243 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

}{avoc, on 19 April 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

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?

The Madcat prime has 2 ERLL, 2 ERML and a MPL. If I remember correctly the ERML and eRLL are in the arms. That means you have at a minimum 4 Energy hardpoints, and probably 4 omni hardpoints. Again, I dont have the internals listing in front of me, but I believe Zorak when he says it is possible. The dude knows TT rules inside and out.

I would love to see a listing of the pre-3050 variants of the 8 mehcs confirmed and what their minimum hardpoint loadouts would be. The Hunchie and Jenner and Atlas are pretty easy, but Im not sure about the rest.

[Havoc2]

Might be possible in the TT, and if it is I retract my statement and apologize. But in MW4 it wasn't possible to load a Mad Cat with 4 erPPCs (which I believe I saw as being used for comparison).

And yes I believe in MW4 each arm had a 3 crit energy hard point, but there was only 1 2 point energy hard point in each side torso. There was also a 2 crit omni hardpoing in each torso (allowing you to use 6 erLLas, but not 4 erPPCs since they required 3 crits).

Now the Nova Cat was pretty much an erPPC platform. IIRC you could squeeze 5 erPPCs on it, or at the least 4 erPPCs and an erLLas. Assuming you either 1) enjoyed overheating and exploding with 1 alpha or 2) played NHUA.
I wasn't a fan of that chassis as 2-3 shots and you had both of its arms gone and left with either no weapons or 1 erLLas in the RT.

Now how much we actually want to take from MW4. . . . . . .

Edited by }{avoc, 19 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[zorak ramone]

I'm sorry, the madcat example was confusing. I'll try again.

In MW4, hardpoints had a specific size associated with them.

In MWO's current implementation, hardpoints do not have a specific size associated with them, but can use any amount of critical space available in their location.

Since Stalker isn't as familiar with the CBT build rules, I was doing a "what if" scenario where you did the same thing in MW4: i.e. hardpoints didn't have a specific size associated with them.

In MW4, the madcat has the following hardpoints:
-LA/RA: 4-slot Energy
-LT/RT: 2-slot Omni, 3-slot missile

It may have had some more that I'm forgetting, but they're not important. Now, if we apply the MWO model to MW4 (i.e. hardpoints don't have specific size) and represent "critical space" as the total number of slots in each section, then the MWO-ified MW4 madcat looks like this:
-LA/RA: 1 Energy Hardpoint, 4-slots
-LT/TR: 1 Omni hardpoint, 1 missle hardpoint, 5 slots

This would allow the Madcat (and alot of other mechs) to carry 4xERPPC. You would also be able to carry 2xLBX20 or 2xHGR (1 omni hardpoint in the side torso, with 5 slots to work with) if you wanted.

The point I was trying to make is that, like mechs based on the CBT build rules, if you take MW4 mechs and disconnect space restrictions from hardpoints, then mech customization becomes too free. Certainly, in normal MW4, there's no way a MC could pack 4xERPPC, 2xLBX20, or 2xHGR ... and its only because there are size restrictions associated with hardpoints. Thats the point I was trying to make.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It really depends on just how limited, or extensive, they want customisation to be. The introduction of canon varants that can't be made in the MechLab will get rid of many of the objections people had to MW4. They could also put a number limit as well as a crit limit if they wanted to avoid non canon ML boats. Weve pointed out the possible consequences of the present MechLab as we see it. It's now down to the dev's to decide if that is what their vision for the game is.
I'm not sure if they realise just how easily we can work out how to maximise any version of MechLab. Some of us have spent far to much time playing with all the previous versions to wring the last ounce of performance out.

[warner2]

Personally I find what they are doing interesting. I assumed that the devs would just give us a rehash of the MW4 mechlab but what they are trying to achieve and the way they are doing it seems admirable. Zorak is correct however, the customisation system, as stated so far by the devs, doesn't seem quite there yet. It is too open, and it doesn't seem like it will achieve one of the stated goals, by Hayashi ("...Identical 'Mechs...by allocating type hardpoints accordingly, it keeps 'Mechs differentiated") because you really shouldn't be able to turn an AC20 wielding Hunchback into a PPC Hunchback. Gauss, maybe, LBX too, maybe an AC5 plus more laser power, but to completely change the nature or characer of the mech (that it has a big autocannon on the shoulder) is going too far.

[StaIker]

Quote

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.

You took me the wrong way Z. I'd be the last person to say you're not a MW player, c'mon!

I simply meant that I don't compare MW to the TT game for variants or balance. If MWO is internally consistent and balanced within itself I don't mind if it has strayed far away from BT in the process (just not too far). It was not a slight against anyone.

The points you make are good ones though, if most Mechs ended up just being different skins around the same weapons it would be a big disappointment. But I think I also read somewhere that custom designs would be accounted for, balance wise, against the stock configurations. We don't know what that means yet but it does suggest that the uber-Mechs are not going to simply take over. I'm prepared to wait and see what they do there. If we get more information and your position on this is basically correct then I'd be behind you 100% in opposing it.

Edited by StaIker, 19 April 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[Belisarius1]

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

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.

I agree, I've been impressed by nearly everything else, above and beyond my expectations, and that's precisely why the decisions here have thrown me.

To anyone who played multiplayer MW at all - not even league play! - the fact that players will min-max as much as possible should be a no-brainer. To someone with even the most rudimentary understanding of CBT construction rules, it should be apparent that a huge number of variants under this system are interchangeable. When you put those side-by-side, it should also be clear what happens.

Since they're more or less first-principles deductions, I'm just... extremely worried that two and two either haven't been put together, or have been put together and subsequently ignored.

StaIker, on 19 April 2012 - 03:49 PM, said:

But I think I also read somewhere that custom designs would be accounted for, balance wise, against the stock configurations. We don't know what that means yet but it does suggest that the uber-Mechs are not going to simply take over. I'm prepared to wait and see what they do there. If we get more information and your position on this is basically correct then I'd be behind you 100% in opposing it.

I've seen several people quote something like that as well, but all I've found is this from the Q&A:

Quote

There is a big difference in performance between customized mechs and stock variants. What steps, if any, will be taken to balance the difference when it comes to matchmaking? In other words, will mechlab-optimized mechs be accounted for when it comes time to balance the teams and will we be shown how that will be done (higher bv, etc) when we are making changes in the mechlab? –Kudzu

[PAUL] The match making system will take into account whichever metrics we want it to. This is one of those things that gameplay and testing will prove out in closed and open Beta.

...which is really just an unfocused question and an avoiding-the-question response.

This system as it stands relies almost completely on external constraints, like cost of modifications and some as-yet-undefined matchmaker voodoo. You've said in the past that you think the game should be balanced in isolation from the metagame, but the only remaining controls on this mechlab are metagame based. That's why I, at least, was surprised to see you back it.

Edited by Belisarius†, 19 April 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[Yeach]

I've only read a part of some of the responses but I think the idea to adding the 3rd component "MW4 hardpoint" to the regular BT critical/tonnage specs.
Think of the hardpoint as plug-ins

So a
PPC would be a 3-beam slot, 3 critical-space, 7 tons
AC20 would be a 3-ballistic slot, 10 critical-space, 14-tons
Medium Laser would be a 1-beam, 1 critical-space, 1 ton

For the Hunchback RIGHT TORSO torso it might be restricted as such
6 x 1-beam AND 1 x 3-ballistic hardpoints
12 critical space and 14 ton limit

which would allow it to mount 6 medium lasers OR an AC20
but preventing it from mounting
any amount of PPCs
AC20 PLUS medium lasers
More than 6 medium lasers.

A bit more restrictive but it can be styled much closer to lore.

[guardiandashi]

as I am reading the current idea of the mechlab implementation zorac is both right and wrong about how it will play out

using his timberwolf (madcat) example I expect that the real "advantage" of omnimechs if implemented will be the most flexable hardpoints.

in otherwords if we assume for the moment that while there may be multiple "hunchback" base chassis, (which could be a potentually unwarranted assumption) IE the autocannon chassis, the multiple laser chassis, the missile chassis, etc

I suspect omnimechs will have either "omni hardpoints" or lots of hardpoints in each location. example to make the various configs:
prime
head no hp avail
ct 1 ballistic (mg)
LA 2 energy
LT 1 missile, 1 energy
RT 1 ballistic, 1 energy
ra 2 energy

A
LA 1 energy
LT 3 energy
ra 1 energy
rt 1 missile
ct 1 energy

B
LA 2 energy
LT 1 missile
RA 1 ballistic
rt 1 missile

C
ct 1 energy
la 2 energy
lt 1 missile 1 ballistic* (ams)
ra 1 ballistic
rt 1 missile

D
ct 1 energy
r/la 1 energy
r/lt 2 missile

if you look at later references there are some additional configs but in general I would sum it as:
at a minimum
CT 1 energy/ballistic
R/LA 2+energy, 1+ ballistic ? missile
R/LT 3+ energy, 1+ ballistic, 2+ missile

note this is not a definitive list, just the minimum to make all configs work (and I mirrored the ra ballistic configs to the left arm)

[Belisarius1]

Guys, stop talking about omnimechs. We have no idea how they'll play out, so they're useless as examples. Z just used one to illustrate a point while talking about MW4.

Edited by Belisarius†, 20 April 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Sprouticus]

In an effort to look at the problem more fully, I have complied a list of all mechs confirmed and their variants

Some qualification

1) All mechs below are confirmed
2) All variants list the MINIMUM number of hardpoints, there may be more.
3) I included all variants which are pre-3050 AND would not have duplicate hardpoints to other variants.
4) I am NOT saying all of these variants will be used, just that they COULD be used.
5) I dont have the TT sheets so I dont know which mechs have weapons in their head ot CT, which would be a huge limit due to fewer crit slots available in those locations. I also did not mark down the ones with Endo or FF, which would also limit crit slots somewhat.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Centurion
CN9-A
1xBallistic
1x Missile
2x Energy

CN9-AH
1xBallistic
1x Missile
0xEnergy

CN9-AL
0xBallisitic
1xmissle
4x Energy
-------------------------------------
Awesome

AWS-8Q
0xBallistic
0x Missile
2x Energy

AWS-8R
0xBallistic
2x Missile
2xEnergy

AWS-8V
0xBallistic
1x Missile
2xEnergy

AWS-9M
0xBallistic
1x Missile
5xEnergy
---------------------------------------------------
Commando

COM-2D
0xBallistic
2x Missile
1x Energy

COM-1A
0xBallistic
1x Missile
2x Energy

COM-1C
1xBallistic
0x Missile
2x Energy

COM-3A
0xBallistic
2x Missile
2x Energy
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenner

JR7-D
0xBallistic
1x Missile
4x Energy

JR7-A
0xBallistic
0x Missile
1x Energy

JR7-C3
0xBallistic
0x Missile
3x Energy
---------------------------------------------
Catapult

CPLT-C1
0xBallistic
2x Missile
4x Energy

CPLT-A1
0xBallistic
2x Missile
0x Energy

CPLT-C4
0xBallistic
2x Missile
1x Energy

CPLT-K2
2xBallistic
0x Missile
6x Energy
-------------------------------------------------
Atlas

AS7-D
1xBallistic
1x Missile
4x Energy

AS7-RS
1xBallistic
2x Missile
2x Energy
------------------------------------------------
Dragon

DRG-1N
1xBallistic
1x Missile
2x Energy

DRG-1G
0xBallistic
1x Missile
4x Energy

DRG-5N
1xBallistic
1x Missile
3x Energy

Edited by Sprouticus, 21 April 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[zorak ramone]

I've made an excell spreadsheet that functions as a mechlab for the system I've proposed.

Can anyone tell me how to attach it as a file? I see the "my media" button in the reply window, but I don't see an option for uploading.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

I dont think you can, you'll have to upload it to somewhere and just put the link.

I have room on a website if you do not, and can link it from there...depending how many download it depends how long it stays up though...but it should be plenty for those participating in this thread.

[zorak ramone]

DV^McKenna, on 21 April 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

I dont think you can, you'll have to upload it to somewhere and just put the link.

I have room on a website if you do not, and can link it from there...depending how many download it depends how long it stays up though...but it should be plenty for those participating in this thread.

Email sent to the address in your profile. Thanks!

[Oderint dum Metuant]

zorak ramone, on 21 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Email sent to the address in your profile. Thanks!

http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR Mechlab v1.xlsx

Hosted.

Edited by DV^McKenna, 21 April 2012 - 10:43 AM.

[zorak ramone]

DV^McKenna, on 21 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR Mechlab v1.xlsx

Hosted.

Thanks again.

So, some notes: I've included every mech that's confirmed for MWO so far, every confirmed variant (i.e. the HBK-4P ... the JR7-F and A? can be made from the JR7-D), and at least one 3050 upgrade for each. Things I will be adding:

-Mechs that should/could be in MWO (Raven, Banshee-S)

-Some more settings, like a MWO-mode (i.e. hardpoints with no size restrictions)

-Omnimechs with switchaable pods

[Outlaw2]

zorak ramone, on 21 April 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

-Some more settings, like a MWO-mode (i.e. hardpoints with no size restrictions)

Nah, I think size values for hardpoints is something they will implement eventually before release. The crying/screaming wars in beta will settle it.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 21 April 2012 - 12:34 PM.

[Belisarius1]

Cross-post. http://mwomercs.com/...talk-feat-paul/

Garth Erlam, on 20 April 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

It all comes down to the interface and how everything is going to be handled in terms of restrictions of what you can and cannot do in MechLab. All we can truely do is ask you to wait until you get your hands on it before making any judgements as to what will break and what will not break etc.

Garth Erlam, on 20 April 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

We are MechWarriors ourselves and want the best game out there. Everyone has been putting forth ideas on how MechLab and its restrictions should operate and the design team is compiling all this feedback into a cohesive system.

I'm happy with that. Sounds like there's more to it than what was in the Q&A, or that they're at least quite open to more detailed restrictions. I guess we may as well keep suggesting things, maybe have a go at laying out the most important features of Z's system in a short form, just in case they're still reading this thread.

My only real desire is that 'mechs are as unique as possible and are not interchangeable, and that as many as possible are viable. I'm hopeful MWO will get there quickly.

Edited by Belisarius†, 22 April 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[zorak ramone]

So, did anyone try the mechlab thing that DV uploaded? I thought it might be an interesting way to test the system. I.e. to see how broken a configuration you could make.

Anyway, I updated it. This time I improved the FF armor addition system (you can allocate crits where you want, but they have to be balanced accross the mech), added detailed descriptions of what I've changed from CBT, and added a bunch of mechs that could/should be in MWO, including the winners of the mech polls from the general discussion.

DV, I've emailed it to you again if you don't mind uploading it again.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR Mechlab v2.xlsx

Np dude.