20 replies to this topic

[Hans Von Lohman]

I recall one factoid about the original plan for MWO that I haven't seen brought up recently.


I recall hearing that one of the features of Mech Warrior online was called something like Favorite Mech or something. It was some idea that if you keep using a particular mech, you get a bonus if you keep using it.

This was some idea to combat the trend in Mechwarrior games to always trade up for the next new mech that is bigger than your old one. If you have a Centurion that you have used for a long time, trading up to a Catapult is going to actually hurt your fighting ability as you have zero time in that chassis.

Am I wrong, or did something like this come up already around here?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's been mentioned in some of the threads to do with the (possible) development of your pilot's skills/perks and has a basis in MW (the RPG) and to an extent in the MC games. Having said that it would probably not be zero as they are similar in weight (although different classes) and both use LRM's. It's a complicated subject about which we know little yet of how it is to be implemented in game.

[Striker1980]

I'd imagine that you probably would lose some bonuses for trading 'Mechs, it'd certainly be a great way of encouraging people to pick their favourite chassis and stick with it.

However, I'd really prefer to see a bonus associated more with weapons, jump jets and sensors, as I'd hate to have a pilot focus on say LRM's then find that by switching from a Catapult to a Longbow, I couldn't hit the side of a barn despite lining up the shot perfectly from my perspective.

[CobraFive]

Sounds like a great idea to me, as long as they don't take it to an extreme like they did in World of Tanks (If you're unaware, in that game when you upgrade to a new tank it is 'stock' configuration, which is significantly weaker then other tanks at your level, for some trees even weaker then tanks below it, and the only way to upgrade it is to keep fighting in the crappy version. Which means when you upgrade to a new tank not only are you getting a weaker tank, you are fighting stronger opponents because you went up a tier).

However, such a system in MWO seems diametrically opposed to the "lose your mech on death" crowd, which although I disagree with, seems to be a fairly vocal subset of the community.

[Todd O Connor]

Makes sense if you trade up for a heavier class mech that you are not gonna be as adept at piloting it, and maybe till you got used to it your fall checks would fail more and mech takes longer to turn and maneuver. Much as in the real world when you go from driving a cube van, say to a 26' straight truck, to a tractor trailer, to an oversize load.

Todd O'Connor
11th Atrean Dragoons
Duchy of Oriente
17 December 3048

[pcunite]

I'm super opposed to artificial gimping ... even though I've driven a Honda most of my life it does not mean I can't steer a Lamborghini through the McDonald's drive through with the best of 'em.

When you trade a mech, the things that should make it hard are the different cockpit layouts, views out the windows, speed, and fire power timings ... it just might be that I can handle it ... don't add code to gimp me to make it cute ...

[verybad]

It's not gimping, it's giving you a bonus in a particular mech.

I would prefer it being a skill you can develop using skill points rather than something that automatically happens after using a particular mech however.

For instance, maybe the option to buy a skill leve with skill points (xps)l with that mech becomes available after using it for a while. Or you can use those skill points for something else...

[Gunman5000]

pcunite, on 17 December 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

I'm super opposed to artificial gimping ... even though I've driven a Honda most of my life it does not mean I can't steer a Lamborghini through the McDonald's drive through with the best of 'em.

When you trade a mech, the things that should make it hard are the different cockpit layouts, views out the windows, speed, and fire power timings ... it just might be that I can handle it ... don't add code to gimp me to make it cute ...

At the same time though, and using your example, if your used to driving a Honda for so long, while yes you won't have any difficulty steering a Lamborghini through a drive-thru. What about driving that same car at top speed down the highway (laws aside) and making lane changes swiftly and smoothly without danger to yourself or others? Yes its still a car and functions the same, but the amount of power under the hood, not to mention any quirks of the vehicle itself, can vary vastly between different cars. I understand and I agree that's not to say you wouldn't be able to handle it, I'm just saying it would be a whole different ball game so to speak and would take some getting used to.

That being said, if there is any kind of said bonus for piloting the same Chassis of 'mech over a period of time I don't think it should be anything huge (not saying anyone has said it should be), noticeable yes, but definately not enough to give you a definitive edge.

[Hayden]

Gunman5000, on 17 December 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

At the same time though, and using your example, if your used to driving a Honda for so long, while yes you won't have any difficulty steering a Lamborghini through a drive-thru. What about driving that same car at top speed down the highway (laws aside) and making lane changes swiftly and smoothly without danger to yourself or others? Yes its still a car and functions the same, but the amount of power under the hood, not to mention any quirks of the vehicle itself, can vary vastly between different cars. I understand and I agree that's not to say you wouldn't be able to handle it, I'm just saying it would be a whole different ball game so to speak and would take some getting used to.

That being said, if there is any kind of said bonus for piloting the same Chassis of 'mech over a period of time I don't think it should be anything huge (not saying anyone has said it should be), noticeable yes, but definately not enough to give you a definitive edge.

It's true, in an unfamiliar car I can spend half an hour trying to find the controls for the windshield wipers. I can only imagine how difficult it is to find the wiper switch in a different 'mech...

Edited by Hayden, 18 December 2011 - 11:32 AM.

[Soltenius Drake]

I was reading that they were trying to focus on pilot (I.E. player)skill more then stat basis attributes. In other words I think that they will make an assortment of mechs each with their own flavor of pro's and con's. With time we will become accustom to them and therefore realistically gain skill and therefore maximize the potential ability of what that mech can do.

The key here then is to make mechs with a deep sense of dimension in the learning curve of their play mechanics with a lot of potential use when you learn how to use them right. All mechs should have their shortcomings however with developed skill and experience the user should be able to minimize or overcome those shortcomings as they learn their mech better.

[Kristov Kerensky]

This is touched on in the novels, but not the TT rules. Most, but not all, Mech pilots learn to pilot a Mech using a Light Mech as a trainer, just as pilots in the military USED to train in how to fly using special aircraft for that purpose. It teachs them the basics of how the vehicle works and how to make it perform as you want. Said Light training Mech has jump jets and some basic weaponary, not very much in the loadout though, it's a Light Mech after all. This gets them used to TWO things that are the biggest problems for all want to be Mech pilots..the neurohelmet and the 360 compressed to 160 view that all Mechs use. After that, depending on the situation, they'd either be sent to their unit and assigned a Mech and given a few days to become familiar with how it works OR they'd go get into their family Mech that's been passed down for a few hundred years and get a few days to become familiar with that. This is PURELY for the Inner Sphere Mech pilots mind you, Clans have a different system, which isn't relevant to this discussion

The novels made it clear, SOMETIMES, that getting used to a new Mech wasn't all that difficult for the most part. The things that you took time to figure out and become good at weren't things that could taught..the particular quirks and foibles of the actual MACHINE you were using, because no two Mechs were the same, even if they were the exact same model pulled off the assembly line at the same time, both would have their own quirks. You can see this in action for yourself in the real world, guns. Ask anyone who's used a gun, no two models of the same gun EVER work exactly the same. This is due to the fact that we, human beings, aren't capable of making 100% exact duplicates of anything, and that effects the performance of anything we build. Add to that the fact that most of the Mechs are often 100+ years old, have been patched up and rebuilt with whatever could be scrounged or salvaged or stolen, and each Mech is it's own unique machine with it's own unique charactistics. Being good in a Mech is an all around thing, you can jump in any Mech and be capable in it's use. Making that Mech you just traded up for able to Limbo..that'll take some time to learn, even if you were the Limbo king in your previous Mech

Now, how they can replicate this in a video game..no clue. Computers tend to make copies of X react exactly as the original of X would react, so every single Catapult or Atlas or Owens will be exactly the same in how they move and deal with heat, etc. That'll change as WE alter them via customization, but still, the basics of the Mech won't change, not in the computer. A skill that gives you some bonus in a Mech you've trained in..not really sure how they'd work that. I'm thinking player skills will be more...generic...they apply across the board to whatever Mech you are in, with the exception of Jump Jets..those should be something that skills apply to class of Mechs, Light/Med/Hvy/Assault, since each of those classes is a weight range, and the size of the Mech has a direct relation to how the JJ work and how well you can put that baby back down without breaking the legs off.

[Soltenius Drake]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 December 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

Now, how they can replicate this in a video game..no clue. Computers tend to make copies of X react exactly as the original of X would react, so every single Catapult or Atlas or Owens will be exactly the same in how they move and deal with heat, etc. That'll change as WE alter them via customization, but still, the basics of the Mech won't change, not in the computer. A skill that gives you some bonus in a Mech you've trained in..not really sure how they'd work that. I'm thinking player skills will be more...generic...they apply across the board to whatever Mech you are in, with the exception of Jump Jets..those should be something that skills apply to class of Mechs, Light/Med/Hvy/Assault, since each of those classes is a weight range, and the size of the Mech has a direct relation to how the JJ work and how well you can put that baby back down without breaking the legs off.

I agree with much of what you are saying here however if you look at the extensive variety of mechs there are some very serious structural differences here. If have a frog legged medium sized mech vs a upright humanoid type there are going to be major differences in the range and style of motion and what type of agile movement capabilities might or might not be there. Sure the spec's say these mechs way the same or cover distance at the same speed but if you look at some of the designs you realize that the way they would achieve those specs are way different. Example say you have two mechs one is a turret type with frog legs while the other is humanoid, both come upon the same battle scenario which is a enemy attacks from their left flank. The frog legged turret would probably be able to rotate 90 degrees at the waist and fire while the bot would have to turn and face his opponent. They could move the same speed in a direction and weigh the same yet how they move is different. How the player assesses these differences and addresses them (when there is a way to address them) will show the level of the players skill with his mech.

Some people think well outside the box and come up with astonishing solutions that make them exceptional with what they do.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Soltenius Drake, on 18 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

I agree with much of what you are saying here however if you look at the extensive variety of mechs there are some very serious structural differences here. If have a frog legged medium sized mech vs a upright humanoid type there are going to be major differences in the range and style of motion and what type of agile movement capabilities might or might not be there. Sure the spec's say these mechs way the same or cover distance at the same speed but if you look at some of the designs you realize that the way they would achieve those specs are way different. Example say you have two mechs one is a turret type with frog legs while the other is humanoid, both come upon the same battle scenario which is a enemy attacks from their left flank. The frog legged turret would probably be able to rotate 90 degrees at the waist and fire while the bot would have to turn and face his opponent. They could move the same speed in a direction and weigh the same yet how they move is different. How the player assesses these differences and addresses them (when there is a way to address them) will show the level of the players skill with his mech.

Some people think well outside the box and come up with astonishing solutions that make them exceptional with what they do.

First off, no, both of the Mechs in the scenerio you describe would twist to face the enemy at the very least, since both would have the same degree of torso twist, 70 off center either side. THAT is a common misconception that MW4 gives so many people..NO Mech can rotate the torso past 70, and they sure as hell can't do 180 or a complete 360. NO Mech in BTech can fire into it's own rear flank area without having a rear mounted weapon OR arms that can flip over(removal of certain parts required..limits usage of arms for anything but weapon's platforms for the most part). Hell, some of the Mechs in the TROs don't even HAVE twist capability

Now, avian vs humanoid legs..yes..that should present some issues that a pilot would have to get used to. But..it's not that big of an issue to overcome, it would mainly be in how the cockpit rides when walking, more of a bob up/down with the avian as opposed to a slight sideways sway with the humanoid. Center of mass moves differently is all, and that's easy to compensate for, it's exactly what the neurohelmet and gyros are there for

[verybad]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 December 2011 - 01:31 PM, said:

First off, no, both of the Mechs in the scenerio you describe would twist to face the enemy at the very least, since both would have the same degree of torso twist, 70 off center either side. THAT is a common misconception that MW4 gives so many people..NO Mech can rotate the torso past 70, and they sure as hell can't do 180 or a complete 360. NO Mech in BTech can fire into it's own rear flank area without having a rear mounted weapon OR arms that can flip over(removal of certain parts required..limits usage of arms for anything but weapon's platforms for the most part). Hell, some of the Mechs in the TROs don't even HAVE twist capability

Now, avian vs humanoid legs..yes..that should present some issues that a pilot would have to get used to. But..it's not that big of an issue to overcome, it would mainly be in how the cockpit rides when walking, more of a bob up/down with the avian as opposed to a slight sideways sway with the humanoid. Center of mass moves differently is all, and that's easy to compensate for, it's exactly what the neurohelmet and gyros are there for

Actually, with quirks, some mechs DO have greater or lesser twist capability in the advanced rules for battletech. Greater and lesser twist capability in MW4 was a good thing, it helped make mechs more diverse rather than being generic gunboxes. I would like to see the fdifferences in mechs that MW4 started added onto in MWO.

[Kristov Kerensky]

I'm still on the fence about the greater/lesser twist bit. Some chassis designs, yes, it definately makes sense, like the canon Jenner, no twist due to the fact that legs are connected directly to the torso, I like the redesign that puts the legs attached to a platform that's typical of most avian legged models There's other canonical Mechs that fall into this catagory, and I do think they should ALL receive a rework to fix that issue, the biped Mechs that is, not the quad+ models.

Mainly it comes down to the fact that Mechs don't use gears and servos to move the parts around, they use myomer fiber, which functions like a muscle and has the same restrictions on just how far you can twist/turn/pull it. Being able, as a human, to take time and training to increase those limits is one thing, but a Mech..no, there's no growth in the muscles as in a living being, so you can't make them more flexible. 70 off center either side gives you a lot of coverage with just torso mounted weapons, add in the extra range from arm mounted weapons and the ability to swing the arms 'back' and you can fire everywhere but rear flank, which gives the Mechs a weak point to be defended/exploited. More then 70, and there's no weak point to defend/exploit, you can just twist a bit to cover it at any time without any issues, bringing all your weapons to bear.

Now..making it vary between..oh..I don't know..50 and 70..that could be feasible, still giving that 'hole' in the back to be worried about, increasing the size of that hole on some chassis, that could work. But would we see people using anything but the full twist range chassis after a while? I doubt it, just look at MW4 online play, 360 designs were abused to hell and back, the tactical advantage is just too much to pass on.

[Conora Lance]

Every 'mech can be different by having each 'mech roll it's own quirks, so long as there's a table to prevent it rolling quirks it can't actually have.

[Wraith 1]

'Mechs should have some quirks to them, that's one of the things that makes the Timberwolf so superior, it's handling is totally unprecedented. It's also the reason I prefer using the Catapult over 'Mechs that are the same weight, better armor, smaller cockpit to hit, ect (I.E. Bombardier) the Catapult just has a nice feel to it.

[verybad]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 December 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Mainly it comes down to the fact that Mechs don't use gears and servos to move the parts around, they use myomer fiber, which functions like a muscle and has the same restrictions on just how far you can twist/turn/pull it.

There's nothing that prevents a gear or servo being used on a mech when it's more appropriate. Additionally, myomers are on mechs because they provide more power for moving, but there's no reason to have myomers attached to eachother. Muscles don't work that way for instance. Upper arm muscles are attached to the elbow joint, which is attached to lower arm muscles. Human and animal joints don't have 360 rotation because it's hard to support that kind of movement with internal biochemistry (ie you can't run a vein or artery through it).

Myomers can be attached to gears at joints, or they can be inside servos, no need for them to be set up like animal muscles are.

This is not a concern in mechs or vehicles as they are maintained through external (technicians) means.Myomers are simply a different method of transmitting energy, their use wouldn't prevent turret style twisting or the use of non myomer energy transmition when neessary. (eg the indistrial mech with tank treads in one of the recent TROs)

Call it what it is, limits on twisting are there for maintaining balance in the board game. The differences in MW4 didn't kill balance, but did make soem mechs with that capability (360 twist) different. It adds a nice bit of diversity, and doesn't hurt gameplay.

Edited by verybad, 18 December 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[Soltenius Drake]

Kristov Kerensky, on 18 December 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

But would we see people using anything but the full twist range chassis after a while? I doubt it, just look at MW4 online play, 360 designs were abused to hell and back, the tactical advantage is just too much to pass on.

That's why you give the mechs with less range of movement another advantage that is a fair trade off and can't be taken lightly, thus maintaining diversity and balance.

[Soltenius Drake]

verybad, on 18 December 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

The differences in MW4 didn't kill balance, but did make soem mechs with that capability (360 twist) different. It adds a nice bit of diversity, and doesn't hurt gameplay.

It hurts diversity if everyone who played the game opted for a 360 twist capable mech for it's advantage and no others had anything compelling to offer as a decent offset to this.