675 replies to this topic

[WeekendWarrior]

Ed Steele, on 17 July 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Also, yes in lore there are 100s of customized Mechs, but the majority of Mechs were not customized. The reason that there are different variants of Mechs is because they needed different loadouts for different situations and it was not quick, or easy to change the loadout of an existing Mech.

Actually..., by the time of the 4th Succession War, a noticeable number of Mechs were "customized", though not really out of a wish to customize it, but out of a necessity to work with what salvage you have. Doubly so if you're a merc.
You don't really think Sparky is the only Griffin in the sphere that had its missile launcher torn off and replaced by something else, do you?
Besides, quite a few of the factory variants in later years were nothing more than adoptions of field variants done by some techs somewhere that turned out to be quite useful. And a large number of TRO-mentioned variants are expressively called field refits.

[Grus]

Ironically Ironclad Irony, on 17 July 2017 - 08:57 AM, said:

Tell clan enthusiasts "sorry you can't play today, to many other clanners already logged in!"

Balance is fine in QP b/c they try to balance the tech. Make clams op and artificial restrictions would need to be enacted to prevent one side from having too many clan mechs in qp... what if you wanted to 12 man drop qp? Who gets clan mechs? If all clan mechs will you have to wait until another all-clan team drops?

Nothing is simple...

no QP would work just as it does now. Faction Warfare would have the restrictions. Think of how simulated matches and realistic matches work in War thunder. If the mech's for clan side were *cringe* more expensive then that would be a natural limiting factor for clan population for FW. Add in Battle values for IS and Clan so when you're getting your 12 man set up you can see the BV of your opponent and plan accordingly. If IS wants to drop a Stiner Scout lance then so be it, cleaners will have a hill to climb but if they win their pay out would be substantially better(again coming in underweight) with this kind of play not only will you have the flavor of the weapons different AND playstyle/culture.

[NocturnalBeast]

WeekendWarrior, on 17 July 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Actually..., by the time of the 4th Succession War, a noticeable number of Mechs were "customized", though not really out of a wish to customize it, but out of a necessity to work with what salvage you have. Doubly so if you're a merc.
You don't really think Sparky is the only Griffin in the sphere that had its missile launcher torn off and replaced by something else, do you?
Besides, quite a few of the factory variants in later years were nothing more than adoptions of field variants done by some techs somewhere that turned out to be quite useful. And a large number of TRO-mentioned variants are expressively called field refits.

I know that there is no real economy in MWO, so it is easier just to let everyone have a properly staffed and we'll equipped Mechbay. My main issue was with letting Clan Mechs move / remove / replace fixed components, since the fixed components are supposed to be integrated into the location they are in and can not be removed without damaging, or completely redesigning that location. The fixed equipment in Omnis is there just to balance out the fact that the mech gets "free" upgrades like Integrated CASE in all locations.

[Grus]

Wintersdark, on 17 July 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Kind of a useless statement. This is the game we have now, and what we wish had happened years ago is pretty irrelevant. That said:

Nope. Balancing assymertrical numbers in a PvP arena game is basically impossible, as the adjustment is too coarse. It's not just "10 players with mechs that are 1.2 times the strength of the mechs on the 12 player side" - it just doesn't work that way. If PGI struggles to balance even numbers(Note that EVERY game struggles to balance equal numbers with different factions), it would do even worse with different numbers of players. We've had this discussion a lot of times over the years.

The long and short is, even if you want to believe having different numbers of players per side is no harder than equal numbers, it certainly isn't easier.



What? Now you're going right off the deep end into ridiculous. Who gets to be clans? Clan mechs launched before faction play existed, so people who bought clan mechs early on suddenly don't get to use them because there's not enough IS players? What if a current IS player had been buying Clan mechs, but then suddenly can't switch to Clan's because a couple IS players quit? Jesus. You can want to have all the fluffy lore stuff you want, but this is still a business and needs to have fair rules in place for everyone. You can't just screw people because you feel one faction needs more players than another. That's atrociously bad business.

Wait, you want to have a fully different set of weapon stats/etc for QP and for FP? Is that really what you're saying? Because that's an atrociously terrible idea. Maybe I'm misreading that, so I won't bother going into WHY it's a terrible idea, and I'll just accept I'm probably misunderstanding you.

Plenty of other games? Like what? Name some.

War thunder has a wonderful transition from arcade stats to realistic and then to Simulation "ww2 to Korea" era tanks and aircraft if you haven't played that game I would invite you to give it a look, hell I'll even get on TS and drop with you to explain it.

[Wintersdark]

Grus, on 17 July 2017 - 11:25 AM, said:

War thunder has a wonderful transition from arcade stats to realistic and then to Simulation "ww2 to Korea" era tanks and aircraft if you haven't played that game I would invite you to give it a look, hell I'll even get on TS and drop with you to explain it.

Good example!

I have played it. Pretty sure it's not assymetrically balanced, though. More importantly, MWO could not support that system because it has a teensie tiny fraction of War Thunder's population, and Gaijin is a far larger company.

MWO would never match War Thunder in population either, because quite frankly military history fans are several orders of magnitude more common than Battletech fans. What's more, having a Sim Mode in MWO (as much as I'd love such a thing) would be vastly harder to design. After all, going "sim" for a flight/tank sim is quite simple because tanks and planes are real things, and there's already established control schemes for flight sims. On the other hand, there isn't for battlemechs, as the controls Battlemechs are shown to have would simply not work for what they are.

But ultimately the population is the killer. We can't have a decent matchmaker now due to low population, and that's been the case even when MWO was at concurrent population peaks.

Faction Play being a "sim mode" wouldn't be possible for PGI. They struggle to balance one set of values, having two different sets would mean half the balancing work to each. What's more, it creates other problems.

Sim mode in War Thunder is basically different controls/handling, to represent flight simulator vs. arcade play. Faction Play is a different game mode, rather than different control set. If you never play Sim Mode in War Thunder, you're not missing out on anything (other than a more flight sim gameplay style) but if you never play Faction Play in MWO, you're missing out on much of the game - it's wholly different game modes, and for totally different purposes.

It's just not practical - certainly not now. MWO is too small, PGI is too small.

[Jay Leon Hart]

InnerSphereNews, on 14 July 2017 - 07:08 PM, said:

The MWO Portal "July 18th Patch Notes" splash now mentions a Tournament Pack.

Details "soon" ?

[Grus]

Zergling, on 15 July 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

Shutdown threshold is considerably higher than 32 heat, here's the figures for heat capacity:

All mechs get a free 30 capacity
2.0 heat capacity per engine double heatsink (so a mech with 10 engine heatsinks gets 20)
1.5 heat capacity per non-engine double heatsink

Plus bonus for Heat Containment skill nodes; the maximum that bonus can reach is 15%, and I believe that is only applied to the base 30 heat capacity, for a maximum bonus of 4.5.

Eg, a mech with 10 engine double heatsinks and 10 non-engine double heatsinks (20 DHS in total), with maxed Heat Containment nodes would get 30 + 20 + 15 + 4.5 = 69.5 heat capacity.


As for Heavy Medium Laser ghost heat, if it is set to 4 then they still have an advantage over ER Mediums; that is 40 damage per shot for 4 tons of Heavy Medium Lasers, versus 42 damage per shot for 6 tons.
Heat is actually less for the Heavy Mediums too; 32 heat versus 37.8

Heavy Medium Lasers are more efficient in tonnage, hardpoints and heat than Clan ER Medium Lasers, but pay for that with range and beam duration.





A mech like the Night Gyr isn't likely to benefit from running Heavy Large Lasers, but the Shadow Cat, Adder, Mad Dog, Summoner, Orion IIC and Highlander IIC probably will, as those mechs all have a shortage of energy hardpoints and plenty of slots.

agreed, the lighter h eavys and meds will I think benefit the most from the heavy Las line.

Now back to the ER vs heavy

Yes the trade is there, but why would you want to be at that range anyways? You're in the prime range to get murdered by IS laser vomit. Add to that if I read the numbers right, fireing 4 heavies will push you above 50% heat all on their own? That's damn hot! And now you have to wait for cool down till next week before you fire again. So if you are going to run them positioning will be even more paramount. As with the ER, you'll have that range buffer to shoot and scoot if nessisory.

[C E Dwyer]

Jay Leon Hart, on 17 July 2017 - 11:47 AM, said:

[/center]
The MWO Portal "July 18th Patch Notes" splash now mentions a Tournament Pack.

Details "soon" ?

whoopie, that makes deceit over the time line acceptable then

[Commander A9]

You want to know what's really hilarious?

3057 is pre-Civil War era. Operation Bulldog was 3059.

The Mad Cat Mk. II wasn't manufactured until 3066.

I am convinced the FedCom "Civil War", Operation Bulldog, and the Clan Wolf-Jade Falcon Refusal War are not coming as major events..

Sorry, PGI-I am a man of no faith here...

Edited by Commander A9, 17 July 2017 - 12:47 PM.

[Grus]

Wintersdark, on 17 July 2017 - 11:39 AM, said:

Good example!

I have played it. Pretty sure it's not assymetrically balanced, though. More importantly, MWO could not support that system because it has a teensie tiny fraction of War Thunder's population, and Gaijin is a far larger company.

MWO would never match War Thunder in population either, because quite frankly military history fans are several orders of magnitude more common than Battletech fans. What's more, having a Sim Mode in MWO (as much as I'd love such a thing) would be vastly harder to design. After all, going "sim" for a flight/tank sim is quite simple because tanks and planes are real things, and there's already established control schemes for flight sims. On the other hand, there isn't for battlemechs, as the controls Battlemechs are shown to have would simply not work for what they are.

But ultimately the population is the killer. We can't have a decent matchmaker now due to low population, and that's been the case even when MWO was at concurrent population peaks.

Faction Play being a "sim mode" wouldn't be possible for PGI. They struggle to balance one set of values, having two different sets would mean half the balancing work to each. What's more, it creates other problems.

Sim mode in War Thunder is basically different controls/handling, to represent flight simulator vs. arcade play. Faction Play is a different game mode, rather than different control set. If you never play Sim Mode in War Thunder, you're not missing out on anything (other than a more flight sim gameplay style) but if you never play Faction Play in MWO, you're missing out on much of the game - it's wholly different game modes, and for totally different purposes.

It's just not practical - certainly not now. MWO is too small, PGI is too small.

could you imagine though? The tactics, the immersion, the maps would need to be MUCH bigger but my god man that would be the only mode I'd play.

With war thunder I play realistic 75%of the time and simulated when it's on for the US tanks I have per teir. That's kinda what is like to see in this game quick play is "arcade" I would jump at a realistic and be ecstatic for a simulater.

Edit: cellphone autocorrect.

Edited by Grus, 17 July 2017 - 01:05 PM.

[Ironically Ironclad Irony]

Grus, on 17 July 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

no QP would work just as it does now. Faction Warfare would have the restrictions. Think of how simulated matches and realistic matches work in War thunder. If the mech's for clan side were *cringe* more expensive then that would be a natural limiting factor for clan population for FW. Add in Battle values for IS and Clan so when you're getting your 12 man set up you can see the BV of your opponent and plan accordingly. If IS wants to drop a Stiner Scout lance then so be it, cleaners will have a hill to climb but if they win their pay out would be substantially better(again coming in underweight) with this kind of play not only will you have the flavor of the weapons different AND playstyle/culture.

I had thought about having "arcade" mode vs "Campaign" mode in the past... I just feel like there are too many variables and the incessant whining about "I want my mechs to always be the best they can be no matter the mode!" arguments would make me jump off a cliff...

[Steinkrieg]

Ironically Ironclad Irony, on 17 July 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

... would make me jump off a cliff...

DO A FLIP

[NocturnalBeast]

According to Russ on Twitter, FW is set just before the Civil War era around the time of Operation Bulldog, so calling this the "Civil War" update is inaccurate.

[Kaptain]

No civil war in civil war? Russ mislead the community again. Ok, refund.

[Grus]

Ironically Ironclad Irony, on 17 July 2017 - 02:04 PM, said:

I had thought about having "arcade" mode vs "Campaign" mode in the past... I just feel like there are too many variables and the incessant whining about "I want my mechs to always be the best they can be no matter the mode!" arguments would make me jump off a cliff...

don't jump, just throw the snowflakes over, it is way more fun.

[WeekendWarrior]

Ed Steele, on 17 July 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

My main issue was with letting Clan Mechs move / remove / replace fixed components, since the fixed components are supposed to be integrated into the location they are in and can not be removed without damaging, or completely redesigning that location.

Which is different from modifying a standard BattleMech exactly how...?
We can switch out engines at will, exchange the internal structure completely, replace all of the armor, and trade machine guns for gauss rifles without any problem, but the technologically more advanced Clans with Mechs designed to be modular from the ground up, nope, they can't.
Oh, but they can with standard BattleMechs!
Logic.

Ed Steele, on 17 July 2017 - 11:11 AM, said:

The fixed equipment in Omnis is there just to balance out the fact that the mech gets "free" upgrades like Integrated CASE in all locations.

Integrated CASE is just a general perk of Clantech, all their ammo bays come with it, doesn't matter whether its a Omni or BattleMech. Invalid argument.

In theory, the fixed equipment is there to balance out the fact that Omnis can, within serious limits, modify their hardpoints.
In practice, its just a huge disadvantage. Its not that hard to pick a hardpoint layout you like more from the half dozen or so variants every standard BattleMech has today.
On top of it all, the entire concept of Omnis in MWO is flawed. They're pointless.
The primary advantages of Omnis, the easy mission adaptability and easier repair, are both completely useless in MWO. We don't have a repair system, and optimally configuring your Omni for your next mission (brawl for a city fight, long range energy for arctic wastes, cool ballistics for your local volcano) is kinda impossible when you don't know what and where your next mission will be in the first place!
And the best part? If you would actually know what and where your next mission will be, what is stopping you from bringing a standard BattleMech easily adapted to it from your vast garage?
Omnis are pointless.

If/When we ever get the IS Omnis, you'll see. The first generation was the epitome of inefficient design, being forced to use them as is, now that will be fun.

[Kaptain]

WeekendWarrior, on 17 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Which is different from modifying a standard BattleMech exactly how...?
We can switch out engines at will, exchange the internal structure completely, replace all of the armor, and trade machine guns for gauss rifles without any problem, but the technologically more advanced Clans with Mechs designed to be modular from the ground up, nope, they can't.
Oh, but they can with standard BattleMechs!
Logic.




Integrated CASE is just a general perk of Clantech, all their ammo bays come with it, doesn't matter whether its a Omni or BattleMech. Invalid argument.

In theory, the fixed equipment is there to balance out the fact that Omnis can, within serious limits, modify their hardpoints.
In practice, its just a huge disadvantage. Its not that hard to pick a hardpoint layout you like more from the half dozen or so variants every standard BattleMech has today.
On top of it all, the entire concept of Omnis in MWO is flawed. They're pointless.
The primary advantages of Omnis, the easy mission adaptability and easier repair, are both completely useless in MWO. We don't have a repair system, and optimally configuring your Omni for your next mission (brawl for a city fight, long range energy for arctic wastes, cool ballistics for your local volcano) is kinda impossible when you don't know what and where your next mission will be in the first place!
And the best part? If you would actually know what and where your next mission will be, what is stopping you from bringing a standard BattleMech easily adapted to it from your vast garage?
Omnis are pointless.

If/When we ever get the IS Omnis, you'll see. The first generation was the epitome of inefficient design, being forced to use them as is, now that will be fun.

Yup. And soon we will have more clan assault BMs vs Omni Mechs.

[NocturnalBeast]

WeekendWarrior, on 17 July 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Which is different from modifying a standard BattleMech exactly how...?
We can switch out engines at will, exchange the internal structure completely, replace all of the armor, and trade machine guns for gauss rifles without any problem, but the technologically more advanced Clans with Mechs designed to be modular from the ground up, nope, they can't.
Oh, but they can with standard BattleMechs!
Logic.




Integrated CASE is just a general perk of Clantech, all their ammo bays come with it, doesn't matter whether its a Omni or BattleMech. Invalid argument.

In theory, the fixed equipment is there to balance out the fact that Omnis can, within serious limits, modify their hardpoints.
In practice, its just a huge disadvantage. Its not that hard to pick a hardpoint layout you like more from the half dozen or so variants every standard BattleMech has today.
On top of it all, the entire concept of Omnis in MWO is flawed. They're pointless.
The primary advantages of Omnis, the easy mission adaptability and easier repair, are both completely useless in MWO. We don't have a repair system, and optimally configuring your Omni for your next mission (brawl for a city fight, long range energy for arctic wastes, cool ballistics for your local volcano) is kinda impossible when you don't know what and where your next mission will be in the first place!
And the best part? If you would actually know what and where your next mission will be, what is stopping you from bringing a standard BattleMech easily adapted to it from your vast garage?
Omnis are pointless.

If/When we ever get the IS Omnis, you'll see. The first generation was the epitome of inefficient design, being forced to use them as is, now that will be fun.

Like I have stated before, just change "A BATTLETECH GAME" to "A Giant Robot Shooter That Looks Kind Of Like BATTLETECH" and then I won't have any issues with any of the changes (and I probably would find another game to play).

[Terrastras Rex]

Neat. Can't wait to play more Siege!

Thanks PGI!

[FireStoat]

Khalcruth, on 17 July 2017 - 10:12 AM, said:

Sure thing. You can have your build restrictions lifted, all you have to do is give up the ability to swap around hard points. If you want a huge positive, you also have to take a huge negative.

I, as well as MANY other Clan players would CHEERFULLY, with a huge SMILE on our face, click a button that locks an omnimech FOREVER to its original 8/8 omnipod stock loadout if it would turn it into a Battlemech. Clan battlemechs even with their locked hardpoints are so much better than Omnimechs due to full equipment customization it's not even funny. Don't even taunt me or other players with such a thing - we're literally dreaming it could happen.