193 replies to this topic

[GrimFist]

Camo-paint (urban camo..haha)................ check
Mech sized block of dry ice ....................... check
2 tons of ammo for the Browning MGs....... check
20 machine guns....................................... not awesome but OMG...
Megadeath Greatest Hits spooled up......... that's right

[Gun Bear]

Isn't there a BT rule where you can't add more armor points than like 2 or 3 times the critical areas within?

[Johannes Falkner]

Gigaton, on 19 April 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

If losing either side torso automatically destroys the respective arm as in TT, people would think twice about leaving side torso unarmoured.

Unarmoured arms could be discouraged if losing arm forced "piloting skill check" of sorts due to sudden loss of mass. Ie. it would usually cause you to stumble at least, or perhaps even fall down.

No idea what to do about asymmetric 'mechs, with only one side torso and arm armoured. Hardpoint system will probably discourage that, but I'd like to see some additional preventive measures. Perhaps acceleration/turning/accuracy penalties due to less-than-stellar stability?

Or you could simply have a gaping hole in the armor where that arm/torso used to be and allow more internal damage for shots into the hole. Then losing an arm or torso section is a real cause for alarm and you might see forced withdrawal type behavior as people back away to prevent their own annihilation.

[Vexgrave Lars]

[Rhinehart]

I don't think you'd see armies of Novas and Longbows if it's done right(Beside the fact that neither fit the timeline). Both Novas(and Nova Cats) and Longbows were far more effective than they should have been for two reasons. 1st heat manangement parameters were so generous in the MW 4 series(Especially in Black Knight) that it made any comparison to any previous mechwarrior titles essentially useless. 2nd Armor allocation was also ridiculously generous, in many cases allowing several times the armor to be used on chassis than in any other MW titles(and the tabletop game as well). This resulted in a style of Mechwarrior play that, while enjoyable, certainly was not the most "realistic" interpretation of the Mechwarrior Universe.

[GaussDragon]

Rhinehart, on 19 April 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

1st heat manangement parameters were so generous in the MW 4 series(Especially in Black Knight) that it made any comparison to any previous mechwarrior titles essentially useless.

Not really, it was the fact that they could stay hidden thanks to cover and sniping. They'd only expose themselves after draining sufficient heat. Out in the open, they were in trouble, but a good group of Nova Cat pilots wouldn't put themselves in such a laughably bad situation in the first place.

[Thor77]

I love optimizing mech designs. Playing around in the Mechlab is one of my favorite parts of the game. Don't cripple the lab, but as noted above, there are ways to 'organically' encourage designs other than laser boats, missile boats, etc. Tweaks to the way weapons work, varying objectives etc. If un-pleasing strategies are successful, don't hate the player, hate the game. We're all just trying to win under the rules that exist.

For all the scoffing that MW4 gets, I kinda liked their hardpoint system rather than the table top authentic crit-slots system. It gave the mechs a bit of personality and prevented MG or Med las boats. So then people just loaded up on ERPPCs and ERLG. So, still boats, but at least with sexier guns.

The technical readout designs often incorporate things that make sense in a world with lots of infantry, like small lasers and machine guns, which make little or no sense in a mech that's only fighting other mechs. In a mechs-only world you just optimize for damage, range, and rate of fire. Basically only two design concepts make sense: optimize direct-fire damage, or be a fire support missile boat. In a world with helicopters, sappers, shoulder launched SRMs etc, having a couple smaller caliber weapons mounted makes sense. When we see missions that incorporate things besides hot mech-on-mech action, there will be a purpose in having a 'balanced' configuration. Until then, everyone will be building a mech-killer.

I'm confident that the devs, with the role warfare concept, will encourage variety in mech design. If everyone's running around with the same 3 configs a week after launch, then we can complain.

[SweetJackal]

In any game, min-maxing is never a problem with anything. What is a problem is when there is an option that is much more effective, usually because what it gives up was meaningless in the first place. So dropping dead weight for a boon? That's just smart design and choices.

If you take the design of a jet, it has to make choices in it's design. Everything has a drawback, being adding firepower means more weight which affect performace, bigger engines need more fuel which cuts down range and so on. There is no "Perfect Jet" as any war machine is a balance of various factors, increasing one lowers another.

And as far as I can tell, the game is going this way too. There is no perfect mech. No matter how you build your mech, it will have weaknesses, there will be things you've got to watch out for and there will be tactics that exploit your weaknesses. Power gaming itself isn't a problem, the problem is systems that release unbalanced options by not having a meaningful counterpoint to those options.

As to other posters, having to pick your mech before knowing the map is about the worst idea tossed out on these boards. Your environment is just as important with tactics as your mech is. Urban mechs play to the strengths that give the greatest benefit in an urban environment. The same is true for long ranged mechs. You don't bring artillery units in to fight inside a city and you don't give a unit shotguns to hold down an open field.

And lord knows that "Magic Damage Transfer" shouldn't be in the game. It was required in the tabletop as a mechanic to ensure a Hit rolled didn't suddenly do no damage to a mech because the dice told you you hit a missing limb and for weapon balance. Your skill will determine if you hit and where you hit in one check, not the whims of fickle dice on two checks.

In the end, the game isn't even out yet. You can't play it and balance as a whole is about how things interact. This isn't the TT or any MW game that came before it. It's going to be it's own beast so can we all just stop talking about the balance of things we don't even know yet?!

Edited by SuckyJack, 19 April 2012 - 08:27 PM.

[Gigaton]

Gun Bear, on 19 April 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Isn't there a BT rule where you can't add more armor points than like 2 or 3 times the critical areas within?

It's 2 times the internal structure points, correct. And as far as I'm aware, you aren't allowed to assign seperate armour values between the 'paired' locations (legs, arms and so on).

Motionless, on 19 April 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking 'immersion.' Do you mean from a lore/fluff perspective? I would think at some point in the BT universe people might figure out that an awesome's ppc arm is a little more valuable than its grabby hand arm and might decide an a-symmetrical armor layout to MATCH their a-symmetrical weapons layout would benefit them.

Also the word munchkin refers to people who act competitive in a non-competitive activity - while MWO is specifically being made as a video game that people compete against other players in.

Erm, yes. I really do find the concept of everyone running around in asymmetric 'mechs with entirely unarmoured locations (which they still diligently repair between battles, using scarce and valuable components?) to be rather silly. In the end all bipedal 'mechs have two arms and two side torsos. If one armed one side torso 'mech was so much more efficient, one would figure everyone would be using such 'mechs and save the extra myomers from the second arm for something else. Basically, I feel it goes against the spirit of the rules.

Now, I did provide suggestions for actual gameplay effects that could be implemented to make assymmetric (or torso/legs only) armouring a tradeofff, rather than "press button to be more powerful". I would assume such tradeoffs with cons and pros would be more interesting even (or especially) for people who like to tinker with their 'mech to get that last bit of efficiency out.


For the general subject of boating, I don't really have that much against it (and Komodo is one of the 'mechs I'm waiting for) but at the same time I wouldn't want it to be the only viable choise. PGI has taken some measures against it as can be seen in their mechlab concepts, but at least I'm hoping that lack of proper hardpoints is not the only reason to go for generalist type configs. We'll see.

As for the part about semantics, munchkin is often used as synonym for powergamer, which might have been more proper term here. And I seriously doubt that MW:O will specifically cater to hardcore competitive gamers. There will always be digusting fun muppets like myself around. And no, I don't need to win and gloat my victory to have fun.

Edited by Gigaton, 19 April 2012 - 09:45 PM.

[Hayashi]

Hey, repairing ain't cheap. If your left arm has zero armour, then it WILL be shot off every game because any stray shot/missile will crit the freaking thing to oblivion. If you're willing to pay the cost I don't see why it won't be allowed but then... you will pay the cost.

Similarly, if you wanna tweak yer Jenner to be super fast at the cost of weapons, why not... another Jenner pilot with less speed and more firepower can destroy you, but if you are good enough at hiding and running, I don't have any objection to you making that choice.

And if you were to drop your Atlas to UrbanMech speeds, go ahead... just don't complain when a Hunchback kills you from behind because you are too slow to ever turn around enough to fire at it.

[Motionless]

Gigaton, on 19 April 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

Erm, yes. I really do find the concept of everyone running around in asymmetric 'mechs (which they still diligently repair between battles, using scarce and valuable components?)

And as you were talking about with scarce and valuable components, what if you don't have a weapon system to fit in a mechs arm due to this -- the difficulty of maintaining a replacement? You might decide tactically to also not attach the armor/other components there if you still have space somewhere else.

And diligently repairing between battle is something that generally happens in games as a limitation. When I tried the MW4 mercs campaign I was annoyed to find out that I HAD to repair a mech before I could use it again, when the only thing destroyed was an arm that I didn't have the tonnage to fit anything on anyway -- I was willing to take it into battle without repairing -- and I'm sure in the actual battletech universe they did not have the luxury to always repair between fights. I particularly remember an Atlas in the MW3 opening scene with only one arm.

What broke the immersion is that I was forced to always have nice spit-shined fully repaired and functional mechs in every battle. I understand what you mean, it would be silly to contruct an arm, not armor it, get it blow off then reconstruct it without intention of armoring it. But certainly you can see the fluff situation where you would not armor an arm in specific situations - the part that BREAKS from what might happen in the BT universe is the constant reconstruction of the arm repeatedly, not the choice to not armor a useless one.

[CMoore]

I use to play battletech a while ago, and have played every videogame i could find. One thing i could never really understand are the mechs without arms (the Locust and Catapult are my favorite examples) yet in game stats, they still had them and the appropriate armor plating. I always wondered "What's the armor protecting?" and more importantly: "Where is it?"
Its funny when you think how they manage to get back up after a fall.

[Pvt Dancer]

My opinion is, if someone wants to be foolish and strip off armor at certain locations, more power to them. They obviously do not understand how damage transfers in Table Top and that they are using those damage transfer rules here. They really are not helping themselves any by doing this... there are 11 locations that effect 8 internal locations.

Say they are in a mech with 20pts of armor on each arm... that is 6pts of armor to all the torso locations... if they don't exceed the max set by IS points... but now everytime they hit what is left of your arm nub (assuming it is blown off) that damage is going straight to the torso anyways. I would rather have the 20pts of armor there instead.

[BerryChunks]

making a "dead" arm just gives people a larger area to shoot at and hit your Side torso then center torso, due to damage transfer, and if the arm comes completely off, well then that torso is wide open to be shot up.

Myself, I'm looking forward to running an 8 armor tonnage atlas. strip out the large lasers and throw PPCs on, more missiles, etc. /drool

Just call me heavy fire support.

Edited by BerryChunks, 19 April 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[CMoore]

I remember my very first mech i made (before i understood the rules). It was a 100tonner with a medium laser in every slot. A full attack destroyed everything in range. Not because it hits you, but because i explode from the heat.

[CMoore]

I know they were rip-offs of Macross/Robotech, BUT i started playing Battletech specificly after seeing a LAM. The worst part is ive never been able to play one! Anyone else?

[Motionless]

CMoore, on 19 April 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

I know they were rip-offs of Macross/Robotech, BUT i started playing Battletech specificly after seeing a LAM. The worst part is ive never been able to play one! Anyone else?

Chance of your seeing a LAM in MWO = 0%.

I've seen a number of people express their love for LAMs though, so you're not alone.

[Johannes Falkner]

I should point out that there are canon mechs with asymmetrical armor, like the War Dog

[Gigaton]

CMoore, on 19 April 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I use to play battletech a while ago, and have played every videogame i could find. One thing i could never really understand are the mechs without arms (the Locust and Catapult are my favorite examples) yet in game stats, they still had them and the appropriate armor plating. I always wondered "What's the armor protecting?" and more importantly: "Where is it?"
Its funny when you think how they manage to get back up after a fall.

Catapult's "arms" are the missile launchers. That's where the weapons are located. RT and LT have medium lasers, jump jets and ammo. Locust has similar stubby arms (as does Jenner).

Johannes Falkner, on 19 April 2012 - 10:55 PM, said:

I should point out that there are canon mechs with asymmetrical armor, like the War Dog

Point taken. It's not a concept I encounter often in TT. But for War Dog, it's a difference in armour not absence of it entirely. It has weapon in the less armoured arm too.

Edited by Gigaton, 19 April 2012 - 11:28 PM.

[Savant]

Vexgrave Lars, on 19 April 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

I think your doing it wrong, all that equipment requires heavy and usually immediate maintenance after each outing.

The epitome of Min/Max is the AK-47

Just enough parts to work, and enough spacing tolerance for all that extra dirt as well.