197 replies to this topic

[Grus]

CK16, on 07 May 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

To be fair....to make IS Omni's more viable I could see a rule for them only that their XL's get more durability in MWO to survive one ST lose. Say it has shielding or something idk lol.

considering how much cherry picking the IS side does this wouldn't surprise me. But it wouldn't be right. Let alone make every other IS mech redundant and obsolete.. the sharp power climb would be crazy. Now if the did that then the changes to clan side would have to be sweeping and increasing to keep them valid. Otherwise PGI would ha e to take thier paintbrush and every IS omni would have to run a LFE. But I think the IS monk's should be kept to what they are. XL and all. No "extra quirks" or any of that garbage.

[GenJack]

My dearest Mother on her death bed she told me, she told me GenJack... Get.. PGI... to make... Sunders.
Such a sad story... 1000 likes and PGI will be forced by the Internet Police to make a Sunder Pack.




(*IHopeThisWorks*)

[Grus]

GenJack, on 07 May 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

My dearest Mother on her death bed she told me, she told me GenJack... Get.. PGI... to make... Sunders.
Such a sad story... 1000 likes and PGI will be forced by the Internet Police to make a Sunder Pack.




(*IHopeThisWorks*)

You would need 1k people to actualy see this post and I don't think there are enough active players/forum warriors on here to make that happen...

[Verilligo]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

If you had ever played the original version, you'd actually have a shred of respect for the game design at work.

Gee, that seems a little bit aggressive. I have plenty of respect for the original game design. But respecting it does not mean I agree with it, especially when one makes the transition from turn-based dice roll tabletop to real time first-person shooter. If you'd really like me to rip on the original game design, though, I'd be more than happy to express how I feel about the Clans.

Besides, death on side torso loss isn't even the rule, it's just an abstraction of the rule. As you stated yourself, the rule is three crits on an engine destroys the engine. It just so happens that there's three crit slots to a side torso with IS XL. From what I can tell, that means IS XL's should, in fact, be EVEN MORE vulnerable than they are right now. LFE's and Clan XL's, too. But you seem to be okay with the abstraction, rather than the original vision, so who am I to complain~ I'm just the guy with zero respect for a rule that's never been observed in any previous MechWarrior game that I know of.

[Stridercal]

Verilligo, on 07 May 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

Gee, that seems a little bit aggressive. I have plenty of respect for the original game design. But respecting it does not mean I agree with it, especially when one makes the transition from turn-based dice roll tabletop to real time first-person shooter. If you'd really like me to rip on the original game design, though, I'd be more than happy to express how I feel about the Clans.

Besides, death on side torso loss isn't even the rule, it's just an abstraction of the rule. As you stated yourself, the rule is three crits on an engine destroys the engine. It just so happens that there's three crit slots to a side torso with IS XL. From what I can tell, that means IS XL's should, in fact, be EVEN MORE vulnerable than they are right now. LFE's and Clan XL's, too. But you seem to be okay with the abstraction, rather than the original vision, so who am I to complain~ I'm just the guy with zero respect for a rule that's never been observed in any previous MechWarrior game that I know of.

Wait, how do you figure? Side torso loss on a clan mech, or IS LFE, is two engine hits. The current abstraction works pretty well for that. But three engines hits is 'lights out' for any mech, which is also how MWO works.

It isn't perfect, but it does work just fine to assimilate the systems at work.

Jay Leon Hart, on 07 May 2018 - 11:05 AM, said:

OmniMech XL = Clan XL (penalty with 1 ST loss, death with 2 ST loss)
BattleMEch XL = IS XL (death on ST loss)
No LFE change needed, as OmniMechs can't swap engines
Buff Clan BattleMechs with torso structure and/or armour buffs

Reasoning?

OmniMech engines are hardwired, so it's easier to build in fail-safes and redundant systems.
BattleMech engines are "easier" to swap out, so no such fail-safe or redundancy systems exist.

So you're saying that the Hermes 280 XL fitted to an Avatar is not the Hermes 280 XL fitted to some 3050+ Warhammers, just because they "installed it in a special way"?

So why didn't they install the engine in the same way for the Warhammer? Oh, yeah, it's because you're selectively changing the rules to suit your desires... un huh, yeah, got it.

[Stridercal]

Jay Leon Hart, on 07 May 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Except it's not. I've asked in many (a dozen, surely?) threads for a non-TT citation of this supposed rule and no-one has thus far been forthcoming.

3 crit engine rule is as much lore as the Ghost Heat system.

Unfortunately, the tabletop rule IS cannon. Literally. That's the end of that question.

Now, you do make an interesting point about Ghost Heat, which is clearly a new concept found only in MWO. That i can understand, because of the balance issues raised by the needs of a real-time tactical FPS. But to me, there's a big difference between a balance nerf (to reduce boating alphas) and a rules-breaking selective buff (to change engine rules... because... whambulance?).

I'd rather that we had some take on energy loading (like back in alpha/beta) because at least there's cannon lore describing that system. But, PGI sometimes does seem to stand for "Programmin' Gud, Inn'it", so toss that idea into the same pile as crit-splitting and ammo switching...

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 01:36 PM, said:

So you're saying that the Hermes 280 XL fitted to an Avatar is not the Hermes 280 XL fitted to some 3050+ Warhammers, just because they "installed it in a special way"?

So why didn't they install the engine in the same way for the Warhammer? Oh, yeah, it's because you're selectively changing the rules to suit your desires... un huh, yeah, got it.

The same way a brick & mortar house is more sturdy than a static home. One is secured to the ground via a foundation, the other it not. Also, we don't have manufacturers in MWO, so who's to say what XL is installed on an Avatar vs a Warhammer in this game?

Yes, selectively changing a bad TT rule to improve balance in a PVP FPS. Novel concept, I'm sure.

[Jay Leon Hart]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the tabletop rule IS cannon. Literally. That's the end of that question.

In WH40k TT, an Imperial Guardsman Adeptus Militarium can kill a Space Marine an Adeptus Astartes.

In the lore, this does not happen.

TT is not lore, no matter how much you say it is.

[Metus regem]

Stridercal, on 07 May 2018 - 01:40 PM, said:

Unfortunately, the tabletop rule IS cannon. Literally. That's the end of that question.

No....?

TT rule = Victor VTR-9B packs 1 AC/20
TT rule = Demolisher tank packs two AC/20's


Lore = The Pontiac 100 mounted on a Victor fires 100 rounds per burst.
Lore = The twin 185mm Chemjet guns on the Demolisher tank use a 2 stage chemical propellant.


That's the difference between lore and rules.

[Thorn Hallis]

Metus regem, on 07 May 2018 - 10:58 AM, said:

Also, when it comes to the 'lore' argument, find me one piece of fluff that references three engine crits knocking it out or equipment crit sizes... TT rules do not equal lore...

Well, some fluff texts in certain technical readouts admit the heightend fragility of 'Mechs equipped with XL engines.

[Metus regem]

Thorn Hallis, on 07 May 2018 - 02:05 PM, said:

Well, some fluff texts in certain technical readouts admit the heightend fragility of 'Mechs equipped with XL engines.

True, but it does not talk about crit spaces.

One of my favorite mechs (the Bushwacker) has lore that says it was a failed design until the capture of a Vulture (Mad Dog) was able to shed some light on how to adjust the reactor shielding so that it did not mess with the sensor package on it. So going by that bit of lore, should it have had an engine that had 2 extra crits in the CT and only two in each ST? No, it still had to conform to TT rules for the tech base.

With the exclusion of very, very few mechs they are not cavernous things with loads of internal volume to mount what ever we want based on the critical spaces, they are military equipment, look at parts layout for any modern combat vehicle and you will see everything is packed in very tightly, mechs would be the same. We should not be able to sawp engines or internal structure types, let alone locations of those structure members... hell it should be impossible to put an AC/20 or Gauss Rifle where a machine gun was mounted....

[Jay Leon Hart]

TT vs lore

Lore from the canon Legend-Killer short story;

Quote

The eighty-ton Victor vaulted into view on the blindingly bright plasma of its jump jets before the massive partition was barely halfway down.
Noton grimaced. His aim was off by a good two meters, but he quickly swung the targeting reticule in line as it burned bright gold across his HUD. He grinned wickedly and pulled the triggers, managing pinpoint accuracy despite the machines’ relative motions. Twin cerulean beams flashed, gouging white-hot furrows and sloughed off armor in blobs of already cooling slag. The autocannons followed, vomiting metal towards the target, chewing into the already damage right leg. Recoil and the rapidly dropping BattleMech attempted to walk the streams up the Victor’s leg, but Noton kept his aim on track, savaging the last of the limb’s armor and sinking deep into the ’Mech’s shin. Secondary flashes of bright light spawned from additional internal structural damage within the blackened cavity.
Hyperfocused, time seemed to dial down. Against the waves of waste heat washing through the cockpit after the alpha strike, Noton gasped and watched the Victor touch down.
Come on … come on!
The assault ’Mech’s leg crumpled under the hard impact of the jump. The Victor listed heavily before collapsing to the ground in a roar.

2 AC5 + 2 LL = 26 TT damage

TT leg armour for a Victor is 20, at least for the variants I can find. That leaves 6 structure for the leg, which I'm pretty sure is too low. From what I can find, the structure value of a Victor leg is 17, so that Victor had to be running 9 or less armour? Now, maybe this particular Victor shaved off a lot of leg armour, but going from 20/34 to 9/34? I find that highly doubtful...

[Grus]

Jay Leon Hart, on 07 May 2018 - 02:14 PM, said:

TT vs lore

Lore from the canon Legend-Killer short story;

2 AC5 + 2 LL = 26 TT damage

TT leg armour for a Victor is 20, at least for the variants I can find. That leaves 6 structure for the leg, which I'm pretty sure is too low. From what I can find, the structure value of a Victor leg is 17, so that Victor had to be running 9 or less armour? Now, maybe this particular Victor shaved off a lot of leg armour, but going from 20/34 to 9/34? I find that highly doubtful...

i dont think you're reading enough into it.

So yes, TT your damage looks correct, as does your armor target but there are 2 things here i dont think your taking into account. (for arguments sake)

1; the alpha strike all hit the leg dealing enough damage to strip armor and deal some STR damage. (6 in this case) now with that said

2; the mech being fired at was coming down from a JJ activation so the force of impact with the ground would have been much more than him just standing on it. (we dont know how high so we cant give a figure on said g-force)

so it could be said that the extra 6 damage to STR was enough to weaken the STR of the leg to cause it to collapse at landing.

and not taking into any account for a critical hit to internals of said leg

[Metus regem]

Grus, on 07 May 2018 - 03:56 PM, said:

i dont think you're reading enough into it.

So yes, TT your damage looks correct, as does your armor target but there are 2 things here i dont think your taking into account. (for arguments sake)

1; the alpha strike all hit the leg dealing enough damage to strip armor and deal some STR damage. (6 in this case) now with that said

2; the mech being fired at was coming down from a JJ activation so the force of impact with the ground would have been much more than him just standing on it. (we dont know how high so we cant give a figure on said g-force)

so it could be said that the extra 6 damage to STR was enough to weaken the STR of the leg to cause it to collapse at landing.

and not taking into any account for a critical hit to internals of said leg

Or the PSR check for taking 20 damage in one round....

[the huanglong]

• Raptor
  
• Blackjack
  
• Avatar
  
• Sunder

Rule of cool.

[Prop Wash]

I would love to see the Owens mech as I really enjoyed using it in MW3 and MW4.

[KursedVixen]

Tordin, on 10 August 2017 - 01:28 PM, said:

Aye. Was thinking of the Sha Yu. That one would be nice to have aswell.



True, edited my post above. The MS is an exception, even though we are overflowing with 55tonners.

except Capellean mechs like that have very little armor.

[evilauthor]

KursedVixen, on 03 August 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

except Capellean mechs like that have very little armor.

That's a problem in MWO... how exactly?

While you can't change the armor type for Omnis in MWO, I'm pretty sure you can change HOW MUCH armor an Omni carries. Most players will max out torso and arm armor anyway.