matter of personal taste and we can parse those all day. That's not a bad thing, as it were, because we can look those over and try to find things that provide the most amount of people with the most amount of viable choices. After all, if someone really doesn't like something, in the end, then all they have to do is just not mount it on their mechs.

However, to hit on some of the bigger points you've made; and show how it becomes a matter of differing opinions:

1. I'm trying to keep things simple, and I've outlined the core TT conversion necessities that would need to occur for PGI to be able to successfully implement the weapons and equipment into MWO. However any extra gameplay features would need to be taken into stark consideration for weapon balance overall. Some "unique" feature could inadvertently create an absolutely broken feature that upsets game balance.

2. There are many ways the various missile systems could be handled. Maybe MRM's (or any of the others mentioned), after shot, follow your cursor to the best of their ability, but they have low agility. Touching on the end of point 1, if you give any crosshair tracking missile too much agility then you create a horribly broken weapon system. Also, crosshair tracking can cause a huge problem if you've got missiles and ballistics; and you're trying to lead your ballistic shots while still trying to guide in those crosshair-tracking missiles (ever count how long it takes LRM's to travel 600m? yikes). Yes, it's unique, but it gets really complex really fast; and it might not end up as fun as you think.

3. For Lasers PGI has stuck to a very simple formula. Trust me, myself and others have advocated for things like Pulse Laser overhauls for ages. I'd love to see Pulse Lasers that fired more like the energy machine guns that they're supposed to be (MW4 actually did a pretty good job with that), but we don't have that, here. If PGI were to budge on that stance (they started to in the Energy Draw PTS runs) then I think there's a lot of potential for PGI. However, some of the lasers mentioned do fill tonnage and weapon-style gaps that we really don't have right now. Thusly, even if they follow PGI's rather mundane formula, they still serve a purpose. I agree that there are MANY cool things that could be done to lasers to make each system unique and awesome, but PGI hasn't done it, so we just have to work with what we've got.

4. The LFE provides the IS with a stark 3-engine choice structure; and there are a lot of people clamoring to get their hands on it (some see it as the messiah of Clan/IS balance). STD = Most survivability, LFE = Clan XL survivability but only half the weight-saving benefits of XL, and XL = Most weight savings, but fragile. Many lights will probably still stick to XL engines (particularly scouts like the Raven 3L), as well as any mech that's just a CT magnet or is heavy fire-support. Big Brawlers get put in a precarious choice of STD vs. LFE, because if you have the hardpoints then being a zombie still means you're doing damage and being a threat; and that can mean the difference between a win or loss for your team.

5. Stealth armor could add a LOT to the game, but it also depends on PGI fixing ECM to function how it should (not the magic-Jesus-box of invisibility). PGI showed they have a fix for ECM waiting, but that they were waiting on "InfoTech" to get where they wanted it before releasing. Granted, if ECM isn't fixed, then Stealth armor really doesn't add much OR PGI would need to find some new use for it. In addition to this, Bloodhound Probe and Angel ECM also rely on a proper ECM fix for MWO, to an extent, but even then I've outlined other possible uses that really do provide some unique gameplay options (Bloodhound tracking targets 360 degrees and outside LOS for example). Regardless, some mechs would require Stealth Armor to be in game to be implemented; and there are some people who really want those mechs.

6. Laser AMS really should just happen, especially how some AMS heavy chassis (some clans can get 3 AMS systems) can burn through many tons of ammo when providing an AMS umbrella for their team. While you think it's just a "more intricate variation" that's actually a distinct choice of ammo or heat as well as longevity of the system. Otherwise, is it really a choice between "Dakka" vs. "Laser Vomit" in gameplay, or are they just variations of the same thing? The answer to that is going to just be a matter of opinion to most people especially because everything is doing the same kinds of damage to generic "HP values" of armor.

Regardless, it'll be fascinating to see how PGI overcomes a lot of the hurdles both of us bring up. There's a lot PGI could do to add a lot of variety to the game; and some things could just end up being "more of the same" to some people.

Thank you again for the feedback and feel free to keep the discussion going. The insight and different perspective is appreciated.

#14 Willothius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Boombox
  • The Boombox
  • 187 posts
  • LocationThe Great Mechbay In The Sky.

Posted 14 January 2017 - 02:08 PM

Nice stuff, I like theory-stomping ;)

View PostSereglach, on 14 January 2017 - 09:59 AM, said:

This is some interesting feedback to give. Thank you, first and foremost, for the time and consideration.

../..

2. There are many ways the various missile systems could be handled. Maybe MRM's (or any of the others mentioned), after shot, follow your cursor to the best of their ability, but they have low agility. Touching on the end of point 1, if you give any crosshair tracking missile too much agility then you create a horribly broken weapon system. Also, crosshair tracking can cause a huge problem if you've got missiles and ballistics; and you're trying to lead your ballistic shots while still trying to guide in those crosshair-tracking missiles (ever count how long it takes LRM's to travel 600m? yikes). Yes, it's unique, but it gets really complex really fast; and it might not end up as fun as you think.


I'm quite sure this kind of weapon is easily tuneable to not be OP, even IF the missiles track way too much; you could always offset it's OP-ness easily by just increasing cooldown/heat er something (besides tuning missiles velocity or agility, obviously).
And about it being complex to handle, well, it's arguably pretty straightforward if you just aim up and let lose ze missiles, then continue fighting while keeping the enemy in your crosshairs; you don't really have to think abuot it and your missiles will converge and that enemy.. I can see this be quite fun!
Plus, I'm looking forward to a few new, challenging ways to fight, other than the obvious point-and-click adventures ;)

Quote

3. For Lasers PGI has stuck to a very simple formula. Trust me, myself and others have advocated for things like Pulse Laser overhauls for ages. I'd love to see Pulse Lasers that fired more like the energy machine guns that they're supposed to be (MW4 actually did a pretty good job with that), but we don't have that, here. If PGI were to budge on that stance (they started to in the Energy Draw PTS runs) then I think there's a lot of potential for PGI. However, some of the lasers mentioned do fill tonnage and weapon-style gaps that we really don't have right now. Thusly, even if they follow PGI's rather mundane formula, they still serve a purpose. I agree that there are MANY cool things that could be done to lasers to make each system unique and awesome, but PGI hasn't done it, so we just have to work with what we've got.


Well, the fact that PGI isn't doing a good enough job is no reason to settle for less already beforehand ;)
Why not aim high, feed em awesome ideas, who knows they might get inspired!

Quote

4. The LFE provides the IS with a stark 3-engine choice structure; and there are a lot of people clamoring to get their hands on it (some see it as the messiah of Clan/IS balance). STD = Most survivability, LFE = Clan XL survivability but only half the weight-saving benefits of XL, and XL = Most weight savings, but fragile. Many lights will probably still stick to XL engines (particularly scouts like the Raven 3L), as well as any mech that's just a CT magnet or is heavy fire-support. Big Brawlers get put in a precarious choice of STD vs. LFE, because if you have the hardpoints then being a zombie still means you're doing damage and being a threat; and that can mean the difference between a win or loss for your team.

I know I would instantly replace all my STD builds with this, as it saves some weight, and after losing the 2nd ST it's pretty much over anyway, so no point in stayin alive much longer than that ;)
(It'll be great for some assymmetric builds too!)

#15 SockSlayer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 217 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 02:28 PM

All Flamers types, plasma cannons, rocket launchers, and some ballistics between mg and ac2, this would be quite the interesting game!

#16 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 14 January 2017 - 06:47 PM

View PostWillothius, on 14 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

I'm quite sure this kind of weapon is easily tuneable to not be OP, even IF the missiles track way too much; you could always offset it's OP-ness easily by just increasing cooldown/heat er something (besides tuning missiles velocity or agility, obviously).
And about it being complex to handle, well, it's arguably pretty straightforward if you just aim up and let lose ze missiles, then continue fighting while keeping the enemy in your crosshairs; you don't really have to think abuot it and your missiles will converge and that enemy.. I can see this be quite fun!
Plus, I'm looking forward to a few new, challenging ways to fight, other than the obvious point-and-click adventures ;)

You're forgetting a point I made, though. Again, while it's not impossible for cursor/crosshair following missiles to be implemented (we have no idea how complex it is for them to do, however), what do you do when you've got ballistics and you must LEAD your target. Your crosshairs aren't on your target, they're technically pointing off in the distance at whatever is behind and to the side of your target while anticipating where the enemy will be by the time your projectile gets there; and the missiles would thereby be guiding themselves to that location . . . not your target.

Even if fun to use such weapons, they only become viable for use with hit-scan lasers instead of projectile launching ballistics. That doesn't even really allow people to mix and match as they please, but forces them into specific builds. If the weapon systems are too OP, then no one will touch ballistics, because you'll want Lasers to coincide with your crosshair-tracking missiles.

Then you get into balancing such a weapon system. If you make such missiles too agile then why use Streaks? If their velocity is too low who would want to stare at their target all day while the missiles get there (it can already take LRMs 6-8 seconds to reach targets at longer ranges)? If the cooldown is too long why not just take LRMs or Streaks? If their guidance is too pinpoint and they're just fast enough to use in a brawl, then why use SRM's?

While it's neat and unique to have something that follows the crosshair, it gets really tricky to balance with everything else in the game; and it's even harder to prevent it from invalidating certain builds or other equipment.

View PostWillothius, on 14 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

Well, the fact that PGI isn't doing a good enough job is no reason to settle for less already beforehand ;)
Why not aim high, feed em awesome ideas, who knows they might get inspired!

The kicker is that we HAVE been advocating for more and greater changes/differentiation to the laser weapons for a LONG time. PGI has made it pretty clear that they're NOT doing them, at least not yet, anyway. PGI started to actually tinker with more facets of weapons to provide more starkly different lasers in the last Energy Draw PTS runs, but they got cold feet and backed out. One of the reasons was because too many people didn't want to see weapons change from what they are now.

MAYBE if weapons such as X-Pulse Lasers or Variable-Speed Pulse Lasers come out we MIGHT see those have a more drastic deviation from standard pulse lasers and PGI's standard formulas for lasers, but it's a long hope.

Also, I really didn't touch on Pulse Lasers much in this article because there weren't really much in the way of new ones on the list. However, if you look at my Micro Lasers you'll notice that the Pulse and ER do fire quite differently when compared to each other.

View PostWillothius, on 14 January 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

I know I would instantly replace all my STD builds with this, as it saves some weight, and after losing the 2nd ST it's pretty much over anyway, so no point in stayin alive much longer than that ;)
(It'll be great for some assymmetric builds too!)

Yes, but regardless of some people's opinions zombie mechs are still quite dangerous. They're just not piloted as much anymore because of the high Alpha Meta.

Also, that's just an opinion of what YOU would do, not necessarily everyone else. Would you downgrade a Raven 3L to a LFE when you're primarily scouting/spotting and probably using longer range weapons? Would you use a LFE instead of a STD on any of the Atlas variants that are ST magnets but have CT hardpoints? Would you still use a LFE instead of an XL on any of the very XL friendly chassis that have very little Side Torso but bigger CT targets (Jenner, Dragon, etc.)? Do you think no one would ever run a Zombie build again? I bet there are plenty of people who'd still rather have a XL or STD in those builds instead of a LFE. Everyone will build different mechs with different engines to suit their desires and preferred builds. That's part of the benefit of more options and choices.

I think one of my only engine concerns would be if they add the XXL engines to IS and Clan. The IS already die if they lose a ST, so if you've got the crits an XXL engine would be the way to go, period. However, at least for Clans they'd actually have a sincere choice for Battlemechs on whether they want to die after a single ST loss or not; but any Omnis that come with a fixed XXL might not go over well if not "meta" enough.

Edited by Sereglach, 14 January 2017 - 07:37 PM.


#17 WolvesX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Machete
  • The Machete
  • 2,072 posts

Posted 14 January 2017 - 07:34 PM

Thank you!

#18 Marius Romanis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Heavy Lifter
  • Heavy Lifter
  • 528 posts

Posted 15 January 2017 - 04:12 AM

I find all the "wont need new artwork" comments in OP hilarious. Since making things pretty is what PGI is good at, and programming new stuff without a billion bugs going to live is what theyre bad at.

#19 Sereglach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Fire
  • Fire
  • 1,563 posts
  • LocationWherever things are burning.

Posted 15 January 2017 - 07:55 AM

View PostCadoAzazel, on 15 January 2017 - 04:12 AM, said:

I find all the "wont need new artwork" comments in OP hilarious. Since making things pretty is what PGI is good at, and programming new stuff without a billion bugs going to live is what theyre bad at.

Yes, but there is a bit of irony to it. Any new artwork that PGI would create would need to be retrofitted to every chassis that's already in the game in every hardpoint position compatible. That's a LOT of work . . . just look at how long it's taking them to get all of the chassis caught up on just the camo patterns. Now just imagine that new missile boxes or ballistic housings would need to go through modeling for the chassis AND would need to be touched up for the camo patterns (Kintaro is a great example given how its missile-boxes on the arms function).

If they don't have to do something new from the ground up, then it saves them all that hassle and makes them more inclined to do it. Reusing old missile boxes and possibly adjusting a tube-count or taking an already existing AC barrel and shrinking it for a Mech Rifle is the exact reason PGI might be more inclined to implement some of those weapons. It's an easy win; and everyone loves easy wins.

Edited by Sereglach, 15 January 2017 - 07:56 AM.


#20 AngrySpartan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 349 posts

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:30 AM

Nice theory crafting, especially the treatment of MMLs and ATMs. Seriously, this topic requires some more attention, did you consider to repost it in the general discussion thread? That's waaay more populated than the suggestion's subforum.

Also worth noting:
1. ATMs have integral Artemis IV, thus their spread should at least match comparable existing launchers.
2. Clan Streak LRMs became available at 3057 (though still considered experimental tech that time). They weight twice more than regular C-LRMs (thus exactly the same as IS tech LRMs), not compatible with Artemis and can-not fire indirectly. Considering PGI won't bother fixing today's MWO LRMs, Streak-LRMs can have steeper missile trajectory and huge velocity, comparable to AC's, like 400-600m/s. Range should be reduced to TT 630m's though.

Edited by AngrySpartan, 17 January 2017 - 04:31 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users