243 replies to this topic

[Yeach]

Anyone remember maxtech rules (Level 3) where lighter mechs had reduced criticals slots?

[Pht]

Yeach, on 30 April 2012 - 08:47 PM, said:

Anyone remember maxtech rules (Level 3) where lighter mechs had reduced criticals slots?

Yes, and I think it didn't mess with any of the stock designs. Haven't gone looking in the new core books for it ... yet.

[Sprouticus]

Belisarius†, on 30 April 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

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



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

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

The problem with MW4 was a lack of critical hits and thus XL mechs were not any more fragile. At least not that I ever noticed. If it was there it made little or no difference in gameplay. My quesiton on reducing crit slots would be......why? Were lights so unbaanced in TT that it will be a problem? If ES and FF are 'required' for lights, and they provide slightly better armor, speed or wepaons, will that affect balance in any significant way?

From my experience as a scout in MW4 I can attest to the fact that being even 30-40 kph faster than the enemy was often not enough to maintain range and observe/harass. The Raven was ok at it, but ONLY because it had 360 degree TT. It wont in MWO (or at least I doubt it will, it was too big an advantage over other scouts).

[Belisarius1]

Sprouticus, on 01 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

The problem with MW4 was a lack of critical hits and thus XL mechs were not any more fragile. At least not that I ever noticed. If it was there it made little or no difference in gameplay.

They were in HC, side torsos rolled over to rear CT rather than front CT for XL 'mechs, and it made a huge difference. I only really played NBT's mod with any level of competency, so it must have just been something they added. It was a great feature though.

Sprouticus, on 01 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

My quesiton on reducing crit slots would be......why? Were lights so unbaanced in TT that it will be a problem? If ES and FF are 'required' for lights, and they provide slightly better armor, speed or wepaons, will that affect balance in any significant way?

It's not that it makes lights overpowered, it's just poor design. If every light can fit ES+FF and those technologies have no downside, the option to use them becomes more or less an illusory one. If they're better, and they fit, every light will take them. And if we have a situation that creates choices that aren't real choices, it may as well be modified.

Plus it makes zero sense that a 10m tall 'mech has the same amount of "space" as a 20m tall one, and also that the tiny 'mech's internal structure is the same size as the atlas's.

Sprouticus, on 01 May 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

From my experience as a scout in MW4 I can attest to the fact that being even 30-40 kph faster than the enemy was often not enough to maintain range and observe/harass. The Raven was ok at it, but ONLY because it had 360 degree TT. It wont in MWO (or at least I doubt it will, it was too big an advantage over other scouts).

That might be your experience but it wasn't everyone's. Even 20 kph or less was enough to let a 'mech play a harasser role, depending what it was up against.

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 05:40 AM.

[Sprouticus]

Belisarius†, on 01 May 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

They were in HC, side torsos rolled over to rear CT rather than front CT for XL 'mechs, and it made a huge difference. I only really played NBT's mod with any level of competency, so it must have just been something they added. It was a great feature though.



It's not that it makes lights overpowered, it's just poor design. If every light can fit ES+FF and those technologies have no downside, the option to use them becomes more or less an illusory one. If they're better, and they fit, every light will take them. And if we have a situation that creates choices that aren't real choices, it may as well be modified.

Plus it makes zero sense that a 10m tall 'mech has the same amount of "space" as a 20m tall one, and also that the tiny 'mech's internal structure is the same size as the atlas's.



That might be your experience but it wasn't everyone's. Even 20 kph or less was enough to let a 'mech play a harasser role, depending what it was up against.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding how criticals worked in MW4. There were no critical slots in MW4, none associated with equipment (wepons, equipment, or engine). It had an amount of 'critical damage' that could be absorbed before a section was destroyed, but they were not slots (to my knowledge). Weapons would disappear if all crits were destroyed, but not until the seciton was wiped out completely.

The way MW4 worked was that if you cored a Torso, it would then skip the CT armor and strip the CT 'criticals'. Front and Rear CT shared criticals, so if you core a torso and then kept hitting it you would do critical damage and eventually destroy the mech. It would show up on the Front and Rear CT.

But you never actually had a situation where XL engines would explode simply by destroying all the crits on a torso, you still had to core the CT to destroy the mech.

Regarding scouting, I think the fact that the 360 degree mechs had such a large advantage is evidence enough of the difficulty in maintaining range. The burst damage nature of lasers and PPC's didnt help of course, but I think we will all be surprised at how difficult it is to maintain that range, even with the speed advantage lights get. I do admit I may be wrong however, play testing will be a good indicator.

Even if it isn't, I just think remaking the wheel is just not worth a great deal compared to what is gained. If ES+ FF really does make scouts much tougher than they should be, then shrinking is a good option. But with 1 shot kills being possible, especially after the clan ERPPC & UAC20 comes online, I am guessing we will want lights to be as survivable as possible. Again, play testing will show if it is an issue.

[Belisarius1]

Sprouticus, on 01 May 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are misunderstanding how criticals worked in MW4. There were no critical slots in MW4, none associated with equipment (wepons, equipment, or engine). It had an amount of 'critical damage' that could be absorbed before a section was destroyed, but they were not slots (to my knowledge). Weapons would disappear if all crits were destroyed, but not until the seciton was wiped out completely.

The way MW4 worked was that if you cored a Torso, it would then skip the CT armor and strip the CT 'criticals'. Front and Rear CT shared criticals, so if you core a torso and then kept hitting it you would do critical damage and eventually destroy the mech. It would show up on the Front and Rear CT.

But you never actually had a situation where XL engines would explode simply by destroying all the crits on a torso, you still had to core the CT to destroy the mech.

You had to core the CT, but in HC, damage to standard engine side-torsos rolled over onto the CT's front armour, making them tougher. In comparison, over-damage to XL 'mech side-torsos rolled onto rear armour/internals, and they died quickly. I said that I don't know how it worked in vanilla, but the point is that HC's system was excellent.

Where did I ever mention slots?

Edited by Belisarius†, 01 May 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[zorak ramone]

Just gonna add a few points to the MW4 chat:

RE Harassers: In HRR (CB/GDL in NBT-mercs), we made extensive use of harassers to distract enemies or break up/string out their formation so that the main body could eat them alive. I can think of four specific examples against four different teams (LA, CDS, IHx/SJ, and the UTS wolves, i.e. good/awesome teams) where this technique worked perfectly. So harassers could work in MW4.

The big limitation for harasser use was MW4's see-through-walls, 360 degree radar. This made sneaking around very difficult, and the ubiquitousness (is that a word?) of the ERLL/LL meant that if you were spotted at anything but long range, you'd loose a part of your mech. This is why we always used BAP/ECM mechs for harassers (Ravens and fast Lokis) and always used extreme range weapons (LRMs, ERPPCs, UAC2s).

Since MWO will be using a LOS based radar system, the role of harasser should be much more multi-dimensional.


RE XL engines, ES, and crits: As I pointed out, one of the bad things about MW4 was its opaque construction system. I have no idea which mechs had or didn't have XL engines/ES, and I was not aware of any sort of bonus or penalties based on engine or structure. Maybe this was a HC thing (I never played HC).


RE Damage transfer from dead sections in MW4: We (HRR) figured out how this worked in NBT-mercs. For each section, every mech had armor and internal structure. Again, MW4's system was opaque, so you'd never notice it. Basically, on the HTAL diagram, when a section was green, yellow, orange, or red, you are hitting armor. When the section goes flashing red, you're hitting internal structure. This is when weapons started to disappear and when you started seeing fire/smoke/sparks appear.

When you destroyed a side torso, and then fired shots into the dead torso, damage would transfer directly to CT internal structure. If you had HTAL set to bar graph, you would see your CT bar go down without changing color. When you destroyed a leg, damage done to the dead leg transfered either to CT internals or the internals of the other leg (don't remember).

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 30 April 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

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



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

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

I think it would be sufficient to make ES locked down (especially in a reduced-crit-by-size environment). Adding increased crits could over-balance it.

Also, agree on TACs. They should be removed for the sake of gameplay. I can still remember a MON basically one-shotting a fresh BNC with a single SL (TAC, three crits, double gyro, one engine). Thats infuriating enough when you control 4 mechs, but when you control just one, it ruins the game.

[Belisarius1]

This is getting a bit off topic, but anyway:

zorak ramone, on 02 May 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

RE XL engines, ES, and crits: As I pointed out, one of the bad things about MW4 was its opaque construction system. I have no idea which mechs had or didn't have XL engines/ES, and I was not aware of any sort of bonus or penalties based on engine or structure. Maybe this was a HC thing (I never played HC).

'mechs with endo steel internals had a slightly higher chance of randomly losing weapons before your armour was gone. Like, everyone's had that one drop where you take a random LRM salvo on first contact, lose your main gun, scream "my arm's still ****ing green!" and then ragequit? You were probably running endo. I distinctly remember that being the case all the way back to vanilla. I think standard vs. XL engines was something HC introduced, though. In HC it was clear in the 'mechlab what kind you had.

zorak ramone, on 02 May 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

RE Damage transfer from dead sections in MW4: We (HRR) figured out how this worked in NBT-mercs. For each section, every mech had armor and internal structure. Again, MW4's system was opaque, so you'd never notice it. Basically, on the HTAL diagram, when a section was green, yellow, orange, or red, you are hitting armor. When the section goes flashing red, you're hitting internal structure. This is when weapons started to disappear and when you started seeing fire/smoke/sparks appear.

When you destroyed a side torso, and then fired shots into the dead torso, damage would transfer directly to CT internal structure. If you had HTAL set to bar graph, you would see your CT bar go down without changing color. When you destroyed a leg, damage done to the dead leg transfered either to CT internals or the internals of the other leg (don't remember).

Dead legs rolled over to CT internals. In fact, I'm fairly confident that the CT was the only location that had internal structure. Even then I always suspected that your rear armour actually functioned as CT internals. Did you guys ever test CT vs rear?

I know that damage rollover from side torsos would often cause the rear bar to drop to like 10% while remaining green, which was either a bug or suggested that the missing chunk was treated as internal structure. Damage to rear sometimes applied to the CT graph as well, and sometimes not.

Edited by Belisarius†, 02 May 2012 - 08:20 PM.

[zorak ramone]

The ES/TAC thing is definitely something that HC added, and I think (and you too, right?) that this is something that should not be inculded. I think that cost (both in base price and repairs) and customization limitations should do. TACs, overall should be eliminated.

As for rear armor and internals: rear armor was in fact armor. If you kill a side torso, and then fire into it, you see the front and rear CT armor bars go down on HTAL while remaining green. Also, every section did have internals, its just that the CT was the only section with internals that recieved transfered damage (from dead legs/torsos). If a section is flashing red, then you've burnt off all the armor and are damaging internals. You'll notice that only when the section is flashing red do you start to see fire/sparks and smoke, and only then do you start to loose weapons before loosing the section (I'm speaking about MW4-mercs, which didn't have TACs like HC).

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

The main relevance that this MW4 chat has to the subject at hand is that it emphasizes why its necessary to have a clear construction system with clear rules, so you don't have these kinds of mysteries.

[zorak ramone]

Something more on-topic. IGN has a new MWO article and there are pictures of the mech lab in it.
http://mwomercs.com/...article-on-mwo/

Based on these pictures it seems like, at least in this build, we're still seeing a system where Hardpoints limit number of weapons but not size, meaning that the PPC hunchback and the Dragon as 85kph hunchback are still possible. That said, this may be an earlier build mainly used to show off the graphical interface, which looks quite nice/attractive. Just a reminder, the mechlab simulator linked in the OP of this thread has a mode to simulate the non-size-restricted hardpoint model of the MWO builds we've seen so far.

Some other things about the pictures:

-Any remaining doubts as to the use of the CBT construction rules for mech building can be erased forever now. Each mech section was represented exactly as it is in a CBT record sheet (list of 12 critical slots).

-That mechs will have more hardpoints than are necessary to build the primary configuration is confirmed. The HBK has 2 balistic hardpoints in the RT, and two energy hardpoints in each arm.

-Gauss rifles are in, confirming that at least some level 2 tech is in.

[Belisarius1]

Just for the record, I kind of stopped replying here when it became blindingly apparent that we'd lost. I think we're going to have to wait till beta to demonstrate how hilariously easy the current system is to break, and then start all over.

Which is a shame. I think percentage based armour and speed adjustments, locked internal structure, size-based hardpoints and weight-class based criticals would all have made for a better system, without intruding.

Edited by Belisarius†, 13 May 2012 - 05:38 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Unfortunately I think your right. Even worse is that they may just leave it as it is for their own reasons. In one of the other threads in general discussion about what changes people will do, quite a few said in the poll that they would only do "minor tweaks" or leave it stock. I'm afraid that I just don't believe it. Oh well we'll just have to see what happens. Its a pity as I think your ideas were much more suited to what the game could be. Lets hope they get the matchmaker right.

[PANZERBUNNY]

It's a fine line between a flexible mech lab and making stock chasis designs obsolete and unable to compete.

[Sprouticus]

PANZERBUNNY, on 14 May 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

It's a fine line between a flexible mech lab and making stock chasis designs obsolete and unable to compete.

Not really Panzer, onc eyou introduce a mechlab the stock mechs almost never can compete. This is because they are not min/maxed for whatever the ruleset is currently.

I dont think anyone in this thread expects that to occur. What we are primarily focued on right now is ensuring that the mechlab allows customization while maintaining the 'feel' of each chassis. Limiting the upgrade features (see all the posts in the last 3-4 pages) would do that.

Dev posts recently make me thin that the devs feel that other factors will also keep all mechs viable. I am doubtful on that but am willing to see what happens in the beta.

The various posters in this thread did what they set out to do: offered suggestions to the Dev's and expressed concerns. And I would go so far as to speak for everyone involved in saying that we think the Dev's listened, even if they disagree. And for me personally, I think that if the Dev's go live with a setup that is more permissive than some of us would like, and it shows issues, I feel the dev's will fix it.

That is the difference between having concerns and being worried.

[zorak ramone]

Belisarius†, on 13 May 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Which is a shame. I think percentage based armour and speed adjustments, locked internal structure, size-based hardpoints and weight-class based criticals would all have made for a better system, without intruding.

I've been out for a few days. Did they say something about armor/engine adjustments and I missed it?

PANZERBUNNY, on 14 May 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

It's a fine line between a flexible mech lab and making stock chasis designs obsolete and unable to compete.

Who ever said stock configurations couldn't be changed?

[Belisarius1]

zorak ramone, on 14 May 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I've been out for a few days. Did they say something about armor/engine adjustments and I missed it?

Actually no, not that I'm aware of, but I kind of stopped checking after it became clear that none of Garth's "specific contingencies and plans" had shown up in the mechlab vid. They started with unlimited armour/engine swaps. I would assume they'll continue with that until something demonstrates otherwise. So, I'll wait for beta.

Sprouticus, on 14 May 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Not really Panzer, onc eyou introduce a mechlab the stock mechs almost never can compete. This is because they are not min/maxed for whatever the ruleset is currently.

I dont think anyone in this thread expects that to occur.

I expect it to occur. If I can tweak my 'mech I sure won't be dropping in a stock, ever.

Edited by Belisarius†, 14 May 2012 - 02:54 PM.

[Sprouticus]

Belisarius†, on 14 May 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Actually no, not that I'm aware of, but I kind of stopped checking after it became clear that none of Garth's "specific contingencies and plans" had shown up in the mechlab vid. They started with unlimited armour/engine swaps. I would assume they'll continue with that until something demonstrates otherwise. So, I'll wait for beta.



I expect it to occur. If I can tweak my 'mech I sure won't be dropping in a stock, ever.

you misread or I misstated. I meant that I dont think anyone expects people to take stock mechs.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

A short lived poll in general discussion, http://womercs.com/f...sign-repurpose/ on modifying showed that nearly half said that they would only make "minor" tweaks to the design. Not sure I believe that.

[Belisarius1]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 15 May 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

A short lived poll in general discussion, http://womercs.com/f...sign-repurpose/ on modifying showed that nearly half said that they would only make "minor" tweaks to the design. Not sure I believe that.

The majority's irrelevant. If they stick to that, they'll lose to people willing to make 2 PPC hunchbacks.

Edited by Belisarius†, 15 May 2012 - 05:47 AM.