50 replies to this topic

[Gaussfather]

So I know its "just a game" but I've never understood why a 20 ton Commando has as many "slots" available as a 100 ton Atlas.

I'm old enough to have seen the original paper doll sheets that players used in Battletech to build out their mechs, and for a board game it's a perfectly fine compromise.

But in this game the dev's spend hours and hours fine tuning how everything looks and scale etc but its all based on "alternative" geometry/physics. Why should a mech with 5 times the weight and probably even more times the volume have the same volume/slot limits? I mean the medium laser isn't somehow getting bigger or it would put out more power etc. Same with every other weapon, the power output stays the same even as the volume requirement increases with the size of the mech...

Wouldn't it be cool, and more like reality, if the mechs received more slots available in the torsos and limbs as the tonnage increased? That way you could squeeze in more weapon systems or heat sinks. You would still be restricted by tonnage which makes perfect sense "in reality". It wouldn't break the game, only make it more interesting and the loadout variety increase.

As a computer game there is nothing stopping this improvement of the rules, and in my view, of the game.

Edited by Gaussfather, 20 January 2019 - 09:08 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Why does slots matter when it has less hardpoints and available tonnage? That's what controls it - Tonnage.

It's not as if you're running around with a AC20, 3SRM6 and 4ML on a Commando...

[Y E O N N E]

BattleTech is a fundamentally poorly written IP.

Don't stress out over it.

[GeminiWolf]

In the original Battletech there were no slots, you could put whatever you wanted on a Mech as long as you had tonnage. Weapon Slots and what not were implemented until the MechWarrior video games.

[Nightbird]

The people that created BT were high, it was the 80s after all.

The newer rules allow increasing number of slots as mechs increase in mass.

The problem is volume, a DHS takes up the same room on an Atlas as a Commando. Having the same number of slots of an Atlas as a Command means they have the same amount of internal space, which... you'd have to be high to think it makes sense.

[Bombast]

Basically. restricting slot size would make weapon availability be based entirely on tonnage (No Urbanmech or Hollander and so on), and the BT size and volume scale isn't as wide as MWOs.

I'm not sure why you think putting a restriction on mechs would increase build variety though.

[HammerMaster]

GeminiWolf, on 20 January 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

In the original Battletech there were no slots, you could put whatever you wanted on a Mech as long as you had tonnage. Weapon Slots and what not were implemented until the MechWarrior video games.

You're confusing slots with weapon hardpoints. As per MechWarrior 4. Not just "video games".
MechWarrior 2 and 3 didn't have those limitations.

Edited by HammerMaster, 20 January 2019 - 08:53 PM.

[Gaussfather]

Bombast, on 20 January 2019 - 08:52 PM, said:

Basically. restricting slot size would make weapon availability be based entirely on tonnage (No Urbanmech or Hollander and so on), and the BT size and volume scale isn't as wide as MWOs.

I'm not sure why you think putting a restriction on mechs would increase build variety though.

Thanks for the replies everyone... yes its been too long since I've played the other games to remember the details lol but getting back to this one... tonnage is one restriction but many builds also get restricted by slots... want to put a IS LBX-20 into an arm, forget about it. Want to add more double heat sinks, its slots that restrict you more than tonnage....

I wasn't thinking of restricting things, just opening them up a bit. For example:

The current number of slots could be the baseline for light mechs, and for each weight class you go up you add 1 extra slot in each section of the mech. So e.g. an Atlas has 4 extra slots in the side torsos, arms, center, and legs. You can finally manage to put a double HS in the legs, hurray!

Anyway, just a thought...

[Gaussfather]

Nightbird, on 20 January 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

The people that created BT were high, it was the 80s after all.

The newer rules allow increasing number of slots as mechs increase in mass.

The problem is volume, a DHS takes up the same room on an Atlas as a Commando. Having the same number of slots of an Atlas as a Command means they have the same amount of internal space, which... you'd have to be high to think it makes sense.

I agree, so has anyone suggested implementing the new rules to MWO?

[Y E O N N E]

Gaussfather, on 20 January 2019 - 09:12 PM, said:

I agree, so has anyone suggested implementing the new rules to MWO?

Many, many times.

[Bombast]

Gaussfather, on 20 January 2019 - 09:07 PM, said:

want to put a IS LBX-20 into an arm, forget about it.

Technically we should be able to put LB-20Xs into arms... but oh well.

Quote

I wasn't thinking of restricting things, just opening them up a bit. For example:

The current number of slots could be the baseline for light mechs, and for each weight class you go up you add 1 extra slot in each section of the mech. So e.g. an Atlas has 4 extra slots in the side torsos, arms, center, and legs.

That's not really a big enough change to care about. All it will really do is allow more assault mechs to fit Endo/Ferro.

Quote

You can finally manage to put a double HS in the legs, hurray!

HBS resolved this with their modified internal's table, without distinguishing between weight classes.

[GeminiWolf]

HammerMaster, on 20 January 2019 - 08:52 PM, said:

You're confusing slots with weapon hardpoints. As per MechWarrior 4. Not just "video games".
MechWarrior 2 and 3 didn't have those limitations.

You are correct, I couldn't remember which of the MechWarrior video games they started the hardpoints in, so I just used the generic MechWarrior wording.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

The easiest way to explain it is by using Endo-Steel as an example. When you take ES as an upgrade, you can carry a heavier payload... but in a smaller volume, because in order to achieve the same strength the lighter ES structure has to increase in volume to distribute the mass of the 'Mech effectively.

The same applies to standard structure. As you increase the amount of mass it needs to support, the size of the "skeleton" has to increase more even if it doesn't increase in mass in proportion to the overall vehicle mass, if only in order to distribute the load better. Think about a steel bridge- a bridge with a 5t load limit could be supported by a couple of straight I-beams, but for a structure with a 20t load limit you need to use cross-braces to achieve the same structural strength with the same mass of structure in proportion to the bridge's load capacity- effectively, increasing the volume of the structure in order to make better use of your structural mass... even if both bridges have the same exact road surface area to pass vehicles on.

So, imagine a 20t 'Mech with small, solid "bones", and a 100t 'Mech with latticed or honeycombed "bones" in order to maximize the strength of the material while keeping the same mass-to-capacity ratio of 1/10 (or 1/20 for ES). The 100t 'Mech needs a larger structure but not a more massive one, in proportion to its carrying capacity- that's why, despite being larger in every exterior dimension, the usable interior volume is the same. You can carry more mass, but you need to fit your equipment in the same volume because of the way a larger, heavier structure needs to be built with the same materials to achieve the same strength per unit mass.

So... yeah. Real physics can actually explain why 'Mechs of different classes have different mass capacities, but the same number of available crits.

[Koniving]

Edit -- I had a browser issue and had to crash and reopen. Fixed post and image dupliction.

Gaussfather, on 20 January 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

So I know its "just a game" but I've never understood why a 20 ton Commando has as many "slots" available as a 100 ton Atlas.

I'm old enough to have seen the original paper doll sheets that players used in Battletech to build out their mechs, and for a board game it's a perfectly fine compromise.

But in this game the dev's spend hours and hours fine tuning how everything looks and scale etc but its all based on "alternative" geometry/physics. Why should a mech with 5 times the weight and probably even more times the volume have the same volume/slot limits? I mean the medium laser isn't somehow getting bigger or it would put out more power etc. Same with every other weapon, the power output stays the same even as the volume requirement increases with the size of the mech...

Wouldn't it be cool, and more like reality, if the mechs received more slots available in the torsos and limbs as the tonnage increased? That way you could squeeze in more weapon systems or heat sinks. You would still be restricted by tonnage which makes perfect sense "in reality". It wouldn't break the game, only make it more interesting and the loadout variety increase.

As a computer game there is nothing stopping this improvement of the rules, and in my view, of the game.

Technically, in fluff they really don't.
For example, despite an Atlas having slots left over, in the fluff, there's physically not enough room to install a proper 20 tube LRM on the mech, so it has a 5 tube rapid reloading hip-mounted launcher. (Which "rapidly reloads" every "2.5 seconds") ^1TRO3025.




Course there's another thing to keep in mind..

(The "fear Atlas" is the description of an Atlas's height from a terrified pilot, from during a discussion about unreliable narrators and some people not taking into account the narrating character's state of mind when describing what is going on.) But the thing to look at is BT's Atlas height, which is shorter than most 55+ ton mechs in MWO... That's why the head is so damn big, as there's a version that has to fit TWO pilots.

However, the slots are used as part of a universal "create your own mech" customization system. An ongoing issue of Battletech is how complex the rules can get, as such they wanted the "first steps" to be as simple as feasibly possible, as such all mechs are using the same slot system.

In fact in Battledroids, the first iteration of BT...

Used the exact same thing so you could make up your own designs as well as use theirs, as at the time they didn't really have much of a selection...

Its purely a "make up your own mech" system, which is why mech creation and campaign mech customization are so incredibly, drastically different in what you can get away with. Mech creation's there for you to bring your favorite mechs into Battletech and play them, regardless of what they're from. Want the Ingram from Patlabor? With a few tweaks, you can make it in BT and have it work. Did you want to pit the Shadow Hawk against a Dougram? Wait a second....they're the same thing! O_O!

Anyway, that's all from me.

Edited by Koniving, 20 January 2019 - 10:10 PM.

[Gaussfather]

WrathOfDeadguy, on 20 January 2019 - 09:40 PM, said:

The easiest way to explain it is by using Endo-Steel as an example. When you take ES as an upgrade, you can carry a heavier payload... but in a smaller volume, because in order to achieve the same strength the lighter ES structure has to increase in volume to distribute the mass of the 'Mech effectively.

The same applies to standard structure. As you increase the amount of mass it needs to support, the size of the "skeleton" has to increase more even if it doesn't increase in mass in proportion to the overall vehicle mass, if only in order to distribute the load better. Think about a steel bridge- a bridge with a 5t load limit could be supported by a couple of straight I-beams, but for a structure with a 20t load limit you need to use cross-braces to achieve the same structural strength with the same mass of structure in proportion to the bridge's load capacity- effectively, increasing the volume of the structure in order to make better use of your structural mass... even if both bridges have the same exact road surface area to pass vehicles on.

So, imagine a 20t 'Mech with small, solid "bones", and a 100t 'Mech with latticed or honeycombed "bones" in order to maximize the strength of the material while keeping the same mass-to-capacity ratio of 1/10 (or 1/20 for ES). The 100t 'Mech needs a larger structure but not a more massive one, in proportion to its carrying capacity- that's why, despite being larger in every exterior dimension, the usable interior volume is the same. You can carry more mass, but you need to fit your equipment in the same volume because of the way a larger, heavier structure needs to be built with the same materials to achieve the same strength per unit mass.

So... yeah. Real physics can actually explain why 'Mechs of different classes have different mass capacities, but the same number of available crits.

Ummm thanks but no offense, but I'm not going to get suckered into using real physics to justify massive simplifications such as "structural slots" and why the number should be exactly the same regardless of the mech tonnage/size. I'm also an engineer, but lets use modern weapons as an analogy: The heavier/larger tanks = bigger guns, bigger payload, more space on the inside etc. I'm pretty our future space humans can manage similar feats of engineering.

And probably there was a misunderstanding from my original post: I wasn't trying to suggest that the interior volume available for mech payloads should increase at the same scale/rate as the tonnage increase, but rather that it should increase in some manner, so let's add some more slots for larger mechs etc to allow more loadout variations for the larger weapons, primarily missiles and ballistics and heat sinks for lasers. Apparently this is something Battletech rules also allow.

Edited by Gaussfather, 20 January 2019 - 10:15 PM.

[Koniving]

Somewhat better image for before, from another discussion about Gauss Rifles.

The "Desc. Hole diam" is the described hole diameter of the entrance hole of a Gauss Rifle, which rips right through a 50 ton mech and exits out of the other side... of what is otherwise a 'Mech of average condition (which should have full armor even if the machine was not in pristine condition, considering it just entered combat with no weapon related damage.)

Anyway....

On the space thing...

Hunchbacks make a great example for a number of reasons, the best of which is that at a certain point (post 3030), anyone doing a serious game SHOULD define whether their Hunchback is a Komiyaba Type VII or a Crucis Type V...

So taking a 4G as an example...

A Komiyaba Type VII... cannot equip DHS, the mech is too small. It cannot equip an XL engine, the mech is too small. It is actually so small that it cannot internally store the ammunition, thus it has a DRUM on its left torso (a smaller different drum on the center torso for 4SP, though this is overlooked in MWO). The KTVII is compatible with field refit kits made all over the periphery, allowing for reasonably quick (compared to cold customizations) retrofitting when the current setup cannot be replaced.
TRO 3025, TRO 2750.

A Crucis Type V... can equip DHS, can equip XL. Though some of the lore nuts I play with believe that you need to make a choice between the two as you cannot have both. Crucis Type V, as a point of fluff, cannot equip field kits. There's actually a length of plot about it, and in 3064 field refit kits begin being sold outside of Marik's first refit design. (30+ years after the Crucis Type V began rolling off the factory lines in a mission to replace and consolidate all Hunchback-related business to make the Kali-Yama company rich, with many attempts to "legally" as well as illegally shut down field refit kits for the old Komiyaba Type VII as well as eliminate them...)
TRO 3039, TRO 3050.

Then you'd have to get completely nerdy to start assigning differences in the weapons which I admit our guys do not, as technical problems are run into on Megamek of making sure everyone has the same files after each update.
Of another note, its a bit of an internal debate, but the unique art for the Crucis Type V... implies the Crucis Hunchback has shorter arms than the Komiyaba Type VII...which is a whole another discussion as shorter arms or equal arms + being bigger than the original... yeah just not gonna get into that one.

So BT has acknowledgement and fluff related to this whole thing, and there's stuff out there for the truly hardcore lore-nuts... but short of a modded MW5: Mercs, you're not gonna see it played out in a mechwarrior game where everyone cries salty rivers when they see "granular customization" as opposed to "I can totally put an XL engine, Clan DHS, and 3 Ultra/20s on my Locust in 3015.."

[Koniving]

(The listed TROs do not contain the full lore, just features the specific Hunchback 4G in question. They have identical engine sizes, but different speeds, differrent weapons (aside from different lasers, one carries the rare Tomodzuru Mount Type 20, an 180mm AC/20 and the other carries a very common Kali-Yama Big Bore at 120mm which notably needs more face time to deliver the same punch, though it reloads quicker to make up for it), targeting systems, numerous other different aspects. More of the story is contained in the Marian Hegemony, as well as about Kali-Yama itself.)

[Karl Streiger]

Gaussfather, on 20 January 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

Wouldn't it be cool, and more like reality, if the mechs received more slots available in the torsos and limbs as the tonnage increased? That way you could squeeze in more weapon systems or heat sinks. You would still be restricted by tonnage which makes perfect sense "in reality". It wouldn't break the game, only make it more interesting and the loadout variety increase.

As a computer game there is nothing stopping this improvement of the rules, and in my view, of the game.

Its not only slots for the builder, but we have hitboxes, armor of those hitboxes, weapon base damage, reactor/weight speed restrictions and and and and and and I know from the viewing of the first mechcon that someguy did talked to Russ about that topic.

To say it in one sentences: MWO or MW5 is a 100% copy of tabletop with the minor change of how damage is applied.
The armor values or the hitboxes for example are based on 2d6 if you don't roll dice they don't make sense.

When you hit a Awesome square in the shoulder why does his PPC break, on the other hand when you shoot right through the barrel why do you don't kill the gun - armor or not?

Well and given the latest news for MW5 its MWO2.0 or MWO1.0 because MWO is at best MWO 0.8.
You have the same Mechs (no issue) the same Movement of those Mechs (ok issue), it looks like the same weapon visuals (very big issue - combine it with a hardpoint system and you start to have some better looking stuff), the same armor and hitboxes (******* real big issue)

In other words for a BT Game of the 21st Century it feels more like a Tech Demo - MW4 for all that was wrong with this game was the much better portation from TT to the screen.

[Wil McCullough]

I've always made sense of it by interpreting slots as something akin to the usb slots on the computer. You could.have the biggest, baddest cpu with lots of space in it you can use for hardware and stuff but the thing is stuck with 4 usb slots so the maximum number of usb devices you can plug in is still 4.

And due to fighting and space magic, everyone lost the technology to build new usb thingies.

[Anjian]

I always wondered how putting ammunition in your feet can somehow feed the gun in the arm.