164 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

Like Victor above, I would like to see variety, albeit tempered variety.

Specifically, I'd like to see the weapons generally adhere to the TT stats (which can be thought to represent the average performance across all examples), with some small variance between factors.
By "small", I refer to a 5%-or-less (small enough to be below the usual measure of (statistical) significance, while still great enough to be noticeable/noteworthy) variance from the "average"/TT stats.

To return to the example of the Medium Laser:

"basic/generic/average" ML
Damage (per salvo): 5.00 units
Heat (per salvo): 3.00 units
Range (max. effective): 270.00 meters
Recycle Rate (min. time between firing one salvo and firing a second salvo): 5.00 seconds [taken from Solaris/Duel rules]

"Defiance BM3" ML
Damage: 5.13 units
Heat: 3.07 units
Range: 263.25 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.88 seconds

"Magna Mk.II" ML
Damage (per salvo): 4.75 units
Heat (per salvo): 2.85 units
Range (max. effective): 283.50 meters
Recycle Rate: 5.25 seconds

"OMI HighBurn" ML
Damage (per salvo): 5.25 units
Heat (per salvo): 3.15 units
Range (max. effective): 256.50 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.75 seconds

"Starflash II" ML
Damage (per salvo): 4.88 units
Heat (per salvo): 2.93 units
Range (max. effective): 276.75 meters
Recycle Rate: 5.13 seconds

In the examples above, heat increases with damage (and vice versa), recycle rate increases with range (and vice versa), and damage and range are inversely related (damage increases as range decreases, and vice versa).

Tonnage and volume (critical spaces) and units of ammunition per ton (where applicable) would be kept constant (and in line with the TT's listed values).

Your thoughts?

[Ghosth]

Does a rifle chambered for .308 from Winchester have significantly different stats than one from Remington? No, not really.
Accuracy changes yes, minor ones, but thats it. What the gun produces depends more on the ammuntion its chambered for. And we are not talking 10-20 carefully hand crafted handloads here, we are talking bulk manufacture of ammo by the ton. At that level there is virtually no difference in ammo from any of the major companys.

For lasers slight differences in heat disipation perhaps.

Range for projectile and missiles should be nearly identical.

[Tannhauser Gate]

I voted Yes.

More than any title before, MWO is about bringing the BT universe into the game. Its about letting pilots increase skill and technical ability to enhance their mechs with modules. It's about upgrading TRO variants. It's about salvage and buying different parts on the market. But most of all its about conquest of planets with their industrial technology. Leaving the weapons plain and without diversity would be overlooking a basic facet of BT.

- Being able to upgrade your weapon to the better manufacturer and slightly better stats makes sense.
- It would make salvage MUCH more interesting and useful as well.
- It could simply operate similar to Modules with +/- 2.5% to +/- 5% in effectiveness (whatever fits play balance)
- Different quality of manufacturing facilities would also encourage choice and diversity in planetary raids to take over or defend one industrial complex over another as opposed to just another tech level 2 factory.
- Using corporate names and known brands from canon for this equipment would add to the detail that Randall and others are already doing.

As long as the difference in quality (stats) are subtle enough to be interesting but not throw game play off balance, I see alot of coolness in this idea. It fits well into MWO's mission which already has modules, already has mech variants, already has canon planets, ships, mechs, etc.. and is already using corporate and brand names as part of the game experience.

Edited by LakeDaemon, 17 April 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[EmCeeKhan]

As much as that would be interesting and neat, I had to vote no.

I want them to make this game soon, not wait another two years while they hammer out every detail about every weapon made by every individual arms manufacturer.

[CeeKay Boques]

What? Yes, this is exactly what I want to pay for.

AC 10 #1 fires one large 10 point slug.
AC 10 #2 Fires 5 2 point bullets like a burst fire
AC 10 #3 Has 1 more heat, but no kick (recoiless)


Etc. Too much work? Its exactly what they should be working on! That said, i'm not sure beyond balistics how much "fluff" things you can add to lasers and missiles to differentiate them. I really struggled to think of some.

[EmCeeKhan]

Technoviking, on 17 April 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Etc. Too much work? Its exactly what they should be working on!

While I agree with you, having worked on a few game design projects myself, simplicity is the best way to achieve balance and a timely release.

Maybe release that in a later patch/update. Out of the box? I think it might be a little too much to ask for. LOL

[William Petersen]

How the crap is "yes" winning this poll? In the TT a PPC was a PPC was a PPC. It didn't matter if it was made on Terra, Arc Royal, or Tharkad, it did 10 damage, created 10 heat, had a range of 18 hexes, weighed 7 tons and took 3 criticals. I'm sure they probably looked differently externally and internally and may have had a slightly different appearance when firing, but other than aesthetics their functionality was exactly. The. Same.

[Naqel]

I like the "manufacturer perk" idea.

Guys that make lasers make weapons that manage heat better, but deal less damage.
Guys that make cannons make more accurate but slower weapons.
Ect.

Basically, each of the manufacturers has a +x% stat and a -x% stat, with manufacturers simply not producing weapons that the adjustments would make no sense on(Laser guys don't make bullet weapons, Cannon guys don't make lasers, ect.)

William Petersen, on 17 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

I'm sure they probably looked differently externally and internally and may have had a slightly different appearance when firing, but other than aesthetics their functionality was exactly. The. Same.

In terms of a tabletop game? Yes. But we're looking at a simulator here, and one where half your time will be spent in the MechLab, customizing your unit. Even being able to affect just those aesthetics by chosing a different manufacturer would mean a lot for some people, as per poll.

Edited by Naqel, 17 April 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[William Petersen]

Naqel, on 17 April 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

In terms of a tabletop game? Yes. But we're looking at a simulator here, and one where half your time will be spent in the MechLab, customizing your unit. Even being able to affect those aesthetics by chosing a different manufacturer would mean a lot for some people, as per poll.

Surely you jest. Half my time in my Mech Lab? I'm here to play MechWarrior, not City of Heroes. I have a solid grasp on how the weapons should more or less function, sure the specifics are a bit foggy right now, but I know I like medium lasers, I know I like SRMs, I know I like light Mechs. I'll get my Jenner, tear out the JJs, swap an MLas for an SLas, prop up the armour and I don't think I'll need to tinker with the Mech Lab again 'til I want to play with a new Chassis.

[Wyzak]

I say just do what mektek did and make more subtypes for weapons. (LAC, HVAC, RAC, AC, LBX, UAC, CHL, LCBL) Specify a manufacturer if you want to, but don't make seperate manufactures. I found that when reading the novels, manufacturers such as "Deathbloom, Doombud, and Shigunga" were really referring to completely different types of missile racks anyway.

[MaddMaxx]

I voted NO but given what Sturm posted, what is the real difference between

"Defiance BM3" ML
Damage: 5.13 units
Heat: 3.07 units
Range: 263.25 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.88 seconds

"OMI HighBurn" ML
Damage (per salvo): 5.25 units
Heat (per salvo): 3.15 units
Range (max. effective): 256.50 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.75 seconds

these 2 Lasers? How would one benefit using one over the other in a 20-30 minute Match? Really?

And if anyone wants to make them more un-even, then we get into Balance issues and the obvious outcome. That being one Unit/Laser will always be rated "Best in Class" and then used by "everyone" and all the work done to create them becomes wasted DEV time.

Choice is great, no doubt. But when I have to decide what to carry on the Battlefield, gimmicky stuff stays home, the real deal goes with. It is that simple really.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 April 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[Kudzu]

MaddMaxx, on 17 April 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

I voted NO but given what Sturm posted, what is the real difference between

"Defiance BM3" ML
Damage: 5.13 units
Heat: 3.07 units
Range: 263.25 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.88 seconds

"OMI HighBurn" ML
Damage (per salvo): 5.25 units
Heat (per salvo): 3.15 units
Range (max. effective): 256.50 meters
Recycle Rate: 4.75 seconds

these 2 Lasers? How would one benefit using one over the other in a 20-30 minute Match? Really?

And if anyone wants to make them more un-even, then we get into Balance issues and the obvious outcome. That being one Unit/Laser will always be rated "Best in Class" and then used by "everyone" and all the work done to create them becomes wasted DEV time.

Choice is great, no doubt. But when I have to decide what to carry on the Battlefield, gimmicky stuff stays home, the real deal goes with. It is that simple really.

Honestly, if the differences are going to be that small might as well make them cosmetic changes so that you never have to worry about balance being an issue. If Brand X medium laser uses a darker red color than Brand Y you still get the fluffy difference and gameplay is not effected.

[CeeKay Boques]

Yes, those differences are subtle, but with a 4 laser array, the differences become stronger.


Fluff. It can be real now. I'm surprised you TTers aren't excited and jumping on to the manifistation of fluff, rather than sticking to "10 points of damage is 10 points so why bother" instead? How boring! If the difference is so small, don't worry your head about it. It'll just matter to people that are endlessly tweaking.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 17 April 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

Yes, those differences are subtle, but with a 4 laser array, the differences become stronger.


Fluff. It can be real now. I'm surprised you TTers aren't excited and jumping on to the manifistation of fluff, rather than sticking to "10 points of damage is 10 points so why bother" instead? How boring! If the difference is so small, don't worry your head about it. It'll just matter to people that are endlessly tweaking.

The butterfly effect-- small changes can have huge and unforeseen consequences.

[Victor Morson]

William Petersen, on 17 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

How the crap is "yes" winning this poll? In the TT a PPC was a PPC was a PPC. It didn't matter if it was made on Terra, Arc Royal, or Tharkad, it did 10 damage, created 10 heat, had a range of 18 hexes, weighed 7 tons and took 3 criticals. I'm sure they probably looked differently externally and internally and may have had a slightly different appearance when firing, but other than aesthetics their functionality was exactly. The. Same.

Because the fiction talked about differences in different brands of equipment (guns, engines, sensors, etc) that were too subtle to be represented in the board game's numbers. If a board game could track more subtle differences - i.e. a PPC does 100 damage, not 10, you could have had one model that did 97 and another 102. It'd been a nightmare to track with pen & paper, though.

So yes and no.. it was treated the same on TT but the fiction surrounding it said it was not. I will say I'm not crazy about the idea of radically altering weapons (burst firing ACs and stuff are definitely a terrible idea). I'd like to see it represented with very small shifts only.

As for things like LRMs, there's lots of subtle behavioral differences to mess with there too.. how high they arc, how fast they travel, how much they track a target; a bunch of minor things that don't really impact their core stats.

EDIT: Also for all the people saying "who cares about 5%?" have you looked at the pilot modules? The majority of them operate, at least as so far hinted at, on just a few percent for each perk.

Edited by Victor Morson, 17 April 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Lailoken]

Kudzu, on 16 April 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

I don't see the time and effort it would take designing, coding, and balancing this to be worth what we would get out of it in the end. So while I think it would be neat to have I'd rather see that energy being spent on more mechs/maps/ect.

IMO it just adds another level of complexity that just isn't worth the effort. I'd rather more effort be spent on mechs/story/maps. Story because I was hoping for a MW5 with both SP and MP. I think MWO has alot of potential, but also a lot of risk to become just another MMO.

[Vandul]

Hello Variety.
Goodbye balance.
Hello Nerf.
Goodbye players.
Goodbye programmers.

[wwiiogre]

I also voted no for now. Meaning no for launch but like melee and combined arms hopefully this will come in the future. Want the game now, don't care if they spent even one day on making this happen, it would mean I don't get my game one day soon enough. So NO.

chris

[Rhavin]

I voted yes, but really the differences should be +%5-10% with a balanceing factor of 5-15%, there should be drawbacks to such tweaks, want 5% less heat and %5 less recycle time on that "Sniper Corp ULT". PPC, take a 15% damage reduction. Want to equip a "BMF Armory" PPC instead for 5% more damage? Take 10% more heat and %5 more recycle time.

I admit though, once the game is released and people start tinkering with thier mechs in the lab there will be varients that rise to the top as powerhouses equipping the same tired **** over and over again broadcast on websites devoted to "helping" you find "exactly what you need to do".

Just sayin.

[TeaL3af]

Not for EVERY manufacturer. Checking sarna there are 11 different PPC brands, bit excessive. I'd say just have the stock PPC simply called "PPC" and then if the devs can think of an interesting variant that make sense in terms of gameplay mechanics they add in a Manufacturer specific version. So you might end up with 3 or 4 versions of each gun, but not one for every single manufacturer. That would just be needlessly complex.

EDIT: Also, variants should be "different enough" to justify creating them. +5% range, -5% damage on a laser doesn't matter at all and will rarely change the outcome of a fight. I'd rather see stuff like +20% range, -10% damage, +1 ton weight or other extreme things like that for lasers. ACs are easier to do because of their nature, you have single shot, double shot, triple shot etc.

Edited by TeaL3af, 17 April 2012 - 11:37 AM.