243 replies to this topic

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 11 April 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

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.

I was thinking that too, but MWO has already gone with the TT hardpoints, and that's even more broken in favour of energy boats than tonnage.

Actually, more important question... are you still pushing E4 et al., or have you started modifying from what the devs have given us so far?

Edited by Belisarius†, 11 April 2012 - 03:41 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 11 April 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

I was thinking that too, but MWO has already gone with the TT hardpoints, and that's even more broken in favour of energy boats than tonnage.

Actually, more important question... are you still pushing E4 et al., or have you started modifying from what the devs have given us so far?

RE TT hardpoints: if they limit things to one weapon per hardpoint, like I'm suggesting in my method, then I don't think energy boats will be too big a problem. If they don't, then you're right. Case in point would be the inevitable 10xML Awesome (3xML for each PPC and the SL to ML) which would generate the same heat as the 3xPPCs but do 66% more damage up close. I don't think delayed convergence/beam duration could really help against that.

As for E4s, I'm still inclined toward it. One think you may notice about my particular psychology is that I like patterns and symetrey. When you look at the 3050 tech, you see a very clear progression of 4 levels for each type of weapon:

ACs
-AC2, AC5, AC10, AC20
-Weight, space, heat and damage increase
-Range decreases

Energy weapons
-SL, ML, LL, PPC
-Weight space, heat and damage increases
-Range increases
-damage/heat decreases

LRMs
-LRM5, LRM10, LRM15, LRM20
-Weight, heat, and damage increase (almost linearlly!)
-Range constant
-Damage/heat constant

The only inconsistency are the SRMs (which I would fix by creating combined SRM launchers) and things like Mguns (which I'll get to later). I think that if you didn't have 4 sizes for each (energy, balistic, and missle), players would go "why?". I think its also a way that we could limit boating. For example, if you have just E1, E2, and E3, I presume that E1 would fit SLs and MLs. Well if you allow for larger weapons to be placed in a hardpoint (as I suggest: one size up or down), then any SL could be turned into an LL.

[zorak ramone]

So I thought I'd necro this thread after the Q&A on the mechlab. There is an explanation thread for the hardpoint system here:
http://mwomercs.com/...-thread-merged/

Based on this, I still think that the hardpoint system as it exists isn't limiting enough. The big problem is that hardpoints don't have a size attached to them. They're just Energy, Balistic or Missle. Yes, there are critical slot restrictions, but there isn't a size restiction attached to the hardpoint itself.

As it stands, this would allow a Hunchback to go from 2xML, AC20 to 2xPPC. Based on the stock config, there is an energy hardpoint in each arm and a balistic hardpoint in the right torso. There's also at least 8 critical slots available in each arm. So if you strip the AC20 and MLs, you have 18 tons free (14 for the AC, 2 for the ammo, 2 for the MLs). There is plenty of space in each arm for a PPC, and there is plenty of space in the body for more HS, so you could easily mount 2xPPC and 4 extra heat sinks. You can do the same thing with the Atlas.

Personally, I think this goes too far. I think that hardpoints should restrict weapons numerically (which the system outlined in the dev blog does) and by size, which is what my suggested system does.

===

Also, I've been working on something. Is there a way to attach files (.xls files)?

[Outlaw2]

zorak ramone, on 18 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

Based on this, I still think that the hardpoint system as it exists isn't limiting enough. The big problem is that hardpoints don't have a size attached to them. They're just Energy, Balistic or Missle. Yes, there are critical slot restrictions, but there isn't a size restiction attached to the hardpoint itself.

As it stands, this would allow a Hunchback to go from 2xML, AC20 to 2xPPC.

This was my first reaction as well, but since a medium laser is treated the same as a large laser or PPC with this system, it allows the devs to give medium lasers beefy stats (similar to TT ml stats)
However I wouldn't mind a "size" limit as you are proposing, though I not too adversed to the idea of a dual PPC hunchback as you are Scratch that, after deeper contemplation, a "size" category is something I think is needed. It gives each variant more personality and makes it easier to balance variants with each other.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 18 April 2012 - 05:09 PM.

[MaddMaxx]

Given added Weight & Heat the need for extra HS's the lack of a size requirement should be manageable. That 2 PPC Hunchie is HOT 23/16 with 100% armor (169/169 [11.0 tons]) and I think 6 extra HS's.

Even left on the SL. Hopefully testing will show any craziness that may show up.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 18 April 2012 - 05:19 PM.

[Sprouticus]

zorak ramone, on 18 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

So I thought I'd necro this thread after the Q&A on the mechlab. There is an explanation thread for the hardpoint system here:
http://mwomercs.com/...-thread-merged/

Based on this, I still think that the hardpoint system as it exists isn't limiting enough. The big problem is that hardpoints don't have a size attached to them. They're just Energy, Balistic or Missle. Yes, there are critical slot restrictions, but there isn't a size restiction attached to the hardpoint itself.

As it stands, this would allow a Hunchback to go from 2xML, AC20 to 2xPPC. Based on the stock config, there is an energy hardpoint in each arm and a balistic hardpoint in the right torso. There's also at least 8 critical slots available in each arm. So if you strip the AC20 and MLs, you have 18 tons free (14 for the AC, 2 for the ammo, 2 for the MLs). There is plenty of space in each arm for a PPC, and there is plenty of space in the body for more HS, so you could easily mount 2xPPC and 4 extra heat sinks. You can do the same thing with the Atlas.

Personally, I think this goes too far. I think that hardpoints should restrict weapons numerically (which the system outlined in the dev blog does) and by size, which is what my suggested system does.

===

Also, I've been working on something. Is there a way to attach files (.xls files)?

I am starting to agree with you, although my reason are more focused on the fact that the hard points are the only real differentiation between mechs. If that's the case, then you need to restrict the weapons customization more than they are doing right now.

[Belisarius1]

Yeah, the current system is pretty much insane. I was optimistic until today, but the only way it will make it to release now is if every single closed beta tester is a hardcore TT dude who's literally incapable of pushing the system. The fact is that nearly every 'mech is now interchangeable. If something has a machine gun, it can put an AC20 there and turn it into a hunchie.

Weapon slot size limits are a huge missing feature, but I'm also doubtful we'll ever see them. They've chosen a different direction. You could just about survive without them if you made engines and armour locked except for +/- 10% tweaks and locked down all non-weapon/HS/equipment criticals. Even then, T1 'mechs tend to have a lot of empty space lying around.

MWO's mechs will have no character at all if this goes through. Hardpoints are just not enough, and all they really do is punish configs that want to take large numbers of small weapons.

Edited by Belisarius†, 18 April 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[Sprouticus]

They do tend to have extra crit slots laying about, but it would be tough to replace that MG with an AC20 if you could not free up weight because you could not lower armor etc.

If someone wanted to get rid of 14 tons of other weapons for an AC20, I would actually not mind that too much. The hardpoints would limit 'going small' and the weight would limit 'going big'.

They DID say that the engine/Armor/internals were still up for grabs and could be changed moving forward. Maybe.we can convince them of the wisdom of either weapon size hard points or limiting the rest of the customization.

Maybe.

[Belisarius1]

But you can free up weight by lowering armour, and changing engine, and internals, and everything.

InnerSphereNews, on 18 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Will you be able to freely (C-bills aside, ofc ) upgrade/downgrade between single/double heat sinks, normal/XL engines, normal/endo steel internals and normal/ferro armour, or will these be strictly variant/chassis specific? –Gigaton

[DAVID] Currently these are unrestricted, though that may change with further testing.

And 14 tons of weapons is not much. If I can take a crusader and use its MGs to put an AC20 there, I've completely altered the character of what used to be a missile support 'mech. Everything is interchangeable, nothing is unique. The mech that gets used will be the one with the best hitboxes.

I just hope they get their further testing on asap.

Edited by Belisarius†, 18 April 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[StaIker]

Well, I like what they've done. But then I'm a MW player rather than a TT player.

Edited by StaIker, 18 April 2012 - 09:38 PM.

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 18 April 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

Given added Weight & Heat the need for extra HS's the lack of a size requirement should be manageable. That 2 PPC Hunchie is HOT 23/16 with 100% armor (169/169 [11.0 tons]) and I think 6 extra HS's.

Even left on the SL. Hopefully testing will show any craziness that may show up.

Stock hunchback has 13 HS. Strip the weapons down and you have 18.5 tons free. (AC20+2xammo = 16 tons, 2xML = 2 tons, SL = 0.5 tons). Thats enough for 2xPPC and 4 HS, with 0.5 tons remaining. Thats 17 HS total, for an overheat of 3 while standing ... thats only 1 heat more than the Awesome generates, so I'm sure its managable. If they allow armor and engine modifications, it will not be hard to turn that remaining 0.5 ton into 3 tons, for 20 HS total.

Belisarius†, on 18 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

MWO's mechs will have no character at all if this goes through. Hardpoints are just not enough, and all they really do is punish configs that want to take large numbers of small weapons.

Don't be so hard on the devs. So far, they've shown a remarkable amount of sense in designing things so far, and they've qualified their statements constantly leading me to believe that nothing is set in stone. I'm sure it would be a simple thing for them to attach a size classification to hardpoints.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It's just a bit worrying that this wasn't in already. It's something that has been extensively discussed here. But as you say, they have made it clear that its a work in progress.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 19 April 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[zorak ramone]

StaIker, on 18 April 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Well, I like what they've done. But then I'm a MW player rather than a TT player.

I am a MW player, but I also know the TT construction rules inside and out. Since the MWO dev team is HEAVILY (if not exactly) basing their mech construction off of the TT rules, it means that I already know:
-the baseline hardpoint configuration for every mech released so far
-the customization possibilities for every mech so far
-and the likely consequences for gameplay

... and what I'm trying to tell you is that the system they have so far (which, credit to the devs, is probably not complete or final) would allow for too much flexibility in mech customization. By too much I mean that mechs will loose their "personality" (i.e. what makes them unique relative to other mechs), this leads to mechs overlapping their roles too much (didn't you in another thread say something about how you didn't want alot of redundant/obselete mechs?), and finally this will lead to alot of mechs becoming worthless.

Let me use some examples from MW4 so you can see what I mean. What the current system does is essentially disconnect size from hardpoint type, meaning that each section of the mech has a pool of space that can be used by any hardpoint. If you apply the same system to MW4 ...

-Consider the hellspawn. It has in each arm a single slot balistic and energy. So it has 2 slots per arm and a balistic and energy HP. This means that the hellspawn can carry a ERLL or LBX10 in each arm. One of the side torsos has a single slot balistic, single slot energy and a 2 or 3 slot missle. This hellspawn can now carry a HGR, or CapPPC. Is this still a hellspawn?

-Consider the madcat. Each side torso has a 2-slot omni and a 3 slot (4 slot? don't remember) missle HP. Under this system it now has a missle and omni hardpoint with 4-5 slots of space. This madcat can now carry 4xCapPPC or 4xERPPC (remember the arms), 2xHGR, or 2xLBX20. What, would be the point of using any other heavy mech (or any other heavy clan mech if in NBT's puretech environment)? The answer is "there isn't any."

-The Thanatos, by virtue of having 6 slots in the cannon arm, and a energy hardpoint can now carry a CapPPC/ERPPC.

-Every clan heavy, with the exception of the loki I think, can now carry 4xERPPC.

-Every clan assault can now carry 4xLBX20 (I think).

So you can see that when you disconnect hardpoint size from hardpoint type and just have hardpoints with access to a pool of space, then mechs quickly become unrecognizable and converge on a few configurations. Eventually, people will realize that there are only a few mechs worth taking (see madcat example). If engine and armor modification is allowed, then mechs will converge even more.

Personally, I don't want a mechwarrior game where you only have maybe 4 or 5 mechs being used in the endgame. I also think that the game looses strategic depth when you reduce the number of options. Imagine if Starcraft was nothing but space marines or TF2 was nothing but soldiers. Limitations are good for variety and strategic depth.

EDIT: edited for harshness.

Edited by zorak ramone, 19 April 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Zorak, you sounded rather harsh on Stalker. His point was (I think) that strictly coming from a MW angle it seems to be good. I do think your arguments countered his statement pretty well, but let's try to keep is cordial guys.

[MaddMaxx]

zorak ramone, on 19 April 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Stock hunchback has 13 HS. Strip the weapons down and you have 18.5 tons free. (AC20+2xammo = 16 tons, 2xML = 2 tons, SL = 0.5 tons). That's enough for 2xPPC and 4 HS, with 0.5 tons remaining. That's 17 HS total, for an overheat of 3 while standing ... that's only 1 heat more than the Awesome generates, so I'm sure its manageable. If they allow armor and engine modifications, it will not be hard to turn that remaining 0.5 ton into 3 tons, for 20 HS total.

But it does introduce a flaw the original does not have, a 90m fire free/dead zone from the PPC addition. Depending on the environment, that could be exploited.

No more of the feared "Come around a building corner and BOOM AC20" in the face.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 April 2012 - 08:28 AM.

[Sprouticus]

MaddMaxx, on 19 April 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

But it does introduce a flaw the original does not have, a 90mm fire free/dead zone from the PPC addition. Depending on the environment, that could be exploited.

Agreed Maxx, but it is still a completely different mech than the Hunchie was ever intended to be. Some think that is ok, Initally I thought it would be as well. But I was hoping internals and armor and electronics would be limited as well, and they are not currently.

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 19 April 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

Zorak, you sounded rather harsh on Stalker. His point was (I think) that strictly coming from a MW angle it seems to be good. I do think your arguments countered his statement pretty well, but let's try to keep is cordial guys.

Fine. Edited for harshness, but I don't like being told that I'm not a MW player by someone I've played ALOT of MW with.

MaddMaxx, on 19 April 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

But it does introduce a flaw the original does not have, a 90mm fire free/dead zone from the PPC addition. Depending on the environment, that could be exploited.

No more of the feared "Come around a building corner and BOOM AC20" in the face.

Penalties for dead zones would be an interesting way to try and balance radical customizations.

[MaddMaxx]

Sprouticus, on 19 April 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Agreed Maxx, but it is still a completely different mech than the Hunchie was ever intended to be. Some think that is ok, Initally I thought it would be as well. But I was hoping internals and armor and electronics would be limited as well, and they are not currently.

True enough, and I see what is meant, but once again, those Internal changes cost in other areas, Space, weight, etc. I am not against the more strict thought process but given the F2P format some flex is required, and it also allows the DEV to not have to put an absolute boat load of Variants in to satisfy every player based fantasy ride imaginable.

If we restrict HP via space and Type way more Variants will likely be required. Only being able to customize down, unless the HP's sizes are all revamped would suck imho (and I am against to much customization fcol)

Where do the Dev draw that Line? We will see I guess.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 April 2012 - 08:35 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Zorak its probably better to remove the clan stuff from your post, as we have no idea how they will implement Omni technology at all so its a bit presumptuous.

Hellspawn with a HGR im not sure is possible, is it.

XL Engine/Gyro are non movable, the HGR cant be placed in arms it has to be the torsos. And on a hellspawn there is not enough room for it in the side torsos unless the game allows us to spread crits into opposing sections,as after removing the ECM suite from the CT it can then fit.

[Havoc2]

zorak ramone, on 19 April 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

I am a MW player, but I also know the TT construction rules inside and out. Since the MWO dev team is HEAVILY (if not exactly) basing their mech construction off of the TT rules, it means that I already know:
-the baseline hardpoint configuration for every mech released so far
-the customization possibilities for every mech so far
-and the likely consequences for gameplay

... and what I'm trying to tell you is that the system they have so far (which, credit to the devs, is probably not complete or final) would allow for too much flexibility in mech customization. By too much I mean that mechs will loose their "personality" (i.e. what makes them unique relative to other mechs), this leads to mechs overlapping their roles too much (didn't you in another thread say something about how you didn't want alot of redundant/obselete mechs?), and finally this will lead to alot of mechs becoming worthless.

Let me use some examples from MW4 so you can see what I mean. What the current system does is essentially disconnect size from hardpoint type, meaning that each section of the mech has a pool of space that can be used by any hardpoint. If you apply the same system to MW4 ...

-Consider the hellspawn. It has in each arm a single slot balistic and energy. So it has 2 slots per arm and a balistic and energy HP. This means that the hellspawn can carry a ERLL or LBX10 in each arm. One of the side torsos has a single slot balistic, single slot energy and a 2 or 3 slot missle. This hellspawn can now carry a HGR, or CapPPC. Is this still a hellspawn?

-Consider the madcat. Each side torso has a 2-slot omni and a 3 slot (4 slot? don't remember) missle HP. Under this system it now has a missle and omni hardpoint with 4-5 slots of space. This madcat can now carry 4xCapPPC or 4xERPPC (remember the arms), 2xHGR, or 2xLBX20. What, would be the point of using any other heavy mech (or any other heavy clan mech if in NBT's puretech environment)? The answer is "there isn't any."

-The Thanatos, by virtue of having 6 slots in the cannon arm, and a energy hardpoint can now carry a CapPPC/ERPPC.

-Every clan heavy, with the exception of the loki I think, can now carry 4xERPPC.

-Every clan assault can now carry 4xLBX20 (I think).

So you can see that when you disconnect hardpoint size from hardpoint type and just have hardpoints with access to a pool of space, then mechs quickly become unrecognizable and converge on a few configurations. Eventually, people will realize that there are only a few mechs worth taking (see madcat example). If engine and armor modification is allowed, then mechs will converge even more.

Personally, I don't want a mechwarrior game where you only have maybe 4 or 5 mechs being used in the endgame. I also think that the game looses strategic depth when you reduce the number of options. Imagine if Starcraft was nothing but space marines or TF2 was nothing but soldiers. Limitations are good for variety and strategic depth.

EDIT: edited for harshness.

I see what you're saying but it's not entirely correct. (IIRC, it's been a while since I've played MW4).

The Mad Cat primary config was 6 erLLas, 1 in each arm, 2 in each torso. The arms only had a 2 slot HP, so let's say 2 crits free in the energy HP. ErLLas was 2 slots, erPPC takes 3.
You could put 2 erPPCs and 2 erLLas on it if you so choose. The clan 'Mechs do open an entirely new can of worms with omni points though.

Will omni points take up the entire section, or will it be a separate point like in MW4? Will we be allowed to span hard and omni points if we're lucky enough to get a clan 'Mech?