243 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

MaddMaxx, on 27 April 2012 - 09:33 AM, said:

I would vote NO the DHS splitting. They provide 200% efficiency for the same Mass. Their only drawback is the 3 crit space allotment. Allowing splitting removes the ONLY drawback, and that only applies to the Legs, or spaces with 2 or less crits left.

If a player decides on DHS's, make them make room for that 200% efficiency level they provide.

The only thing I'd say about that is that DHS's are practically requirements in the 3050+ era. The losses incurred by going DHS to HS in engine HS (20 to 10 heat generation) is just too much. Its kind of like how standard ACs are inferior in every way to LBX and UACs before special ammo is introduced.

Quote

In regards to the HP crit limiting thought, do we go with HP's of set size, with no ability to change at all, or a set size and allow downgrading? If the size was perma set, would that not require a whole new set of HP's to be maintained to cover all weapon load possibilities?

The way I see it, reduced crit size is directly connected to the mech's physical size, and since you can't change the physical size of the mech, you shouldn't be able to get those crits back.

Also, not that I reduced the volume of ES and FF (-1 crit for every 4 crits reduced by size) so that ES and FF take up the same proportion of free critical space in every mech, regardless of size.

Finally, it doesn't really necessitate a whole new set of HPs. Check out the mechlab file. The size restrictions are already implemented, so you can see how the system works.

Mechs with standard internals and standard armor have more than enough space for anything they might want to mount. Mechs with one of either FF or ES also don't have many problems. Even mechs with FF and ES (see the 3050 Commando) can fit all of their stuff, but its really really tight. The 3050 Commando actually has 0 critical space free after mounting its primary config.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"The only thing I'd say about that is that DHS's are practically requirements in the 3050+ era. The losses incurred by going DHS to HS in engine HS (20 to 10 heat generation) is just too much. Its kind of like how standard ACs are inferior in every way to LBX and UACs before special ammo is introduced."

Perhaps now is the time to correct, what many, and yourself, deem to have been a mistake. Perhaps the Engine should get only 50% as many DHS's as they had HS, with the same Engine size rule in play. Not all engines actually mounted all 10 HS's, but they were provided to the chassis as a base rule thing, right?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 27 April 2012 - 10:17 AM.

[Belisarius1]

That would be ridiculous, because just about every post-3050 design becomes impossibly hot. You can't just strip 10 points of dissipation from them at a whim.

Personally I've always considered SHS to be a kind of primitive technology. If you wanted to make them a genuine option, you could make the engine sinks always dissipate 20 heat regardless, and add singles or doubles on top of that depending on your crit or tonnage needs.

Of course, current SHS designs would then be very cool, and you'd perhaps have issues with small 'mechs that couldn't fit all their default sinks inside the engine, but those are much less crippling than stealing 5 DHS from every T2 machine out there.

Z, I'm curious, if you scale ES/FF crits with size, doesn't that just retain the problem? Wouldn't ES+FF still only be accessible to lights?

Edited by Belisarius†, 27 April 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 27 April 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

That would be ridiculous, because just about every post-3050 design becomes impossibly hot. You can't just strip 10 points of dissipation from them at a whim.

Personally I've always considered SHS to be a kind of primitive technology. If you wanted to make them a genuine option, you could make the engine sinks always dissipate 20 heat regardless, and add singles or doubles on top of that depending on your crit or tonnage needs.

Of course, current SHS designs would then be very cool, and you'd perhaps have issues with small 'mechs that couldn't fit all their default sinks inside the engine, but those are much less crippling than stealing 5 DHS from every T2 machine out there.

Z, I'm curious, if you scale ES/FF crits with size, doesn't that just retain the problem? Wouldn't ES+FF still only be accessible to lights?

RE HS: basicly, I agree with everything you said. Messing with engine HS would require rebalancing every weapon for heat. Its simpler to consider single HS to be primitive, like the standard ACs.

RE ES/FF: With ES/FF, you're only getting 1 crit back for every 4 you loose to size so ...

-Assault: Standard/Standard = -0 crits
-Assault: ES/FF = -28 crits

-Super Light: Standard/Standard = -16 crits
-Super Light: ES/FF = -16 crits - 28 crits + 4 crits ES refund + 4 crits FF refund = -36 crits

Heavier mechs still have more space with ES/FF, however every mech looses the same proportion of available crits when going to ES or FF (just over 25%).

[Belisarius1]

Fair enough, works for me. I assume you've checked for CBT designs that can't fit under that system?

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 27 April 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

Fair enough, works for me. I assume you've checked for CBT designs that can't fit under that system?

Well, I haven't checked all of the mechs, but I have checked alot (at some point in the past, I had way too much free time on my hands). Most mechs fit fine, but there are a few that don't.

The Akuma and the Mauler are tight and require some rearranging of the stock config. However, you can fit everything in there.

Some of the new Marauders (9S, 5T) require some rearrangement of the stock ES placement, but the 5L doesn't fit (the all-energy, stealth armor variant). In fact, alot of the Liao stealth-armor, all energy configurations don't fit well. The problem is with DHS.

The No-Daichi, Axeman (original and upgrade), project pheonix Riflemen, Wraith, and Shayu, fit if you increase their size.

There are an number of fast light/meds that don't fit like the PHX-7S, PNT-12A, CDA-3F, Osiris and the VLK-QD/QD1. These can usually be fixed by dropping FF armor, or making tweaks to the primary config.

Note that compared to the number that I've checked, this is still just a few, and all of them can be made to fit with tweaks to their configuration. For example, dropping FF on the Osiris, or dropping two DHS on the MAD-5L and swapping the ERMLs for MPLs.

[MaddMaxx]

Belisarius†, on 27 April 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

That would be ridiculous, because just about every post-3050 design becomes impossibly hot. You can't just strip 10 points of dissipation from them at a whim.

Personally I've always considered SHS to be a kind of primitive technology. If you wanted to make them a genuine option, you could make the engine sinks always dissipate 20 heat regardless, and add singles or doubles on top of that depending on your crit or tonnage needs.

You misunderstood my statement. The DHS increases heat dissipation by a factor of 2 for the Engine sinks alone, just by upgrading right? Thus DHS reduce the "heat based issues" that any pre-3050 Mech is designed around.

What causes the post-3050 designs (other than Clans and their weapons) to require a 20 point Engine rated heat dissipation level. Is it simply the new (hotter) weapons that become available or did Post-3050 designs begin to maximize their over-all space usage better, usually by adding more weapons?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think that we have to accept that within 24 hours of DHS being made available, let alone the rest of the 3049 tech every mech will have been converted. The LBX totally outclasses the AC with no downside. ERPPC extra heat taken care of by DHS, maybe alongside "old" PPCs. etc
Those who haven't the C-bills will pay real cash simply because of the advantages. its why I don't think they will introduce the "modern" tech at launch - nobody will play it.

[Sprouticus]

Reducing the number of criticals is just to extreme a change IMO. Not that it is not the right thing to do, but I dont think the Dev's will ever do it. All you need is one Canon-head whining because one variant cant be done and it explodes in your face. Not to mention the law od unintended consequences (of which I cant see any now, but that's the point, you don't see them). Radical TT changes are just not going to happen.

That still leaves the ES/FF issue to look at though....the only solutin I can think of is making converting to ES REALLY expensive. I hate using metagame functionality to fix things, but I just don't see any other options.

In TT customization what was the motivation for FF over ES?


@Maxx, all of mechs with DHS included were balanced with those extra 5 DHS in mind. If you are running one (say a Novacat) with 5 less HS, you become MUCH less effective.

I am tempted to look at making ALL mechs get 20 free HS form engine, not just those with DHS. It would go a long way towards solving the IS/clan balance issues and making the pre-3050 mechs viable. However it would also make energy configs rule in MWO, so that's probably a bad idea. You could probably get around that by making IS DHS the same # of crit slots as clan though....hmmm. ok, enough clan/IS speculation for now.

Edited by Sprouticus, 30 April 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 April 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

I think that we have to accept that within 24 hours of DHS being made available, let alone the rest of the 3049 tech every mech will have been converted. The LBX totally outclasses the AC with no downside. ERPPC extra heat taken care of by DHS, maybe alongside "old" PPCs. etc
Those who haven't the C-bills will pay real cash simply because of the advantages. its why I don't think they will introduce the "modern" tech at launch - nobody will play it.

I thought that too until last week.

What about the Raven? The base mech has XL and Ferro, not to mention TAG, ECM, BAP, and NARC.

[Garth Erlam]

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

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.

I know of specific contingencies and plans for each one of those if that sets you at ease.

[CeeKay Boques]

Garth Erlam, on 30 April 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

I know of specific contingencies and plans for each one of those if that sets you at ease.

Your next post is your 1000th. Why not reveal one of them to your loyal following. Just one!

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 30 April 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

Reducing the number of criticals is just to extreme a change IMO. Not that it is not the right thing to do, but I dont think the Dev's will ever do it. All you need is one Canon-head whining because one variant cant be done and it explodes in your face. Not to mention the law od unintended consequences (of which I cant see any now, but that's the point, you don't see them). Radical TT changes are just not going to happen.

You may be right, but I think that people could swallow changes to a few stock configs. For all of the mechs listed so far, their 3025 and 3050 configs fit just fine with reduced criticals (although I did have to remove a hand actuator on the 3050 Commando).

Quote

That still leaves the ES/FF issue to look at though....the only solutin I can think of is making converting to ES REALLY expensive. I hate using metagame functionality to fix things, but I just don't see any other options.

In TT customization what was the motivation for FF over ES?

I never got into the Mechwarrior RPG, but from what I've read (sarna.net), upgrading to endosteel is "more difficult" and "very expensive." Again, using the car analogy, I think it should be impossible. Also, in game, "more difficult/expensive" will just translate into pay/grind to win: in many cases, ES is a straight up upgrade with no downsides.

From a construction standpoint, ES is superior to FF in every way (especially on IS mechs): they take up the same space and the weight savings for ES are always better. There is no reason you would ever use FF instead of ES if you were min-maxing a mech. I think that fixing ES/Standard structure, but allowing mechs to upgrade to FF would be a fair trade off. Upgrading to FF usually only gives you a ton or two (and thats only if you've got a pile of armor).

Quote

@Maxx, all of mechs with DHS included were balanced with those extra 5 DHS in mind. If you are running one (say a Novacat) with 5 less HS, you become MUCH less effective.

I am tempted to look at making ALL mechs get 20 free HS form engine, not just those with DHS. It would go a long way towards solving the IS/clan balance issues and making the pre-3050 mechs viable. However it would also make energy configs rule in MWO, so that's probably a bad idea. You could probably get around that by making IS DHS the same # of crit slots as clan though....hmmm. ok, enough clan/IS speculation for now.

Giving every mech 20 free engine HS in 3025 would be a far more radical change than restricting criticals, as most mechs don't use all of their criticals anyway. Almost every stock configuration would be vastly over-sinked. Energy configurations would be more dominant as mechs built around balistic weaponry wouldn't have enough space to hit 20 heat.

Garth Erlam, on 30 April 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

I know of specific contingencies and plans for each one of those if that sets you at ease.

Your original reply to the thread set me at ease, but thanks for the confirmation.

Again, I hope you/the dev team don't take comments in this thread as accusatory or something. We're just trying to help.

Sprouticus, on 30 April 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I thought that too until last week.

What about the Raven? The base mech has XL and Ferro, not to mention TAG, ECM, BAP, and NARC.

The 1X has a standard engine, standard armor, and primitive electronics. Its all level 1, although the primitive electronics are considered "experimental tech" and are therefore not tournament legal.

That said, the 1X doesn't have Narc on it, and the fluff for the Raven reveal clearly indicates the presense of Narc.

They may start immediately with the 3L, or start with the 1X and reveal the 3L later.

[Sprouticus]

zorak ramone, on 30 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Your original reply to the thread set me at ease, but thanks for the confirmation.

Again, I hope you/the dev team don't take comments in this thread as accusatory or something. We're just trying to help.



The 1X has a standard engine, standard armor, and primitive electronics. Its all level 1, although the primitive electronics are considered "experimental tech" and are therefore not tournament legal.

That said, the 1X doesn't have Narc on it, and the fluff for the Raven reveal clearly indicates the presense of Narc.

They may start immediately with the 3L, or start with the 1X and reveal the 3L later.

I want to second the reply Garth, and agree with Zorak, we are just looking at options, numbers, etc. We DO trust you guys to get it right. But if we can help, even a little, then yea for us!

re: Raven. If the 3L is the defacto mech at launch, it implies that TAG/NARC, BAP/ECM, Ff Armor, and XL engines are all in at launch. Which means ES is probably in as well. All of this surprises me a little, and balance issues may be a bit tougher initially but what the heck! More goodies make Sprout happy.

[Paul Inouye]

You guys are silly. I'm gonna be running around in my Raven with a Long Tom Cannon between its legs.

[zorak ramone]

Paul Inouye, on 30 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

You guys are silly. I'm gonna be running around in my Raven with a Long Tom Cannon between its legs.

Well ... yeah. I figured that if the 3L was in, you'd be including the RVN-69LT-OM. Just make sure we can't replace that LT with a machine gun or something.

That would be silly.

[Ramien]

Paul Inouye, on 30 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

You guys are silly. I'm gonna be running around in my Raven with a Long Tom Cannon between its legs.

Good luck turning if you're running through any wooded terrain...

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 30 April 2012 - 02:38 PM, said:

re: Raven. If the 3L is the defacto mech at launch, it implies that TAG/NARC, BAP/ECM, Ff Armor, and XL engines are all in at launch. Which means ES is probably in as well. All of this surprises me a little, and balance issues may be a bit tougher initially but what the heck! More goodies make Sprout happy.

Another reason why balance needs to be by cost, not tonnage. The 3L costs 5.6 million cBills (by CBT calculations). The HBK-4G, the 3025 version of the huncback, costs 3.4 million cBills. So you see, all that tech comes with a price (especially the XL engine).

[Sprouticus]

Paul Inouye, on 30 April 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

You guys are silly. I'm gonna be running around in my Raven with a Long Tom Cannon between its legs.

If you look at the Raven pic, it DOES look like it has an...appendage .

re: Raven, well assuming they let us choose 1 mech for free to start, Ill be picking the Raven. So who cares how much it costs. If they make the 1X the starter variant, I will STILL be choosing it, just to get to the 3L ASAP.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 30 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

You may be right, but I think that people could swallow changes to a few stock configs. For all of the mechs listed so far, their 3025 and 3050 configs fit just fine with reduced criticals (although I did have to remove a hand actuator on the 3050 Commando).

I'm very much in favour of less critical space for smaller 'mechs. I'm willing to make one or two small modifications to rare configs in exchange for a system where ES and FF aren't freebies on nearly every light.

zorak ramone, on 30 April 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

From a construction standpoint, ES is superior to FF in every way (especially on IS mechs): they take up the same space and the weight savings for ES are always better. There is no reason you would ever use FF instead of ES if you were min-maxing a mech. I think that fixing ES/Standard structure, but allowing mechs to upgrade to FF would be a fair trade off. Upgrading to FF usually only gives you a ton or two (and thats only if you've got a pile of armor).

I thought MW4 handled this one quite well as well, by giving ES 'mechs a higher TAC rate. You ended up with a system where the most highly specced 'mechs were also the most fragile due to XL and ES. I really think hidden downsides like that are a good way to balance high tier tech, and also make sense in the timeline because you can chalk it up to "prototype" errors.

I'm actually violently against random TACs, I think they're singularly un-fun, but there are lots of other things you could do. ES could have less internal structure armour, or (if we eventually get per-component hitboxes) more fragile components or something.