243 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

Quote

Which is exactly the reason for the setup I posted in the second post on the first page of this thread. It is not necessary to wholly rip out the entire system and start over again when a bit of careful thinking shows that some moderate restrictions will do just fine.

And my argument is that minor restrictions will not cut it for omnimechs.

Quote

You mean, just like you do in the BT lore?

You do not see min-maxed configs in BT lore. Most of the configurations are pretty well balanced, and even the boats have some kind of quirks or non-maximized aspects. For example, the Awesome is an ... awesome ... mech, and a PPC boat but it would be even more effective (maximized) as a 100 tonner (the most efficent mass for a 3/5/0 mech). In the lore, there is not one LPL-TComp Daishi in the lore, or any PL-TC-fast jumpers. These are exactly the configurations you would see if players were allowed to min-max in the CBT setting.

Quote

Which is exactly why I said that they must be rare. The developers need to bite the bullet and simply not allow everyone to get one! Omnimechs should be what they are in the lore - rare and terrifying.

You still haven't dealt with two things:

One, how do you decide who gets omnis? Its either in game money/XP (grind to win), real life money (pay to win), or random chance (get lucky to win). I don't think anyone would accept these options.

Two, how do the developers account for the myriad possibilities of configurations in the mech models? I'm pretty sure that the developers want to make the mech's model reflect its weapon configuration. I agree with this route and think that the alternative would look idiotic. Remember, in CBT, I could put a LRM10, cERPPC, any LL, AC2s, etc. IN THE LEGS. This means that we either have beams/missles/bullets coming out of kneecaps, or the developers have to model missle launcers and guns for every leg of every omni.

Quote

Here I have to break with you. There are some non-omnimech designs that are purpouse built for some job or the other that do their jobs better than the vast majority of omnimechs in existance, and at far less cost and headache on upkeep. There is a cost that comes with being a jack of all trades and a master of none.

But you see thats not how omnimechs in the CBT system work. Give me almost any battlmech and I can probably configure a stock CBT omnimech with its config as good or maybe better. Take any battlemech and make it an omnimech and it is ALWAYS better because it can still carry its original configuration ... but now it can freely modify it. Omnimechs are not jacks of all trades. They are mechs that can change into the master of any trade between drops.

Quote

It doesn't fit the lore. Omni means Omni.

The lore is not holy writ from God. It was written by people who make mistakes and don't account for every possibility. The rules for omnimechs are arguably mistakes and definitely don't take into account a massively multiplayer PvP only environment.

I think that we should stick to the spirit of the lore, since we are making a mechwarrior game and not just a giant robot game. However, we need to be ready to admit that the developers may have made mistakes, and that we should change them.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 29 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

I agree that gameplay shouldn't be compromized for aesthetics. However, I think that in recent years, aesthetics have become more a necessity: the bar has simply been risen by modern games, and while we shouldn't throw gameplay out for aesthetics, we can't do the reverse (aesthetics for gameplay) or we will loose a key gameplay element: players.

I really think you're still overvaluing aesthetics. I agree that the 'mechs need to look consistent, but not to the point where you're making major balance decisions based on how the 'mechs look. A case in point is what you've done here by casually making the omnis symmetrical. You've just created a jumping Hellstar at 75 tons for more-or-less no reason. None of the night gyr's stock configs require 4x4E.

Plus, pilots aren't going to ragequit the game because omnis don't have symmetrical loadouts when it kinda looks like they should. Balance takes the lead here in a big way.

Again, this is a minor, specific example, but I think it's an important point. Aesthetics are important to ensure things look consistent and believable. I want LRMs coming out of an AC barrel about as much as you do. But the aesthetics can and should be designed around balance, not the other way. Plus, I'd be expecting MWO to have 'mechs change visually to reflect their loadouts at least a little, which does away with the worst of these problems.

zorak ramone, on 29 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

That said, I think it would be possible to have linked pods (torso and arms). This may become necessary when designing omnis that carry size 20 ACs, but don't have 10/8 crits in the arm (IS/clan respectively). I'm looking at you, Avatar. This becomes even more necessary when you start dropping critical space based on size.

The more I think about it, the more I think pod linking is essential. Not every pod has to be linked, but some should be. The links could be fairly adjustable on a need basis. I'd be linking eg. RA to RT a lot of the time, particularly in omnis that have big loadout switches from arms to torso like the dire. They could also be one-way, so that using the dire's B4 torsos forces you to use one of the poorer arm loadouts, but you could still use those arms with a different torso if you wished. You're right that in this case the EQ slots do keep it from being broken, but as a proof-of-principle I think it's sound.

zorak ramone, on 29 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

As for JJs, I think that they should be fixed, un-poddable equipment. Note that I did this for the NG, as its legs never have any pod space (thats where the JJs are). I would prevent JJs from being on the DW, and I would prevent mechs like the NG and the Gladiator from removing them.

I also think linked pods are the best way to permit modular jump jets. I agree that most of the time JJs should be hard-loaded onto the chassis, but a few 'mechs mount them only on a single variant, and I don't want to throw those out unless we have to.

The easiest way to model those 'mechs is to hardload JJs into the pods they mount on, so the dire C's torso pods always have JJs in the equipment slots. You then link the dire C's JJ-loaded torsos to each other (so you have to use both), and perhaps also link those torsos to their respective arms (which are undergunned compared to the prime). Effectively, you can force a player to use all of the dire C's pods if he wants the jets, allowing you to balance its jumping hardpoints in isolation.

zorak ramone, on 29 March 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

In my imagination, B-mech customization would be completely different than omnis. For a bmech, you essentially have to buy the configuration, and to switch back, you'd have to spend money to modify it back. For omni's you would just go to the mech lab, make a configuration, and then before drop, select a configuration (i.e. just like in MW4). For this reason, I think that more flexible construction rules for the battlemechs would be ok.

I see what you mean. I'm not sure it's what I'd have envisioned, but I see where you're going. The goal then is to spin the omnis as true jack-of-all-trade 'mechs, while battlemechs can be heavily optimised and so actually be superior in their niche. A veteran player's garage would then probably have 6 or 7 carefully configured bmechs that are used when their niche comes up, and a handful of versatile omnis that can be configured on the fly.

The biggest obstacle there is, yes, hardpoints, because raw combinatorics suggests that omnis are going to have better loadouts available to them. I still don't think the answer is to allow bmech slots to expand, though. My ERLL example from before is obviously MW4 specific, but that doesn't invalidate it. There's always going to be some weapon you want to control, and some weapon that's a little smaller that you need to be available in higher numbers. It could be lightgauss vs UAC5s, LLs vs MLs, hell, LRM15 vs SRM6. Doesn't really matter. If you give any 'mech with a reasonable number of small weapons the ability to upgrade to an equal number of large weapons, you're suddenly on shaky ground.

I understand that sometimes equipment space or tonnage or whatever is going to limit the viability of those designs, but I don't see a good reason to risk it, even if you want bmechs to be more malleable. Not when you can just do the opposite, and lock hardpoints but allow sinks/ammo to be mounted in weapon slots, and sometimes give stock 'mechs more hardpoints than they need.

If you're worried about lights being shafted, you just make sure something like the javelin-10F has 2x2E 2x3E for its 4x medium lasers (perhaps +2 sinks in the 3Es). That way, players can still strip equipment to expand, but you have granular control over how they do it. You make the 'mechs as strong or as weak as you need them to be. You also then don't need to worry about colour-coded pop-up equipment slots, because they go straight into the hardpoints much more intuitively.

Edited by Belisarius†, 31 March 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 31 March 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I really think you're still overvaluing aesthetics. I agree that the 'mechs need to look consistent, but not to the point where you're making major balance decisions based on how the 'mechs look. A case in point is what you've done here by casually making the omnis symmetrical. You've just created a jumping Hellstar at 75 tons for more-or-less no reason. None of the night gyr's stock configs require 4x4E.

The 4xERPPC weapons config on the Hellstar is not what made it special. The Warhawk already carried this configuration in its prime config, and one of the Direwolve's, IIRC, carries its functional equivalent (2xERPPC, 2xGR). What made the Hellstar special is its 30 DHS, which allowed it to fire those 4 ERPPCs forever with no negative consequences. This is possible because of its 380 engine, which gives it 15 internal DHS. Even using the CBT omni rules, the best you could get on a Night Gyr is 23 (12 engine, 2 in each arm/torso, 1 in each leg/CT), and thats with stripping JJs. With my rules (fixed JJs, no ES from empty CT slots), you'd max out at 20 due to space limitations. Thats hardly a jumping hellstar.

Quote

Plus, pilots aren't going to ragequit the game because omnis don't have symmetrical loadouts when it kinda looks like they should. Balance takes the lead here in a big way.

Again, this is a minor, specific example, but I think it's an important point. Aesthetics are important to ensure things look consistent and believable. I want LRMs coming out of an AC barrel about as much as you do. But the aesthetics can and should be designed around balance, not the other way. Plus, I'd be expecting MWO to have 'mechs change visually to reflect their loadouts at least a little, which does away with the worst of these problems.

You're probably right, but I'm concerned about reviewers (the graphics are dumb. 7/10!) and their effect on new players. Especially ones with no background in CBT. That said, if MWO can solve the whole appearance = configuration problem, that would be huge.

Quote

The more I think about it, the more I think pod linking is essential. Not every pod has to be linked, but some should be. The links could be fairly adjustable on a need basis. I'd be linking eg. RA to RT a lot of the time, particularly in omnis that have big loadout switches from arms to torso like the dire. They could also be one-way, so that using the dire's B4 torsos forces you to use one of the poorer arm loadouts, but you could still use those arms with a different torso if you wished. You're right that in this case the EQ slots do keep it from being broken, but as a proof-of-principle I think it's sound.

I would just be wary of balancing for a problem that we don't know exists yet. Take the NG and DW example. On paper, it looks like the NG is bad because 4xERPPCs, but in reality, it doesn't pack the DHS to fire them and we don't even know what ERPPCs will be like in the game anyway. Same with the DW. Oh no, it can carry 2xLBX20 ... but then it doesn't have any room for ammo and we still don't know what LBX/UAC 20s will be like in game.

Balancing for problems in PAST games is how MLs and SLs got to suck in MW4.

Quote

I also think linked pods are the best way to permit modular jump jets. I agree that most of the time JJs should be hard-loaded onto the chassis, but a few 'mechs mount them only on a single variant, and I don't want to throw those out unless we have to.

The easiest way to model those 'mechs is to hardload JJs into the pods they mount on, so the dire C's torso pods always have JJs in the equipment slots. You then link the dire C's JJ-loaded torsos to each other (so you have to use both), and perhaps also link those torsos to their respective arms (which are undergunned compared to the prime). Effectively, you can force a player to use all of the dire C's pods if he wants the jets, allowing you to balance its jumping hardpoints in isolation.

I do agree that if you bring JJs, you should have to bring all of them (see DW C's torso issue), but I'm still not sold on the necessity of linking them to the arms. I like the idea of more flexibility for omnis, but within constraints.

Quote

I see what you mean. I'm not sure it's what I'd have envisioned, but I see where you're going. The goal then is to spin the omnis as true jack-of-all-trade 'mechs, while battlemechs can be heavily optimised and so actually be superior in their niche. A veteran player's garage would then probably have 6 or 7 carefully configured bmechs that are used when their niche comes up, and a handful of versatile omnis that can be configured on the fly.

As I explained to a guy in my last post, in CBT Omnis are not jacks of all trades. They are mechs that can become the master of ANY trade between drops. My system would reduce their mastery range, but the principle is still the same. In my mind, the downsides would be much higher repair/maintainance costs, tighter limitations on what can go in what hardpoint, and the inability to modify armor or engines at all (if Bmechs are even able to do this).

Agree on what the vet player's garage would look like.

Quote

The biggest obstacle there is, yes, hardpoints, because raw combinatorics suggests that omnis are going to have better loadouts available to them. I still don't think the answer is to allow bmech slots to expand, though. My ERLL example from before is obviously MW4 specific, but that doesn't invalidate it. There's always going to be some weapon you want to control, and some weapon that's a little smaller that you need to be available in higher numbers. It could be lightgauss vs UAC5s, LLs vs MLs, hell, LRM15 vs SRM6. Doesn't really matter. If you give any 'mech with a reasonable number of small weapons the ability to upgrade to an equal number of large weapons, you're suddenly on shaky ground.

I understand that sometimes equipment space or tonnage or whatever is going to limit the viability of those designs, but I don't see a good reason to risk it, even if you want bmechs to be more malleable. Not when you can just do the opposite, and lock hardpoints but allow sinks/ammo to be mounted in weapon slots, and sometimes give stock 'mechs more hardpoints than they need.

Just because you have the space, doesn't mean you can upgrade every E2 slot from a ML to a LL/ERLL/LPL. Those lasers cost 4 more tons (at least!) than MLs, 3 if you're clan, and they're going to require many more tons of heat sinks to actually use (see the NG example). If that's not enough there are other ways to control weapons (see my recent posts in the thread about balancing by cost/BV/tonnage).

I just think that if you're going to lock down alot of things (as I would: engines, armor, JJs, etc.), then weapons slots need more flexibility so you can actually modify mechs.

Quote

If you're worried about lights being shafted, you just make sure something like the javelin-10F has 2x2E 2x3E for its 4x medium lasers (perhaps +2 sinks in the 3Es). That way, players can still strip equipment to expand, but you have granular control over how they do it. You make the 'mechs as strong or as weak as you need them to be. You also then don't need to worry about colour-coded pop-up equipment slots, because they go straight into the hardpoints much more intuitively.

I'm not really worred about lights being shafted. The effectivness of lights will be entirely dependent on the effectivness of MLs. These are the bread and butter weapons of light mechs in CBT, and if they get nerfed (again!) then lights will be nerfed from a combat standpont.

The Javelin is also another great example for why you can allow slots without ruining everything:

Edit will finish post later

Edited by zorak ramone, 01 April 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[StaIker]

I'd disagree with regards to light Mech weapons. Given they will be used in company level battles their main opponents will not only be other lights but heavier skirmishing forces, probably mediums or fast heavies. Closing to within ML range will be next to suicide in most cases, especially if they come into line of sight of the main body. Lights will only survive by making use of the longest range weapons on offer, light A/C's, LRM's and so forth so they can scout and shoot from a relatively safer distance.

[Belisarius1]

Quick reply because I think we have a basic difference of opinions here.

Quote

I would just be wary of balancing for a problem that we don't know exists yet. Take the NG and DW example. On paper, it looks like the NG is bad because 4xERPPCs, but in reality, it doesn't pack the DHS to fire them and we don't even know what ERPPCs will be like in the game anyway. Same with the DW. Oh no, it can carry 2xLBX20 ... but then it doesn't have any room for ammo and we still don't know what LBX/UAC 20s will be like in game.

Balancing for problems in PAST games is how MLs and SLs got to suck in MW4.

I'm only using MW4's examples because they're familiar to us both, and we're both able to recognise the power of a jumping 75 ton 60 point alpha in that game. I'll probably keep using them for that reason, but it's important to point out that the principles aren't limited to MW4 in the way MLs and SLs were limited to MW3.

I could just as easily have imagined a world where UAC2s or ERLPLs were broken and pointed to the six-gun nova cats that your symmetry permits. The thing is that something is going to be boatable; boats are inherent in the customisation system, not just MW4. The culprit might be ERLL again or it might be machine guns and narc beacons, it doesn't really matter.

There's guaranteed to be configs that you'll want to restrict for the sake of diversity, and hardpoints are your first line of defense. I just don't like the idea of giving that up without a really good reason. In this particular case, I don't consider vague aesthetic symmetry to be a good enough reason to almost double the number of configs available to chassis that were gunbags to begin with.

Quote

I do agree that if you bring JJs, you should have to bring all of them (see DW C's torso issue), but I'm still not sold on the necessity of linking them to the arms. I like the idea of more flexibility for omnis, but within constraints.

Same thing with switchable jets. If jets are good enough to take, they might be good enough to take often. That's not really an MW4-limited statement. I really don't relish a world where 75% of dires and 95% of novacats are jumpers because one rare variant was allowed jets. If nothing else, compare the ncat and the ngyr under that system. Because the cat barely uses its torsos, it doesn't care at all if they're locked. It actually becomes a better jumper than the night gyr, because it's free to take the jets off if it wants.

As a general principle, people are much more receptive to buffs than nerfs. If you start with fully jumpable ncats or 4xERPPC night gyrs and they turn out to be broken, you get an outcry when you take them away. If you start without them and the clans end up desperately needing a big jumpsniper, you loosen the restrictions and people thank you... mostly.

Quote

I just think that if you're going to lock down alot of things (as I would: engines, armor, JJs, etc.), then weapons slots need more flexibility so you can actually modify mechs.

The key, for me, is not in stopping players from modifying mechs but in retaining tools that the designers can use to control the way they do so.

Building as many customisation options as possible into the hardpoint loadout of each 'mech allows granular control of which chassis to balance up and down. In particular, you really don't want to take risks on major mechanics like expandable slots and then have to rescind them. It's not about restricting customisation from the get-go so much as it's about making sure the designer can, and without screwing up the whole game.

Edited by Belisarius†, 02 April 2012 - 04:40 AM.

[zorak ramone]

StaIker, on 01 April 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I'd disagree with regards to light Mech weapons. Given they will be used in company level battles their main opponents will not only be other lights but heavier skirmishing forces, probably mediums or fast heavies. Closing to within ML range will be next to suicide in most cases, especially if they come into line of sight of the main body. Lights will only survive by making use of the longest range weapons on offer, light A/C's, LRM's and so forth so they can scout and shoot from a relatively safer distance.

In the context of a game with delayed weapon convergence time (remember what I posted on the HRR boards) and LOS based radar (i.e. not MW4's omnipotent radar), it may be reasonable for "combat lights" to sneak up on larger mechs and either take pot shots, fire into the rear arc or finish off critically damaged mechs. This may be especially true in a company level engagement where the larger mechs may be focused on larger targets.

As for Light ACs and LRMs: look at the lights added so far. They are entirely dependent on MLs and SRMs. So are most of the CBT lights. The power of MLs and SRMs will determine the combat effectivness of light mechs. If they are nerfed like they were in MW4, then lights will be relegated to a sensors role. The only reason you could add LLs, any quantity of LRMs, and light ACs on light mechs in MW4 is because you could strip engine/armor (see the LBX20 Puma) and because some lights were (I think) given free tonnage (see, the wolfhound)

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 01 April 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

Quick reply because I think we have a basic difference of opinions here.

I'm not sure we do. I think we both agree that the pod-based omni concept that I outlined could work for MWO and would be preferable to the omni-slot method of MW4 or the gunbag method of MW3/MW2/CBT.

The only thing we're disagreeing on is how to balance it. In a way, we're both wrong. We're both making balance judgements based on past games. In your case, you're thinking mainly about MW4, and in my case I'm thinking more about CBT. We just don't know what balance will look like. Maybe 4xERPPCs will be instant death. Maybe they won't and the heatscale will be prohibitve (side note: the MW4 scale was simulataneously not as prohibitive toward mechs with too few HS and not as permissive to mechs with lots of heat sinks, as compared to CBT).

Aesthetics and CBT asside, I of course agree that game balance must be paramount. If this means breaking symetry (i.e. only allowing the B4 pod on one NG arm, and only allowing the E4-E4 pod on the other arm), or eliminating some CBT configurations (i.e. the jumping DW C), so be it. However, we won't know that untill beta testing.

Can we at least agree that the pod system I outlined is superior to prior models and could work?

Now, as for a few of your points:

Quote

I'm only using MW4's examples because they're familiar to us both, and we're both able to recognise the power of a jumping 75 ton 60 point alpha in that game. I'll probably keep using them for that reason, but it's important to point out that the principles aren't limited to MW4 in the way MLs and SLs were limited to MW3.

If we premptivly balance ERPPCs in the same way MLs and SLs were premptively balanced in MW4, then we risk making the same mistake twice. As for MW4, I didn't really think that the 4xERPPC mechs were all that bad. Sure they packed a brutal punch, but at least they required some leading and had an obscenely long recycle time (giving a LBX infighter plenty of time to disect them).

Quote

I could just as easily have imagined a world where UAC2s or ERLPLs were broken and pointed to the six-gun nova cats that your symmetry permits. The thing is that something is going to be boatable; boats are inherent in the customisation system, not just MW4. The culprit might be ERLL again or it might be machine guns and narc beacons, it doesn't really matter.

There's guaranteed to be configs that you'll want to restrict for the sake of diversity, and hardpoints are your first line of defense. I just don't like the idea of giving that up without a really good reason. In this particular case, I don't consider vague aesthetic symmetry to be a good enough reason to almost double the number of configs available to chassis that were gunbags to begin with.

Fair enough. I could see the reasoning for restricting the B4 to one arm on the NG, or the AC pod to one arm on the NC. That said, I don't see an inherant problem with weapons boats. IMO, if boating a weapon is problematic, then there's a problem with the weapon, not the mech. Weapons balance should take into account a weapon en-masse and in a mixed configuration.

Quote

Same thing with switchable jets. If jets are good enough to take, they might be good enough to take often. That's not really an MW4-limited statement. I really don't relish a world where 75% of dires and 95% of novacats are jumpers because one rare variant was allowed jets. If nothing else, compare the ncat and the ngyr under that system. Because the cat barely uses its torsos, it doesn't care at all if they're locked. It actually becomes a better jumper than the night gyr, because it's free to take the jets off if it wants.

As a general principle, people are much more receptive to buffs than nerfs. If you start with fully jumpable ncats or 4xERPPC night gyrs and they turn out to be broken, you get an outcry when you take them away. If you start without them and the clans end up desperately needing a big jumpsniper, you loosen the restrictions and people thank you... mostly.

Frankly, my bias with Jets would be to make them always fixed and not poddable. Same with MASC. Also, point taken on the buffs vs nerfs.

Quote

The key, for me, is not in stopping players from modifying mechs but in retaining tools that the designers can use to control the way they do so.

Building as many customisation options as possible into the hardpoint loadout of each 'mech allows granular control of which chassis to balance up and down. In particular, you really don't want to take risks on major mechanics like expandable slots and then have to rescind them. It's not about restricting customisation from the get-go so much as it's about making sure the designer can, and without screwing up the whole game.

You make good points. I guess my reaction is mainly against what happened in MW4 with the MLs and SLs.

MLs and SLs were dominant in MW3 for three reasons: lag shields, unrestricted configurations, and weapon convergens. Because of MW3's unplayable lag, lasers were the only way you had a hope of hitting anything (and even then you had to lead several mech lengths to hit). Unrestricted configurations meant that you could fit any number of MLs you wanted, and weapons convergence (with CBT damage and armor values) meant instant coring/death.

MW4 fixed these problems with acutal playable netcode, hardpoints and a revised armor/damage model that didn't use exact CBT values. In fact, even if they had just fixed the netcode, they would have fixed the ML's dominance (the limitation of other weapons was your ability to actually hit), but not the problems of ridiculous configs and instant kills.The problem is that they overreacted to the ML's dominance in MW3 and killed its damage output.

So in short, I'm concerned about balancing a problem based on previous games. IMO, I would go with a more free and open model for beta, allow for a generally open beta for maximum player input and restrict from there. Taking your points, maybe the modifications based on beta should be more restrictive with an eye toward opening things up in the future based on how things turn out.

============

Also, sorry about the JVN-10F thing. I had to take care of a baby issue and never got back to finishing the post.

Short version: a JVN-10F would have the following layout for configuration (note: I'm reducing crits based on size using the simplified model discussed earlier):
RA/LA: ES(5)
RT/LT: E2-E2-ES(6) (ES(5) in the RT)
RL/LL: Full
H: ES(1)
CT: Full

The 10F adds some armor, but I don't remember how much. Lets pretend that it doesn't and, when stripped, has the same available tonnage as the 10N. This gives it 8 free tons.

With 3025 tech, you could only carry 1 LL and 3 more HS (total of 13). This would allow you to jump an fire the LL with mild heat buildup. It would be impossible to carry more than 1 LL due to weight. Moving to 3050 tech, you still couldn't carry more than one IS LL, ERLL, or LPL, but an upgrade to DHS would allow you to pack the ERLL and some MLs with moderate heat buildup. The only way you could fit more than one LL would be if you found 2 cERLLs. However, even with DHS, the heat buildup would be monsterous while jumping and prohibitive even when standing.

My only point is that just because slots look monsterous when allowing for expansion (i.e. E2 -> E3), that doesn't mean that the mech's chassis actually allows you to make a monsterous configuration.

[Belisarius1]

Quote

Can we at least agree that the pod system I outlined is superior to prior models and could work?

Oh, absolutely. I completely agree with the model, I was just a little concerned that we were coming at it from completely different directions. Regardless, tomorrow you'll get to start this all over when we see what MWO actually gives us.

In the meantime, some more ideological stuff:

Quote

If we premptivly balance ERPPCs in the same way MLs and SLs were premptively balanced in MW4, then we risk making the same mistake twice. As for MW4, I didn't really think that the 4xERPPC mechs were all that bad. Sure they packed a brutal punch, but at least they required some leading and had an obscenely long recycle time (giving a LBX infighter plenty of time to disect them).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks alpha 'mechs were universally broken. I thought PPCs were very well balanced in MW4. Nothing annoys me more than the seven thousand "how do we nerf PPC/gauss poptarts?!?" threads on this board.

I did like, though, how scary a warhawk prime was in NBT's HC, and I liked how much less gun-baggy configs were in that mod. I remember going back to the MekPaks after HC died and almost falling over when I realised every second 'mech was a jumping, electronics-laden warhawk in a lower weight bracket. And sure, that's as much an aesthetic decision as the reverse, but it still felt ridiculous to me.

Quote

That said, I don't see an inherant problem with weapons boats. IMO, if boating a weapon is problematic, then there's a problem with the weapon, not the mech. Weapons balance should take into account a weapon en-masse and in a mixed configuration.

On this point I disagree. Sure, there are differing weapon types that combo well with each other, but almost all weapons combo well with themselves, and that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with the gun. Personally I've found this to be true in CBT as well.

Thus, boats will almost always be a strong way to play, and controlling boating is - to me - the primary argument for a hardpoint system. Again, don't get me wrong, I want them in the game, but if most mechs have hardpoints that let them boat, most 'mechs will be boats, and I'm not sure I want them rampant to that degree. Similar problem if most 'mechs can't boat but a few select chassis are monsters.

Quote

With 3025 tech, you could only carry 1 LL and 3 more HS (total of 13). This would allow you to jump an fire the LL with mild heat buildup. It would be impossible to carry more than 1 LL due to weight. Moving to 3050 tech, you still couldn't carry more than one IS LL, ERLL, or LPL, but an upgrade to DHS would allow you to pack the ERLL and some MLs with moderate heat buildup. The only way you could fit more than one LL would be if you found 2 cERLLs. However, even with DHS, the heat buildup would be monsterous while jumping and prohibitive even when standing.

My only point is that just because slots look monsterous when allowing for expansion (i.e. E2 -> E3), that doesn't mean that the mech's chassis actually allows you to make a monsterous configuration.

I agree that a 4ERLL 10F is absurd, but it was really just an example. I do I think you're making a big assumption here, which is that the game's heatscale will come out the same as CBT. You're very likely to be able to get away with configs that are outrageous in CBT because it's much easier to disengage and cool down when you're not bound to a 17x15 mat on some guy's coffee table.

That means energy boats in particular can't always be ruled out based on slots for heat sinks. If I take 4xERPPC to the face from cover and distance, I really don't care whether it was a hellstar or a white-hot night gyr unless the latter straight-up shuts down in plain sight.

Edited by Belisarius†, 02 April 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Belisarius†, on 02 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

<snip>

I agree that a 4ERLL 10F is absurd, but it was really just an example. I do I think you're making a big assumption here, which is that the game's heatscale will come out the same as CBT. You're very likely to be able to get away with configs that are outrageous in CBT because it's much easier to disengage and cool down when you're not bound to a 17x15 mat on some guy's coffee table.

That means energy boats in particular can't always be ruled out based on slots for heat sinks. If I take 4xERPPC to the face from cover and distance, I really don't care whether it was a hellstar or a white-hot night gyr unless the latter straight-up shuts down in plain sight.

I am hopeful that they put in some VERY serious consequences for massive (or even significant) overheating. If you lose 2 of those 4 ERPPC's when you alpha strike due to heat damage, or even have a chance to, you will not do it unless you absolutely have to (desperate last shots)

Which means you will likely mix your energy weapons with a balistic or two, because whats the point of 4xerppc if you cant use them. You could go to 3 ERPPC, and add heatsinks, but then you are not uber powerful.

Lasers are already DoT, so you cant alpha a single hitbox easily. If they give PPC's and balistics different travel times, and you then add convergence differences between torso and arm weaopns, you make boating in the MW4 sense nearly impossible.

I said a few pages back that Zorak's model is a good start. I would not make electronics their own type, and I would experiment with how you use critial/mount point slots, but I think he is right on the mark for a basic model. My preference would be to make open slots useful for weapons OR equipment. And make all equipment (electronics, ammo, etc) universal. So if you have a 4E slot and a LL uses 2, you can put 2 heat sinks in the remaining two slot. Or ammo for the AC you also have in the arm, or ECM or a TAG or whatever.

I would also make ammo be in the same location as the balistic/missle associated with it, or 1 slot over. No putting missile ammo in the legs.


But honestly that is a minor difference in opinion compared to the hard cor weapons slot or hard core gunbag crowd.

[Pht]

Sprouticus, on 02 April 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

I am hopeful that they put in some VERY serious consequences for massive (or even significant) overheating. If you lose 2 of those 4 ERPPC's when you alpha strike due to heat damage, or even have a chance to, you will not do it unless you absolutely have to (desperate last shots)

You mean, something like this?

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 02 April 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who thinks alpha 'mechs were universally broken. I thought PPCs were very well balanced in MW4. Nothing annoys me more than the seven thousand "how do we nerf PPC/gauss poptarts?!?" threads on this board.

I did like, though, how scary a warhawk prime was in NBT's HC, and I liked how much less gun-baggy configs were in that mod. I remember going back to the MekPaks after HC died and almost falling over when I realised every second 'mech was a jumping, electronics-laden warhawk in a lower weight bracket. And sure, that's as much an aesthetic decision as the reverse, but it still felt ridiculous to me.

See, I basically quit MW4 after NBT-mercs ended (well, our unit, HRR/CB/GDL quit), so I don't know what HC looks like. I wasn't aware that there were so many "jumping warhawks" (let me guess: mektek originals?). I agree that it would be stupid if the same configuration options were replicated accross many mechs, so assuming the wharhawk is in, then I guess you would need to limit the NC and NG so that there weren't also warhawks.

Quote

On this point I disagree. Sure, there are differing weapon types that combo well with each other, but almost all weapons combo well with themselves, and that's not necessarily indicative of a problem with the gun. Personally I've found this to be true in CBT as well.

Thus, boats will almost always be a strong way to play, and controlling boating is - to me - the primary argument for a hardpoint system. Again, don't get me wrong, I want them in the game, but if most mechs have hardpoints that let them boat, most 'mechs will be boats, and I'm not sure I want them rampant to that degree. Similar problem if most 'mechs can't boat but a few select chassis are monsters.

IMO, the only way to discourage boats is to make the various weapons work better together. Otherwise, people will just gravitate to the chasses with the most boatability.

A good example is the MW4 LRMs. LRMs were quite effective when boated (see Valkyrie Vewas's/CDS's LRM vultures) but universally sucked when included in mixed configurations. Mathematically, this shouldn't be the case. The reason why is that LRMs were fired completely differently from the other weapons (point and click vs turn on radar, point, hold on target, click). In, for example, a thanatos, if I'm just packing Gauss/RACs and lasers, I can pop out, take my shots and hide, and don't have to turn on my radar. If I add LRMs, I suddenly have to go active radar and expose myself for longer.

Different weapons either have to have different characteristics that lend them advantages (e.g. crit-seeking for missles in CBT), or they have to fire in a way that is compatible with the other main damage weapons.

Quote

I agree that a 4ERLL 10F is absurd, but it was really just an example. I do I think you're making a big assumption here, which is that the game's heatscale will come out the same as CBT. You're very likely to be able to get away with configs that are outrageous in CBT because it's much easier to disengage and cool down when you're not bound to a 17x15 mat on some guy's coffee table.

That means energy boats in particular can't always be ruled out based on slots for heat sinks. If I take 4xERPPC to the face from cover and distance, I really don't care whether it was a hellstar or a white-hot night gyr unless the latter straight-up shuts down in plain sight.

Well, the point I was trying to make is that the 4 ERLL javelin is not only absurd but impossible if you lock down the engine, armor and JJs.

As for the heat scale, well, yes I am assuming that there will be some penalties associated with heat. If there aren't then all the balance we're talking about is meaningless as heat is one of the key balancing factors in CBT (and mechwarrior since its mechs/weapons are based on CBT).

As for the 4 ERPPCs to the face ... well there really isn't a solution for this as the energy weapons will always be more boatable due to their lower weight. People will be able to make ridiculous alpha strike mechs as long as one of the balancing factors is heat (which isn't a "hard" balancing factor like weight and tonnage).

The only reason this can be work is that this is a team game: if the ERPPC/ERLL/whatever boat doesn't config itself with the heatsinks to use its weapons then they either shut down or go inactive for a long time ... in other words they essentially trade themselves to eliminate another mech. This way, while the 95 ton hellstar can keep shooting and shooting, the 75 ton NG better make sure he hits or he's going to be out of the battle.

[Sprouticus]

zorak ramone, on 03 April 2012 - 12:29 PM, said:

See, I basically quit MW4 after NBT-mercs ended (well, our unit, HRR/CB/GDL quit), so I don't know what HC looks like. I wasn't aware that there were so many "jumping warhawks" (let me guess: mektek originals?). I agree that it would be stupid if the same configuration options were replicated accross many mechs, so assuming the wharhawk is in, then I guess you would need to limit the NC and NG so that there weren't also warhawks.




IMO, the only way to discourage boats is to make the various weapons work better together. Otherwise, people will just gravitate to the chasses with the most boatability.

A good example is the MW4 LRMs. LRMs were quite effective when boated (see Valkyrie Vewas's/CDS's LRM vultures) but universally sucked when included in mixed configurations. Mathematically, this shouldn't be the case. The reason why is that LRMs were fired completely differently from the other weapons (point and click vs turn on radar, point, hold on target, click). In, for example, a thanatos, if I'm just packing Gauss/RACs and lasers, I can pop out, take my shots and hide, and don't have to turn on my radar. If I add LRMs, I suddenly have to go active radar and expose myself for longer.

Different weapons either have to have different characteristics that lend them advantages (e.g. crit-seeking for missles in CBT), or they have to fire in a way that is compatible with the other main damage weapons.



Well, the point I was trying to make is that the 4 ERLL javelin is not only absurd but impossible if you lock down the engine, armor and JJs.

As for the heat scale, well, yes I am assuming that there will be some penalties associated with heat. If there aren't then all the balance we're talking about is meaningless as heat is one of the key balancing factors in CBT (and mechwarrior since its mechs/weapons are based on CBT).

As for the 4 ERPPCs to the face ... well there really isn't a solution for this as the energy weapons will always be more boatable due to their lower weight. People will be able to make ridiculous alpha strike mechs as long as one of the balancing factors is heat (which isn't a "hard" balancing factor like weight and tonnage).

The only reason this can be work is that this is a team game: if the ERPPC/ERLL/whatever boat doesn't config itself with the heatsinks to use its weapons then they either shut down or go inactive for a long time ... in other words they essentially trade themselves to eliminate another mech. This way, while the 95 ton hellstar can keep shooting and shooting, the 75 ton NG better make sure he hits or he's going to be out of the battle.

I disagree with the assessment that Energy Weapons are more boatable simply due to weight. The fact is that no MW game (that I can recall) has ever dealt with HEAT is a manner as nasty as the table Pht listed above.


There is a reason the 8Q has 3x PPC and 28 HS as an example:

Sure, you can take an Awesome and load it with a 4th PPC, but the heat build up would quickly put you in serious risk of damaging your mech, even if you Alpha and hide you still are risking damage.

That is the key to minimizing Energy boating. AC boating is limited due to weight and Ammo. Missle boats...well thats primarily Ammo and Mass, although crit slots are pretty high as well.

If they encourage a mix of energy and balistic/missle loadouts, I will be happy. Dual weapon type configs (Duots?) are very close to how BT works (the exception being smaller weapons for anti-vehicle and infantry stuff)

[Yeach]

guardiandashi, on 23 March 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

ok I am working from heavy metal pro but here is the BASIC (most common catapult)

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Catapult CPLT-C3
Mass: 65 tons
Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 104 pts Standard 0 6.50
Engine: 260 Fusion 6 13.50
Walking MP: 4
Running MP: 6
Jumping MP: 4
Heat Sinks: 15 Single 5 5.00
(Heat Sink Loc: 1 HD, 2 LL, 2 RL)
Gyro: 4 3.00
Cockpit, Life Supt., Sensors: 5 3.00
Actuators: L: Sh+UA R: Sh+UA 12 .00
Armor Factor: 160 pts Standard 0 10.00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 9
Center Torso: 21 24
Center Torso (Rear): 11
L/R Side Torso: 15 19/19
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 8/8
L/R Arm: 10 13/13
L/R Leg: 15 18/18
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System RA 10 5 16 16.00
(Ammo Locations: 1 RT)
2 Medium Lasers CT 6 2 2.00
1 Medium Laser LT 3 1 1.00
1 Medium Laser RT 3 1 1.00
4 Standard Jump Jets: 4 4.00
(Jump Jet Loc: 2 LT, 2 RT)
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 22 56 65.00
Crits & Tons Left: 22 .00
is the basic stats for a 3050 C3 varient catapult

here I downgraded the engine (and jump jets)

--------------------------------------------------------
Type/Model: Catapult CPLT-C3
Mass: 65 tons
Equipment: Crits Mass
Int. Struct.: 104 pts Standard 0 6.50
Engine: 195 Fusion 6 8.00
Walking MP: 3
Running MP: 5
Jumping MP: 3
Heat Sinks: 15 Single 8 5.00
(Heat Sink Loc: 1 HD, 2 LL, 2 RL, 2 Undist)
Gyro: 4 2.00
Cockpit, Life Supt., Sensors: 5 3.00
Actuators: L: Sh+UA R: Sh+UA 12 .00
Armor Factor: 160 pts Standard 0 10.00
Internal Armor
Structure Value
Head: 3 9
Center Torso: 21 24
Center Torso (Rear): 11
L/R Side Torso: 15 19/19
L/R Side Torso (Rear): 8/8
L/R Arm: 10 13/13
L/R Leg: 15 18/18
Weapons and Equipment Loc Heat Ammo Crits Mass
--------------------------------------------------------
1 Arrow IV System RA 10 5 16 16.00
(Ammo Locations: 1 RT)
2 Medium Lasers CT 6 2 2.00
1 Medium Laser LT 3 1 1.00
1 Medium Laser RT 3 1 1.00
3 Standard Jump Jets: 3 3.00
(Jump Jet Loc: 1 LT, 2 RT)
--------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: 22 58 57.50
Crits & Tons Left: 20 7.50

notice how the tonnage free changed? thats because it now has a smaller engine, smaller gyro, and only 3 jump jets instaid of 4

in the board game construction rules EVERYTHING is accounted for and has a mass (weight) and crit allocation even if some things are considered to not actually take up room like basic internal and armor

Are you allowed to have 2 jumpjets on one side and 1 jumpjets on the other?
I would figure for an odd number of jumpjets 1 would have to be in the CT for balance.

Another thing was armor; can you have it so one arm/torso has more than the other.
Think that may be getting into the true min/max territory.

Edited by Yeach, 03 April 2012 - 03:42 PM.

[Garth Erlam]

All great ideas, thanks everyone!

[Belisarius1]

Garth Erlam, on 03 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

All great ideas, thanks everyone!

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

Edited by Belisarius†, 03 April 2012 - 04:30 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Altrnatively their showing what they hope it to be, ie it's mostly on paper still at the moment and will continue to be "tweaked" until open beta.
Don't forget the Role Warfare details were only an example and not set in stone. This is going to be far more contentious and have much more of an immediate impact on the game.

[zorak ramone]

Garth Erlam, on 03 April 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

All great ideas, thanks everyone!

Please feel free to steal/purloin/assimilate any and all of my ideas about omnimechs when it comes time for you guys to start adding omnimechs to the game.

[zorak ramone]

Sprouticus, on 03 April 2012 - 03:12 PM, said:

I disagree with the assessment that Energy Weapons are more boatable simply due to weight. The fact is that no MW game (that I can recall) has ever dealt with HEAT is a manner as nasty as the table Pht listed above.


There is a reason the 8Q has 3x PPC and 28 HS as an example:

Sure, you can take an Awesome and load it with a 4th PPC, but the heat build up would quickly put you in serious risk of damaging your mech, even if you Alpha and hide you still are risking damage.

That is the key to minimizing Energy boating. AC boating is limited due to weight and Ammo. Missle boats...well thats primarily Ammo and Mass, although crit slots are pretty high as well.

If they encourage a mix of energy and balistic/missle loadouts, I will be happy. Dual weapon type configs (Duots?) are very close to how BT works (the exception being smaller weapons for anti-vehicle and infantry stuff)

My point was that heat is a soft limit and tonnage is a hard limit. It is impossible to build a mech that is overweight, but it is possible to build a mech that overheats.

To take the AWS-8Q example, I can strip HS and add another PPC. Sure I'll be massively overheating, but it is still physically possible. However, I can not take, say, a Thunderhawk, strip the MLs, add a Gauss Rifle and be like 12 tons overweight.

Belisarius's point was that you could make a massive-alpha strike mech with energy weapons that could basically kill you in one shot and then shut down/be overheating for a long while. My points were that:
-As long as heat is a balancing factor (i.e. a soft limit), this will be an issue
-As long as there are penalties for overheating, and since this is a team game (i.e. allies can easily kill shut down mechs), then mechs like this become sacrifice mechs (i.e. they trade their life for yours).

[Sprouticus]

zorak ramone, on 04 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

My point was that heat is a soft limit and tonnage is a hard limit. It is impossible to build a mech that is overweight, but it is possible to build a mech that overheats.

To take the AWS-8Q example, I can strip HS and add another PPC. Sure I'll be massively overheating, but it is still physically possible. However, I can not take, say, a Thunderhawk, strip the MLs, add a Gauss Rifle and be like 12 tons overweight.

Belisarius's point was that you could make a massive-alpha strike mech with energy weapons that could basically kill you in one shot and then shut down/be overheating for a long while. My points were that:
-As long as heat is a balancing factor (i.e. a soft limit), this will be an issue
-As long as there are penalties for overheating, and since this is a team game (i.e. allies can easily kill shut down mechs), then mechs like this become sacrifice mechs (i.e. they trade their life for yours).

You are of course correct about the soft limit. My hope though is that the consequences of massive overheat are so severe that the softness of it is limited. As for Belisarius's assertion, as I pointed out previously, if you lose a couple of PPC's doing that, or have an ammo explosion, or lose a module/electronic package....well sometimes it might be worth it, but not often. And if a user decide to have that 4th PPC just in case instead of extra heat sinks which will allow for DoT, weill that's their choice, but I doubt I would in most cases.

And of course minimum range should help, at least for PPC's and LRM's. For lasers, again, you have DoT.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Well at least we know for sure that we are having an MW4 style hardpoint system, although there still a few questions, and it is not set in stone yet.