439 replies to this topic

[verybad]

I think limiting mechs weapons layouts through hardpoints increases the diversity of mechs used in the game. People may or may not like MW4, but if you wanted a certain layout, even an UBer-Layout, then you needed to use a mech chassis that supported that, not any mech.

In previous games to MW4, the ONLY thing that limited mech layouts were the tonnage. In multiplayer, the VAST majority of players optimized their layotus to be successful in multiplayer. This left the possiblity of a Marauder being a missile boat, or an Archer being a laserboat. Mechs were only limtied by their tonnage. Players picked the mechs with the optimal geometry for reducing hits, and diversity in chassis was minimal.

People can complain all they want, but the facts are, the game is Multiplayer only, most players want to win, so they optimize their chassis. (Yes I realize some players don't, but stomp their feet as hard as they want, they're NOT a majority)

While perhaps removing the Mechlab altogether might remove compaints from some players (those wanting to play canon only layouts), it has been a very popular part of the Mechwarrior games for a very long time, removing mechlab altogether would be a poor decision.

A restricted mechlab makes every mech have it's own character, a mech isn't just a #tonnage generic gunboat. Mechwarrior games without restrictive layouts resulted in less diversity in used chassis, as the tonnage and geometry were ALL that mattered.
A MadCat=Orion=Marauder=any other 75 ton mech. While people complainign that they can't tweak to their hearts desire may think they have a valid point. I simply don't think they do, it reduced the overall quality of gameplay when you have only a few optimal layouts.

I'm happy that some of the people who want anything goes layouts are unhappy, that means the game should be less munchkinized. If you want a particular flavor to your mech, you're going to have to pick a mech that is similiar already. Boohoo.

Edited by verybad, 05 April 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[HIemfire]

verybad, on 05 April 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

While perhaps removing the Mechlab altogether might remove compaints from some players (those wanting to play canon only layouts), it has been a very popular part of the Mechwarrior games for a very long time, removing mechlab altogether would be a poor decision.

Doing this would unfortunately do nothing to eliminate min-maxing, it would just focus it to which chassis variant in which mass class was the "Best".

[HIemfire]

HIemfire, on 05 April 2012 - 06:01 AM, said:

My problem is that it looks to me like that to actually perform the scouting/spotter role you have to be within range of most of the mid-range heavier weapons (AC/10, Large Laser, PPC). Compare what those weapons do to what the usual scouts have for armor and their weapon loadouts. Also remember that for the time being we will in all probability have to either be shut down or running passive to have any stealth ability, so expect a dead/standing start as you send the information gathered to be common. I hope that helps clarify my concerns (or as I summed it up, piloting a laser designator wrapped in blasting caps wrapped in tinfoil).

To further clarify, for the COM-2D (and now that I look at it harder the Jenner) not to equate to a quick death once the enemy is spotted when performing in the scout/spotter role, passive sensor (these are sensor types that pick up the emissions of enemy units, their magnetic signature etc. without having to actually emit a power signature, aka not radar) ranges need to be longer than what the previous renditions of MechWarrior have had them locked in at. This was 250 meters in MW4 (I think it was the same for MW3 if I remember correctly) or, for those of us who are not used to working with the metric system outside of a game, roughly 2 3/4 American Football fields (273 yards plus a bit over a foot). For example as to why this would make scouting suicide, the king of autocannons (AC/20) has a range in tabletop of 270 meters (9 hexes multiplied by 30 meters per hex equals 270) or just under 5 yards short of a full three of those football fields (295 yards 9 3/4 inches). The weapons I am focusing on as the main problem, since at 270 meters SRMs and Medium Lasers (The two light mechs so far released are armed with these weapons primarily) come into play giving the scout pilot something to hit back with and hopefully unbalance their opponent long enough to get out of the area, are the Large Laser (450/492 meters/yards), the AC/10 (450/492 meters/yards) and the PPC (540/590.5 meters/yards). In a non-ammunition carrying mech these weapons, while still able to swiss cheese its armor and cause internal damage, would result in a hard hit taken with out absolutely killing the mech. Throw in a ton or so of missiles or machine gun ammunition (or AC ammunition if running with an AC/2 or AC/5, which is done on some canon mech designs) and not have C.A.S.E. (will in all probability not be readily available since it is a Class E refit/customization option requiring a mech factory to install) toss in what is intended with line of sight and what is very likely to happen. Hey um yah, I just lit you guys up for my buddies to hammer and now I'm floating up here hoping that when my ejection seat lands I don't break too many bones. Or to the player, suicide.

We need a better idea of what we are dealing with sensor wise and what the actual tool chest looks like for this to be firm, but as it stands now I am worried. Still planning on playing but worried none the less, and probably going to be taking a Centurion as a scout if the passive sensor to weapon range discrepancy is not fixed (I am not even going into where active sensors still enabled you to pick up someone on passive way before they could detect you in the other MechWarriors. You would think that the radar emissions would have a bigger tell tale that even passive sensors could pick up as at least a blip).

Edited by HIemfire, 05 April 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Arnold Carns]

DaMuncha, on 05 April 2012 - 05:27 AM, said:

I never played the board game and I only started with Mechwarrior 3, so I dont give a flying **** about the lore of Battletech, I loved Mechwarrior 3 because it was dirty, had a good story, and I could build any mech the way I wanted to play. But Mechwarrior 4 completely ruined all that, everything looked shiney and new, sparkly and bright, and the story was crap, I got so sick of having to deal with the political drama, and the mech cusomisation killed it for me because I couldnt play the way I wanted to. So with MWO they've done the same thing.

After playing Mechwarrior 3 then playing Mechwarrior 4 I felt Microsoft was trying to tell me how to play the game, and force me to play the game they wanted me to play it. I hate that crap. Let me Have Mechwarrior 3's Mechlab and let me play the game the way I want. Like I said, I dont care about the lore, I care about having fun and limiting my mech customisation and taking out my favorite mechs ruins it for me.

Then you can congratulate yourself! People like you were responsible for why M$ nerfed some of the weapons AND restricted loadouts via their Hardpoint System. I remember the times and endless discussions when MW3-Players asked (begged) the MW4 Devs in the forums to restrict that intense boating that happened in MW3.

[RogueDK]

/starts humming the "Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force Go!" theme song...

[nitra]

While I appreciate the concerns for min maxing lazer boats, ac boats, gausszilla etc..

it all boils down to the developer not taking the time and or effort to ensure such builds have their respective weaknesses.

In battle tech the basic rules ensure all weapons had a harsh draw back .

Lasers generated heat

auto cannons were dependent on explosive ammo.

Er ppc's would cook the pilot

missiles dependent on explosive ammo

and so forth.

Why the mech warrior series failed so utterly in mech design was because proper care was not taking in giving weapons system their appropriate attributes.

All of the specialized mechs designs should be deadly but also should have equally deadly consequences. So if some one wants to setup a 4 ER PPC walking death machine let him do it .

But as soon as he looses a heat sink or 2 I wanna see his mech warrior burst into flames as soon as he lets off that uncompensated alpha strike.

Or if some one has fitted all auto cannons as soon as his ammo is critted I want to see all the lil mech bits go flying . And then watch in glee as the mech warrior struggles for control, as his mech begins to tumble . And if that mech did not have case I wanna see a fireworks show as all that unprotected ammo goes boom .

Laers boats are also fine as long as they keep alphaing they keep shutting down and as each heat sink goes pop the less efective the mech becomes.

So far no game designer has even come close to making this a reality . All those aforementioned fully customizable games failed because there was never a true drawback system to over specialization .

With the hardpoint system being introduced it will encourage the over all balancing towards the overall fit and not the individual weapon system and support systems. You will have the variants balanced against one another so a jenner has a equal chance aginst an atlas and this is what causes game to be so meh these days. As it becomes another FPS game.

Basically balancing should be done on the indivudal Chasis ,engine, weapon and subsystems
as these dictates how a mech perform. If any one of these systems fail it becomes a hazard to the mech and the mech warrior . This is how the game should be balanced not through over simplification of a hard point systems that brings all the mechs in line with one another .

How can a atlas be feared if you know your jenner has a equal chance at killing it ?

[AlanEsh]

nitra, on 05 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

How can a atlas be feared if you know your jenner has a equal chance at killing it ?

I don't recall the devs making this sort of case -- they say through role warfare all mechs will serve a purpose. They didn't say they'd all be equal.

Your balance theory is great, but you make the assumption that hard points are going to mess that up somehow? Or that balancing the systems is being ignored and the devs are taking the "easy way" by going with hardpoints? Unlikely.

It's just as likely that they're going with a hardpoint system to add some realism (where are you going to put your ammo feed for that AC5 you just put in place of your LL?), and they're looking to preserve the flavor of each mech and variant.

[Sym]

nitra, on 05 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

How can a atlas be feared if you know your jenner has a equal chance at killing it ?

A Jenner was never designed nor fielded to "destroy" an Atlas. This would be like making current day tanks out of card boards so infantry weapons could destroy it...all in the name of being balance.

[Suskis]

nitra, on 05 April 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

It all boils down to the developer not taking the time and or effort to ensure such builds have their respective weaknesses.

This. I do not want new silly rules that have nothing to do with original games just to balance a game that has been balanced for 25 years by itself. Let me do whatever I want as long as it's in the rules. To prevent people from abusing from it, just, again, use the original rules. The more you depart from the original mech, the more chances you have to fail. And the more time it will take and the more C-Bills you have to pay. That's all. Balance at its finest. And without Hardpoints.
The worst part of PVP games is how predictable each class is. Matches become more and more boring because you know what to expect just watching your opponent.
I DO WANT to be surprised! When I meet a Charger, I would love to be shocked by being shot by 40 small lasers that Alpha strike me! That has always be part of the game: the game we loved an played for so many years!

[MaddMaxx]

Suskis, on 05 April 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

This. I do not want new silly rules that have nothing to do with original games just to balance a game that has been balanced for 25 years by itself. Let me do whatever I want as long as it's in the rules. To prevent people from abusing from it, just, again, use the original rules. The more you depart from the original mech, the more chances you have to fail. And the more time it will take and the more C-Bills you have to pay. That's all. Balance at its finest. And without Hardpoints.
The worst part of PVP games is how predictable each class is. Matches become more and more boring because you know what to expect just watching your opponent.
I DO WANT to be surprised! When I meet a Charger, I would love to be shocked by being shot by 40 small lasers that Alpha strike me! That has always be part of the game: the game we loved an played for so many years!

Seeing as the "Original Rules" were meant for a "Kitchen Table" environment, perhaps MechWarrior Tactics is more in your ilk of game play types. We have departed the "Kitchen Table" and require rules to allow the real time environment to be better represented.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 05 April 2012 - 02:53 PM.

[Graverobber]

May we get confirmation or indication on the location of heat sinks affecting heat dispersal?
Example: Lake/River/Sewer only goes halfway up the mech's legs which of the following happens
Half of the heat sinks in legs locations have improved efficiency
All of the heat sinks in legs locations have improved efficiency
All of the heat sinks on the left leg locations have improved efficiency because it is covered more than the right
All of the heat sinks in legs and torso locations have improved efficiency (anyone say steam collectors)
All of the heat sinks on the mech have improved efficiency
Some really unusual mathematical formula such as 43% of the right leg is covered 47% of the left leg which comprise of .26 of the total surface area of the mech so we are going to take the coefficient of the mass of the lake reduced by the total displacement of all the mechs in the body of water divided by the square root of revised water level to the power of the heat sink times the total mass of the individual mech (no that is not a suggestion, I'm pretty sure you would not be happy with the result or the processing power required every time anything entered a body of "water")

[nitra]

Angelicon, on 05 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't recall the devs making this sort of case -- they say through role warfare all mechs will serve a purpose. They didn't say they'd all be equal.
Your balance theory is great, but you make the assumption that hard points are going to mess that up somehow? Or that balancing the systems is being ignored and the devs are taking the "easy way" by going with hardpoints? Unlikely.
It's just as likely that they're going with a hardpoint system to add some realism (where are you going to put your ammo feed for that AC5 you just put in place of your LL?), and they're looking to preserve the flavor of each mech and variant.

Just reading through the posts in here and the advocating for hard points im just pointing out what i believe is their fallacy. whether the devs implement hardpoints horribly or not is yet to be determined but it could lead to a tendency to balance on a per mech basis rather than a system /subsystem basis. one of the issues with the hardpoint system is you could not fit that AC5 in that LL slot your stuck with a energy weapon . Also if the dev designs the game right the mech warrior who fits his ammo in his leg slots will soon find his face in the dirt .
thus why im all for full customization with consequences . watching a specialized system back fire on its mech warrior im my opinion was one of the best features of battle tech tabletop .
As for the jenner .
im not saying a jenner should be something to be ignored but both mech warriors should have a healthy respect for the enemy mech and play the game accordingly. Jenney knowing the atlas could wipe it out in a well placed strike and the atlas pilot fearing death from above as the jenner gets closer and closer .

[nitra]

Sym, on 05 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

A Jenner was never designed nor fielded to "destroy" an Atlas. This would be like making current day tanks out of card boards so infantry weapons could destroy it...all in the name of being balance.

And thats the situation we have with current game design philosphy these days. rarely do you see a tank on the in game battlefeild properly respected . its nothing more than a paper tiger . and thats what i would like to see prevented in this game.

[Sprouticus]

Nitra/Suskis,

Your logic is flawed, and here is why.


You are saying that the BT rules are balanced, and that it has been so for 25 years. The problem is that this is just patently untrue. If using STOCK mechs and BV it is well balanced. But there have been multiple posts in this thread alone saying that custom mechs in BT were just as much of a problem as in MW. Look a few pages back.

And thus your entire argument is invalid. Not that you don't have some good points (the lack of good heat consequences in any MW game, lack of criticals and thus losing ewquipment and HS in MW4, etc). Its just that your base assumptions are completely wrong.

[Kudzu]

Sprouticus, on 05 April 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Nitra/Suskis,

Your logic is flawed, and here is why.


You are saying that the BT rules are balanced, and that it has been so for 25 years. The problem is that this is just patently untrue. If using STOCK mechs and BV it is well balanced. But there have been multiple posts in this thread alone saying that custom mechs in BT were just as much of a problem as in MW. Look a few pages back.

And thus your entire argument is invalid. Not that you don't have some good points (the lack of good heat consequences in any MW game, lack of criticals and thus losing ewquipment and HS in MW4, etc). Its just that your base assumptions are completely wrong.

It took TT BT several layers of balancing to get it mostly right and even then it was really easy to throw that right out the window between custom mechs and which optional rules you used.

While I would have preffered nothing but stock mechs each with it's own standard battle value (not from the TT but decided based on game metrics-- such as the CN9-A Centurion being worth 75 BV, the AH (3025 Yen Lo Wang) being worth 80, but the CN9-D (3050 refit) being worth 100).

As it stands, they'll have to come up with a pretty intense BV formula to take into account all the min-maxing people will be doing to help keep the field even between the haves and have nots. (And if they don't use something similar to BV to balance the game... good luck trying to get a fair match.)

[Ironhawk]

Kudzu, on 05 April 2012 - 06:46 PM, said:

It took TT BT several layers of balancing to get it mostly right and even then it was really easy to throw that right out the window between custom mechs and which optional rules you used.

While I would have preffered nothing but stock mechs each with it's own standard battle value (not from the TT but decided based on game metrics-- such as the CN9-A Centurion being worth 75 BV, the AH (3025 Yen Lo Wang) being worth 80, but the CN9-D (3050 refit) being worth 100).

As it stands, they'll have to come up with a pretty intense BV formula to take into account all the min-maxing people will be doing to help keep the field even between the haves and have nots. (And if they don't use something similar to BV to balance the game... good luck trying to get a fair match.)

Still, trying out combinations IS part of the fun of the game. MW without the MechLab choices would make little sense.

[Punisher 1]

I have read alot of these posts and you can see a clear division in the ranks.

So I'm going to say this and I really do not care if you love or hate me for it.

As much as I have read and played the game table top and PC based I never liked sticking with a standard mech layout. For the most part I find most of them USELESS.

Why? because I have to figure out how to exactly use this freaking mech the best way possible with the weapons I'm stuck with. Which in some cases is just not going to work out well for most situations. The guy across the table or net knows EXACTLY how that mech works and what it can and cannot do and he or she will do thier best to use that against me. Why do I want to give them ANY advantage?

Where as a custom mech with a specific chasis based load out ( Meaning you put in it specifically what you want with regard to the hard point allowance ) seems to work best. This matches your play style and abilities. In real life If I was a merc and had the option to customize my vehicle of choice and had the cash and gear it would be the best thing I could bring to the field of battle.

With that said why would I use a mech that is primarly slotted for ballistic weapons or missile weapons? When I hate using them or rather use energy based weapons or I cannot find replacement weapons or ammo? It might just be possible like in other games to not be able to properly fund or out outfit a mech ( due to lack of reasources) with the right weapons.

Given some story lines it only makes sense that some mechs would be the "Dreaded Franken Mech" most people fear. Chances are you would face non typical mechs on a regular basis. I would expect Merc units to have an array designs that would be the nightmare of regular units.

A Mech with few options to be adaptive will be the least used and most players will seak out the best mechs for the job, hence a room full of the same mechs, how boring will that be?

[nitra]

Sprouticus, on 05 April 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Nitra/Suskis,
Your logic is flawed, and here is why.
You are saying that the BT rules are balanced, and that it has been so for 25 years. The problem is that this is just patently untrue. If using STOCK mechs and BV it is well balanced. But there have been multiple posts in this thread alone saying that custom mechs in BT were just as much of a problem as in MW. Look a few pages back.
And thus your entire argument is invalid. Not that you don't have some good points (the lack of good heat consequences in any MW game, lack of criticals and thus losing ewquipment and HS in MW4, etc). Its just that your base assumptions are completely wrong.

True. The BT rules may have been flawed but in standard skirmishes they seemed fine and my inexperience at never playing in tourney prevented me from seeing the atrocities that people are alluding to.

I do wonder however if these unbalncing factors were more due to the superior clan mechs being min maxed and played against innesphere mechs.

Basically your throwing in a double bonus and with the fanaticism at the times with inersphere and clans you would have people holding stead fast to their warhammers and timber wolves.

With the innersphere diehards at a distinct disadvantage especially against custom clan mechs.

This really higlights my fear of hardpoints to begin with. Because if and when clan mechs are introduced they will be of course superior to the innerspher mechs as they are supposed to be .

And with the limitation of the hard point system the ability to improve a innersphere combat mech's survivability against a clan encounter will be greatly diminished.

This was pretty much highlighted in the mech warrior games.

Limit the customization of mechs, limits their versatility, and when it comes time to face a superior foe. You are going to need every ounce of versatility you can find.

Edited by nitra, 05 April 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[JakeMeaike]

maxoconnor, on 04 April 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I like it so far. My biggest concern is that they will make certain cannon mechs in such a way that you cannot recreate the actual weapons layouts.

ie, a Marauder sporting Ballistic weapons in the arms. They did this in the MekPacks and when I would go to mock up a classic mech, I would find I couldn't make it because they blocked the mech off from having the room to place the actual weapons in the locations they should.
The Warhammer was a good example. You couldn't actually lay the weapons out as they should be and you had to leave off the small lasers because there was not enough energy slots available.

I do like having some of the restrictions like if your mech does not come with jump jets, then you can't just slap them on. If you want to jump you will have to choose a different mech. I also hope engine upgrades will also be difficult to modify. It will make you choose your mech carefully and you can't just modify any chassis you like to jump and run as fast as you want and throw whatever weapons you like willy nilly on it.

Marauders should be Marauders, not try to be an Archer or Hatchetman.

I agree. That way you have to learn how to play the individual Mech. I mean that you can't use a scout to go head to head with an heavy. I think that being able to play the different chassis as intended will allow you to learn how the mechs work, and find advantages within the class.

I think that learning the style of mech's will help players to enjoy the limits and capabilities of the mechs.

[Felbombling]

Punisher_1, on 05 April 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

A Mech with few options to be adaptive will be the least used and most players will seak out the best mechs for the job, hence a room full of the same mechs, how boring will that be?

Punisher, I'm trying to wrap my head around this post of yours. If I read this correctly, you're saying that weak Mech designs will be shunned by the community due to the fact that they cannot be min/maxed as effectively as other Mechs? Further, the end result would be similar Mechs running around, creating a lack of variety? I'm sorry, but isn't this an argument that eats itself? If the community, as a whole, throws the best Mech chassis into the Mech lab and comes out with the same designs, wouldn't that be exactly what you imagine would be boring... the same Mechs over and over again, just maximised? This sort of reminds me of World of Warcraft builds, where people go to some website to find out what the best Frost Death Knight or Demonology Warlock build is, then copy that... cookie cutter builds where everyone is the exact same.

Hey, I always looked on it like this... let's say Mech designs work the exact same way as fighter jet contracts. The U.S. Navy puts out a call for a next generation fighter. It has to have a climb rate of X, a max altitude of Y, an operational range of Z. Multiple companies throw their prototype planes together, based on the Navy requirements, and the best design wins. Same thing with some of the whacky Mech designs you see. The Mech must have ground speed of X, must be able to clear terrain of 30 meters, and have indirect fire capability. The Mech designers, like the fighter jet designers, have to make design choices to make their machine fit the desired specs. So you end up with scout Mechs, skirmishers, etc etc... all in the same weight class. That is actual variety, right there.

Edited by StaggerCheck, 05 April 2012 - 10:29 PM.