655 replies to this topic

[John Frye]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Ah...yes, MaxTech toys..the Church of the Munchkin's little dream printed up and turned into canon..*sigh* Lets hope PGI avoids that stuff..pray they avoid it..it's horrible stuff, totally unbalances the game mechanics because that's what they are designed to do. Some of the rules are nice, I'll admit, they add nice touches to a system that sometimes overlooked things, but for the most part..it's CotM bs.

Nope, never played the Maxtech. Since you asked me to refrain from sterotyping your league by the kiddie games, I would request the same courtesy in turn.

[Alekto Serenis]

I agree on your maxtech rant, i got it for the expanded rules, the systems have been as greatly ignored as most clantech within my group, tho we rp'ed some of the tech, was a great way to improve campaigns (aka experimental mechs)

@frye
MaxTech is the level 3 core rule book

Edited by Alekto Serenis, 22 December 2011 - 07:07 PM.

[Dihm]

Alekto Serenis, on 22 December 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

Coolant pods are actually a level3 tech, would had to unbury my maxtech to state specifics but i know they are 1 ton each, 1 time uses and explode on hit and are restricted to non omnimech designs.

Actually used them alot on some designs (and got killed by them as often as they gave me that extra shot). Yet another thing id love to see going back to the core (and not gone). This way anyone who wants a flush coolant option has to live with a potential deadly critcal.

*edit* if i am not mistaken there was a rule in one that you could "flush coolant" always but it had both the potential to ruin your heatsinks and also reduced remaining heatsink efficency

I'm actually referring to the methods used in the Mechwarrior PC games, specifically MW4, where you have a "pool" of coolant that you can "flush" on a whim to drastically reduce your heat after an alpha strike, preventing you from ever having to really worry about heat shutdown. This is a free system (has no weight, no critical slots, etc etc), all mechs get it, and is nowhere to be found in Battletech.

Coolant pods (MaxTec) are a different animal.

Edited by Dihm, 22 December 2011 - 07:15 PM.

[Alekto Serenis]

That is what i meant with what id like to see being changed more to the core, remove free coolant pods, make them instead a (expensive and possible dangerous) equipment @dihm

*edit* i also know that this has the possibility to create even more e-boats, but with more pods installed the possibility to die a shamefull, and funny, death is quite given

Edited by Alekto Serenis, 22 December 2011 - 07:21 PM.

[John Frye]

Alekto Serenis, on 22 December 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

@frye
MaxTech is the level 3 core rule book

Ahh... that explains the muchkin reference. The servers I played on didn't include the unique or one off situations (prototypes for example) and were based on fairly early rules sets (early 90s). They were set up to try to simulate what I will (perhaps biasedly) call mainstream BT.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Sorry John, yeah, that was SO not directed at you And my TT group did what your's did, no MaxTech, no Level tech except IS and Clan..once Clan was introduced, we started before that and never did follow the BTU storyline for them, no Tukayyid, we annihilated them all and their homeworlds, just kept their Tech..damn dirty genetically engineered FREAKS, the lot of them! I have the same 'vision' of mainstream BTech..ah, the good old days..running around in my Atlas..ECM and BAP installed, couple of other customizations..good times..ah well.

BTech always allowed customization, the rules covered 'Construction' as a section, but they clearly mentioned and covered customization as well, but some people like to point out..'it was Construction, not customization!'..yeah yeah..go READ the bloody rules would you please, not just the title of the section. Customization was more expensive and not a sure fire thing, there were rules about it that we've not covered because..well..in TT, we ignored them, roll of the dice, good numbers it works, bad numbers it doesn't, stuff get destroyed, etc..and we'd just do over until it worked anyway, so the GM decided to ignore that particular step. He DID however up the cost for any customization by 4x..which was fine, we didn't do it a lot, House military unit, only OFFICERS got to do that stuff..and it took us a bit to hit those ranks AND have the c-bills AND the tech to play with. After all, House unit, NOT Mercs, we got 0 salvage material, but man did we get chewed out, even demoted, if we destroyed good salvage material!

Boating in previous MW games..happened, never denied that, it was as common in MW2 as MW3 and MW4 though, probably because I avoided GC and VL and the other leagues that were actually JUST ladders for pure PvP, and in those, it was common, due to the whole Class system they used, which was brought about by people HATING to face anything but a laser only Mech in the open, took the 'skill' out of it to them..since, you know, any ***** could nail a 156kph Medium at 1k with a gauss rifle...yeah. Like I said, avoided those ladder leagues, not any fun to me, I stuck with leagues that actually used planetary conquest and the IS map and all that fun stuff. Didn't see boats, you saw nice mixes of weaponary, even the fire support Mechs would have SOMETHING besides just long range weapons on them. Last league I was in, one of the NBTs, we were House Steiner, ONLY allowed to use IS Mechs and Tech..it was great, facing Clans with their Clan Mechs and Tech..and wiping them clean off the map..Annihilated 1 Clan, Absorbed another..using only IS toys

It ain't the Mech, it ain't the toys..it's the pilot..pure and simple. So why be bothered with people being able to customize their rides, it doesn't make them better then you, they either got the skills or they don't..twitch, tactical, strategic..need a good mix in a Mech..or you can go play the kiddie stuff and go all lasers in a fast little medium Mech and just pray you are faster on the draw and slower on the shutdown. I know which I prefer..I'm an Assault pilot..and I love me some mixed weaponary for all ranges and heat conditions.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Pht..you should read that link in your sigline someday, not just use it as a sigline...once you do, you see why I'm telling you this.

sarna said:

Essay: BattleMech Technology

This essay was written by MekTek/MWO Mercs/MWLL forum poster Pht and posted here by him.

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

Emphasis mine... here (or there).

sarna discussion page of above quote said:

small edit for clarity for new users of this page

What the title says. --Pht 17:39, 23 December 2011 (PST)

http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

Oh, and here's my original posting of the article: http://www.mektek.ne...ut-battlemechs/

And the second place I posted it: http://forum.mechliv...pic,6155.0.html

And before I posted it anywhere, I passed it to Cray - the guy that did the tech writeup in TechManual that it's based off of ... and he pm'd me back, after it went, in his words, "way up the line" for approval to use - and he told me I had it pretty well right, as far as the tech. Oh, and my username on the old CBT forums I used to pm it to him under was "Kage." Feel free to ask him if you don't believe me.

I was working on my idea for the 'mechlab at the same time I was doing this article.

So, how, exactly, am I supposed to not know how the two ideas interact?

Quote

That Cyclops you listed..same skeleton and electronics as the stock model with an AC20,...

sarna writeup said:

Standard Internals

Standard Internals are formed of multi-part structures with a core of ultra-light foamed aluminum, shrouded in directionally oriented sheets of silicon carbide fibers. This core is then clad with titanium-alloyed steel. The exterior is configured to mount the assorted equipment 'Mechs carry. Struts extend outward from the bones to hold the armor shell, and attachment points for myomer are built onto the bone. Weapons frame attachments are custom-designed into the internals for each 'Mech (this is one of the reasons that weapons swaps aren't simple affairs).

Would you like some mustard and ketchup to go with your hat?

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Ah...yes, MaxTech toys..the Church of the Munchkin's little dream printed up and turned into canon..*sigh*

MW:Unbound, now that I'd call munchy ... what exactly in maxtech do you think is munchy?

Edited by Pht, 23 December 2011 - 06:02 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Pht...re-read that bit you underlined again..weapon frame attachements are custom designed into the internals for each Mech...now..take a moment and SEE what that says.

MaxTech..which part ISN'T CotM approved and loved. That would be a better question.

Now, why I would possibly question your understanding of BTech...hmm..'omni mechs remove the hands so they can mount gauss/ppcs in the arms'..wrong! So much for your basis in BTech and actually understanding how Mechs work. Clan Mechs often have no hands because it's considered honorless to engage in physical combat in a Mech, nothing more. And since they don't have a use for those hands, they would rather remove the useless actuators and put in more weapons. Check the lore, it's pretty clear on that issue. And, since you've obviously not actually ever built a Mech in BTech, you can fit a gauss on the arm of any Mech WITHOUT removing a single actuator. You can fit 2 PPCs in less space then a single gauss on top of that. And..btw..Clans don't use PPCs, they use Clan ERPPCs which take even less space, could easily fit 4 of them on an arm without removing a single actuator...how do you like your hat again sir?

It's nice to know you got legal rights to post the copied material from the manuals, that's always a good thing to clear with copyrighted material, been there myself, I had legal permission from FASA to use various copyrighted material for NBT, they even sent me the out of print poster of the Inner Sphere circa 3058 for us to use in NBT..took me weeks to get that baby copied over to the computer as an interactive webpage graphic, they were great about that though, FASA always loved the fans.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 23 December 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

Pht...re-read that bit you underlined again..weapon frame attachements are custom designed into the internals for each Mech...now..take a moment and SEE what that says.

Dear god, seriously?

I WROTE THE ARTICLE.

I know what it says! I know what it means!

In this case, a mech built to hold an ac20 has different mounting points and structure built into the bones (internal structure) than another variant of the same mech that WAS NOT BUILT to hold an ac20 in the same spot! The internal structure (bones) in the two variants are DIFFERENT. They have DIFFERENT mounting points and are setup DIFFERENTLY; the bones will have different mounting points for their armor around the weapons; they will have different mounting points if any of the weapons are large enough to get near the myomer mounts.

You posted that their internal structures are "the same":

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Mech chassis is just that, a chassis, it's a combination of the skeleton, actuators and armor. Weapons mount ON the chassis, they are not part of it. That Cyclops you listed..same skeleton and electronics as the stock model with an AC20, just replace the weapons, that's all, comes from the factor in either variant, you pick, they just attach different weapons to the chassis is all.

...when they are not, and the article clearly SAYS they are not!

For that matter, "Internal structure" in the article does not include the combination of the actuators and armor - it specifically means the bones... and you're chastising me to go learn about BT? If, in the article, when it says "internal structure," it only lists the bones, talks about them, and nothing else, and talks about the other structures you are (wrongly) classing as "internal structure" ... why would you think it's referring to internals as something else in the section specifically devoted to what the article calls "internal structure?"

Quote

MaxTech..which part ISN'T CotM approved and loved. That would be a better question.

CotM is?

Quote

Now, why I would possibly question your understanding of BTech...hmm..'omni mechs remove the hands so they can mount gauss/ppcs in the arms'..wrong!

Verbatim, page 57, tech manual, right column, last paragraph:

techmanual said:

On biped OmniMechs, the lower arm and hand actuators are always considered to be pod-mounted, and may be removed to provide additional slots for weapons and other equipment. If the configuration desired mounts any kind or size of Gauss rifle, autocannon or PPC in a given arm, however, the lower arm and hand actuators in that arm must be removed first.

Edited by Pht, 23 December 2011 - 07:51 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Hey, Pht, your cut and paste skills are great..but those comprehension skills..not so great.

Weapons frame attachments are custom designed into the internals for each Mech.

Look at that statement, one YOU posted on Sarna and then again linked here. You used a statement that says what I said and tried to show that my statement was wrong. I said, the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..the manuals say..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..the wiki says..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..you say the chassis is altered to fit the weapons..THEN you quote the wiki which says..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure. If you don't understand that then..I give up..whatever..

[Xhaleon]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 December 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

You used a statement that says what I said and tried to show that my statement was wrong. I said, the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..the manuals say..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..the wiki says..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure..you say the chassis is altered to fit the weapons..THEN you quote the wiki which says..the weapons are fitted to the internal structure.

Wat.

I never followed the whole thread so I don't know exactly where the argument started, but looking at the words here and on the current page...

Quote

I said, the weapons are fitted to the internal structure
---
you say the chassis is altered to fit the weapons

Uh... The weapons are fitted onto the internal structure, which needs to be custom made to accept them. The statement does not say that weapons themselves do not have custom made latches that allow it to be mounted onto a chassis. Changing weapons for another isn't a simple affair, because an (example) AC/20 had a specific strut meant to hold it, which isn't readily compatible with a bunch of medium lasers because there aren't enough good attachment points and certainly insufficient power lines available that need to lead all the way to the reactor. The chassis needs to be modified, because it is not the weapon that is being made compatible with the chassis.

This is confusing, that's as deep as I'll go for now.

why did I develop a habit of thinking kristov is a girl over the past week? that is weird.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Xhaleon, the internal structure isn't altered to fit the weapons, the weapon's frameworks are altered to fit into the internal structure, per the BTech manuals and the Sarna wiki. The internal structure of a Mech isn't something you just customize as you want, it's a pretty rigid thing in that respect, and it's why an Atlas AS7-D looks pretty much like the Atlas AS7-K or the AS7-WGS, the differences being what weapons are sitting where. Same skeleton underneath it all, cause that's what everything gets attached to. You look at a Mech, you know what it is by it's CHASSIS, not it's weapons, the weapons tell you the VARIANT of the Mech. This is all covered in the manuals, Pht even copied it down and put it on Sarna after getting permission to use copyrighted material, and it says what I've stated.

[Xhaleon]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 December 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

snippy snippy

I'll take a look at the Techmanual and Total Warfare later then.

[Zakatak]

No frankenmechs please.

This is how the Mechlab should work. There are 5 different weapon sizes and 3 different categories. Hardpoints can either:
1) Only fit 1 category, and 3 sizes of weapon (an AC/10 slot on a stock mech could potentially hold an AC/5 or AC/20, but no energy weapons)
2) Fit 2 categories, but only 1 weapon size (a PPC slot on a stock mech could potentially hold an AC/10, but no a MBL or AC/5)

But never more then 1 size and more then 1 category.

Edited by Zakatak, 24 December 2011 - 12:08 PM.

[Punisher 1]

Eh a purist mech is boring. Having some surprises for the enemy is and might only be your one and only advantage in a fight. This might be slightly boosted by skills but I'd like to see some crafting and various levels of upgrades that a player can work towards or be part of a player base mini economy.

[darkvesperia]

I read the first few pages and this page. I liked the idea of refit kits that was mentioned in the first few pages. However I think frankenmechs should be allowed. But at cost whether in CBills or some sort of tech tree. For instance: you want to replace an arm from your mech with one from the same weight class but from a slightly heavier mech. You should have to research on how to strengthen the frame around the mounting point and adjust the gyro or stabilizers for the added weight to that side. Of course it wouldn't be a perfect meshing and the arm would have a greater chance of being blown off or aim from that arm being less accurate from being slightly off balance

[MechWarrior4Lover]

I don't know whether this has been said, but I would like limited but open customization. Maybe you could get a stock variant, strip it with time and money, and reoutfit it. However, lasers should only use lasers, there should be a size limit, and each hardpoint should have a weight limit. Then again, you could do a MW:LL thing where you pay even more time and money to make a hardpoint support a different weapon system while keeping the weight limit. You should also include armor and engine management. That would allow tons of options while restraining n00bs from using overpowered weapons.

Ex. Jenner stock 4 laser slots 2 tons each 1 slot each 4 medium lasers
Pay 1 mil c-bills to strip it and keep the slots 30 minutes
equip with 4 small pulse lasers, spend rest of tonnage and some money on armor and engine
Pay 3 mil c-bills to strip and replace lasers with ballistics 1 hour
equip with machine gun arrays, spend rest on armor and engine, pay a little more

See?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The costs and times (and where the changes can be made) are laid down (Strat ops?) and have been posted elsewhere for all the classes of refit. As t if and how these will be implemented, thats down to PGI. We do know we have some abilities to do customisation. By the way ultra customised mechs, ie effectively building a new mech (ubermechs) are not Frankenmechs. These are where a mech is "cobbled" together from bits of other mechs.

[Dlardrageth]

Let's make it quite easy to resolve the issue of full customization. tie it to RL skills. Meaning unless you can prove to PGI you have a Master's degree or a doctorate in both Mechanical Engineering and Reactor Technology, there's no full customization for you.

[EDMW CSN]

As long, massive customization (F-class refits) takes millions and millions of C-bills and a fair bit of time, it is alright for me. As an EVE player myself, 1 week is considered short and 2 weeks is just fair.

So you can guess what sort of duration I am expecting ;f

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 25 December 2011 - 07:29 AM.