243 replies to this topic

[Garth Erlam]

Belisarius†, on 03 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

And yet a bit late, surely, considering you're showing your mechlab tomorrow lol.

Doesn't mean we can't take suggestions into account in similar/other areas.

[zorak ramone]

Garth Erlam, on 04 April 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Doesn't mean we can't take suggestions into account in similar/other areas.

Since the very first line of the dev-blog says that the system described is "not necessarily final", I presume that you're still taking suggestions into account for this area as well.

I strongly suggest that the dev team consider limitations (as described in this thread) to the following:
-Armor and Engine modifications (I suggest completely locked down or a fixed range of modification)
-Internal Structure ("""realism""" says it should be completely locked down)
-Number of weapons per hardpoint (I suggest one)
-Size of weapons per hardpoint (I suggest similar sizes ... no MGuns hanging from the Atlas's hip)

By the way, I appreciate your attention to the thread.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 04 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I strongly suggest that the dev team consider limitations (as described in this thread) to the following:
-Armor and Engine modifications (I suggest completely locked down or a fixed range of modification)
-Internal Structure ("""realism""" says it should be completely locked down)
-Number of weapons per hardpoint (I suggest one)
-Size of weapons per hardpoint (I suggest similar sizes ... no MGuns hanging from the Atlas's hip)

By the way, I appreciate your attention to the thread.

I second most of Z's points. Retaining the uniqueness of each chassis is a really important consideration that I think you guys should make a priority.

If a simplified hardpoint system is the only nod to uniqueness, there's simply not enough there to differentiate more than a couple of 'mechs in each weight class. In MW3, there was no point in having more than one 50 tonner, because they were totally interchangeable. I think that's almost undeniably a bad thing. The new system is better, but I don't think it's quite enough.

InnerSphereNews, on 04 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

As per tabletop rules, each weight class of BattleMech has a maximum amount of armour it can sustain and this will be reflected in MechWarrior Online.

Limiting armour (and speed, which the blog didn't talk about) are a great additional way to differentiate chassis that I think you're not making the most of. I think you should really consider limiting speed to +/- 10% of the default engine, and armour to +/- 20% (?) of stock. That gives players space to customise while retaining identity of the chassis.

As an example, take something like the javelin versus the firefly. I realise that neither is in the game right now, but they're good examples. Both are jumping 30t mechs that have similar beam and missile hardpoints, depending on variant. The firefly has a low top speed and lots of armour, while the javelin is faster but is made of paper. Those are useful differences that would allow both 'mechs to be in the game side-by-side and occupy different roles. You lose that if you allow major engine refits and use only a max armour value per weight class.

InnerSphereNews, on 04 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

The stats of a Large Laser are five tons, two critical slots, energy weapon. We can put in its place, any energy weapon(s) that stay within the maximum weight and space threshold.

I'd like a clarification on the LL example. If the player deleted a heat sink and moved the criticals around a little, could they mount a PPC in that slot? Could I use an AC2's ballistic hardpoint to mount a gauss if I tinkered enough?

If that's the case, even those couple of 'mechs will all tend towards the same configs. That's just not enough restraints. I strongly recommend limiting hardpoints not just to B/E/M but to sizes as well, so that players cannot mount a weapon (much) larger than the one they switched out. I also think it should cost one hardpoint per weapon, so that you cannot replace an AC10 with 7 machine guns (or vice versa).

InnerSphereNews, on 04 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Jump Jets in MechWarrior Online are chassis specific. If a BattleMech comes with Jump Jets, then a player can add/remove as they wish.
[...]
Equipment swaps are performed exactly the same as weapons. As long as there is space and tonnage available, things like AMS, ECM, TAG etc. can be put into any appropriate spot on a BattleMech.

I'm glad you've chosen to make jump jets chassis specific. I would be happier to see the other “special” electronics like AMS, ECM etc made chassis specific as well, especially if they're as useful as they were in MW4. You don't want ECM/BAP/AMS to be on every single 'mech.


Honestly, MWO's system is really much simpler than the one in this thread but I also think it's pretty elegant. I was back-tracking from MW4, Z was building something in the middle, and PGI have more or less gone straight from heavy metal pro and just limited weapon switching. That's more familiar to the TT guys and gets to the same place. My concern is that it gives a little too much flexibility and wastes a few great opportunities to differentiate chassis within each weight type.

Edited by Belisarius†, 04 April 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[StaIker]

Quote

As an example, take something like the javelin versus the firefly. I realise that neither is in the game right now, but they're good examples. Both are jumping 30t mechs that have similar beam and missile hardpoints, depending on variant. The firefly has a low top speed and lots of armour, while the javelin is faster but is made of paper. Those are useful differences that would allow both 'mechs to be in the game side-by-side and occupy different roles. You lose that if you allow major engine refits and use only a max armour value per weight class.

Uniqueness can cut both ways though. If one attribute is found to be more useful than another then it will be favored by the players and Mechs without it will find little if any use. Highly specialised designs really only work where they are ideally suited for a particular tactical role. If they are not that well suited, their specialisation is actually a handicap. We really have no way to know in advance which attributes will be worth basing a Mech around until players have a chance to put combat Darwinism into action.

[Helmer]

Belisarius†, on 04 April 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

I second most of Z's points. Retaining the uniqueness of each chassis is a really important consideration that I think you guys should make a priority.

If a simplified hardpoint system is the only nod to uniqueness, there's simply not enough there to differentiate more than a couple of 'mechs in each weight class. In MW3, there was no point in having more than one 50 tonner, because they were totally interchangeable. I think that's almost undeniably a bad thing. The new system is better, but I don't think it's quite enough.



Limiting armour (and speed, which the blog didn't talk about) are a great additional way to differentiate chassis that I think you're not making the most of. I think you should really consider limiting speed to +/- 10% of the default engine, and armour to +/- 20% (?) of stock. That gives players space to customise while retaining identity of the chassis.

As an example, take something like the javelin versus the firefly. I realise that neither is in the game right now, but they're good examples. Both are jumping 30t mechs that have similar beam and missile hardpoints, depending on variant. The firefly has a low top speed and lots of armour, while the javelin is faster but is made of paper. Those are useful differences that would allow both 'mechs to be in the game side-by-side and occupy different roles. You lose that if you allow major engine refits and use only a max armour value per weight class.



I'd like a clarification on the LL example. If the player deleted a heat sink and moved the criticals around a little, could they mount a PPC in that slot? Could I use an AC2's ballistic hardpoint to mount a gauss if I tinkered enough?

If that's the case, even those couple of 'mechs will all tend towards the same configs. That's just not enough restraints. I strongly recommend limiting hardpoints not just to B/E/M but to sizes as well, so that players cannot mount a weapon (much) larger than the one they switched out. I also think it should cost one hardpoint per weapon, so that you cannot replace an AC10 with 7 machine guns (or vice versa).



I'm glad you've chosen to make jump jets chassis specific. I would be happier to see the other “special” electronics like AMS, ECM etc made chassis specific as well, especially if they're as useful as they were in MW4. You don't want ECM/BAP/AMS to be on every single 'mech.


Honestly, MWO's system is really much simpler than the one in this thread but I also think it's pretty elegant. I was back-tracking from MW4, Z was building something in the middle, and PGI have more or less gone straight from heavy metal pro and just limited weapon switching. That's more familiar to the TT guys and gets to the same place. My concern is that it gives a little too much flexibility and wastes a few great opportunities to differentiate chassis within each weight type.

All very well put. And I agree.




Cheers.

[Belisarius1]

Helmer, on 04 April 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

All very well put. And I agree.

Cheers.

Thanks for the support, Helmer.

StaIker, on 04 April 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Uniqueness can cut both ways though. If one attribute is found to be more useful than another then it will be favored by the players and Mechs without it will find little if any use. Highly specialised designs really only work where they are ideally suited for a particular tactical role. If they are not that well suited, their specialisation is actually a handicap. We really have no way to know in advance which attributes will be worth basing a Mech around until players have a chance to put combat Darwinism into action.

Sure, but in that case you can just tweak their specialisation. If the firefly's armour isn't enough to counterbalance its slowness (which is likely), you can loosen the speed restriction on that 'mech alone, or give it something else like a bigger beam slot or tag capacity or whatever.

Letting every 'mech go to max armour, max speed and max electronics just in case one might be left behind is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited by Belisarius†, 04 April 2012 - 06:07 PM.

[StaIker]

Quote

Letting every 'mech go to max armour, max speed and max electronics just in case one might be left behind is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

True, and I wouldn't suggest that. Mech character is a big plus for the game. But I'd be more inclined towards a system that balanced specific attributes with decent general capability such as 30/30/40 rather than leaning heavily in one direction like 20/20/60. When there are 50 Mechs to chose from the specialisation can add some flavor and at that point I'm happy for anything to be added content wise but with only 12 it could result in not actually being able to field a company that can fight as a cohesive unit as each Mech is too highly specialised to support a more general set of tactics.

[Belisarius1]

StaIker, on 04 April 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

True, and I wouldn't suggest that. Mech character is a big plus for the game. But I'd be more inclined towards a system that balanced specific attributes with decent general capability such as 30/30/40 rather than leaning heavily in one direction like 20/20/60. When there are 50 Mechs to chose from the specialisation can add some flavor and at that point I'm happy for anything to be added content wise but with only 12 it could result in not actually being able to field a company that can fight as a cohesive unit as each Mech is too highly specialised to support a more general set of tactics.

Right, and that's an important point. There's an inverse relationship between the number of 'mechs in game and how flexible the 'mechlab should be. Less mechs, you need more from each chassis. More 'mechs, you can have higher specialisation.

So there's a difficult problem, because both metrics are going in the wrong direction. You want to be slowly loosening restrictions rather than tightening them, or players complain because they feel they're being nerfed, but at the same time you're adding 'mechs rather than taking them away.

I suppose I'd rather start with a small, defined subset at the price of perhaps having a few niches empty. That way I can be excited when a new chassis comes out that fills my niche, rather than being bored when new chassis offer me nothing I can't already do. I think this helps the game's monetisation as well.

Edited by Belisarius†, 04 April 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Bel:

We will have to agree to disagee on the 'leave some niches out and fill them later idea'. Stalker is right IMO, and we both saw this in effect in the later NBT leagues with much larger mech chassis available (he more so than I since he was active longer than I was). You may consider 'tightening' the max increase for engine/armor a negative, but from a drop commander/tactical standpoint, Being flexible is good.

The other point regarding your example is that they may not HAVE to restrict armor up and down. If you have limits on the engine, the only option for reducing weight in situations where you want to add armor is to reduce equipment or weapons. (Im assuming you wont be able to change chassis or engine type). If that Javelin is always going to be fast, the only way to increase the armor would be to decrease the arms/HS. And to me that seems like an acceptable tradeoff.

That having been said, if they did restrict both I would be totally happy with it.

Zorak:

If I read it correctly 1 weapon per hardpoint is how it is right now. The example indicated that replacing the LL with 2x ML would require a 2nd energy hardpoint. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Even if they did a +1 for all hardpoints (if the stock has 1E & 1B you could go up to 2E and 2B weapons), that would be a severe limit on the number of weapons per section. The really nice part is that since it is completely outside of the crit/weight area, you could bump it up or down to balance as needed.

As for the size, well if you want to replace a LL with a SL and take the extra weight and crit slot to put in more HS, I have no issues with that. Even 2x SL would be fine IMHO. A PPC for 3xml is a fair tradeoff. Ballistics and missles are a bit tougher., especially when you look at clan values. Again I would be happy if they only let you go up or down 1 size, but Im fine if they dont. I think it will balance ok (as I posted before, this assumes a firm limit based upon a severe heat scale).

Everything else you guys posted is right on, internal structure, electronics,. engine type, limiting armor & engine size changes, etc. All of these will facilitate uniqueness between chassis. And that's always a good thing.

It does make me wonder how geometry will come into play. As the MW games have shown, geometry of hitboxes is a HUGE balance element, and one that is hard to account for.....you cant just shave off weight or crit slots to make up for bad geometry. I suppose you could make the hard points more flexible.though......have to think on that.

[Belisarius1]

Sprouticus, on 04 April 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

We will have to agree to disagee on the 'leave some niches out and fill them later idea'. Stalker is right IMO, and we both saw this in effect in the later NBT leagues with much larger mech chassis available (he more so than I since he was active longer than I was). You may consider 'tightening' the max increase for engine/armor a negative, but from a drop commander/tactical standpoint, Being flexible is good.

...wait, I'm confused. That last sentence doesn't make sense. I don't think tightening the armour/speed is a negative, I suggested it lol.

What I meant was that it's a bad idea to start with a few 'mechs that are highly flexible and then nerf them in a later patch to make them specialised, or everyone cries because all their favourite configs are now impossible. And believe me, I'm well aware how good flexibility is. I was NBT too, although I'm not sure what you're saying we saw. My point is that flexibility is too good in a game that relies on keeping players interested in future content releases.

Sprouticus, on 04 April 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

If that Javelin is always going to be fast, the only way to increase the armor would be to decrease the arms/HS. And to me that seems like an acceptable tradeoff.

That's not really true though. The javelin is always going to be fast and poorly armoured, but if you need to you can make it slightly slower and slightly better armoured... it just can't ever be as slow or as well armoured as a firefly doing the same thing. The reverse would also be true, and that keeps them different but still malleable.

Sprouticus, on 04 April 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

It does make me wonder how geometry will come into play. As the MW games have shown, geometry of hitboxes is a HUGE balance element, and one that is hard to account for.....you cant just shave off weight or crit slots to make up for bad geometry. I suppose you could make the hard points more flexible.though......have to think on that.

I don't expect geometry to be affected by the mechlab, so it's not really that relevant. You're right that it's important, and that 'mechs with bad hitboxes would have to be compensated in some way, but the actual means of compensation doesn't need to be decided now. It could be extra hardpoints or speed or just a useful niche, just about anything. Outlaw had a thread on that a while back and got a dev reply, so I'd say it's under control.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Belisarius†, on 04 April 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

I'd like a clarification on the LL example. If the player deleted a heat sink and moved the criticals around a little, could they mount a PPC in that slot? Could I use an AC2's ballistic hardpoint to mount a gauss if I tinkered enough?

If that's the case, even those couple of 'mechs will all tend towards the same configs. That's just not enough restraints. I strongly recommend limiting hardpoints not just to B/E/M but to sizes as well, so that players cannot mount a weapon (much) larger than the one they switched out. I also think it should cost one hardpoint per weapon, so that you cannot replace an AC10 with 7 machine guns (or vice versa).

Honestly, MWO's system is really much simpler than the one in this thread but I also think it's pretty elegant. I was back-tracking from MW4, Z was building something in the middle, and PGI have more or less gone straight from heavy metal pro and just limited weapon switching. That's more familiar to the TT guys and gets to the same place. My concern is that it gives a little too much flexibility and wastes a few great opportunities to differentiate chassis within each weight type.

I have followed this thread with a great deal of interest, and its here i must disagree, to alot of MW players customization is key its what they like about the game, i agree that there does need to be some limits non movable internals is nice. But lets not go too far that it almost locks the mech down i'll use the centurion as an example and you will find this all over BTU.

A standard Centurion (CN9-A) would pack in an AC 10, LRM 10, 2 ML. We already know there are likely to be several varients of each mech but not all of them. So each varient should have room to create multiple varients. If i want to remove the ML's and AC 10 to replace with an AC 20 which is another varient of Centurion i should be able to do so likewise i could replace the AC 20 with a Gauss Rifle.

To trade up, you should have to trade off and to do that things like Heat Sinks,AMS need to be moveable.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 05 April 2012 - 01:32 AM.

[StaIker]

I agree with McKenna on the essentials, the fixed slots and one weapon per location basically make it so that a custom build can only ever be weaker than the original, if so, why do we have a Mechlab again? We've got to be able to power up our designs to something that is tactically useful, most stock configs are just terrible.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I agree with McKenna on the essentials, the fixed slots and one weapon per location basically make it so that a custom build can only ever be weaker than the original, if so, why do we have a Mechlab again? We've got to be able to power up our designs to something that is tactically useful, most stock configs are just terrible.

Not supprisingly i agree, i will echo there does need to be limits, MW 4's problem was if you take the base config there was no trade off to trading up....

[StaIker]

MW4's stock configs were trash though. The designs were so wasteful that just eliminating the problems in terms of excess engine/sinks/equipment/armor freed up pretty substantial payload.

Edited by StaIker, 05 April 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[Belisarius1]

Right, so that's a good point from both of you. I'll quote Stalker;

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I agree with McKenna on the essentials, the fixed slots and one weapon per location basically make it so that a custom build can only ever be weaker than the original, if so, why do we have a Mechlab again? We've got to be able to power up our designs to something that is tactically useful, most stock configs are just terrible.

Obligatory MW4 reference; powering up configs in that game was still very much possible despite a hardpoint limit. There are a hundred thousand reasons that made that so much easier in MW4 than it will be in MWO, but as a proof of concept, it does demonstrate that limited hardpoints aren't mutually exclusive with upgrading 'mechs.



More and more, I'm becoming convinced that the biggest challenge to the mechlab comes from the way the game has to accommodate multiple tech levels over time. Using L1 tech, I absolutely agree; just about every custom is a downgrade if I can't turn an AC10 into an AC20, and that's a huge problem. Those two weapons are pretty much all I've got for ballistic hardpoints. But turning an AC10 into a gauss is a very different story, as is LL -> LPL. Once you have multiple weapon types in each class, hardpoints become a lot more flexible, and gunbags a lot more accessible.

What really needs to be done is to actually draw some of these things up in a program like HeavyMetalPro, approximate MWO's extra limits on top of that, and see if they're enough. What monsters can we make?

Edited by Belisarius†, 05 April 2012 - 04:18 AM.

[StaIker]

Do you really think the Devs intend to preserve level 1 tech as useful once the timeline moves on? I'd have thought the early stuff will be intentionally made redundant as better and better equipment becomes available, actually advancing the average tech level of the game rather keeping a lid on it.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Like i say to turn an AC 10 which is lighter and takes up less critical space than a guass there has to be a trade off internally armor wont give you free criticals.

Using your example.

AC 10

Tons 12 Critical Slots 7

LBX 10

Tons
IS = 11 Critical Slots
IS = 6

Its 1 free crit space and 1 free ton, thats what advancements do it makes things better. Again you will find BTU variants where the old variants replaces Medium Lasers with Medium Pulse lasers, so why should we not be able to do the same?

If you have the free tonnage/Crit space its fair game.

Mechwarrior will never ever achieve the balance people seek with boating/gunbags it just simply is not possible even in plain old stock there are superior chassis usually through boating.

Overall critical space will limit the amount of gunbaggery in MWO, but if i can free up the critical space by removing weapons/sinks then i should be able to put what ever weapon will fit within the hardpoint system.

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Do you really think the Devs intend to preserve level 1 tech as useful once the timeline moves on? I'd have thought the early stuff will be intentionally made redundant as better and better equipment becomes available, actually advancing the average tech level of the game rather keeping a lid on it.

Entirely true, what is more likely to happen to save them time i would imagine is the standard varients will remain, and we'll just be able to swap out the old tech for new tech.

[Belisarius1]

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

Do you really think the Devs intend to preserve level 1 tech as useful once the timeline moves on? I'd have thought the early stuff will be intentionally made redundant as better and better equipment becomes available, actually advancing the average tech level of the game rather keeping a lid on it.

No, I don't at all. I fully expect T1 to become redundant. But I don't expect the mechlab to function differently for T1 mechs compared to T2; the rules will be universal and need to make for a good game both when we're stuck with T1 and when we're pimpin' with T2.

That's difficult, because T1 'mechs have less weapons available and so need more flexibility in customisation. T2 'mechs, because they have more inherent options, become gunbags more easily. You have to balance that when you design the system.

DV^McKenna, on 05 April 2012 - 04:35 AM, said:

Its 1 free crit space and 1 free ton, thats what advancements do it makes things better. Again you will find BTU variants where the old variants replaces Medium Lasers with Medium Pulse lasers, so why should we not be able to do the same?

DV, for a start, a medium laser for a medium pulse would be fine. That's exactly what I want to happen. A medium laser for a large laser? Not sure. I'd like to make it chassis specific, so you could do it for some mechs but not for others. Limited hardpoints give you that kind of control because you can simply give some mechs more hardpoints than they need for their stock config. Zorak and I had this argument a little while back.

Bottom line, show me. MWO has a system now. It's out. We can approximate its rules pretty well because it seems to adhere to TT with a couple of additions. We can test what they've given us, and see what works and what doesn't.

If you can demonstrate that the average T2 heavy will retain its uniqueness under MWO's system, I'll be happy. If I find that half the 'mechs in a weight class can be cleanly converted into half the others, or into ludicrous boat configs, I'll continue to advocate harsher restrictions.

Edited by Belisarius†, 05 April 2012 - 05:30 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Belisarius†, on 05 April 2012 - 04:46 AM, said:

No, I don't at all. I fully expect T1 to become redundant. But I don't expect the mechlab to function differently for T1 mechs compared to T2; the rules will be universal and need to make for a good game both when we're stuck with T1 and when we're pimpin' with T2.

That's difficult, because T1 'mechs have less weapons available and so need more flexibility in customisation. T2 'mechs, because they have more inherent options, become gunbags more easily. You have to balance that when you design the system.

I don't know, T1 has a ton of useful things attached to it - mix and matching has always resulted in the best 'mechs. Just taking a 3025 mech and slapping DHS on it can result in some of the best bang for the buck you can possibly get in table top. There's lots of 'mechs I'd prefer medium lasers on over ER Mediums and such; not to say T1 tech is superior, just that there's a really strong niche for a lot of it. About the only thing I think I'd almost always dump are single heatsinks, unless my 'mech was entirely cool running in the first place. There's a pretty funny TT Dragon variant that adds DHS despite the fact the 'mech couldn't possibly overheat without two engine hits in the first place.

The other big thing is BV. If T2 tech impacts your capability to field equipment at all, it'll be a huge deal and always have a place.

All in all my point is I don't ever expect T1 to become redundant, because it never really does in TT or in instances of it in MWLL either. I do expect you won't see many all T1 'mechs, but lots of 'mechs with T1 gear scattered in to some degree - maybe even the majority.

[StaIker]

You're putting a lot of faith in BV being a balancing factor Victor, have the Devs actually indicated that it will be?