110 replies to this topic

[Jay Leon Hart]

Andi Nagasia, on 14 July 2017 - 10:47 AM, said:

well PGI has been reluctant to reduce ant Crits, as to move away from the TT Source material,
which is why ive made this topic working with that, instead of trying to reinvent it,

Yeah, their reluctance to reduce crit slots (hello, totally useless IS LB20X!) is a real shame. I'd just rather plug for the "easier" (SCR goes here) option.

[davoodoo]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Yeah, their reluctance to reduce crit slots (hello, totally useless IS LB20X!) is a real shame. I'd just rather plug for the "easier" (SCR goes here) option.

Yes lets pretend that 10 crits lb20x would actually be useful.

Then lets also conviniently forget that tt actually had a way to deal with it...

[Jay Leon Hart]

davoodoo, on 14 July 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

Yes lets pretend that 10 crits lb20x would actually be useful.

Then lets also conviniently forget that tt actually had a way to deal with it...

Useful? Not really. Less useless? Definitely.

Yes, it did. From my limited knowledge, a totally terrible way if implemented here. Wouldn't it be great if the arm you had 1 slot from that 11 slot weapon was blown off, so you lost the whole weapon? Wouldn't that just be great?

[TheArisen]

kf envy, on 14 July 2017 - 11:23 AM, said:

the FF is fine and PGI already doubled the armor of all mechs. just git gud

Lol get reading comprehension.

This has nothing to do with players getting owned or whatever, just discussing how to make FF worth it when compared to endo.

[davoodoo]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 July 2017 - 11:35 AM, said:

Useful? Not really. Less useless? Definitely.

Yes, it did. From my limited knowledge, a totally terrible way if implemented here. Wouldn't it be great if the arm you had 1 slot from that 11 slot weapon was blown off, so you lost the whole weapon? Wouldn't that just be great?

Less useless is still useless.

How about you put that 1 slot into ct, ct wont be blown off.
Yes if you did something ******** like putting 1 slot into arm then you failed at mechlab and should be punished for it.

Even then it not said how pgi would treat it as crit system in mwo is completely different than tt or "i have no idea what pgi is thinking and im not brave enough to guess".

Edited by davoodoo, 14 July 2017 - 11:41 AM.

[Jay Leon Hart]

davoodoo, on 14 July 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Less useless is still useless.

How about you put that 1 slot into ct, ct wont be blown off.
Yes if you did something ******** like putting 1 slot into arm then you failed at mechlab and should be punished for it.

Agreed, RIP IS LB20X.

True, poor example on my part, but if the CT is already full, there's not much choice. Now, if you didn't need a daft mechanic like crit-splitting in the first place...

[davoodoo]

Jay Leon Hart, on 14 July 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

Agreed, RIP IS LB20X.

True, poor example on my part, but if the CT is already full, there's not much choice. Now, if you didn't need a daft mechanic like crit-splitting in the first place...

If ct is full then you actually have some variation in mechs, 1 will be better at dual hgauss than other.

Because lets be honest, it would be used for 3 things
ac20 arm to st
uac20 arm to st
dual hgauss

and only hgauss would benefit from crit reduction, not lb20x.

Edited by davoodoo, 14 July 2017 - 11:50 AM.

[Dee Eight]

The only way PGI could have ever actually "balanced" clan tech level equipment to IS tech is by price, including the cbills costs. They already made the mechs in the in-game store cost more cbills and MC than equivalent size IS mechs but they didn't do so on the webstore since at least the IIC Origins packs. $20 shouldn't be the price for three basic kodiaks for example when three basic cyclops cost the same. Also in game mechlab prices have the components costing essentially the same cbill prices...even though the clan equipment is vastly superior.

Making it cost a lot more, and then allowing it to be installed to IS mechs (as was done in MW4:Mercenaries) in the mech lab would have done a lot to solve the balance issue a long time ago. Anyone who played that game will remember that you had to pick a sponsoring famous mercenary unit you were affiliated with, and that your decision to do so altered what was available to you earlier in the game than the others, both in terms of available equipment/mechs but also the payout bonuses.

[davoodoo]

So pay2win?

[Brain Cancer]

Every time someone says "let's reduce tonnage or crits!", I laugh.

Catalyst (the guys who own the BTech IP) want a universe where they can take units and have them scale properly to everything else.

This means you don't get to reduce/add crits or tonnage. Period. Otherwise, very rapidly MWO will produce variants that simply cannot function in TT due to breaking construction rules. Note how most MWO-specific variants tend to have small amounts of ammo stock vs. the larger amounts we stuff into them later?

They're being designed with compatibility with tabletop in mind, the eventual inclusion in some form in a format useful to the main game. Alex's artwork, too. One big happy system.

Otherwise, we could just throw out everything and break all the rules. But we can't. Given, I'm still in favor of just making Clantech a "tier of it's own" and using asymmetric balance like we already have in FW...but that doesn't work well with QP's mixed queues.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 12:42 PM, said:

Every time someone says "let's reduce tonnage or crits!", I laugh.

Catalyst (the guys who own the BTech IP) want a universe where they can take units and have them scale properly to everything else.

This means you don't get to reduce/add crits or tonnage. Period. Otherwise, very rapidly MWO will produce variants that simply cannot function in TT due to breaking construction rules. Note how most MWO-specific variants tend to have small amounts of ammo stock vs. the larger amounts we stuff into them later?

They're being designed with compatibility with tabletop in mind, the eventual inclusion in some form in a format useful to the main game. Alex's artwork, too. One big happy system.

Otherwise, we could just throw out everything and break all the rules. But we can't. Given, I'm still in favor of just making Clantech a "tier of it's own" and using asymmetric balance like we already have in FW...but that doesn't work well with QP's mixed queues.

So long as PGI don't break those existing rules when designing a new 'mech, it wouldn't matter if they made anything smaller or lighter and the player base could cram a weapon or piece of equipment somewhere it wouldn't fit with TT rules.

So yeah, rubbish excuse is rubbish.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

So long as PGI don't break those existing rules when designing a new 'mech, it wouldn't matter if they made anything smaller or lighter and the player base could cram a weapon or piece of equipment somewhere it wouldn't fit with TT rules.

Sure it would. You couldn't legally take your MWObot and write up a sheet for it in tabletop. That's the intent here.

The problem doesn't require breaking the construction rules. It requires PGI being competent enough to actually allow things to be constructed. Literally, the problem is PGI is so bad at coding that they cannot handle an increasingly large number of things they should. Ammo switching was the first big one. Now split-location weapons.

It will only get worse.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sure it would. You couldn't legally take your MWObot and write up a sheet for it in tabletop. That's the intent here.

The problem doesn't require breaking the construction rules. It requires PGI being competent enough to actually allow things to be constructed. Literally, the problem is PGI is so bad at coding that they cannot handle an increasingly large number of things they should. Ammo switching was the first big one. Now split-location weapons.

It will only get worse.

Ah, so you're saying we need to be able to translate our player builds 1:1 into TT?

Still seems flimsy, looking at MW3 and MW4 as examples as to why that shouldn't be a consideration, but ok.

[Edit2] NVM, I can't math [/Edit2]

Edited by Jay Leon Hart, 14 July 2017 - 01:20 PM.

[SMDMadCow]

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 01:12 PM, said:

Sure it would. You couldn't legally take your MWObot and write up a sheet for it in tabletop. That's the intent here.

The problem doesn't require breaking the construction rules. It requires PGI being competent enough to actually allow things to be constructed. Literally, the problem is PGI is so bad at coding that they cannot handle an increasingly large number of things they should. Ammo switching was the first big one. Now split-location weapons.

It will only get worse.

And rear mounted weapons, and arm flipping...

[Brain Cancer]

MW3/4 (and MechCommander, etc) weren't made with the same "one universe" policy that we have now with Catalyst/Harebrained/PGI.

And yes, that's basically it. They want it so that if you wanna run your robot, you can fit all the parts together the same way regardless of which game it is. A Harebrained BT game 3025-era Orion would be buildable in MWO or TT, equally so (even if it sucked in one vs. the other).

[Jay Leon Hart]

Brain Cancer, on 14 July 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

MW3/4 (and MechCommander, etc) weren't made with the same "one universe" policy that we have now with Catalyst/Harebrained/PGI.

And yes, that's basically it. They want it so that if you wanna run your robot, you can fit all the parts together the same way regardless of which game it is. A Harebrained BT game 3025-era Orion would be buildable in MWO or TT, equally so (even if it sucked in one vs. the other).

Well then, I should probably look for a new game. Oh well.

[Khobai]

Quote

Now split-location weapons.

Its a rule in battletech that Heavy Gauss can only be mounted in torso locations. You are not allowed to put it in an arm. Its so powerful, bulky, and heavy that even if the arm could lift it to fire, it would damage the arm when it fired.

So crit splitting would only let you split the heavy gauss' crits between the side torso and center torso anyway.


As far as MWO is concerned, there is a very simple way they could do crit splitting.

They could release the variants of the Atlas, Banshee, Stalker, Highlander that use a single heavy gauss. But that heavy gauss would be "hardwired". You would be unable to remove it. But in exchange for being hardwired, it would have its crits split between the side torso and center torso. That would allow you to use an XL or LFE engine.

Because its hardwired they wouldnt have to write code for dynamic crit splitting. It would simply be a locked piece of equipment that takes up 9 crits in the side torso and 2 crits in the CT.

Of course only those specific variants with hardwired heavy gauss would be able to benefit from the crit splitting... but its better to have that option than not have it at all.

Quote

This means you don't get to reduce/add crits or tonnage. Period. Otherwise, very rapidly MWO will produce variants that simply cannot function in TT due to breaking construction rules. Note how most MWO-specific variants tend to have small amounts of ammo stock vs. the larger amounts we stuff into them later?

Im sortve against changing tonnage/crits. I mean Im fine with it as an absolute last resort. But if theres other ways to fix a weapon I think they need to explore those options first.

Like my above solution for heavy gauss. A lot of the time certain weapons are only used with certain mechs anyway. So I dont think its a huge problem if heavy gauss isnt viable on every mech, as long as its viable on some mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 14 July 2017 - 01:56 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

They could release the variants of the Atlas, Banshee, Stalker that use a single heavy gauss. But that heavy gauss would be "hardwired".

Honestly, it's the most likely option PGI could manage for a lot of later chassis, and the only way some will ever function (like the Thunder). As noted elsewhere, it'd also allow Arrow IV.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 14 July 2017 - 01:37 PM, said:

As far as MWO is concerned, there is a very simple way they could do crit splitting.

Lets not go ahead so far and first wait till hgauss becomes decent as i surely wouldnt want that strapped to side of my atlas just to fire at 180m.

[Khobai]

Quote

Lets not go ahead so far and first wait till hgauss becomes decent as i surely wouldnt want that strapped to side of my atlas just to fire at 180m.

It would only be hardwired to one variant of the Atlas. The Atlas-S2.

Theyd have to release four new variants which would all have the hardwired heavy gauss.

Atlas-S2
Stalker-8S
Banshee-6S
Highlander-738

Quote

Honestly, it's the most likely option PGI could manage for a lot of later chassis, and the only way some will ever function (like the Thunder). As noted elsewhere, it'd also allow Arrow IV.

Yeah dynamic crit splitting is NEVER happening. This is really the next best option.

Edited by Khobai, 14 July 2017 - 02:02 PM.