409 replies to this topic

[D V Devnull]

Dee Eight, on 25 March 2017 - 03:56 AM, said:

The only time any battlemech really becomes zombie build useful is if it has CT or Head hardpoints so that it can keep firing back at the enemy. Spider's for example... you can put the jump jets in the feet and a couple lasers in the CT... lose both shoulders/arms and you can still jump, run around at top speed and shoot things.

Still got to load a Standard Engine, though. Otherwise it doesn't "Zombie" so well.

~D. V. "Yeah, always the extra detail..." Devnull

[Edward Hazen]

D V Devnull, on 25 March 2017 - 07:23 AM, said:

Still got to load a Standard Engine, though. Otherwise it doesn't "Zombie" so well.

~D. V. "Yeah, always the extra detail..." Devnull

Yes, it is supposed to be a trade-off, but I know certain players (I don't claim to speak for all players like some do) want to "have their cake and eat it too".

[Genesis23]

ah great, quote doesnt work for me. ah well..

Schrollsky, you must be joking. there are no viable zombie builds, if you are that badly damaged that you lost both sidetorsos, the ct will be allready quite damaged as well, leaving you to survive only a few seconds longer, maybe pulling of a couple more points of damage not even worth mentioning. this may have been viable 5 yrs ago, but not in the age of huge alphas. oh and by the way: no one bothers shooting at the intact side torso of an IS mech if the other one allready got destroyed. there are no zombes anymore. a spider without arms does not count as a zombie and no pilot is stupid enough to put an standart engine into one.


very amusing. those claners are still moaning the loss of their way too high structure health, yet on the now acitve competitive mechs sale 10 out of 12 mechs were clan tech. later they added 4 IS mechs, making it 10 out of 16 mechs being clan. the clan mechs on the list are still competitve enough while the spider has absolutely no place in this list bc we all know its far from competitve. a pity tho. allways liked to put a little bit of arachnophobia in the opponents hearts.

Edited by Genesis23, 25 March 2017 - 02:20 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Edward Hazen, on 25 March 2017 - 07:54 AM, said:

Yes, it is supposed to be a trade-off, but I know certain players (I don't claim to speak for all players like some do) want to "have their cake and eat it too".

That cake though is missing the sugar and icing. Concerning the isXL and cXL, PGI had previously made statements that only XL penalties just with loss of a side torso were meant to be temporary until they were able to introduce a full engine crit system. Below is the last time they posted about it BACK IN Sept 2014 for the October roadmap.

Since they have NOT introduced an actual working full engine crit system, and very unlikely they will even with the recently crit changes for other items, using the TT engine crit system for the flavor instead of as a hard rule (several components missing) PGI should normalize the cXL and isXL penalties to be more inline with each other while using different heat and movment penalties for each. Others have their own opinions but I would reduce the Clan heat, so movement 20% /heat 30% while IS would see a 25% movement / 35% heat penalties while the incoming LFE would be set at 15% movement / 25% heat.

Another thought to a penalty could be in the form of cooldown penalty, damaged shielding the battlecomputer slowing down the rate of fire due to reduced power output. And if not a percentage, the disabling of cooldown modules/skills.

https://mwomercs.com...tober-road-map/

Quote

Destruction of a Clan Side Torso

Although we hope to eventually put in a full engine critical hit system that would affect both IS and Clan 'Mechs, we are going to start out with a change to place some penalty on a Clan 'Mech that loses a side torso. Essentially, there needs to be some penalty for losing 2 critical engine slots.

Using the tabletop game as a guideline, we have decided to not make movement a part of the penalty but to save that for some future implementation on the effects of heat on your 'Mechs functionality. A Clan engine has a total of 10 critical engine slots and the destruction of a Side Torso in a clan ‘Mech means the loss of two of those slots, or 20%. With this in mind, we have decided to implement a rule that the destruction of a side torso in a Clan 'Mech will result in a loss of 20% of the engines internal heat sink capacity. By way of example, a Timber Wolf with 15 internal engine heat sinks will lose the cooling equivalent of 3 of those heat sinks. A small penalty, but we feel that heat sink loss along with the loss of everything in that torso and arm will be enough.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 March 2017 - 02:35 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Tarl Cabot, on 25 March 2017 - 02:34 PM, said:

That cake though is missing the sugar and icing. Concerning the isXL and cXL, PGI had previously made statements that only XL penalties just with loss of a side torso were meant to be temporary until they were able to introduce a full engine crit system. Below is the last time they posted about it BACK IN Sept 2014 for the October roadmap.

Since they have NOT introduced an actual working full engine crit system, and very unlikely they will even with the recently crit changes for other items, using the TT engine crit system for the flavor instead of as a hard rule (several components missing) PGI should normalize the cXL and isXL penalties to be more inline with each other while using different heat and movment penalties for each. Others have their own opinions but I would reduce the Clan heat, so movement 20% /heat 30% while IS would see a 25% movement / 35% heat penalties while the incoming LFE would be set at 15% movement / 25% heat.

Another thought to a penalty could be in the form of cooldown penalty, damaged shielding the battlecomputer slowing down the rate of fire due to reduced power output. And if not a percentage, the disabling of cooldown modules/skills.

https://mwomercs.com...tober-road-map/

Well, I will tell you from experience since the patch, Clan XLs get crit very easily now and the heat and movement penalties from losing that side torso makes those hot clan weapons very much less effective. The penalties for losing a side of your Clan XL are about as severe as can be without throwing out lore and outright destroying the mech like an IS XL. Also, remember that in Omni mechs we do not have to option to downgrade to a standard engine or even a smaller engine, which can be an advantage in some situations (This does make IICs a bit OP, though). I know some Clan players complain about the fixed engines and want them to be changeable, but I disagree with this as much as I disagree with allowing IS mechs with XLs to survive losing a torso (it is not BATTLETECH). So, there are tradeoffs, but people only focus on the fact that IS XLs are not as good as they would like them to be.

Plus, the current system is a "placeholder" just like standard Clan ACs that are supposed to be "placeholders" until LBX toggle can be introduced, so I would not hold my breath for it.

Edited by Edward Hazen, 25 March 2017 - 04:58 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

as much as I disagree with allowing IS mechs with XLs to survive losing a torso (it is not BATTLETECH).

Actually, this is not the TT game, nor is the full TT engine crit fully active and functional. What is that the actual reason you are against isXL surviving the loss of one side torso other than TT rules?

The previous MW titles had mechs out of commission when one leg was destroyed but in TT, the mech and pilot (if he survived pilot rolls) were still active, though those games were setup with a single player campaign w/multiplayer aspect added onto of it. Where as the MPBT games, though set only in 3025, had develop and allowed mechs to stay active even with the loss of both legs with alternate firing views for arm mounts weapons.

Pointing out that translation rules of a boardgame which used dice to a FPS, for balancing reasons, is not always straightforward. Even in the novels, RARELY did the pilots have direct control over on exactly where their weapons would hit, only which mech was their target while waiting for the tone for when a weapon TIC (group) had a high probability of hitting the target, not a specific area of the target.

And do not forget, PGI will have to look at it really hard if they plan adding IS Omni mechs, which if they follow Clan Omni mechs construction restrictions, will be a hard sale since their opponent will only have to take out ONE torso, be it the L/R or CT.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 March 2017 - 06:19 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Tarl Cabot, on 25 March 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Actually, this is not the TT game, nor is the full TT engine crit fully active and functional. What is that the actual reason you are against isXL surviving the loss of one side torso other than TT rules?

The previous MW titles had mechs out of commission when one leg was destroyed but in TT, the mech and pilot (if he survived pilot rolls) were still active, though those games were setup with a single player campaign w/multiplayer aspect added onto of it. Where as the MPBT games, though set only in 3025, had develop and allowed mechs to stay active even with the loss of both legs with alternate firing views for arm mounts weapons.

Pointing out that translation rules of a boardgame which used dice to a FPS, for balancing reasons, is not always straightforward. Even in the novels, RARELY did the pilots have direct control over on exactly where their weapons would hit, only which mech was their target while waiting for the tone for when a weapon TIC (group) had a high probability of hitting the target, not a specific area of the target.

And do not forget, PGI will have to look at it really hard if they plan adding IS Omni mechs, which if they follow Clan Omni mechs construction restrictions, will be a hard sale since their opponent will only have to take out ONE torso, be it the L/R or CT.

There is no reason to put IS Omnis in the game, since IS mechs can completely change their loadouts between each mach (this is also what makes IIC mechs far better in MWO than they are in TT and therefore OP). IS mechs and IIC mechs were not easily modified / upgraded, that is why there are so many variants, because when a different loadout was needed a new variant would be produced at a factory. The purpose of OmniMechs was to allow mechs to change their loadouts in the field between battles (required a field support crew and hardware), but IIC mechs would take a well equipped base or factory a few days to a few weeks to modify (and they wouldn't because most Solahma did not have a high enough status to warrant the resources necessary for a custom modification). IS Mechs would require a mech factory or very skilled, well equipped "chop shop" and they would need to very expensive and rare components (unless they were high ranking military), modifying an IS mech would also take a great deal of time.

So IS Omnis would only be worthwhile if IS mechs were not so easily reconfigured.

Side Note: Omnis actually could only change the Omni Pods, which included whatever loadout they were designed for, it was very rare that an Omni Pod would be customized, so in TT, even Omnis were more limited than they are in MWO.

Edited by Edward Hazen, 25 March 2017 - 07:24 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Edward Hazen, on 25 March 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

There is no reason to put IS Omnis in the game, since IS mechs can completely change their loadouts between each mach (this is also what makes IIC mechs far better in MWO than they are in TT and therefore OP). IS mechs and IIC mechs were not easily modified / upgraded, that is why there are so many variants, because when a different loadout was needed a new variant would be produced at a factory. The purpose of OmniMechs was to allow mechs to change their loadouts in the field between battles (required a field support crew and hardware), but IIC mechs would take a well equipped base or factory a few days to a few weeks to modify (and they wouldn't because most Solahma did not have a high enough status to warrant the resources necessary for a custom modification). IS Mechs would require a mech factory or very skilled, well equipped "chop shop" and they would need to very expensive and rare components (unless they were high ranking military), modifying an IS mech would also take a great deal of time.

So IS Omnis would only be worthwhile if IS mechs were not so easily reconfigured.

Side Note: Omnis actually could only change the Omni Pods, which included whatever loadout they were designed for, it was very rare that an Omni Pod would be customized, so in TT, even Omnis were more limited than they are in MWO.

I did not wish to bring up Stock mode because IS would be so severely limited, more so than Clans would ever be, regardless of any quirks. And in TT that only pertained to stock matches or when running set BT scenarios, depending on the GM, anything else was mixed tech, more so for IS mechs using clan components than the other way around. Of course, no quirks, no issue with hardpoint location, or in general terrain blocking shots. The effect that terrain had was whether all rolls were against the upper body instead of entire body with a level 1 terrain between both mechs.

Just an FYI, when Clans were playtested they were using 2750-era mechs/components. Using their fighting style, even with better gunnery/piloting skills, IS forces using primarily 3025 w/some 2750-era mechs brought them to a standstill. That is when Clan tech was created, with better equipment and more stock hardpoints, and the omnipods to switch loadouts without the need to bring more mech variants.

Edit - One way PGI COULD have provide the benefit of omnis, at least w/faction play, would be to allow a player with an omni have access to two drop decks after map selection. Battlemechs would have the be the same battlemech but the omni with the same core chassis could different pods. The 2nd deck would not be valid if a Twolf A was in the 1st deck but there was a Twolf C in the second deck (all other mechs the same).

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 25 March 2017 - 09:17 PM.

[Edward Hazen]

Tarl Cabot, on 25 March 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

I did not wish to bring up Stock mode because IS would be so severely limited, more so than Clans would ever be, regardless of any quirks. And in TT that only pertained to stock matches or when running set BT scenarios, depending on the GM, anything else was mixed tech, more so for IS mechs using clan components than the other way around. Of course, no quirks, no issue with hardpoint location, or in general terrain blocking shots. The effect that terrain had was whether all rolls were against the upper body instead of entire body with a level 1 terrain between both mechs.

Just an FYI, when Clans were playtested they were using 2750-era mechs/components. Using their fighting style, even with better gunnery/piloting skills, IS forces using primarily 3025 w/some 2750-era mechs brought them to a standstill. That is when Clan tech was created, with better equipment and more stock hardpoints, and the omnipods to switch loadouts without the need to bring more mech variants.

Of course in TT, there were always "house rules" not everyone was a purist. I mainly played TT with older players who wanted to play campaigns and stick to the rules.

[Zergling]

Tarl Cabot, on 25 March 2017 - 08:56 PM, said:

Just an FYI, when Clans were playtested they were using 2750-era mechs/components. Using their fighting style, even with better gunnery/piloting skills, IS forces using primarily 3025 w/some 2750-era mechs brought them to a standstill. That is when Clan tech was created, with better equipment and more stock hardpoints, and the omnipods to switch loadouts without the need to bring more mech variants.

IIRC, pre-Clan Invasion sourcebooks established that the SLDF Exodus didn't include scientists, or at least nowhere near enough to actually advance their technology when they established a new civilisation.

That was later retconned after the Clans were introduced with much more advanced technology.

[Tarl Cabot]

Edward Hazen, on 25 March 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

Of course in TT, there were always "house rules" not everyone was a purist. I mainly played TT with older players who wanted to play campaigns and stick to the rules.

Stick to which rules? House rules generally meant modifying existing rules usually related to combat or such. One house rule we used was borrowed from Solaris VII and that was the use to TICs (Target Interlock Circuits) aka weapon groups, total 4 TICS, and a max of only 2 TICs could be used per round which were declared at the start of the round, and the weapons in each TIC where changeable only between rounds. It made for some interesting combat where such a player could not cherry pick which weapon(s) to fire next or not fire next, dependent on the damage he had received. Lost heatsinks with that arm or heatsinks were crit?

As for campaigns, the real difference will be whether your character(s) /rest in peace Sasa...were IS or Clan, merc or House or Clan and other related attributes. Running campaigns as a Clansman while being part of a Clan's Touman would have been quite different than it would have been when part of a merc unit with a successful corporation and portfolio as part for its background to everywhere in between.

As a Clansman in a campaign they would likely have been running stock omnis and switching out (edited) module weapons/ammo in the available pod space with little if any modifications while NPC mechwarriors and their mechs would have also been stock, be it another Clansman or an IS. Even with the 3050 IS mechs, running many still running STD and not isXL, while many simply switched out SHS for DHS, etc they were still lightweights when compared to Clan omnis, which would still allow the Clans to "bid" down.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 March 2017 - 03:13 AM.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Tarl Cabot, on 26 March 2017 - 04:10 AM, said:

As for campaigns, the real difference will be whether your character(s) /rest in peace Sasa...were IS or Clan, merc or House or Clan and other related attributes. Running campaigns as a Clansman while being part of a Clan's Touman would have been quite different than it would have been when part of a merc unit with a successful corporation and portfolio as part for its background to everywhere in between.

As a Clansman in a campaign they would likely have been running stock omnis and switching out pods with little if any modifications while NPC mechwarriors and their mechs would have also been stock, be it another Clansman or an IS. Even with the 3050 IS mechs, running many still running STD and not isXL, while many simply switched out SHS for DHS, etc they were still lightweights when compared to Clan omnis, which would still allow the Clans to "bid" down.

Except that Omni pods didn't exist as a concept until a Mechwarrior game coined the term. Omnipod as a term only started showing up recently in newer table top publications. But basically Omni is for campaign play as in switching out weapons takes a few techs and a few days to a week or two, instead of and entire team of techs and weeks to a month or two like it does on a standard battlemech. It was also meant to limit what could I be customized on it for those "you make a mech and I'll make a mech and we can fight them" type games but in those anything but the actual math is always handwaved anyhow. The way I've seen Omni Mechs run in TT campaigns was basically just switching out entire components since it was known that certain things like engine, structure, armor, sometimes heatsinks, sometimes certain weapons, sometimes jump jets were all locked. Most of the time it was just take one of the existing varient that appropriate for the next mission and roll but every once and a while if the math worked out it was like stock Timberwolves prime with a stock Timberwolves B's left arm (or whatever)

[Weepy Wanebow]

Edward Hazen, on 25 March 2017 - 07:22 PM, said:

.

Side Note: Omnis actually could only change the Omni Pods, which included whatever loadout they were designed for, it was very rare that an Omni Pod would be customized, so in TT, even Omnis were more limited than they are in MWO.

Not true. "pod space" (what omnipods were called before a Mechwarrior game coined the term omnipod) followed all of the same construction rules that normal available space on a battlemech followed. However, with that said it was typically run as "just replace the prime configuration's arm with another varient arm as long as the math works out" type of approach. But in a campaign it saved time but was only useful if repair times and such were sticky followed)

[Zergling]

Wendigo Waltz, on 26 March 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

But basically Omni is for campaign play as in switching out weapons takes a few techs and a few days to a week or two

More like a few hours.

[G4LV4TR0N]

MechaBattler, on 22 March 2017 - 04:23 PM, said:

You're being childish. This isn't the same as those past games. This is an online competitive game. We can't have one side stomping the other. Just so people can feel better about the lore or themselves.

Some of those past games are more competitive than this one.

[MechaBattler]

G4LV4TR0N, on 26 March 2017 - 04:25 PM, said:

Some of those past games are more competitive than this one.

Well you're entitled that opinion.

[Edward Hazen]

Wendigo Waltz, on 26 March 2017 - 05:27 AM, said:

Except that Omni pods didn't exist as a concept until a Mechwarrior game coined the term. Omnipod as a term only started showing up recently in newer table top publications. But basically Omni is for campaign play as in switching out weapons takes a few techs and a few days to a week or two, instead of and entire team of techs and weeks to a month or two like it does on a standard battlemech. It was also meant to limit what could I be customized on it for those "you make a mech and I'll make a mech and we can fight them" type games but in those anything but the actual math is always handwaved anyhow. The way I've seen Omni Mechs run in TT campaigns was basically just switching out entire components since it was known that certain things like engine, structure, armor, sometimes heatsinks, sometimes certain weapons, sometimes jump jets were all locked. Most of the time it was just take one of the existing varient that appropriate for the next mission and roll but every once and a while if the math worked out it was like stock Timberwolves prime with a stock Timberwolves B's left arm (or whatever)

Omni-Mechs and Omni-pods have been part of TT since clans were introduced. I played TT before and when Clans were introduced, I played as Davion and then switched to Jade Falcon because I loved the lore (and the novels). Actually , the reason I chose the Federated Suns in TT before Clans were in the game, was because of the Sword and the Dagger novel and I played the MechWarrior RPG before I even played TT.

Edited by Edward Hazen, 26 March 2017 - 08:40 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Edward Hazen, on 26 March 2017 - 08:36 PM, said:

Omni-Mechs and Omni-pods have been part of TT since clans were introduced. I played TT before and when Clans were introduced, I played as Davion and then switched to Jade Falcon because I loved the lore (and the novels). Actually , the reason I chose the Federated Suns in TT before Clans were in the game, was because of the Sword and the Dagger novel and I played the MechWarrior RPG before I even played TT.

I believe what he is saying that omnimechs had x amount of pod space. It was the module components/weapons themselves that were switched out, not the complete torso/arm section, what we are call omnipods. Omnipods as we call them is for ease of use on what hardpoints are available, providing more customization than Clan lore usually allows for. Sarna.net does not even have a filed out page for omnipod.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech

The original 3050 tech readout did not even list the amount of pod space available, only the base with hard locked components and the weapon pay load for each configuration.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 27 March 2017 - 03:16 AM.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Zergling, on 26 March 2017 - 06:12 AM, said:

More like a few hours.

Do you happen to know where that is in the rule books? I have only found the repair rules and repair omni mechs is faster but not by that much. The local group has an ever stuck in planning stage clan campaign in the works and that will be really relevent info.

[Weepy Wanebow]

Tarl Cabot, on 27 March 2017 - 03:12 AM, said:

I believe what he is saying that omnimechs had x amount of pod space. It was the module components/weapons themselves that were switched out, not the complete torso/arm section, what we are call omnipods. Omnipods as we call them is for ease of use on what hardpoints are available, providing more customization than Clan lore usually allows for. Sarna.net does not even have a filed out page for omnipod.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech

The original 3050 tech readout did not even list the amount of pod space available, only the base with hard locked components and the weapon pay load for each configuration.

Yes. Pod space but the original term was always pod space and it wasnt referred to as Omnipods until.... i believe the.... TechManual?????

Thats what i meant. Modular pod space was this weird thing that in the original TT wasnt clearly defined so you basically had to fo the math yourself after looking to see what was locked. Because so much was locked, it was easier to just go and see which each all the variants had in common and switch out what was listed in each component (assuming the weight worked out).

But outside of locked equipment and such, the available pod space (in tonnage and crit space) followed the same rules that modifying and constructing a normal mech followed. Hards points never did and still dont exist in TT. While one could argue, an archer stops being an archer if it isnt missle heavy there isnt anything in the rules that say you couldnt just remove all of its weapons and throw as many lasers as possible into it as you can.....same with omni mechs, you can throw whatevwe you want into available pod space. But in my personal experience, we always used a player created chart which had the load out and weight of the load out broken down by component. That way changing hp an omni in a campaogn was actually a fast and painless process. It also meant you didnt have to go with only established variants....as long as weight and crit space was considered and you didnt violate any of the locked equippment, you could mix and match.