243 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

Too much to reply to just yet. But a few quick points.

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.

This is precisly why I was suggesting, in my system, that hardpoints could go up a size as well as down a size. This way, you can upgrade that AC10 on a Centurion to an AC20 (at the expense, say, of the LRM) if you really want to fight up close, and you can upgrade the LRM10 to a LRM15 (at the expense of AC10 to AC5 ... which actually matches range nicely) if you want to focus on ranged fighting.

As for the stock configs, two points:
-A lot of that depends on how weapons are balanced. In CBT, MLs were powerhouses. All of the mechs listed so far have excellent stock configs for CBT.
-Stock configs can and should be changed if they suck. IMO, stock mechs shouldn't be maxed out, but they should at least be decent so that a newbie won't be completely gimped when they start the game.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

We come down to the standard dichotomy between those for whom easy and fairly unlimited customisation is paramount. This allows them to optimise their mechs to fill a number of roles so that they can tailor their force for each indivudual conflict. The other side wants to see limited customisation so that a wider variety of non optimised mechs could be used and people would have to work round perceived "defects".
The first view seems to be held most strongly by those who still play MW4. The second by those who gave up on it for many reasons.
For a number of reasons MW4, at least in terms of numbers playing was not that successful. Why would a slight variation, which is what a number of people are arguing for, prove to be successful now?

[zorak ramone]

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.

In CBT, most of the level 1 IS tech was still useful in the 3050+ timeline. There were only two catagories of equipment that were nullified by post 3050 tech:
-Normal (not double) heat sinks
-Standard ACs

Upgrading to DHS basically upgrades all energy weapons to be useful in the 3050+ timeline. The LBX and Ultra autocannons were just straight upgrades of the standard ACs, as they could replicate their function (slug ammo for LBX, normal mode for UACs), but had something extra (more range + cluster ammo option for LBX, Ultra firing mode for UACs).

So in theory, any 3025/level1 mech could fight in the 3050+ world if you upgrade to DHS and replace all of your ACs with LBX or UACs.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 April 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

For a number of reasons MW4, at least in terms of numbers playing was not that successful.

Where are you getting this? Do you have numbers or impressions?

As a multiplayer game (the only relevent type of game, as MWO is going to be multiplayer only), MW4 in all its iterrations was far, far more successful and far far better balanced than any of the prior MW games.

Edited by zorak ramone, 05 April 2012 - 07:15 AM.

[zorak ramone]

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.

This is a really important point. A more relevant point is that in CBT, all mechs were equally hittable (speed/terrain was the only mitigating factor), but in MW (and MWO) the physical size of mechs is also going to be a factor. Earlier in the thread, I suggested a system for reducing mech critical space based on physical size (which would also imply some kind of size standardization by the devs). I've added it to the OP, and will repost here:

========

Space restrictions based on size

In CBT, the different sizes (as opposed to masses) of different mechs wasn't really taken into account. Small mechs could, IIRC be as small as 8m high, while the atlas (and later Executioner) were close to 15m. However, all mechs had the same critical space despite their sizes. A good example (from mechs included in MWO) is the commando vs the atlas: both have a fully articulated arm with a single ML in it meaning both have the same amount of remaining critical space for heatsinks/whatever ... even though the commando is much smaller. This wasn't really an issue since being small didn't really give you an advantage ... all mechs were equally hittable.

This becomes an issue in a real-time mech game. Anyone who played MW4 knows that size plays a huge effect: you can get a Loki up to 96kph, but compare it to a similarly fast Raven ... the raven is much smaller and much harder to hit. The size differences is basically a free buff to the Raven, from a mech construction standpoint, and the idea that a much physically smaller mech would have the same space available just doesn't make sense.

I suggest reducing or increasing critical space based on physical mech size. However, to make things fair you have to also mess with FF/ES (and potentially other space-reducing structural equipment) space. This makes sense as the crits taken up by FF/ES don't represent actual equipment, but rather the bulk of the structural elements reducing a % of the avaiable space. A smaller mech would have a smaller skeleton and a less volumnious armored shell.

Here's how I would do it:

1) Lock down the head, CT, and legs, assuming that the cockpit is the same size for every mech, and that the leg actuators, gyros size and engine size scale up with mech size so that there is always 1 crit in the head and 2 in the legs/CT.

2) You now have 4 locations (RT/LT, RA/LA) with 12 crits each for 48 crits, + 7 crits from H/LL/RL/CT for a total of 55 free crits.

3) Standardize mech size by weight class. Consider including "super light" class for really really small mechs (commando, locust, etc).

4) Set assaults as basline and subtract crits by weight class from the RA/LA and RT/LT:
-Assaults: -0 crits per location (CBT standard)
-Heavies: -1 crits per location (-4 total)
-Mediums: -2 crits per location (-8 total)
-Lights: -3 crits per location (-12 total)
-Super-lights -4 crits per location (-16 total) (think 20-25 tonners, maybe really small 30 tonners)

5) Proportionally reduce FF/ES size as crit space decreases
-Assaults: 14 crits (CBT standard)
-Heavies: 13 crits
-Mediums: 12 crits
-Lights: 11 crits
-Super-lights: 10 crits

I already played around with this model and it makes certain configurations (specifically, alot of fast IS meds/lights with ES and FF like the Osiris) impossible. Maybe thats not a bad thing. CBT stock configs can certianly be changed.

EDIT: border-line mechs (35/40 tonners, 55/60 tonners, 75/80 tonners) could probably go either way (e.g. the awesome could be made heavy-size or assault-size). The main thing is to standardize size with critical slots.

Edited by zorak ramone, 05 April 2012 - 07:40 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Honestly, I am more concerned that they get L1 tech balanced for release. If they can do that it will create a stable community. At that point they can introduce L2 tech either en masse or piecemeal. (not that they should not plan for it, Im just saying their primary focus should be in a good beta/soft release.).

As for 1 hardpoint per weapon, I am of two minds.

Going from smaller weapons to bigger will almost always be crit and wieght limited, so there is a built in limit there.
Going from larger to smaller (ML boating for instance) would be limited severaly by not adding 'additional unused' hardpoints as Paul mentioned in the blog post. I would not be opposed to such a system, but I think a +1 system would also work. If an arm has 2 ML and an AC2, (and you could find the crits/weight), you could put 3 ML or 2 AC2.

Take that to its extreme, and you could put to 3 PPC's and 2 AC5's (I'm not sure on the crit slots for those two examples). That does seem kind of nuts.....so maybe +1 does not work that well. Definitely something you can balance though!

Edited by Sprouticus, 05 April 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Victor Morson]

StaIker, on 05 April 2012 - 06:11 AM, said:

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

There was a quote brought up in the BV thread about balancing around a total drop c-bill limit as a possibility, which would effectively act like a BV limiter (and is probably the ideal way to do it, rather than have separate costs).

However, even if there was no BV limit, like I said almost every facet of T1 tech still has a place in the T2 world. I could make a T2 fast moving striker unit armed with Gauss, for example, but totally prefer medium lasers over ER Medium Lasers so I could add a lot of close range bite without having to add heat sinks to stay viable. Some of the best T2 designs on TT still have 3025 elements to them and there's a lot of really successful hybrids - like the Awesome that sports an extra standard PPC and gets an upgrade to DHS, but is otherwise unchanged.

Really the only T1 tech that really gets outdated flat out are the standard ACs. They're just inferior to Ultra/LBX and the trade off of weight is minimal. Everything else still has a place. With no restrictions on drop whatsoever, you are sure to see a mix of T1/T2 techs on all the best chassis.

zorak ramone, on 05 April 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

As a multiplayer game (the only relevent type of game, as MWO is going to be multiplayer only), MW4 in all its iterrations was far, far more successful and far far better balanced than any of the prior MW games.

Yeah, he's just plain wrong. Every version of MW4 was in the top 5 PC games sold that month list for many months after release. The success even spurned the mech packs, which were really prototype DLC (at least in concept; they weren't downloadable, amusingly) - something unheard of at the time. In short, it sold a lot. It also had the largest online player base for a MechWarrior title, the previous ones matching any built in matchmaking even.

It's also the most complained about MechWarrior. Really people on MW4 fall into two camps: The ones that hated it (generally they played single player and some public matches online) and ones who loved it (the ones who played in Leagues and lots of 1-life games). I'll admit, it was damn near a different game between those two styles. I'll acknowledge there were flaws and things I liked in MW2 era games better, but there's no denying it brought a lot of good stuff to the table - radar management, the hard point system, stellar new 'mechs.. but I understand why people who never got to see the depth it could have dislike it.

PS: Anyone that hated it because medium lasers were terrible and other balance issues like that, I feel you. Mercs made a lot of much, much needed balance changes.

There is a reason Microsoft released so many expansions and stuff, it made tons of money. However, once they got into the 360 and saw the sales figures they could rake in with stuff like Gears of War, they immediately dictated Microsoft's FASA to go way more console'ish and it drove them into the ground (Just look at the Crimson Skies "sequel"). I'm not sure, but I would honestly bet that they felt MW was a "PC franchise" and they had no interest in them anymore at that time.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 April 2012 - 07:13 AM, said:

We come down to the standard dichotomy between those for whom easy and fairly unlimited customisation is paramount. This allows them to optimise their mechs to fill a number of roles so that they can tailor their force for each indivudual conflict. The other side wants to see limited customisation so that a wider variety of non optimised mechs could be used and people would have to work round perceived "defects".
The first view seems to be held most strongly by those who still play MW4. The second by those who gave up on it for many reasons.

One thing I will say that was terribly broken about MW4's customization system was it's lack of internals, something MWO has already addressed. This goes beyond simply the space and weight needed to place them, but rather, into the damage model.

MechWarrior 4's gameplay did go downhill - typically into chaotic fast moving brawls - once one thing was figured out: You could strip armor off lots of non-vital areas, including your legs and stuff it all into your engine, which would allow you to move so fast that your lag shield would cover the armor loss. After that, the whole game turned into a combination of fast moving jumpers and fast moving brawlers, with everything else falling to the secondary role. Prior to that, it involved lots of super tense standoffs with LRM duals, Gauss Fire and lots of repositioning forces.

Long story short, the problem in MW4's customization was not the weapons. At all. It was the fact that if you started taking damage to side torsos, the damage transfer wasn't a big deal - the same for your legs. If you tried running an unarmored Bushwacker with LBX in MWO, for example, how long do you think before somebody smacks your ammo bin and you go sky high? That right there, IMO, should be the first leap towards fixing any and all problems I had with 4's customization.

[Sprouticus]

Belisarius†, on 04 April 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

...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.



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.



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.

Bel, to clear up what I was saying above:

I am also in favor of limiting engine & armor +/-. However if they ONLY limit engine changes, it will probably be almost as good since to radically change armor without changing the engine much you will need to sacrifice weapons, Hs, or equipment. I may be wrong on that, but doing some quick calculations in my head it seems like any mech with reduced armor is going to end up having to sacrifice at least 1 weapon or several HS to max out their armor. Which I dont mind nearly as much as a mech minning out its speed for more armor and weapons.

As for 'nerfing' as more mechs are introduced, like I said I just disagree, I think players will accept the nerf if they get a new mech (or more likely 3-4) out of it. Especially if you couch the language so they understand that it is being limited because the players not have more options.

Lastly, I realize that geometry will not directly effect the mechlab, but it very well could indirectly. The problem with geometry is that there is no direct way to modify it without actually changing the model. Which means that if you have 2 mechs with similar loadouts (or which can be customized to be similar) then the only difference between them is geometry, which inevitably leads to one being shelved.

My point was that you cannot balance two similar mechs with different geometries by giving one more crits or more available space, etc. That would break the system. You could give it access to equipment (assuming equipment is limits by chassis), but the BT canon-heads would have a fit. What you CAN do it give the shelved mech an extra hardpoint or two which would make it more versitile than the mech with the better geometry. so while Geometry is not directly mechlab related, it is a factor they need to consider when balancing.

In MW 4 terms, the Chimera was a terrible mech, but what if someone had bumped it to 4E/4B/4M instead of 3. The geometry still sucks, but now you have a LOT more options for weapons configs. That might have made it a little more viable.

[Victor Morson]

Sprouticus, on 05 April 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

In MW 4 terms, the Chimera was a terrible mech, but what if someone had bumped it to 4E/4B/4M instead of 3. The geometry still sucks, but now you have a LOT more options for weapons configs. That might have made it a little more viable.

That is a good example, because that's exactly what happened to it. The Chimera in MW4 was awful because of it's weapons; in Mercs they DID bump it up, just as you said, to support a level 4 and two level 3 weapons and it made it entirely viable. It was still weak geo wise and armor wise, making it a sort of glass canon, but if we got into a drop with one it could seriously wreck far heavier 'mechs with some careful maneuvering. It was night and day.

Edited by Victor Morson, 05 April 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'm not deny that MW4 was the best so far in multiplayer. However when I stopped playing, the numbers at the times I could normally play were not that great. Unless you were a member of a team and played in a league there was little in it for most people. If it was so great why did the majority of Battletech fans not carry on playing it. Perhaps those who still play regularly could tell us how many are playing now, given that interest has been revived by MWO? It would be interesting to know how many are playing MWLL?
I don't think that it is more than a few 10s of thousands at the very most. Nothing like the numbers that are needed to support this game.
This game needs to attract and keep a lot more people to be successful. I just don't think that being like MW4 will do it, although I could be wrong. There are going to be a number of games out there over the next 12 months that will supply robot's fighting. This game needs to be different enough and attract sufficient people to succeed. I'm sure that quite a few will play more than one of those games.
What I do want is for this to succeed and be a MechWarrior game.
I'm not sure that excessive and too easy customisation will do that, or make it worth while producing numerous mech designs if they are effectively just different appearing skins.

[Victor Morson]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I'm not deny that MW4 was the best so far in multiplayer. However when I stopped playing, the numbers at the times I could normally play were not that great. Unless you were a member of a team and played in a league there was little in it for most people. If it was so great why did the majority of Battletech fans not carry on playing it. Perhaps those who still play regularly could tell us how many are playing now, given that interest has been revived by MWO? It would be interesting to know how many are playing MWLL?

The reason we stopped playing was a combination of factors. The two biggest ones being:
* Everyone figured out that the way the armor systems worked in MW4 they could just buff engines at the expense of armor. Combined with limiting weight ranges damn near every fight turned into a chaotic short range brawl after that. It caused all maneuvering strategy and terrain usage to "Get as close as possible" more or less. The game never felt the same after that. I'm hoping that if people try the same tricks in MWO they'll be eating engine/ammo crits and going sky high in minutes.

* Simply put, the game was aging. Badly. Units were rapidly bleeding people for this reason and with less people, comes a smaller more cliquish community. We kept holding out hoping that a MechWarrior 5 would come around the corner and be announced - which would have positively kept us playing MW4 until that time came, but it never happened. When it became obvious that we would have no game to migrate to and we'd just keep losing more and more people we gave up, since the team aspect was one of the most fun things in the game. It felt kind of like beating a dead horse. (Notably the small community issue is the primary reason we aren't playing much Living Legends these days - the game itself is great but it's mod status has left only a very small number of organized teams actually playing, and pub battles burn you out fast).

None of these things make a bad game. If I could install it and fire it up from time to time easily, I'd totally do it - I still play Doom from time to time on my cell phone, and that game is many years old. Unfortunately, it's really tough to get running and even tougher to find people online for a game that went out of support so many years ago.

All that said, it's my hope that with MWO, they'll effectively take a lesson from EVE when it comes to support: When the game starts getting aged years down the road and is showing how old it is, they'll update the engine/graphics/textures, maybe do a timeline jump and push an update to keep people interested. That was the early promise of persistent MMO-styled games and so far, EVE was the only one to fill it. In other words I hope to not quit MWO due to age years from now, but rather, we'll get what amounts to MWO 2.0 to freshen things up.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I don't think that it is more than a few 10s of thousands at the very most. Nothing like the numbers that are needed to support this game.
This game needs to attract and keep a lot more people to be successful. I just don't think that being like MW4 will do it, although I could be wrong. There are going to be a number of games out there over the next 12 months that will supply robot's fighting. This game needs to be different enough and attract sufficient people to succeed. I'm sure that quite a few will play more than one of those games.
What I do want is for this to succeed and be a MechWarrior game.

Providing a free to play, great looking game is what's needed and that's what they are delivering. Lots of casual fans or non-BT fans joined MW4 - lots - because it was good looking for it's time and had easily accessible multiplayer. It dwindled when it got very, very old looking and stopped being sold in stores, back when brick & mortar was everything.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I'm not sure that excessive and too easy customisation will do that, or make it worth while producing numerous mech designs if they are effectively just different appearing skins.

The massive level of customization is and always has been one of the biggest draws to the series, at least since 2. 4 stepped up the customization greatly with the hardpoint system and I was greatly relieved to see it being used for MWO. However MWO is taking it a step further and letting us tweak critical slots, the biggest drawback to MW4 by far.

[zorak ramone]

Victor Morson, on 05 April 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

MechWarrior 4's gameplay did go downhill - typically into chaotic fast moving brawls - once one thing was figured out: You could strip armor off lots of non-vital areas, including your legs and stuff it all into your engine, which would allow you to move so fast that your lag shield would cover the armor loss. After that, the whole game turned into a combination of fast moving jumpers and fast moving brawlers, with everything else falling to the secondary role. Prior to that, it involved lots of super tense standoffs with LRM duals, Gauss Fire and lots of repositioning forces.

Are you talking about HC here? My last point of reference was the end of NBT-mercs (I know there were some Mektek patches/addons too). All I can think of when you talk about stripped down fast brawlers and jumpers is either one-shotting them with a max-reactive CB packing 2xLBX20/LBX10/HML (one of my favorites) or picking them off with a 5-6 ERLL NC or 2xERPPC/2xGR Masakari. Did they change something balance-wise that would prevent this? Did the netcode get worse? I don't remember any lag shields on anyone.

Quote

Long story short, the problem in MW4's customization was not the weapons. At all. It was the fact that if you started taking damage to side torsos, the damage transfer wasn't a big deal - the same for your legs. If you tried running an unarmored Bushwacker with LBX in MWO, for example, how long do you think before somebody smacks your ammo bin and you go sky high? That right there, IMO, should be the first leap towards fixing any and all problems I had with 4's customization.

Completely agree here. I'd also add that geometry and hitboxes were another huge, huge issue (as has been touched on in this thread). For example, no matter what you did for it, the Zues always sucked because of its huge "kill me here please!" side torso. Another example, the DW and Madcat actually sucked because of their huge CT hitbox. Once mektek came in and fixed the hitboxes, they were killing machines instead of glass cannons.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 06 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Are you talking about HC here? My last point of reference was the end of NBT-mercs (I know there were some Mektek patches/addons too). All I can think of when you talk about stripped down fast brawlers and jumpers is either one-shotting them with a max-reactive CB packing 2xLBX20/LBX10/HML (one of my favorites) or picking them off with a 5-6 ERLL NC or 2xERPPC/2xGR Masakari. Did they change something balance-wise that would prevent this? Did the netcode get worse? I don't remember any lag shields on anyone.

Victor never played HC, he's actually just straight-up wrong.

zorak ramone, on 06 April 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Completely agree here. I'd also add that geometry and hitboxes were another huge, huge issue (as has been touched on in this thread). For example, no matter what you did for it, the Zues always sucked because of its huge "kill me here please!" side torso. Another example, the DW and Madcat actually sucked because of their huge CT hitbox. Once mektek came in and fixed the hitboxes, they were killing machines instead of glass cannons.

I really don't think hitboxes are an issue that's relevant to this thread. I totally agree that they're important, but I doubt they're customizable, and so they're just a behind-the-scenes feature that needs to be taken into account when the devs assign features, hardpoints etc. As I said, outlaw had a thread on this a while ago, and they said they were aware of it and would take hitboxes into account in balancing. That's about as far as the discussion needs to go.

Edited by Belisarius†, 06 April 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 06 April 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I really don't think hitboxes are an issue that's relevant to this thread. I totally agree that they're important, but I doubt they're customizable, and so they're just a behind-the-scenes feature that needs to be taken into account when the devs assign features, hardpoints etc. As I said, outlaw had a thread on this a while ago, and they said they were aware of it and would take hitboxes into account in balancing. That's about as far as the discussion needs to go.

Yeah it is a derail.

To keep the thread relevant and alive, since I think that a solid set of construction rules is really important. Here are some ideas I had about modifying the CBT construction rules.

Shared Missile Ammo

The LRM5, 10, 15 and 20 all fire LRMs, the SRM2, 4 and 6 all fire SRMS, and the MRM10, 20, 30 and 40 all fire MRMs. Yet, each launcher has its own ammo type. For example, the Longbow carried LRM20s and LRM5s, carried LRM5 ammo and LRM20 ammo, but if the LRM5s were destroyed, the LRM20 launchers could not use the LRM5 ammo. This doesn’t make sense as they’re still the same missiles. In fact each launcher ammo type carries the same ammo: 120 LRMs, 100 SRMs, or 240 MRMs. The only exception is SRM6 ammo which has 90 SRMs because 6 doesn’t divide evenly into 100.

I suggest unifying the missile launcher ammo so that you don’t buy, for example, LRM5, 10, 15 or 20 ammo, but just LRM ammo at 120 missiles per ton. So, at least going into the 3050 era, you would have 4 types of missile ammo (not including special LRM ammo): LRM ammo (120), SRM ammo (100), MRM ammo (240), and SSRM ammo (100). This just makes more sense and would make it easier to combine different types of launchers on a mech.



Splitting crits for IS double heat sinks.

In 3025, you could put HS in the legs, CT or head of IS mechs. In 3050, DHS arrive and basically become a necessity. The problem is that legs still have only 2 crits each and DHS take three crits, so you can’t put them in the legs CT or head. This is kind of a pain, because there aren’t a whole lot of things that you can put in the legs aside from ES/FF crits and GR ammo. Weapons in the legs can only shot forward (and are really just plain silly) and ammo other than GR ammo can explode.

For the sake of IS mechs everywhere, I suggest that we allow IS mechs to spread DHS crits to adjacent locations like Size 20 ACs. So, if you had at least one crit free in the CT, you could put a DHS in the leg, and spread to the CT (and vice-versa). This would also mean that if you found yourself with one crit free in a torso section and 2 free in the connected arm, you could attach a DHS. Of course, if any crits of the DHS get hit/destroyed, the entire DHS is destroyed (so from the last example: you lose the arm, the DHS is destroyed). If we are going to adopt more restrictive customization rules, I think that IS mechs could use some more flexibility.



Reworking targeting computers

Let’s be honest with ourselves: the idea of a multi-ton computer is just stupid. No really. It’s stupid. It’s been stupid since the 50s or 60s. Also, if you plan on creating tech-hardpoints (as I’ve suggested) to make tech heavy mechs (like the raven) more uniquely capable, then the unfixed size of TCs is problematic. It’s also especially problematic for mechs like the warhawk where the TC is (at least by fluff) fixed equipment.

I suggest changing the way TCs are implemented. First of all, conceptually, I would think of a TC like this: one central unit with a camera/rangefinder/something that coordinates with the mech’s targeting system, and linked units in each location carrying a direct fire weapon for fine adjustment of aiming, coordinated by the central unit.

The whole system would weigh the same as TCs in CBT (1 ton for every 4 tons (IS) or 5 tons (Clan)). The central unit would be two crits and have to be mounted in a T2 hardpoint (i.e. it would be the same size and fit in the same slots as BAP/ECM). In addition to the central unit, you would need to mount a linked unit (the aim coordinating/adjusting mechanisms) in each section with a direct fire weapon. Linked units would be mounted in equipment space. For weapons in the CT/H, I would allow it to be mounted in adjacent sections as space is tight in the CT/H. If the central unit is destroyed, then the entire TC is destroyed. If one of the linked units is destroyed, then only the weapons in that section loose the benefit of the TC.

The player would only need to drop the TC into the appropriate tech hardpoint. Linked units would be allocated automatically, and weight would be scaled up and down automatically. Since the crits are more fixed, modifying mechs would be easier, as the TC wouldn’t be constantly contracting and expanding. From a conceptual standpoint, the increasing weight of the TC wouldn’t be due to a “computer” increasing in mass, it would be because heavier weapons require heavier equipment for stabilization/aim coordination (i.e. the linked units).

Edited by zorak ramone, 10 April 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Sensible suggestions Zorak.

[Pht]

zorak ramone, on 10 April 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Shared Missile Ammo

The LRM5, 10, 15 and 20 all fire LRMs, the SRM2, 4 and 6 all fire SRMS, and the MRM10, 20, 30 and 40 all fire MRMs. Yet, each launcher has its own ammo type.

Um, no, they don't have different ammo types.

Quote

Splitting crits for IS double heat sinks.

For the sake of IS mechs everywhere, I suggest that we allow IS mechs to spread DHS crits to adjacent locations like Size 20 ACs. So, if you had at least one crit free in the CT, you could put a DHS in the leg, and spread to the CT (and vice-versa).

Ludicrously unbalancing; besides the fact that the space represented in the tables is mostly represenative of the radiator assemblies; which can't be spread around like that.

Quote

Reworking targeting computers

Let’s be honest with ourselves: the idea of a multi-ton computer is just stupid. No really. It’s stupid. It’s been stupid since the 50s or 60s.

I'm guessing you're presuming that the TC is handling an amount of data input and software that's equal to what our computers handle, and that you're also not accounting for the necessary battlefield hardening and redundancy that must be built in.

These would not be justifiable presumptions.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 10 April 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Reworking targeting computers

Let’s be honest with ourselves: the idea of a multi-ton computer is just stupid. No really. It’s stupid. It’s been stupid since the 50s or 60s. Also, if you plan on creating tech-hardpoints (as I’ve suggested) to make tech heavy mechs (like the raven) more uniquely capable, then the unfixed size of TCs is problematic. It’s also especially problematic for mechs like the warhawk where the TC is (at least by fluff) fixed equipment.

I suggest changing the way TCs are implemented. First of all, conceptually, I would think of a TC like this: one central unit with a camera/rangefinder/something that coordinates with the mech’s targeting system, and linked units in each location carrying a direct fire weapon for fine adjustment of aiming, coordinated by the central unit.

The whole system would weigh the same as TCs in CBT (1 ton for every 4 tons (IS) or 5 tons (Clan)). The central unit would be two crits and have to be mounted in a T2 hardpoint (i.e. it would be the same size and fit in the same slots as BAP/ECM). In addition to the central unit, you would need to mount a linked unit (the aim coordinating/adjusting mechanisms) in each section with a direct fire weapon. Linked units would be mounted in equipment space. For weapons in the CT/H, I would allow it to be mounted in adjacent sections as space is tight in the CT/H. If the central unit is destroyed, then the entire TC is destroyed. If one of the linked units is destroyed, then only the weapons in that section loose the benefit of the TC.

The player would only need to drop the TC into the appropriate tech hardpoint. Linked units would be allocated automatically, and weight would be scaled up and down automatically. Since the crits are more fixed, modifying mechs would be easier, as the TC wouldn’t be constantly contracting and expanding. From a conceptual standpoint, the increasing weight of the TC wouldn’t be due to a “computer” increasing in mass, it would be because heavier weapons require heavier equipment for stabilization/aim coordination (i.e. the linked units).

I'll get to the rest of this some other time, but this is exactly how TCs should be implemented.

In fact, at least some parts of the CBT fluff attribute the extra weight in the exact same way; as stabilisers and gyros mated to the weapons to give them finer control. I've never really understood why they had to sit in a great big block if that was the official explanation for the weight, though.

EDIT:
Actually, I would personally rework the tonnage as well. TCs on energy boats are insanely cheap in TT, because the TC's weight doesn't take heat sinks into account. 35 points of CERML had a 1 ton TC, while 40 points of CUAC20 needed 3 t. I'd mate TC weight to total controlled dps, or something more complex like a per-weapon cost that accounted for range, rof etc. I realise that "realism"-wise, weight-for-weight makes more sense, but I don't think it's fair to ballistics.

Edited by Belisarius†, 10 April 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I like your comments on the TC Belisarius and think that the most easily understood way would be just per weapon, irespective of size. I know that would affect ML boats worse as you can't boat ballistics in anything like the same numbers. It would benifit Gauss snipers the most.
Or is that too simplistic?

[zorak ramone]

Pht, on 10 April 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Um, no, they don't have different ammo types.

My understanding is that, given the Longbow example, if my LRM20 ammo runs out, I can't fire the LRM20s using the LRM5 ammo. I'm pretty sure this is how TT rules worked, unless the master rules changed recently.

Quote

Ludicrously unbalancing; besides the fact that the space represented in the tables is mostly represenative of the radiator assemblies; which can't be spread around like that.

How would this be ludicrously unbalancing? At worst, it would mean that an IS mech could fit two more DHS.

Quote

I'm guessing you're presuming that the TC is handling an amount of data input and software that's equal to what our computers handle, and that you're also not accounting for the necessary battlefield hardening and redundancy that must be built in.

These would not be justifiable presumptions.

A quick wikipedia search says that the initial model of the Cray-1 supercomputer was 5.5 tons. These are the kinds of computers used for massive astro/particle physics simulations. I don't think targeting calculations, merely a matter of geometry and basic physics, would require a similar computer. In fact I'm pretty sure a desktop computer, or a cluster of desktop computers could handle it.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 10 April 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

EDIT:
Actually, I would personally rework the tonnage as well. TCs on energy boats are insanely cheap in TT, because the TC's weight doesn't take heat sinks into account. 35 points of CERML had a 1 ton TC, while 40 points of CUAC20 needed 3 t. I'd mate TC weight to total controlled dps, or something more complex like a per-weapon cost that accounted for range, rof etc. I realise that "realism"-wise, weight-for-weight makes more sense, but I don't think it's fair to ballistics.

If you're going to re-work TC mass, maybe it should be on a per-hardpoint basis and change based on the size of the HP? For example (pulling numbers out of my head here), given the following hardpoints:
-B4 or E4: +2 tons
-B3 or E3: +1.5 tons
-B2 or E2: +1 ton
-B1 or E1: +0.5 ton

Thats probably too heavy, but it at least illustrates the idea. Side point: Artemis IV (advanced missle targeting) is a fixed mass per missile launcher (1 ton/crit equipment per A-IV equiped launcher) and is not based on the launcher mass.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"TCs on energy boats are insanely cheap in TT, because the TC's weight doesn't take heat sinks into account"

Why would a TC care about, or have to account for, the HS's required to dissipate the Heat generated by a weapons system that it is attempting to make more accurate?

The TC and its required components, those that make the weapons more accurate, most of which are attached to the weapon itself. It does seem reasonable to assume the heavier a weapon is, the more gear need to better articulate said weapon. Thus 4 1t Lasers, by rule, need only a 1t TC to control, versus a AC20 @ 14t requires a 3t TC.