243 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

Siilk, on 23 March 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Quite the contrary. All the MWLL variants are built in compliance with stated rules on weight and pod space. There were some exceptions before 0.3.X but after that all the restrictions are fully implemented. As for MWLL Faf, and other "impossible designs", you simply may be confused by the difference in build rules between MWLL and battletech TT.

"Stated rules." Have the MWLL dev team posted their construction rules? Last I saw, there were people complaining about how they weren't and the dev response was "tough luck, we don't feel like it yet." Yes, I read the MWLL boards but don't post.

As for the LBX20 faf and all: It is not an unfair assumption that since the mechs, tanks and planes, as well as all of their weapons are taken from the CBT universe, that the stats of said vehicles and weapons would be based on the CBT universe. I understand that CBT isn't perfect and that some rules either need to be changed for balance or could be changed to improve them (hell, I propose changes in this very thread).

However the number of changes needed to be made to construct the 4xLBX20 fafnir (the most egregious example. There are others) are so extensive that one of two things are true: 1) they don't have a construction system or they do but its all in their heads (and really its just "rule of cool"), or 2) they've made so many changes that they probably haven't thought through.

Even with an XL engine, a 4xLBX20 fafnir with 1 ton of ammo for each AC is 5 tons overweight. Even if you strip the armor down to 14.5 tons t(~75% max armor) o take care of weight, you still don't have enough space to fit all of this (and this is just with one ton of ammo per cannon!). I doubt that the MWLL fafnir is running 75% armor and only has 1 ton of ammo per cannon. If they do have consistent construction rules (and I'm still calling BS on that), then they've eliminated the concept of critical space or shrunk LBX20s/XL engines, and somehow given the Fafnir free tonnage. Note that the CBT fafnir didn't have an XL engine, which would put this fafnir ~20 tons overweight.

[zorak ramone]

Pht, on 24 March 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Omnimechs, by definition are not restricted very much at all. The idea of ease of configuration into many formats is *exactly why they were built in the first place.*

They are *supposed to be gun-bags.* Limiting factors on omnimechs come from factors outside of the mechlab; the easiest of which would be to simply make them rare.

The unrestricted nature of Omnimechs is one of the rules in CBT that is simply bad and needs to be changed. In fact, almost all of the rules about modifying mechs in CBT are bad and need to be changed. As I stated earlier in this thread, these rules are not a problem in the context of TT games between small groups of people who probably know each other, can regulate each other, and decide as a group (always easy with a small group) what is allowed. The developers of CBT simply did not balance their system for an open, PvP environment, and this system will not work in a massive open PvP environment for many reasons:

1) Gunbag mechs strip away any sort of character that a mech has

2) You will see horrible min-maxing on omnimechs

3) You will see horrible min-maxing ONLY on omnimechs ... and if they are either expensive or rare, then the possession of omnimechs will be a function of play time or money spent. Given that gunbag omnimechs will be inherently superior, omnimechs will turn the game into the grind-to-win of WOW/EVE. or into pay-to-win if omnimechs can be bought for real money. Only this time, unlike WOW, there will be no PvE environments for non-omni players to have fun in.

4) The developers will not be able to account for all the myriad weapons combinations of mechs, and therefore the "whole mech model represents weapons configuration" goes out the window for omnimechs. We'll have laser beams shooting out of kneecaps, and heavy AC shells firing out of small laser ports. This will make the game look really, really dumb.

I think the system I proposed, swappable pods of hardpoint configurations, fits with the CBT lore of omnimechs (i.e. rapidly swappable weaposn pods) and avoids or minimizes all of the above problems.

[Ezekial Karn]

zorak ramone, on 21 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

There’s been a lot of talk about how to do the mech lab, and how it might ruin the game. I’ve been thinking about a way to combine the best of the MW2/MW3 mechlabs (which were basically CBT mech labs) and the more restricted, hardpoint system found in the MW4 mech lab.

In MW2 and 3 single player, I would often configure my mechs to match their geometry and to match or at least come close to their primary configs. Ididn’t play MW2/3 multiplayer, but from what I’ve read, it was horribly min-maxed with mechs bearing no resemblance to their original form.

I played MW4 multiplayer extensively as part of a tonnage and tech restricted leagues (UTS and NBT4/NBT-Mercs). I’m not going to pretend that there weren’t dominant weapons (ERLLs primarily, ERPPCs, GRs, LRMs, LBX10s/20s secondarily) and dominant mechs (Novacats, Shadowcats, etc.), but there was actually a pretty wide variety of mechs used for their different capabilities. Without going into too much detail, I credit the MW4 mech lab’s hardpoint system. Still this system isn’t perfect.

Here are, in my mind, the advantages and disadvantages of both:

MW2/3/CBT
Advantages
--Sticks to the TT game (important for old timers/CBT fans)
--Clear, transparent construction rules (i.e. you know exactly what is on the mech, how much it costs, etc.)
Disadvantages
--Mechs lose their identity (e.g. any IS 100 tonner can be configured exactly the same)
--Aesthetically unpleasing (missles coming out of heavy AC barrels, lasers out of missle racks)
--Easy to min-max mechs. Endgame is that only a few different configurations are used by anyone

MW4
Advantages
--Mechs have more distinct identities because they are limited in what they can carry
--More aesthetically pleasing (e.g. only heavy ACs/GRs fire out of heavy cannons)
--More difficult (but not impossible) to min-max mechs
Disadvantages
--Disconnect from the TT game (i.e. can’t make that one config that you made in CBT)
--Opaque construction rules make it seem like some mechs have unfair advantages (e.g. 360 torso twist, slow heat scale, cheaper engine upgrades)


Here is how I would suggest combining the two. Note that I will work with the IS weapons systems only for the sake of simplicity.

1) Start with the CBT construction system of critical space and tonnage

2) Categorize weapons and equipment based on size and type. I would do it this way:
E1: Small energy (SLs, Flamers)
E2: Medium energy (MLs, MPLs, etc.)
E3: Large energy (LLs, LPLs, etc.)
E4: Heavy energy (PPCs)
B1: Light ballistic (AC2, Mguns)
B2: Medium ballistic (AC5s, LGRs)
B3: Large ballistic (AC10s, GRs)
B4: Heavy ballistic (AC20s, HGRs)
M1 -> M4: Small to large missile launchers (LRM5 -> LRM20, SRM2/4 -> SRM6x2/4x4)
T1 -> Small tech (tag, AMS, C3-slave)
T2 -> Medium tech (BAP, ECM)
T3 -> Large tech (C3-Master, Command Console?)

3) Standardize the critical size for each of categories. This is where we start to deviate from CBT build rules, especially for the heavy ballistics. I would err on the size of less restriction to make sure that all CBT configurations would still fit. For example, I would make B4 = 10 crits, which makes the LBX20 and HGR (I think) smaller by 1 crit. Here is how I would do it:
E1: 1 Crit
E2: 1 Crit
E3: 2 Crit
E4: 3 Crit
B1: 3 Crit
B2: 5 Crit
B3: 7 Crit
B4: 10 Crit
M1 -> M4: 1 -> 4 Crit
T1 -> 1 Crit
T2 -> 2 Crit
T3 -> 5 Crit


4) Treat the categories as MW4 style hardpoints, with the following restrictions: they can only hold one weapon, and can only go up or down one size. For example, if I had a B4 hardpoint, I could put any size 20 AC or HGR in it. I could also put any size 10 AC or normal GR in it. However, I could not put any number of light ACs (2s or 5s), LGRs, or Mguns in it. The only exception to the one weapon rule would be SRMs. CBT only has small sizes of SRMs, so I would suggest including, for the M2 slot SRM8s (2xSRM4), for the M3 slot SRM10s (SRM6+SRM4) and SRM12s (3xSRM4), and for the M4 slot SRM14s (SRM6+2xSRM4) and SRM16s (SRM4x4).

5) Create hardpoint layouts based on CBT prime configurations. The best way to demonstrate this is by example. Take the Atlas AS7-D: 1 ML in each arm, 2 ML in the chest (moving them to the front like as shown in MWO), AC20 I the right torso, LRM20 and SRM6 in the left torso. This would give it the following hardpoint layout and primary config
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML

6) Allocate remaining critical space as “equipment space.” This can be used for ammunition, heat sinks, any other non-electronics equipment (including non-CBT additions like 360 torso twist equipment) and for expanding hardpoints. For example, if I have a B3 slot (standardized to 7 criticals), I could put an AC20 (a B4 sized weapon) in it, but I would need 3 free equipment space to fit it (let’s leave aside critical splitting for now). Given that the atlas has a fully articulated arm, the equipment space for the AS7-D, including ammo and HS for the primary config, would look like this (number in parentheses = space used):
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 1xSRM Ammo, 2xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

7) Set up the mech lab to look like MW4’s but with two screens: hardpoints and equipment space. The player need only view the hardpoints screen to configure a mech. There would be a add/subtract heatsink button, and add/subtract ammo buttons for each ballistic weapon. The mech lab would automatically allocate heatsinks and ammo to free equipment space, but the player could go to the equipment space screen to re-allocate as they want.

8) Change the mech model based on weapons configuration. For example, if we drop the heavy AC from the atlas and leave the B4 empty, remove the AC from the model. If we leave the M2 or M4 empty, cover the missle tubes up with a panel. Externally mounted or internally mounted E2 slots could be removed from the model for covered with a panel, respectively. Furthermore, if you change a weapon from what is found in stock, the model/artwork should change accordingly.


So what could we do with the atlas using this system? The primary config looks like this

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 1xSRM Ammo, 2xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

Lets say we want to turn it into a ranged fighter. Lets also assume that we’re still using 3025 tech. We could swap the AC20 for an AC10, freeing 2 tons (IIRC), and use that two tons to turn the SRM6 into an LRM10.

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 LRM10
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC10
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 3xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (-1) 2xAC10 ammo,-3xB4->B3
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

We could also drop the LRM10, and two MLs completely and turn the arm mounted MLs into LLs. Note that there is now equipment space available in the CT and more available in the side torsos.

Hardpoints
LA: E2 LL
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 Empty
CT: E2 Empty
CT: E2 Empty
RT: B4 AC10
RA: E2 LL
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (2) 1xHS, 2xLRM Ammo, -2xEmpty M2
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
CT:0ES (-2) -1x2xEmpty E2
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (-1) 2xAC10 ammo,-3xB4->B3
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

What if we wanted to make the Atlas into a dedicated infighter. This is a simple matter of taking the 10 ton LRM20 and turning it into a SRM16 (4xSRM4) with 2 extra HS

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 SRM16
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (2) 2xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 3xSRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (2) 2xHS


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

That’s the overall idea for the system, but there are a lot of other separate issues that could go a number of ways. Here are my suggestions

Armor
I think that in order to keep the character of the mechs, armor changes should be restricted. I don’t know what would be reasonable, but here’s how I would do it
-Base armor levels are set by the CBT stock configuration, according to CBT build rules
-Armor levels may be changed by +/- a certain amount (10%? 20%?)
-*Modified* armor levels may exceed CBT build rule maximums
This would make it so that an Atlas, which has the maximum amount of armor for a 100 tonner in CBT, will always be able to hold more armor than a 100 tonner with less than maximum in the stock config. Perhaps increasing armor over CBT maximums would require equipment space (critical)

FF armor and ES internals
I think that ES internals should be locked down completely, and their critical locations unchangeable. It makes no sense that a mech would be able to change its skeletion. Furthermore, ES internals are simply the best weight saving upgrade period. FF armor is always worse than ES when it comes to saving weight, so I could see a mech shifting to FF armor. However, there should be some restrictions. I don’t think you should be able to choose where the critical go (e.g. a mech going from standard to FF armor would have to have 3 criticals available in each arm and side torso, and at least 2 available in the CT, legs and/or head).

Engines
I would suggest restricting or locking down engine size. Certain mechs, like the Dragon and Banshee are special because they are fast for their size. If you could drop their speed or jack up the speed of other similarly weighted mechs to match, they lose some of their character. I would suggest restricting the range of engines that you can switch to. This is somewhat “realistic.” In reality, you can’t just plop a Mustang’s 5 liter V8 into a Prius. There’s simply no space, the engine mounts almost certainly don’t match, and the chassis probably couldn’t handle the extra weight in front. As for XL and light engines, I could see the argument for upgrading and downgrading. The process should be expensive, and would of course require equipment space in the side torsos.

Electronics
In my system, electronics can already be allocated via the “T” hardpoints. However, my experience in MW4 tells me that mechs that can’t carry any electronics (like, say, AMS) are going to suffer a sever disadvantage. Furthermore, because the stock configs of 3025 mechs have no electronics, all of the old mechs will fall into this category. I suggest the following:
-Add electronics slots to 3025mechs that look like they should have them (e.g. Atlas, Black Knight, Rifleman)
-Give every mech a free “electronics slot.” This slot would take up no crits, could be easily swapped (like ammo, before a drop), but the electronics in the slot would still require free tonnage and would be mounted externally (i.e. easy to shoot off).

I have a number of other ideas about how to do omnimechs and a system to re-work critical and engine/gyro sizes to reflect the actual physical size differences of mechs in mechwarrior games, if anyone is interested.

Well when and if you combine Mechwarrior and Battletech together you often can get something like what your talking about however the mechwarrior that is modifying a mech has to also be an engineer and that takes time and skill. It often takes a whole lot of money too as you often have to rent out a mech repair bay. Most mechs have wiring / ammo feeds to various parts of the mech where there were weapons systems designed into it (even if the design sucks). That is why in MW4 they opted for a hardpoint system as the construction of the frame for the mech was desinged for that particular piece of equipement whcih can accomodate a similar piece of equipment. Omni slots however are different and thus the reason that they are high tech devices and far more costly.

I would love it if the game would and can incoperate this but I am thinking they wont which saddens me some. On the bright side Omnimechs wont be far off I am sure.

[Dlardrageth]

I incidentally re-read an older concept of mine and thus come back to the OP here.

zorak ramone, on 21 March 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

[...]
2) Categorize weapons and equipment based on size and type. I would do it this way:
E1: Small energy (SLs, Flamers)
E2: Medium energy (MLs, MPLs, etc.)
E3: Large energy (LLs, LPLs, etc.)
E4: Heavy energy (PPCs)
B1: Light ballistic (AC2, Mguns)
B2: Medium ballistic (AC5s, LGRs)
B3: Large ballistic (AC10s, GRs)
B4: Heavy ballistic (AC20s, HGRs)
M1 -> M4: Small to large missile launchers (LRM5 -> LRM20, SRM2/4 -> SRM6x2/4x4)
T1 -> Small tech (tag, AMS, C3-slave)
T2 -> Medium tech (BAP, ECM)
T3 -> Large tech (C3-Master, Command Console?)

3) Standardize the critical size for each of categories. This is where we start to deviate from CBT build rules, especially for the heavy ballistics. I would err on the size of less restriction to make sure that all CBT configurations would still fit. For example, I would make B4 = 10 crits, which makes the LBX20 and HGR (I think) smaller by 1 crit. Here is how I would do it:
E1: 1 Crit
E2: 1 Crit
E3: 2 Crit
E4: 3 Crit
B1: 3 Crit
B2: 5 Crit
B3: 7 Crit
B4: 10 Crit
M1 -> M4: 1 -> 4 Crit
T1 -> 1 Crit
T2 -> 2 Crit
T3 -> 5 Crit


4) Treat the categories as MW4 style hardpoints, with the following restrictions: they can only hold one weapon, and can only go up or down one size. For example, if I had a B4 hardpoint, I could put any size 20 AC or HGR in it. I could also put any size 10 AC or normal GR in it. However, I could not put any number of light ACs (2s or 5s), LGRs, or Mguns in it. The only exception to the one weapon rule would be SRMs. [...]

I was pondering something along the idea of weapon categorization myself. Although I would have gone with a tiering system for that. And to make that work, have not classical "hardpoints" like in MW4 assigned, but rather tiered weapon slots. Which can fit the exact weapon tier if you want to swap it out, or +/-1 only. Not sure if a change in criticals would be warranted as well, as (somewhat) offsetting the crit balance for weapons would have implications for the overall Mech design. And thus probably require a revamp of all or at least a lot of other component's crit space values.

I still won't claim here I really fancy the MW4-like hardpoint system, but as long as we get sufficiently different variant chassis' for each Mech, the issue of over-restricting and making standard canon variants unavailable (like in MW4) can be avoided. Still won't prevent min-/maxing for the munchkins. But at least it won't become a random MechLab cheesefest.

In the case of the yet-to-be (timeline-wise) Omni Mechs, the system could be adapted in offering the Omni Mech chassis different Omni "pods" to choose from. So you still couldn't mount anything you want on any place on an OmniMech, but despite that you would gain a way higher amount of versatility for setting up the design. While still maintaining some sort of relevance for the original standard variants there.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 26 March 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Belisarius1]

I'd been staying out of this thread as well because PGI is set to reveal the mechlab in a few weeks, and I wasn't sure the discussion would change anything, but I do like your ideas, Z. As a token of my appreciation, I give you this world-ending wall of text:


I personally thought the MW4 system was excellent. I loved the distinct character that it gave each 'Mech, both from hardpoints and electronics as well as less visible things like base speed, turn rates and heat scale. I would love to see a system that retained that uniqueness. But I agree that it can be improved, and I agree with a lot of the ways you've suggested to improve it.

I think you're getting too hung up on matching the CBT criticals sometimes. You can get to the same place by a simpler metric, and just do E1-4, B1-4 and M1-4 with some tech/ammo/heat slots thrown in as you suggested, but don't allow them to bleed into one another. Pure locked slots are sufficient, intuitive, and give less space to min-max. Plus, some CBT weapons have pretty weird criticals. As a side note, you should perhaps go to B5 for hgauss, as standard gauss is too small at B3.

I really like the idea of having one weapon per slot, as that stops 'Mechs designed to carry large numbers of small weapons being converted into alpha boats. I don't think there should be a lower limit; if I really want to waste B4 on a single MG, there's no real reason I shouldn't be able to do that. It's certainly not broken.

I also think E and B slots should be inter-convertible, perhaps at the cost of one slot-point. So, say, E4 can mount up to B3, and vice versa. I always thought it silly that I could switch a gauss for a billion uac2s but not for a PPC in MW4, as that doesn't really hold up to gut instinct or canon.

I don't think you should be able to mount a weapon bigger than the slot size. You could allow sinks/ammo to be placed in unused weapon space if needed (eg. 3xH1+1xE1 in E4), but not the other way around, because that gives too much freedom to min/max. 4xERL on every damn 'Mech in CBT is really not that far away if I can stretch medlas hardpoints into eq slots. If the devs want a MAD-3R to be able to pack an AC10 in its gun mount, for example, they should just make the slot a B3 that's not completely filled by the AC5.

Missiles should be type-exclusive but stackable. eg. M4 can mount anywhere from 4xM1 to 1xM4, but never E or B. I'm against introducing missile sizes like SRM8, and I think it makes more sense to just make SRMs take M1-M3 and allow stackable missile slots. Again, I think you're worrying too much about CBT crits here, and ironically committing the greatest sin of all: creating non canon weapons.

Omnis could then be done by removing some of those restrictions. Allow them to mount E4 in B4 without penalty, mount 2xE2 in E4, and perhaps give them MW4's O slots that allow M and B/E, but say you can't mount M and B/E in the same slot. The biggest challenge with omnis comes from the left-field configs that switch a direct-fire 'Mech to a hardcore missile boat, like the nova cat E. I'd be looking for ways to allow that in a single model, like linked O4-E3-E3 that become M10 if a missile is mounted in the omni. I'd also be quite happy with global slot setups for each variant as you suggested, but I think it's cleaner if it can be avoided.

For equipment, I'm kind of neutral. I very much liked MW4's chassis-specific electronics, because the esuite was one of the defining features of a 'Mech and I wouldn't want to lose that. I do like the idea of having a single equipment slot that can mount anything, but I don't think you can permit much flexibility beyond that before every chassis packs ecm/bap and sensor warfare goes down the drain. Even the single free slot might break that.

For armour, I really like the idea of having it be variable within X% of the canon armour amount. Max armour was one thing MW4 didn't make chassis specific, and I never really understood why. It led to stupid things like stripping all the armour off an arm you weren't using, and also led to historically fragile designs like the Loki being bulked up to full ferro as a matter of course.

I also want limited engine customization to stay. "You can't do it in TT" is just not a good enough reason for me to give up that element, not when trading speed for more guns and sinks for more speed was such an important part of optimising a design. You can rationalise it by saying the changes are "overclocks" on the existing engine or actuator system that cost small amounts of tonnage, or something like that. Obviously, squeezing more than 10% out requires a full engine change, and that's a refit that's out of the player's league. Internal structure and engine type changes should be similarly chassis-locked.

Edited by Belisarius†, 26 March 2012 - 09:55 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

With regard to fitting electronics such as ECM, BAP etc. In line with the Role Warfare aspect I would like to see it be linked to speed. ie mechs doing over 90+ kph (ie 6,9) only could fit these. It still leaves plenty of flexibility, you could upgrade the engine on a Dragon, drop something else and have a heavy scout for example. This would leave out the "scouting" equipment on slower mechs so you can't drop with all assaults.
Whatever PGI do with their version of the hardpoint system, I get the feeling that it's going to be fairly restrictive in preventing massive changes to the original (be it prime or variant) while allowing some "distinctiveness".
To make things work though we're going to need a reasonable variety of mechs and variants to choose from in the first place, especially in the medium class.

[zorak ramone]

Dlardrageth, on 26 March 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

In the case of the yet-to-be (timeline-wise) Omni Mechs, the system could be adapted in offering the Omni Mech chassis different Omni "pods" to choose from. So you still couldn't mount anything you want on any place on an OmniMech, but despite that you would gain a way higher amount of versatility for setting up the design. While still maintaining some sort of relevance for the original standard variants there.

I actually posted a system like that for Omnimechs already, but it wasn't in the OP. I've added the omnimech section to the first post. Please check it out and see what you think.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 26 March 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I think you're getting too hung up on matching the CBT criticals sometimes. You can get to the same place by a simpler metric, and just do E1-4, B1-4 and M1-4 with some tech/ammo/heat slots thrown in as you suggested, but don't allow them to bleed into one another. Pure locked slots are sufficient, intuitive, and give less space to min-max. Plus, some CBT weapons have pretty weird criticals. As a side note, you should perhaps go to B5 for hgauss, as standard gauss is too small at B3.

I'm just using the CBT criticals/construction rules as a baseline. I agree that what the player would see would just be hardpoints, as in MW4. The only think I'd add is an equipment space screen, but the equipment space would also function like MW4 hardpoints (e.g. for a mech with 8 equipment space in a torso, imagine a MW4 style 8-slot hardpoint that you could put multiple things, in this case heatsinks and ammo, into). I would also make it so that you could add DHS and ammo on the weapons/tech hardpoints screen, but that you would need equipment space to add it, and could go to the equipment space screen to rearrange stuff.

As for gauss, I was going by critical size. The GR is most similar in size to the size 10 ACs, and the HGR is most similar to the size 20s. In fact, all of the GRs (LGR, GR, HGR) fit a nice pattern for the ACs:
-AC: base
-UAC: Fires twice, more heat, same space
-LBX: Shotgun ammo, less heat, more space
-GR: More damage/range, less heat, same space, much heavier

IMO, the HGR was overbalanced in CBT. Shrinking it to fit a AC20 slot wouldn't hurt too much. Damage, range, and projectile behavior can be adjusted in MWO if this proves to be game breaking.

Quote

I really like the idea of having one weapon per slot, as that stops 'Mechs designed to carry large numbers of small weapons being converted into alpha boats. I don't think there should be a lower limit; if I really want to waste B4 on a single MG, there's no real reason I shouldn't be able to do that. It's certainly not broken.

There are three main reasons for limiting the slots, IMO.
-Mech character. When people see an Atlas, they're expecting a heavy AC
-"""realism""". The mounts for a M1A1's main gun are very different that those for a .50 cal. I'd expect the same for an AC20 and a Mgun
-Aesthetics and/or modeling. You'd either have little mgun bullets coming out of a huge gun (just as ridiculous as lasers coming out of a missle launcher, IMO), or you'd have to model every possible size of gun for every weapon hardpoint on every mech.

Quote

I also think E and B slots should be inter-convertible, perhaps at the cost of one slot-point. So, say, E4 can mount up to B3, and vice versa. I always thought it silly that I could switch a gauss for a billion uac2s but not for a PPC in MW4, as that doesn't really hold up to gut instinct or canon.

This would also mess with mech character (see Atlas/heavy AC argument), and would also shaft missles again: missle slots would be the least flexible slots (AGAIN!).

Quote

I don't think you should be able to mount a weapon bigger than the slot size. You could allow sinks/ammo to be placed in unused weapon space if needed (eg. 3xH1+1xE1 in E4), but not the other way around, because that gives too much freedom to min/max. 4xERL on every damn 'Mech in CBT is really not that far away if I can stretch medlas hardpoints into eq slots. If the devs want a MAD-3R to be able to pack an AC10 in its gun mount, for example, they should just make the slot a B3 that's not completely filled by the AC5.

Missiles should be type-exclusive but stackable. eg. M4 can mount anywhere from 4xM1 to 1xM4, but never E or B. I'm against introducing missile sizes like SRM8, and I think it makes more sense to just make SRMs take M1-M3 and allow stackable missile slots. Again, I think you're worrying too much about CBT crits here, and ironically committing the greatest sin of all: creating non canon weapons.

I can see the argument here. I was proposing the ability to go larger to allow for more variety since I was already proposing on locking down so many things (engine, armor, weapons per hardpoint, etc.). Also, not allowing to go larger would shaft mechs with size 1 slots (SLs, AC2s, etc), which would hurt the lights and meds the most ... and my guess is that they'll need all the help they can.

Also, remember: ERLLs are not necessarily going to be the beasts that they were in MW4. Especially so if a modification system like this is proposed: it takes 4 tons (3 tons for the clans) to go from ML to ERLL/LL. If you can't strip armor and speed to get that weight, you'll be facing limitations.

As for the missles, adding "SRM8s" and such would be functionally the same as allowing stacked missle slots ... however it would be less confusing. Otherwise you'd have one set of hardpoints that function differently from all the others.

Quote

Omnis could then be done by removing some of those restrictions. Allow them to mount E4 in B4 without penalty, mount 2xE2 in E4, and perhaps give them MW4's O slots that allow M and B/E, but say you can't mount M and B/E in the same slot. The biggest challenge with omnis comes from the left-field configs that switch a direct-fire 'Mech to a hardcore missile boat, like the nova cat E. I'd be looking for ways to allow that in a single model, like linked O4-E3-E3 that become M10 if a missile is mounted in the omni. I'd also be quite happy with global slot setups for each variant as you suggested, but I think it's cleaner if it can be avoided.

Did you see my proposal on omnimechs? I added it to the OP.

Quote

For equipment, I'm kind of neutral. I very much liked MW4's chassis-specific electronics, because the esuite was one of the defining features of a 'Mech and I wouldn't want to lose that. I do like the idea of having a single equipment slot that can mount anything, but I don't think you can permit much flexibility beyond that before every chassis packs ecm/bap and sensor warfare goes down the drain. Even the single free slot might break that.

I was only proposing one "Free" tech slot to keep certain mechs from being gimped. This is mainly in reaction to MW4 where certain otherwise good mechs were left behind due to lack of electronics (see Argus).

Quote

For armour, I really like the idea of having it be variable within X% of the canon armour amount. Max armour was one thing MW4 didn't make chassis specific, and I never really understood why. It led to stupid things like stripping all the armour off an arm you weren't using, and also led to historically fragile designs like the Loki being bulked up to full ferro as a matter of course.

I also want limited engine customization to stay. "You can't do it in TT" is just not a good enough reason for me to give up that element, not when trading speed for more guns and sinks for more speed was such an important part of optimising a design. You can rationalise it by saying the changes are "overclocks" on the existing engine or actuator system that cost small amounts of tonnage, or something like that. Obviously, squeezing more than 10% out requires a full engine change, and that's a refit that's out of the player's league. Internal structure and engine type changes should be similarly chassis-locked.

As I've said to others, the TT customization rules were not made for a massivly multiplayer environment, and are really too lenient.

[Belisarius1]

I'll just address the omni stuff for now. I only partly agree on some of the others, but this post will be huge if I talk about that too.

zorak ramone, on 27 March 2012 - 07:57 AM, said:

Did you see my proposal on omnimechs? I added it to the OP.

I like that system and I think different pods for each variant is sensible. In fact looking at it laid out, I love the elegance of having individually switchable pods. It made me itch to play with it. But - and this is a big but - I'm worried that you just straight up have too much freedom if the pods can be switched independently.

I think the dire wolf highlights that; I can literally put any config I want on that thing by borrowing torso slots from var 3 and arms from var 2. It's got so many options it practically has 2x4O in each location anyway. Now, obviously most of the more hilarious things like 2xUAC20 2xgauss 2xERPPC would be blocked by weight/heat, and obviously the dire is a worst-possible case, but we're still back at the point where we have a fully customizable gunbag kept in check only by tonnage.

I think it's better to have linked pod systems for each variant, so that if I use the B's torsos I can't use the A's arms as well. That puts limits on players while still making an omnimech much more versatile than a standard machine. It also allows you to implement things like the Dire C's jump jets without them always being bound to frankenboat configs cobbled together from A and B.

Quote

I'm just using the CBT criticals/construction rules as a baseline. I agree that what the player would see would just be hardpoints, as in MW4. The only think I'd add is an equipment space screen, but the equipment space would also function like MW4 hardpoints (e.g. for a mech with 8 equipment space in a torso, imagine a MW4 style 8-slot hardpoint that you could put multiple things, in this case heatsinks and ammo, into). I would also make it so that you could add DHS and ammo on the weapons/tech hardpoints screen, but that you would need equipment space to add it, and could go to the equipment space screen to rearrange stuff.

I agree, absolutely. I think that's the right perspective.

I'm going to pull a throwaway sentence out of the omni section in your OP, though, because it highlights why I'm still a little concerned that you're paying more attention than you should to the links between the hardpoint system and the behind-the-scenes CBT criticals.

Quote

Just for laughs, here’s what a dire wolf would look like using the same system (note that clan weapon slots would all be different):

Clan weapon slots shouldn't be different, at least not for weapons. A clan UAC10 comes in at a hilariously compact 4 crits, but it should still be B3, not B2; the clan 'Mech that it's mounted on should just have more hardpoints to compensate. Changing the slot-sizes for all the clan weapons would do nothing but confuse pilots coming from the IS 'Mechlab.

This may seem like a minor point, but it's important. The hardpoint system as the player sees it needs to be as intuitive, consistent and balanced as possible, even if the designer knows he had to bend a CBT parallel to achieve it. The player doesn't care. That's really all I'm advocating, because I think that perspective gives you the freedom to do things like B4 gauss rifles if you decide it's needed for balance reasons (which, personally, I think it might be).

Edited by Belisarius†, 27 March 2012 - 08:10 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

I'm packing my response to the Omni concept in the first post into this here to try to make it less confusing. (Scrolling back and forrth all the time to try to get a grip on a line of argumentation becomes annoying fast.)

Belisarius†, on 27 March 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

[...]
I like that system and I think different pods for each variant is sensible. In fact looking at it laid out, I love the elegance of having individually switchable pods. It made me itch to play with it. But - and this is a big but - I'm worried that you just straight up have too much freedom if the pods can be switched independently.

I incidentally had the same reservation, but then I realized that won't be hard to rectify. You just have to categorize the Omni pods and then disallow certain combinations. That would put a stopgap on wanton random Mechbuilding. Let's stick with the Dire Wolf example and the combo of Torso Slots/C and Arm Slots/B. So we would not like to see that? Well, make sure those two pods land in the same category. And the setup rule for Omni pods calls for not picking two pods from the same category/pool. (could also work the other way round, but that doesn't really matter). Also a rather easy and elegant way to prevent LOL-boating. Pretty much like this...

Quote

I think it's better to have linked pod systems for each variant, so that if I use the B's torsos I can't use the A's arms as well. That puts limits on players while still making an omnimech much more versatile than a standard machine. It also allows you to implement things like the Dire C's jump jets without them always being bound to frankenboat configs cobbled together from A and B.

...but not quite as restrictive. You should have some choice remaining inside the pod categories, just not every. And if you prefer a Tier-3 ballistics+energy pod or a Tier-4 missile one for your right arm e.g., doesn't really matter as long as it remains balanced by having to pick something else for left arm, right and left torso and what not...

Keeping in mind the whole time, that should work for any genuine Omni, no matter IS or Clan.

Quote

Clan weapon slots shouldn't be different, at least not for weapons. A clan UAC10 comes in at a hilariously compact 4 crits, but it should still be B3, not B2; the clan 'Mech that it's mounted on should just have more hardpoints to compensate. Changing the slot-sizes for all the clan weapons would do nothing but confuse pilots coming from the IS 'Mechlab.

I beg to differ here. Exactly because it has to be consistent and at the same time transparent, I'd say let the Clan weapons have their different crit sizes etc. To even more stress they are a different color of meat. I'm aware of all the debating how Clan weaponry is inherently too OP due to heat, range, size and damage advantages and what not in CBT... but that does not necessarily matter. For all we know you can be able to play MWO nicely for years without having ever to face a single ClanMech. Thus I'd advocate to not get ahead of ourselves and clamor for rebalancing ClanTech that won't be in game for a good while. Even though the hardpoint system alike to MW4 might in fact buff them even more. Instead of a tiered system where you are strictly bound by weapon category and tier per slot, no matter if it is a clan weapon or not and how many crits it needs.

That's also, I have to admit, one of the reasons I don't really like the idea of messing too much around with crit sizes. Having crit slots being a seperate matter from the whole pod/hardpoint/weapon slot issue would maintain the option of using the crit slots as a secondary balancing factor. And more of those = better fine-tuning chances. Later on, when the time has come to look at that. So I'd rather leave the crits and crit size out of that model. And make it a seperate issue, not tied to this one.

And looking at the time line I don't really see how that would "confuse pilots coming from the IS 'Mechlab", considering they are labeled as clan and thus different weapons first. And second won't be in game for a good while after start. And then probably not easily affordable/obtainable at all. Etc., etc., etc.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 27 March 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

I like that system and I think different pods for each variant is sensible. In fact looking at it laid out, I love the elegance of having individually switchable pods. It made me itch to play with it. But - and this is a big but - I'm worried that you just straight up have too much freedom if the pods can be switched independently.

I think the dire wolf highlights that; I can literally put any config I want on that thing by borrowing torso slots from var 3 and arms from var 2. It's got so many options it practically has 2x4O in each location anyway. Now, obviously most of the more hilarious things like 2xUAC20 2xgauss 2xERPPC would be blocked by weight/heat, and obviously the dire is a worst-possible case, but we're still back at the point where we have a fully customizable gunbag kept in check only by tonnage.

I think it's better to have linked pod systems for each variant, so that if I use the B's torsos I can't use the A's arms as well. That puts limits on players while still making an omnimech much more versatile than a standard machine. It also allows you to implement things like the Dire C's jump jets without them always being bound to frankenboat configs cobbled together from A and B.

The DW is, as you noted, the worst case example. These pods are just based off of the base (i.e. 3050 TRO) configs. Of course, for game balance, they could be changed. Still, even given these pods, the DW has some character. Note, for example, that it can't pack any large number of missles. Also, I've already done this thought experiment with all of the IS and Clan omnis. The others have much more interesting pod options, and I could post some more if you were interested.

However, there are further limitations to Omnis, using my system, that could be made. Your suggestion about "linked pods" is definitely possible, and could be reasonable in some cases. However, in the DW's case, I don't know if it would work from the standpoint of """"realism"""" (i.e. just looking at the model, those arms look like indpendent boxes relative to the torsos).

Another possibility would be, as you aluded to earlier, limiting the hardpoints in Omni pods in the following ways:

-You can go one weapon size smaller, but can't go larger (i.e. you can put a B3 in a B4 slot, but not the other way around, even if you have equipment space, as you can do in battlemechs). This makes sense if you think of the hardpoints as modular slots for weapons rather than "places where a weapon is mounted" in battlemechs.

-If you put a smaller weapon into a larger slot (e.g. B3 in a B4 slot), that extra space DOES NOT turn into equipment space. This also makes sense from the argument of modular slot vs "place where weapon is mounted."

How would this affect the DW? Well, it would mean that it could, at maximum, carry 2x size 20 ACs. Also, if it does this, it would have to either put the ammo in the legs or the arms (and therefore pick arm pods with equipment space instead of picking any arm pod and stripping it). IIRC it would also limit its PPC carrying to 2, although it could pack a bunch of LLs.

Quote

Clan weapon slots shouldn't be different, at least not for weapons. A clan UAC10 comes in at a hilariously compact 4 crits, but it should still be B3, not B2; the clan 'Mech that it's mounted on should just have more hardpoints to compensate. Changing the slot-sizes for all the clan weapons would do nothing but confuse pilots coming from the IS 'Mechlab.

This may seem like a minor point, but it's important. The hardpoint system as the player sees it needs to be as intuitive, consistent and balanced as possible, even if the designer knows he had to bend a CBT parallel to achieve it. The player doesn't care. That's really all I'm advocating, because I think that perspective gives you the freedom to do things like B4 gauss rifles if you decide it's needed for balance reasons (which, personally, I think it might be).

The problem with bringing up the size of the clan ACs to match the IS ACs is that it would make certain configurations impossible. That said I would bring up the size of the UAC10 to match the LBX10 (5 criticals). I would also bring up the size of the clan ERPPC to match the IS PPC because F*** clan energy weapons (CBT really dropped the balance-ball with clan energy and missle weapons). This would make all of the clan hardpoints the same as IS hardpoints with the only exceptions being the balistic hardpoints:
B4 = 8 crits (UAC/LBX 20)
B3 = 5 crits (UAC/LBX 10, GR)
B2 = 3 crits (UAC/LBX 5)
B1 = 2 crits (UAC/LBX 2)

Now, I take your point on this being confusing to players. Here's how me could make it less confusing:

-There's no reason a clan mech would mount an IS AC, so we ignore that situation

-If an IS player wants to mount a clan AC, he still needs a matching slot (e.g. if he has a cUAC20, he still needs a B4 slot, or a B3 slot with equipment space, if its a battlemech) even though the clan AC is smaller.

-Because the clan ACs are smaller, you would get back some equipment space (if using a battlemech, not omnimech) just like you would get for mounting a smaller AC in a larger slot (E.g. a cUAC20 in an IS B4 slot gives you back 2 equipment space since the IS hardpoint is 10 crits, and the cUAC20 is 8).

This way the player would still be able to mount weapons as normal, but would get the additional bonus of more Equipment Space for using a clan AC. Therefore, clan weapons will fit into the same slots, but would give the following advantages:
-Energy weapons: more range/damage. Less weight in some cases
-Balistic weapons: Less weight. Additional Equipment Space
-Missle weapons: half weight

=======

This leads to another interesting problem: what to do about the clans? Without going into too much detail, since its an entirely different discussion, I would do this:
-Rebalance clan energy weapons to reduce (but not eliminate) their range/damage advantages
-Rebalance Clan ERPPCs and GRs (IS GRs too) to do 10-12 damage
-Make the clans either an unplayable faction or make playing a clan character highly restricted (honor rules, no mech ownership, performance dictates mech use and mech assignment is fluid, etc.)
-Do not allow clan weapons on IS mechs unless mechs are balanced by price/BV (and price/BV clan weapons accordingly).

[Nik Van Rhijn]

With regard to the Clans the devs have hinted that their preferred method of balancing is asymetric numbers in a drop ie 5v8 or whatever number the find balances, given equal pilots. We who play IS for preference will have to hope that we at least get access to the level 2 tech before the Clans arrive. Balancing that out will start to get us ready We also have a number of newer mechs such as the Wolfhound that will help. I'm pretty sure that the game will be sorted when the Clans arrive to the extent that it won't be a problem, especially if they have a series of balancing patches covering variations ready to go.

[zorak ramone]

The last bit of ideas I had regarded critical space.

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

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

I suggest reducing or increasing critical space based on physical mech size. However, to make things fair you have to also mess with engine and gyro sizes and with FF/ES space. Here's how I would do it:

1) First, exclude the head and legs. Assume that the head/cockpit is basically the same size for any mech, and that the actuators scale up with leg size/mech weight. Therefore the head and legs always have 1 and 2 crits each, respectively.

2) This leaves the arms, and torsos, each with 12 spaces, for a total of 60 critical spaces (2 Arms + LT + CT + RT).

3) Start with a baseline size for each weight class (Assault, heavy , medium, light).

4) Reduce or increase critical space per section according to basline size. I would do it like this:
-Assault: +2 (+10 total)
-Heavy: +0 (+0 total, or equal to CBT standard)
-Medium: -2 (-10 total)
-Light: -4 (-20 total)

5) Mechs can be adjusted based on deviation from basline size. E.g. if the Atlas is chosen as the baseline assault, and the Awesome is slightly smaller, it may be given +1 per section (+5 total). This is a mech by mech balancing issue. For the rest of this, I will be only dealing with the baseline mechs for clarity.

6) Reduce gyro sizes based on mech class. In CBT standard, the gyro weighs 4 tons for assaults, 3 tons for heavies, 2 tons for mediums, and 1 ton for lights, but it is 4 criticals for everyone. I would reduce it like this:
-Assaults: 4 crits (CBT standard)
-Heavy: 3 crits
-Medium: 2 crits
-Light: 1 crit

7) Reduce or increase engine size based on rating. It doesn't make sense that the ~50 ton 400-rating fusion engine should take the same space as ~100-200 rated engines that may weigh as little as 10 tons. This is especially true when we consider the size disparity in mechs. In CBT all engines take up 6 crits in the CT, I would change this as follows:
-1 to 100 rating: 2 crits
-101 to 200 rating: 4 crits
-201 to 300 rating: 6 crits (CBT standard and also the most common engine size)
-301 to 400 rating: 8 crits

8) ES and FF take up critical space, however this is meant to represent increased bulk of the structure/armor. If the mech is physically smaller, so should the crits of ES and FF be reduced. I would change ES and FF proportionally, so that every mech uses up the same percentage (~21.5%) of space on ES or FF. Therefore ES and FF sizes (for IS mechs, again using baseline sizes as indicated earlier), are as follows:
-Assault: 16 crits
-Heavy: 14 crits (CBT standard)
-Medium: 12 crits
-Light: 10 crits

So how would this effect space? Arms and side torsos are pretty easy to calculate, but what about CT space? Here are some examples:
-All 53kph assaults would have 4 crits available in the CT, while 64kph assaults would have 2
-All 64kph heavyes would have 3 crits available in the CT, while 85kph heavies would have 1, with the exception of the 60 tonners (85kph = 300 engine) who would have 3 crits.
-60 and 65 tonners can achieve 96kph, and would have 1 crit in the CT
-50 and 45 tonners would have 4 crits at 64kph, 2 crits at 85kph or 96kph, and 0 crits at 110kph+
-55 tonners are the same as 50s and 45s, but have 2 at 64kph and 0 at 96kph
-40 tonners are the same as 50s and 45s, but have 4 available at 85kph and 2 available at 110kph
-Light mechs have 3 crits availble up to 85kph, 96kph, 120kph and 200kph for 35, 30, 25 and 20 tonners, respectively. After this they have 1 crit (except for 20s ... it is theoretically impossible to go over 200kph with a 400 engine rating limit).

Of course, all mechs of a given weight class aren't going to have the same size, so size adjustments can be made (especially at the weight class borders). The key is to make sure that mech size is reflected in critical slot allocation.

Additionally, you could make up rules for increasing or decreasing engine sizes. For example, a 320 engine (8 crits) is close to a 300 (6 crits) ... maybe you could make it 6 crits for some kind of heat or accelleration penalty. Think about it like modifying a 6 cylinder engine to rev high to match V8 performance at lower RPMs.

This would help balance for physical size, would make more sense (no AC20 space in gimpy light mech torsos), and would give each mech more uniqueness and character.

Edited by zorak ramone, 28 March 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

The DW is, as you noted, the worst case example. These pods are just based off of the base (i.e. 3050 TRO) configs. Of course, for game balance, they could be changed. Still, even given these pods, the DW has some character. Note, for example, that it can't pack any large number of missles. Also, I've already done this thought experiment with all of the IS and Clan omnis. The others have much more interesting pod options, and I could post some more if you were interested.

Sure, why not. I do find it a little hard to believe that there's not a gunbag out there somewhere, so if you care, go ahead and prove that to me. The nova cat and night gyr spring to mind. Oh, and the turkina.

I also think you still have issues handling 'Mechs with unique electronics/JJs on a single variant unless you have a mechanism for locking it to the corresponding pod layout. The ncat and dire, for example, absolutely should not be able to mount jumpjets with their ground-variant pods, or that combination will be all you see.

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

However, there are further limitations to Omnis, using my system, that could be made. Your suggestion about "linked pods" is definitely possible, and could be reasonable in some cases. However, in the DW's case, I don't know if it would work from the standpoint of """"realism"""" (i.e. just looking at the model, those arms look like indpendent boxes relative to the torsos).

I don't really care about realism, because, let's be honest, CBT was designed by guys with only the vaguest grasp of highschool physics anyway.

The important factors are balance and believability. It's not hard to come up with some fluff about how the pods are designed to balance (the other kind) matching pods on the far side of the 'mech, and mix'n'matching would make the 'Mech unstable or mess with its gyro/targeting or whatever. I really don't care, fluff is cheap. Expensive considerations are gameplay first and not-being-totally-absurd second.

In particular, art is highly malleable. The dire's model can be adjusted to look less modular while remaining recognisable, if that really ends up being a problem. Gameplay should never be compromised for the sake of aesthetics.

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

Another possibility would be, as you aluded to earlier, limiting the hardpoints in Omni pods in the following ways:

-You can go one weapon size smaller, but can't go larger (i.e. you can put a B3 in a B4 slot, but not the other way around, even if you have equipment space, as you can do in battlemechs). This makes sense if you think of the hardpoints as modular slots for weapons rather than "places where a weapon is mounted" in battlemechs.

This one would be essential for omnis, I agree. I still think it's needed on bmechs as well.

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

-If you put a smaller weapon into a larger slot (e.g. B3 in a B4 slot), that extra space DOES NOT turn into equipment space. This also makes sense from the argument of modular slot vs "place where weapon is mounted."

That's a good idea, but you have to be careful. It's obviously forcing a player to pick one of the dire's undergunned pods to fit their equipment because they can't put it anywhere else, which is good, but I'd be very worried that equipment space would then be at too much of a premium. If I wanted to use both the dire's B4 torsos, for example, all I have are 4 slots of EQ in the arms (plus legs etc, granted), and even then only if I pick the pods specifically to get sink space. It's likely that there's another omni out there that's an even worse case.

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

The problem with bringing up the size of the clan ACs to match the IS ACs is that it would make certain configurations impossible. That said I would bring up the size of the UAC10 to match the LBX10 (5 criticals). I would also bring up the size of the clan ERPPC to match the IS PPC because F*** clan energy weapons (CBT really dropped the balance-ball with clan energy and missle weapons). This would make all of the clan hardpoints the same as IS hardpoints with the only exceptions being the balistic hardpoints:
B4 = 8 crits (UAC/LBX 20)
B3 = 5 crits (UAC/LBX 10, GR)
B2 = 3 crits (UAC/LBX 5)
B1 = 2 crits (UAC/LBX 2)

Now, I take your point on this being confusing to players. Here's how me could make it less confusing:

-There's no reason a clan mech would mount an IS AC, so we ignore that situation

-If an IS player wants to mount a clan AC, he still needs a matching slot (e.g. if he has a cUAC20, he still needs a B4 slot, or a B3 slot with equipment space, if its a battlemech) even though the clan AC is smaller.

-Because the clan ACs are smaller, you would get back some equipment space (if using a battlemech, not omnimech) just like you would get for mounting a smaller AC in a larger slot (E.g. a cUAC20 in an IS B4 slot gives you back 2 equipment space since the IS hardpoint is 10 crits, and the cUAC20 is 8).

This way the player would still be able to mount weapons as normal, but would get the additional bonus of more Equipment Space for using a clan AC. Therefore, clan weapons will fit into the same slots, but would give the following advantages:
-Energy weapons: more range/damage. Less weight in some cases
-Balistic weapons: Less weight. Additional Equipment Space
-Missle weapons: half weight

I think we're on the same page.

For clan weapons on clan 'mechs, it's a non issue; you just rearrange the under-the-hood stuff to be consistent. It might look a bit wonky; for example, a clan 'Mech with two UAC10's in the same location would mount 2xB3, which you know is technically 16 criticals by the IS reckoning, but the player doesn't care and the 'mech is canon. There are no clan configs that are made impossible if you do it that way.

The key problem, which you've hit on, is mixtech, because the IS slots are designed for "bigger" weapons. I'm certain there are some custom refits out there that just wouldn't fit. That doesn't actually bother me, though. I'm willing to sacrifice those for consistency and retaining four levels of fidelity in the clan slots, which is another big motivator.

In a way, it even makes sense; you can just say that mounting clan weapons on IS 'mechs doesn't happen magically, and so you need to add special housings or whatever that take up more space.

It also keeps clan refits in the realm of "same-but-better." Clan-armed IS configs are going to be heavily slot limited, and so you breed mechs that have a similar weapons loadout but better "passive" features, like the GR 2PPC MAD-5S refit with CGR 2 CERPPC and more sinks, speed and tech. To me that's preferable to allowing a rifleman refit that suddenly packs CUAC10s and ERPPCs, because those drastically change the character of the 'Mech.

Adding equipment slots when clan weapons are added is okay, but I'm not sure I like the way they'd magically appear. Again, I think that's making the behind-the-scenes stuff more visible to the player than he really needs it to be. I'm not convinced that 'mechs would really need them, either.

zorak ramone, on 28 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

The last bit of ideas I had regarded critical space.

[snip]

I appreciate the effort you've gone to here, but I'm not personally interested in this. I think you're dead right that lights should have more criticals, but, were I designing the 'Mechs, I'd just reverse engineer the slots from the stock configs, making sure each had enough slots to carry its canon loadout and add a few here or there if some look hard done by (hellooo ostscout). I'm not designing the 'Mechs, though, so go wild.

You are probably going to have to recalibrate your +2/-4 as you go. In particular, I would put assaults at 0. Think of that direwolf again; he really doesn't need more slots than he already has. An IS assault, maybe, but not him.

Edited by Belisarius†, 29 March 2012 - 04:55 AM.

[Pht]

Dlardrageth, on 24 March 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

It will become one if the reward structure of the game will not be able to make sufficiently up for it. Unless you don't see it as a problem if 90%+ of the players will only pilot the same four or five Mech chassis...

Yes, I expect them to do their job without turning MWO into a whackamole game with all the same stuff in different visual clothes..

Quote

Yeah, and everything is always just black or white as well?

I presume you mean me to take this as "white" true, instead of grey or black?

Or, in other words, yes, everything is black and white. What's mis-named "grey" is where we humans have trouble figuring out which is black and which is white.

Quote

Oh, and considering that there is no "hardpoint system" in BT, that makes any game using one according to your logics a random Mecha game that has nothing to do with BT, right?

It would, if it were not for the fact that it's, IMO, the only way to have a mechlab that will produce a MW game that will make 'mechs that are unique, like they are in the lore. The reasons for the setup are not arbitrary and are defined by the lore.

Quote

Why do you think I chose the prefix "pseudo" there (which you misspelled, BTW)? Because it fits the purpose - a hardpoint systems effectively doesn't give the chassis full Omni capabilities,...

You were stating that the setup would make mechs into something between omnimechs and normal mechs, and a mech either does or does not meet the definition of "omnimech."

It's like saying that you've made a square that's a pseudo sphere.

zorak ramone, on 26 March 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:

The unrestricted nature of Omnimechs is one of the rules in CBT that is simply bad and needs to be changed.

Ok...

Why is it bad?

Quote

In fact, almost all of the rules about modifying mechs in CBT are bad and need to be changed.

Again, why?

Quote

these rules are not a problem in the context of TT games between small groups of people who probably know each other, can regulate each other, and decide as a group (always easy with a small group) what is allowed. The developers of CBT simply did not balance their system for an open, PvP environment, and this system will not work in a massive open PvP environment for many reasons...

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.

Quote

2) You will see horrible min-maxing on omnimechs

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

Quote

3) You will see horrible min-maxing ONLY on omnimechs ... and if they are either expensive or rare, then the possession of omnimechs will be a function of play time or money spent.

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.

Quote

Given that gunbag omnimechs will be inherently superior,...

---

I think the system I proposed, swappable pods of hardpoint configurations, fits with the CBT lore of omnimechs (i.e. rapidly swappable weaposn pods) and avoids or minimizes all of the above problems.

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.

---

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

Edited by Pht, 28 March 2012 - 04:52 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

TBH I don't think that IS mechs should be able to put Clan Tech on their mechs. Some support for that in fluff, ie computers unable to handle it etc.I think that we should have the appropriate "improved" IS tech, first from the reinvented SL tech, some of which is theoretically available now. Later due to reverse engineering Clan tech. This makes even more sense if we don't have salvage in game except as a notional C-bill ammount. It's still some way off before we gat the first IS "Omnis"

[Belisarius1]

Personally, yes, I agree completely. I've always thought mixtech was stupid and destroyed the character of the 'mechs. Unfortunately, it's canon, so there's a chance of it showing up in game. The system may as well be able to deal with it until we know for sure.

[Dlardrageth]

Belisarius†, on 29 March 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Personally, yes, I agree completely. I've always thought mixtech was stupid and destroyed the character of the 'mechs. Unfortunately, it's canon, so there's a chance of it showing up in game. The system may as well be able to deal with it until we know for sure.

Actually mixed tech (Or shall we call it "bastardized tech"?) might pose a bigger balancing problem than apparent at a cursory glance. In the long run a pretty major matter. Basically the thing is, as a member of the FWLM, I could care less about Clans and their shenanigans than about a sack of rice toppling over on Sian. Till well after Tukayyid. Not my business, not my problem, Clanners can all go DIAF, I don't care. I won't face them and thus have no need to have anything to do with them and their "ridiculously OP OmniTrash" (quoting someone from a TT match that went slightly sideways, hehe). So far the theory...

But then all of sudden random people start throwing this and that on their Mech (seems to go that way at least in part), and no, it's neither complicated nor rare any more to have all Clan weaponry on a standard IS chassis. And you run into this tech mixery while thinking no evil and fighting a border skirmish between the FWL and some CC-hired Mercs. And lo and behold, what do you run into with your IS standard medium? A full "clanned out" Merc heavy. Well, okay, shrug and hit the eject button. Oh wait, PGI disabled that one during battles. Time to become ROFLstomped then...

So riddle me this, PGI, how is that not going to become a major balancing issue? And before someone thinks this is the point to be wisecrackin' and just tell me to get Clan weaponry myself... yeah, right, so easy to do with the closest Clan beyond Terra and thus lightyears away from "our space". Immersive nightmare and ridiculously unrealistic that I just hop onto a jumpship to take a "quick" shopping trip to the DC to get some random Clan weaponry. Because there it just grows on trees, right? Really intrested how they are going to try to balance this one out...

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The trouble is every one is expecting that mechwise we are going to be treated as Kai Allard Liao ect with regard to our ride rather than as a faceless grunt. Or have the availability of Wolf's Draggons mechs and techs. If you are a house mechwarrior you have what is available. The majority of mercs were even worse off with regard to what they had. Now OK for game purposs that wouldn't be so mucj fun for most so they change the realities somewhat. It still doesn't make sense that 2 days after the Clans invade that you are running round in a Dire Wolf etc. Or that your IS mech is suddenly sporting CERPPCs.
It makes perfect sense that someone in House Marik would never come up against the Clans or Clan Tech. It also gives those who don't want to get involved with the vatborn or their tech would have somewhere to play without having to mix.
IMHO mix tech is wrong and shouldn't be put in.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 28 March 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Sure, why not. I do find it a little hard to believe that there's not a gunbag out there somewhere, so if you care, go ahead and prove that to me. The nova cat and night gyr spring to mind. Oh, and the turkina.

I also think you still have issues handling 'Mechs with unique electronics/JJs on a single variant unless you have a mechanism for locking it to the corresponding pod layout. The ncat and dire, for example, absolutely should not be able to mount jumpjets with their ground-variant pods, or that combination will be all you see.

The IS omnis tend to be much more interesting and much less gun-baggy. The NC and NG, being the only two 4/6 heavy omnis the clans have tend to be more gun-baggy than most. Based off of the CBT configs (and assuming symetry, since the mechs look symetrical) they would look like this:

Night Gyr
RA/LA Pod-1: E4-E4-ES(2)
RA/LA Pod-2: E3-E2-E2-ES(4)
RA/LA Pod-3: B1-B1-B1-ES(2)
RA/LA Pod-4: B4
RA/LA Pod-5: M4-ES(4)
RT/LT Pod-1: E2-ES(4)
RT/LT Pod-2: T2-ES(3)
RT/LT Pod-3: B1-ES(3)
RT/LT Pod-4: M4-ES(1)
H Pod-1: E2
CT Pod-1: E2-E2
CT Pod-2: E3
CT Pod-3: ES(2)

Nova Cat
RA/LA Pod-1: E4-E4-ES(4)
RA/LA Pod-2: E3-E3-E3-ES(4)
RA/LA Pod-3: B3-E2-ES(3)
RA/LA Pod-4: B2-B2-B2-ES(1)
RA/LA Pod-5: M3-M3-M3-ES(1)
RT/LT Pod-1: ES(10)
RT/LT Pod-2: E2-ES(9)
RT/LT Pod-3: T2-ES(8)

Those would cover the stock configurations and assume symetry. Note that I haven't reduced critical space for these guys as with the critical space revisions. Also, you could make a few tweaks to make these less ridiculous: for the NG, I'd start by making RA/LA Pod-5 = M4-M4, and eliminating RT/LT Pod-4. For the NC, you could make RT/LT Pod-3 RT only. Still, they're pretty gun-baggy and I think that the most egregious offenders are the missle pods from the missle boat configs.

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.

Quote

I don't really care about realism, because, let's be honest, CBT was designed by guys with only the vaguest grasp of highschool physics anyway.

The important factors are balance and believability. It's not hard to come up with some fluff about how the pods are designed to balance (the other kind) matching pods on the far side of the 'mech, and mix'n'matching would make the 'Mech unstable or mess with its gyro/targeting or whatever. I really don't care, fluff is cheap. Expensive considerations are gameplay first and not-being-totally-absurd second.

In particular, art is highly malleable. The dire's model can be adjusted to look less modular while remaining recognisable, if that really ends up being a problem. Gameplay should never be compromised for the sake of aesthetics.

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.

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.

Quote

This one would be essential for omnis, I agree. I still think it's needed on bmechs as well.

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.

Quote

That's a good idea, but you have to be careful. It's obviously forcing a player to pick one of the dire's undergunned pods to fit their equipment because they can't put it anywhere else, which is good, but I'd be very worried that equipment space would then be at too much of a premium. If I wanted to use both the dire's B4 torsos, for example, all I have are 4 slots of EQ in the arms (plus legs etc, granted), and even then only if I pick the pods specifically to get sink space. It's likely that there's another omni out there that's an even worse case.

Frankly, I think you've just described how the pod system I propose can work even on gunbaggy mechs like the DW. The balancing factor for having so many weapon slots would be putting equipment space at a premium (for omnimechs anyway). I look at your example and say "Good! The DW can't pack everything feely!" In stock configs the DW only packed a LBX20 in one side torso, not both. However a mech designed for packing a pair of size 20 ACs (King Crab?) or at least for packing size 20 ACs in the arms (Thor?) would actually be able to pack the LBX20s easier than the DW! I think this shows that the system can work.

Quote

I think we're on the same page.

For clan weapons on clan 'mechs, it's a non issue; you just rearrange the under-the-hood stuff to be consistent. It might look a bit wonky; for example, a clan 'Mech with two UAC10's in the same location would mount 2xB3, which you know is technically 16 criticals by the IS reckoning, but the player doesn't care and the 'mech is canon. There are no clan configs that are made impossible if you do it that way.

The key problem, which you've hit on, is mixtech, because the IS slots are designed for "bigger" weapons. I'm certain there are some custom refits out there that just wouldn't fit. That doesn't actually bother me, though. I'm willing to sacrifice those for consistency and retaining four levels of fidelity in the clan slots, which is another big motivator.

In a way, it even makes sense; you can just say that mounting clan weapons on IS 'mechs doesn't happen magically, and so you need to add special housings or whatever that take up more space.

It also keeps clan refits in the realm of "same-but-better." Clan-armed IS configs are going to be heavily slot limited, and so you breed mechs that have a similar weapons loadout but better "passive" features, like the GR 2PPC MAD-5S refit with CGR 2 CERPPC and more sinks, speed and tech. To me that's preferable to allowing a rifleman refit that suddenly packs CUAC10s and ERPPCs, because those drastically change the character of the 'Mech.

Adding equipment slots when clan weapons are added is okay, but I'm not sure I like the way they'd magically appear. Again, I think that's making the behind-the-scenes stuff more visible to the player than he really needs it to be. I'm not convinced that 'mechs would really need them, either.

I think the argument for "special equipment" to bring clan weapons up to IS weapon sizes works and would probably be accepted as logical and intuitive for most players. You could even go the reverse route (assuming there was ever any reason for a clan mech to carry IS weapons) and say that due to more efficient ammo loaders (or whatever), IS stuff fits into clan slots.

That said, I'm not sure that magically appearing ES would be a huge problem. Players would already be familiar with the mechanic from modifying battlemechs (i.e. getting ES back for putting a smaller weapons in a larger slot). You could even color code the ES slots (shading, outline, highlight, something) to indicate slots from hardpoints: e.g. (to use the MW4 color schemes), I put a AC10 in a B4 slot, and 3 ES are added, but are highlighted in yellow.

As for mixtech ... if it was up to me, I would prevent it from a pure game balance perspective. As I said, I'm not sure I'd want the clans as playable factions anyway. However, the clans probably will be playable, and we probably will be able to put clan tech on IS mechs. The simpilest way to fix this would be to increase the price/BV of the mech to match the power of the clan tech.

Quote

I appreciate the effort you've gone to here, but I'm not personally interested in this. I think you're dead right that lights should have more criticals, but, were I designing the 'Mechs, I'd just reverse engineer the slots from the stock configs, making sure each had enough slots to carry its canon loadout and add a few here or there if some look hard done by (hellooo ostscout). I'm not designing the 'Mechs, though, so go wild.

You are probably going to have to recalibrate your +2/-4 as you go. In particular, I would put assaults at 0. Think of that direwolf again; he really doesn't need more slots than he already has. An IS assault, maybe, but not him.

The system I have there works if you're doing the engine/gyro things. Starting with assaults as basline would require setting the 300-400 engines as baseline too ... it just gets wierd.

You are right though in that there is a very simple way to do this if you don't worry about engine/gyro sizes:

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

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

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

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

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

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