71 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Metus regem, on 24 May 2017 - 08:41 AM, said:

Hence why I said "Super Stock" as in, you take the SHS and make them DHS, you add Endo and FF as needed, you adjust armour values to be more MWO complaint, but you try to leave the weapons alone or at the very least leave them in the locations they should be.

I run my Awesome 8Q Super Stock. DHS, Standard 300, and I have an ERPPC in the arm to deal with PGI's dumb decision to cripple the IS PPC under 90m. When new PPC's come out, I'll probably upgrade the load out, but it will still have a PPC in the arm and 1 in each torso and a laser of some sort in the head because it's an Awesome.

My Hunchback 4G is the same idea - AC20, but big engine, DHS, etc.

[James The Fox Dixon]

oldradagast, on 25 May 2017 - 03:17 AM, said:

I run my Awesome 8Q Super Stock. DHS, Standard 300, and I have an ERPPC in the arm to deal with PGI's dumb decision to cripple the IS PPC under 90m. When new PPC's come out, I'll probably upgrade the load out, but it will still have a PPC in the arm and 1 in each torso and a laser of some sort in the head because it's an Awesome.

My Hunchback 4G is the same idea - AC20, but big engine, DHS, etc.

Umm PGI didn't cripple the IS PPC. FASA did when they decided in the first edition of Battletech (Battledroids) that PPCs have a 90 meter minimum range. If you're going to place the blame somewhere put it where it belongs.

[Logan812]

James The Fox Dixon, on 25 May 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

Umm PGI didn't cripple the IS PPC. FASA did when they decided in the first edition of Battletech (Battledroids) that PPCs have a 90 meter minimum range. If you're going to place the blame somewhere put it where it belongs.

Exactly. I'm usually quick to point out PGI's crap, but IS PPCs always had minimum range.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Look at it as an opportunity to practice heat management. Two or three regular PPCs backed by either SRMs or small pulse lasers. =)

[sycocys]

Personally I wouldn't care for lore builds, probably wouldn't work well anyhow - but faction based mech restrictions/terms of contract to get your rewards up. Extra incentives for using limited tech, weapons, strategies above and beyond the mech selections.

Then add "challenge" rewards into the contract terms, meet the above and then meet harder levels of match goals for further increased rewards.

-- Do something like that and you can get rid of the Clan vs IS FW and balance the entire game the same way (reduces balancing complications overall) - reduce FW match rewards a lot, and move the rewards to the contract terms and bonuses.
This would help FW be able to be balanced better because they could limit which current top tier mechs could be used together in decks to meet contracts, which/how much of any certain techs (ecm, baps, guass, lrms, xl/fusion engines and so forth) could be in a particular deck to allow you to meet the next set of contract terms. Probably could go as far as limiting skill point tree allotments when they realize the imbalances in that for top tier reward goals.

You can keep playing uber-meta, but you are going to get rewarded less overall.

You can play more to the faction reward system, have a more balanced mode more people want to play, and earn more rewards.

Could even add in R&R based on contract terms/length.

-- Balance can't just be done on the weapons/mechs side of things because people will still only run the top meta because it still rewards the best. Some of the balance has to be encouraged through the rewards system as well.

Don't see PGI actually doing something to improve FW and the depth or actual balance, but its fun to dream about anyhow.

[Metus regem]

James The Fox Dixon, on 25 May 2017 - 03:20 AM, said:

Umm PGI didn't cripple the IS PPC. FASA did when they decided in the first edition of Battletech (Battledroids) that PPCs have a 90 meter minimum range. If you're going to place the blame somewhere put it where it belongs.

Yes and no...

FASA did give a 3 hex (90m) minimum range, but they could still damage a target at 1-3 hexes, it was just a +1 to +3 on your target number depending on the hex. PGI on the other hand gave us a 90m dead zone where it does 0 damage....

Let's just say that PGI has been very inconsistent with minimum range issues... Everything from ignoring it for AC/s, to charge up on Gauss Rifles to damage dead zones on PPC'S / LRM's.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Metus regem, on 25 May 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

Yes and no...

FASA did give a 3 hex (90m) minimum range, but they could still damage a target at 1-3 hexes, it was just a +1 to +3 on your target number depending on the hex. PGI on the other hand gave us a 90m dead zone where it does 0 damage....

Let's just say that PGI has been very inconsistent with minimum range issues... Everything from ignoring it for AC/s, to charge up on Gauss Rifles to damage dead zones on PPC'S / LRM's.

There's no argument from me about it. I just want people to understand that it started with FASA.

[Metus regem]

James The Fox Dixon, on 25 May 2017 - 06:35 AM, said:

There's no argument from me about it. I just want people to understand that it started with FASA.

Fair enough, but it is also important for people to understand where the 0 damage dead zone comes from as well... and to see the strangeness that PGI did with all minimum ranges.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Metus regem, on 25 May 2017 - 06:44 AM, said:

Fair enough, but it is also important for people to understand where the 0 damage dead zone comes from as well... and to see the strangeness that PGI did with all minimum ranges.

I believe the dead zone thing originated with the Solaris Boxed Set personally. It's been over 20 years since I've read it and I don't have a copy of it.

[Metus regem]

James The Fox Dixon, on 25 May 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

I believe the dead zone thing originated with the Solaris Boxed Set personally. It's been over 20 years since I've read it and I don't have a copy of it.

The dead zone was more to do with not risking damage to your mech, but you could disable it to get rid of the minimum range issue as far as I understand it.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Metus regem, on 25 May 2017 - 06:47 AM, said:

The dead zone was more to do with not risking damage to your mech, but you could disable it to get rid of the minimum range issue as far as I understand it.

Maybe that is why they ignored it altogether since trying to model that damage would be too intensive?

[Metus regem]

James The Fox Dixon, on 25 May 2017 - 06:53 AM, said:

Maybe that is why they ignored it altogether since trying to model that damage would be too intensive?

I think it would've been better if they gave PPC a charge mechanic, to better reflect the fact that a PPC would have to charge capacitors to store the energy to fire.... as for Gauss Rifles, I don't know what I'd for them as they are in a state of constant charge unless discharged (fired) or turned off so that it doesn't explode when hit.

[SuperFunkTron]

sycocys, on 25 May 2017 - 06:28 AM, said:

Personally I wouldn't care for lore builds, probably wouldn't work well anyhow - but faction based mech restrictions/terms of contract to get your rewards up. Extra incentives for using limited tech, weapons, strategies above and beyond the mech selections.

Seeing as how everything moves in stepwise increments, I think we just have to start voicing the need to start with Faction Specific Mech rewards as soon as possible. It seems that there are a lot of people on the forum who like the idea, but for some reason we lack the vocal element that many lesser causes have.

We need to get them to start Broad with chassis bonus just to get the ball rolling, and then encourage more detailed expansion to variant over time. Considering that certain factions will likely have "less than ideal" mech rosters, either more enticing rewards or some sort of minor faction buff could be added to help them out.

[Willard Phule]

Metus regem, on 24 May 2017 - 06:48 AM, said:

The counter point to that is more than a few clan Omni's are under armoured stock, some of them by a frightening amount... they also have a tendency to run very hot with stock weapons.

Well, yeah. That was the "downside" to Omnis in TT.

The Hunchback IIC was considered a "solhama" mech...one last chance to die with glory. Wasn't ever supposed to be a reliable, front line mech like it is here.

My issues with the "reinterpretation" of Omni technology has to do with the whole dedicated hardpoint nonsense. Didn't like it in MW4, either. Omnis are supposed to be able to plug and play just about anything, as long as it fits and doesn't put it overweight. Repair time, which is NEVER done right in the MW titles, is supposed to take forever for Battlemechs but even full rebuilds can be done in the field with Omnis. Including their engines, but that's another issue.

[Metus regem]

Willard Phule, on 25 May 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

Well, yeah. That was the "downside" to Omnis in TT.

The Hunchback IIC was considered a "solhama" mech...one last chance to die with glory. Wasn't ever supposed to be a reliable, front line mech like it is here.

My issues with the "reinterpretation" of Omni technology has to do with the whole dedicated hardpoint nonsense. Didn't like it in MW4, either. Omnis are supposed to be able to plug and play just about anything, as long as it fits and doesn't put it overweight. Repair time, which is NEVER done right in the MW titles, is supposed to take forever for Battlemechs but even full rebuilds can be done in the field with Omnis. Including their engines, but that's another issue.

Some where on these boards, I've posted many, many times that Omnis should be set up like this:


Fixed Engine size
Fixed Engine Type
Fixed Internal Structure
Fixed Armour Type
Fixed Heat Sink type
Some hard locked equipment
Empty pod space for weapons / equipment (if hard points need to be used set them for 6E/6B/6M per Arm/ST with CT set for 2 and head set for 1)


On the flip side Battlemechs should've been set like this:

Fixed Engine size
Fixed Engine type
Fixed Internal Structure type
Fixed Hard point types
Fixed hard point sizes (screw you AC/20's where MG's went, or PPC where Flamers were mounted)
Locked equipment


Now I would've loved different armour caps based on the chassis, as in mechs know for being tanky like the Thunder Bolt could have a higher max armour value than something like a Catapult.

[sycocys]

SuperFunkTron, on 25 May 2017 - 07:16 AM, said:

Seeing as how everything moves in stepwise increments, I think we just have to start voicing the need to start with Faction Specific Mech rewards as soon as possible. It seems that there are a lot of people on the forum who like the idea, but for some reason we lack the vocal element that many lesser causes have.

We need to get them to start Broad with chassis bonus just to get the ball rolling, and then encourage more detailed expansion to variant over time. Considering that certain factions will likely have "less than ideal" mech rosters, either more enticing rewards or some sort of minor faction buff could be added to help them out.

I do wish everyone luck with that, I'm pretty sure Russ perma-blocked me on all communication platforms when I suggested he get some professional assistance in learning how to deal/communicate with his community of players.

Mostly I just come to the forums because they are more interesting to interact with than the game, don't really expect PGI to ever actually improve on the game since they really haven't done that since launch outside bug fixes.

Edited by sycocys, 25 May 2017 - 10:01 AM.

[Metus regem]

sycocys, on 25 May 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

I do wish everyone luck with that, I'm pretty sure Russ perma-blocked me on all communication platforms when I suggested he get some professional assistance in learning how to deal/communicate with his community of players.

Mostly I just come to the forums because they are more interesting to interact with than the game, don't really expect PGI to ever actually improve on the game since they really haven't done that since launch outside bug fixes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

When MWO's servers go dark, the one thing I am truly going to miss are the forums.

[G4LV4TR0N]

Stock builds are so bad in MWO because MWO is balanced in a different way than BT game/lore. It's using completely different mechanics for almost everything that is out there, starting from simplest mobility, heat generation, weapon to-hit chance to things like radar jamming or communications. What is good in BT is not always good in MWO and vice-versa. For example Hellbringer is considered one of weakest Clan mechs. Additionally mechs in BT are not balanced by being quirked or equalized but by having "Battle Value", so for example 30t Arctic Cheetah has 1334BV and 30t Urbanmech 504BV while 75t Night Gyr has 2830BV and 75t Orion 1429BV. What else? BT builds are mainly made in such way because mechs are supposed to work in groups and support each other while in MWO player builds are almost always solo oriented. The lack of many BT weapons and Aerotech is significant, because many popular MWO boating builds would be as chanceless against flying targets as LRM boats are against Small Laser Locusts.

[Skanderborg]

I enjoy running the DW-Prime and TBR-P stock builds. Its a fun mix of missiles , different lasers , and ballistics.

I did shuffle the weapon locations of the DW though to make it more useable.

[Willard Phule]

Metus regem, on 25 May 2017 - 08:59 AM, said:

Some where on these boards, I've posted many, many times that Omnis should be set up like this:


Fixed Engine size
Fixed Engine Type
Fixed Internal Structure
Fixed Armour Type
Fixed Heat Sink type
Some hard locked equipment
Empty pod space for weapons / equipment (if hard points need to be used set them for 6E/6B/6M per Arm/ST with CT set for 2 and head set for 1)


On the flip side Battlemechs should've been set like this:

Fixed Engine size
Fixed Engine type
Fixed Internal Structure type
Fixed Hard point types
Fixed hard point sizes (screw you AC/20's where MG's went, or PPC where Flamers were mounted)
Locked equipment


Now I would've loved different armour caps based on the chassis, as in mechs know for being tanky like the Thunder Bolt could have a higher max armour value than something like a Catapult.

Don't agree on fixed engine anything, if you can replace them...you can upgrade.

What I do agree on is hardpoint size. That, right there, would change a lot of the nonsense we see here.