21 replies to this topic

[NforceR_HUN]

Dear PGI / Fellow Mechwarriors!

I was thinking about this for a while, and I thought it is time that I ask around for opinions. Am I the only one who finds it weird that a 35 Ton FS and a 100 Ton Atlas have the same internal space? I think the number of internal slots should reflect the size and or tonnage of the mech. Maybe upgrades should be scaled as well so that getting endo steel on a heavier mech would take a bit more slots to compensate a bit for the size so that you get a fair amount of advantage by upgrading. With the vulnerability of IS XL engines it is pointless to have endo steel or FF armor upgrades on heavier mechs because i don't gain as much weight advantage compared to the 14/28 slot loss. So i either end up running out of tonnage or slots and stuck at about 75-80% of the potental of the mech.

So PGI, please think about this.

Have nice day all!

NforceR

[Bombast]

No.

This comes up in battletech sometimes. Tonnage is enough of a balancing factor without having to worry about variable internal structure, not to mention variable Endo/Ferro. All it would accomplish is complicating the mechlab and locking lighter mechs out of carrying bigger weapons.

[NforceR_HUN]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

No.

This comes up in battletech sometimes. Tonnage is enough of a balancing factor without having to worry about variable internal structure, not to mention variable Endo/Ferro. All it would accomplish is complicating the mechlab and locking lighter mechs out of carrying bigger weapons.

This doesn't mean that lights / med should have less than what we already have, rather heavies / assaults having more.

[FupDup]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

This doesn't mean that lights / med should have less than what we already have, rather heavies / assaults having more.

That still has the same net outcome of making the mech tonnage "arm's race" that much more pronounced.

Edited by FupDup, 09 November 2016 - 02:05 PM.

[Quxudica]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

No.

This comes up in battletech sometimes. Tonnage is enough of a balancing factor without having to worry about variable internal structure, not to mention variable Endo/Ferro. All it would accomplish is complicating the mechlab and locking lighter mechs out of carrying bigger weapons.

If the game were better designed this wouldn't be a bad thing. There are light mech chassis specificaly designed around carrying giant weapons meant to be mounted on much larger mechs (up to and including the mech-thats-really-just-a-gauss-rifle-with-legs). This is a key part of role warfare; not every chassis in every weight class is meant to perform the same roles in the field. Information Warfare scouts aren't supposed to be sporting the same firepower as medium mechs built for strike-recon. Of course the problem is the game just isn't built for real role warfare so.. meh.

Edited by Quxudica, 09 November 2016 - 02:06 PM.

[Bombast]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

This doesn't mean that lights / med should have less than what we already have, rather heavies / assaults having more.

Oh, so you just want structure inflation?

Again, this comes up in battletech. Inflating internal space over the current value just leads to equipment bloat, and increased value in high tonnage mechs. It's just a straight up buff to higher weight mechs, which don't need it. They already have an armor and firepower advantage, they don't need more of the same.

Quxudica, on 09 November 2016 - 02:05 PM, said:

If the game were better designed this wouldn't be a bad thing. There are light mech chassis specificaly designed around carrying giant weapons meant to be mounted on much larger mechs (up to and including the mech-thats-really-just-a-gauss-rifle-with-legs). This is a key part of role warfare; not every chassis in every weight class is meant to perform the same roles in the field. Information Warfare scouts aren't supposed to be sporting the same firepower as medium mechs built for strike-recon. Of course the problem is the game just isn't built for real role warfare so.. meh.

Ok, so... now we're talking about variable internal structure by weight and by chassis? This is turning into a balancing nightmare.

Maybe if this game had been built from the ground up on the mechlab from MW4, it would have been neat (That mechlab did do stuff like this pretty well). But that's, as I said before, a change so fundamental that they might as well junk this whole thing and start from scratch.

I'm sure some people wouldn't mind that, of course.

[NforceR_HUN]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

Oh, so you just want structure inflation?

Again, this comes up in battletech. Inflating internal space over the current value just leads to equipment bloat, and increased value in high tonnage mechs. It's just a straight up buff to higher weight mechs, which don't need it. They already have an armor and firepower advantage, they don't need more of the same.



Ok, so... now we're talking about variable internal structure by weight and by chassis? This is turning into a balancing nightmare.

Maybe if this game had been built from the ground up on the mechlab from MW4, it would have been neat (That mechlab did do stuff like this pretty well). But that's, as I said before, a change so fundamental that they might as well junk this whole thing and start from scratch.

I'm sure some people wouldn't mind that, of course.

why would that increase boating? you are still restricted by hardpoints. But one could get heavier weapons and / or more heatsinks to compenste.

[FupDup]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

why would that increase boating? you are still restricted by hardpoints. But one could get heavier weapons and / or more heatsinks to compenste.

You just answered your own question.

[Bombast]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

why would that increase boating? you are still restricted by hardpoints. But one could get heavier weapons and / or more heatsinks to compenste.

...I believe you're in the wrong conversation. Boating would be the subject of your other 'Let's rend the mechlab asunder' thread.

Speaking of asunder... #SunderOrIRiot PGI. #SunderOrIRiot.

FupDup, on 09 November 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

You just answered your own question.

Though, yah, increased heat sink capacity is directly related to boating. The more heat sinks, the more effectively you can spam a particularly large batch of equal weapons, and the longer you can hold the trigger down.

Edited by Bombast, 09 November 2016 - 03:06 PM.

[NforceR_HUN]

FupDup, on 09 November 2016 - 03:02 PM, said:

You just answered your own question.

I'd disagree.

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

...I believe you're in the wrong conversation. Boating would be the subject of your other 'Let's rend the mechlab asunder' thread.

Speaking of asunder... #SunderOrIRiot PGI. #SunderOrIRiot.



Though, yah, increased heat sink capacity is directly related to boating. The more heat sinks, the more effectively you can spam a particularly large batch of equal weapons, and the longer you can hold the trigger down.

provided you have enough hardpoints to boat a particular type of wepons, yes. But for boating i have a separate post

[Bombast]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

provided you have enough hardpoints to boat a particular type of wepons, yes. But for boating i have a separate post

You're the one who brought up boating here, not me.

Edited by Bombast, 09 November 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[NforceR_HUN]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

You're the one who brought up boating here, not me.

I sincerely, don't rember that. But again it could be. Btw I'm not talking aobut Atlases or Dires having 200-300 slots or anyting, just a little increase to reflect the size of the mech. Maybe 90-100slots to a 100 Ton mech.

[Bombast]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

I sincerely, don't rember that.

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 03:00 PM, said:

why would that increase boating?

[Angel of Annihilation]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

Dear PGI / Fellow Mechwarriors! I was thinking about this for a while, and I thought it is time that I ask around for opinions. Am I the only one who finds it weird that a 35 Ton FS and a 100 Ton Atlas have the same internal space? I think the number of internal slots should reflect the size and or tonnage of the mech. Maybe upgrades should be scaled as well so that getting endo steel on a heavier mech would take a bit more slots to compensate a bit for the size so that you get a fair amount of advantage by upgrading. With the vulnerability of IS XL engines it is pointless to have endo steel or FF armor upgrades on heavier mechs because i don't gain as much weight advantage compared to the 14/28 slot loss. So i either end up running out of tonnage or slots and stuck at about 75-80% of the potental of the mech. So PGI, please think about this. Have nice day all! NforceR

No actually it doesn't. Thing of it in terms of volume not in number of critical slots used. For example, a 100 ton mech is 3 time the size of a 35 ton mech give or take which means the the supporting structure would also have be 3 times the size of the 35 ton mech to support the weight of the 100 ton mech. They key here is that the Size of the structure is the same in proportion to the mech it is being mounted on. Because the proportions are the same, the number of critical slots are the same.

[NforceR_HUN]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

Oh I see, but that was a reply to you stating of increasing bloating that I have misread as boating...my bad.

[NforceR_HUN]

Viktor Drake, on 09 November 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

No actually it doesn't. Thing of it in terms of volume not in number of critical slots used. For example, a 100 ton mech is 3 time the size of a 35 ton mech give or take which means the the supporting structure would also have be 3 times the size of the 35 ton mech to support the weight of the 100 ton mech. They key here is that the Size of the structure is the same in proportion to the mech it is being mounted on. Because the proportions are the same, the number of critical slots are the same.

I see your point, but take the following expample: cars. Small cars have less internal passanger space. Big cars have more. Even thoug big cars are heavier and their structure is indeed larger and heavier yet they still have more passanger space. May sound ridiculous, but it's true.

[Willard Phule]

NforceR_HUN, on 09 November 2016 - 01:36 PM, said:

Dear PGI / Fellow Mechwarriors!

I was thinking about this for a while, and I thought it is time that I ask around for opinions. Am I the only one who finds it weird that a 35 Ton FS and a 100 Ton Atlas have the same internal space? I think the number of internal slots should reflect the size and or tonnage of the mech. Maybe upgrades should be scaled as well so that getting endo steel on a heavier mech would take a bit more slots to compensate a bit for the size so that you get a fair amount of advantage by upgrading. With the vulnerability of IS XL engines it is pointless to have endo steel or FF armor upgrades on heavier mechs because i don't gain as much weight advantage compared to the 14/28 slot loss. So i either end up running out of tonnage or slots and stuck at about 75-80% of the potental of the mech.

So PGI, please think about this.

Have nice day all!

NforceR

Believe it or not, it's been addressed a long time ago. In tabletop BT, there are alternate rules for internal structure space based on the mech's weight class.

In MW4, the hardpoints were actually sized....meaning your ballistic hardpoint might be one slot, two slots on up to whatever. That's how they prevented tiny lights running around with gauss rifles.

[RAM]

For better or worse, the rules do support limited/limiting internal space.


RAM
ELH

[Felicitatem Parco]

In reality - BiggerMechs can carry more stuff.

In BattleTech - All of the Mech engineering companies created Mechs of exactly the same chassis size, however their chassis have different strengths (thicker struts, stronger actuators) that allow them to carry different masses of armor and weapons. The chassis of a 100 ton Atlas cannot carry a bigger volume of equipment.ent than a 20t Locust, therefore they are roughly the same height of Mech...

That's why volumetric scaling is flawed - same internal carrying capacity implies the Mechs are all roughly the same size, with only the bolt-on external armor making heavier Mechs seem larger than smaller mechs.

TL;DR - BattleTech TT rules get in the way of MWO being a good sim.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 11 November 2016 - 09:50 AM.

[mogs01gt]

Bombast, on 09 November 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

No.
This comes up in battletech sometimes. Tonnage is enough of a balancing factor without having to worry about variable internal structure, not to mention variable Endo/Ferro. All it would accomplish is complicating the mechlab and locking lighter mechs out of carrying bigger weapons.

They shouldnt be able to carry larger weapons unless they were designed to IMO.