36 replies to this topic

[Toothman]

As long as the mechlab alows me to put in twin ICBMs with MIRVed warheads it'll be ok.

[Bryan Ekman]

Major Tom, on 11 May 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

This is an interesting statement. I don't want to read too much into it, but what makes a an Autocannon so effective against a Jenner? does it have a wide spread, rapid fire, heat seeking? An AC5 does the same damage (presumably) as a Md Laser, and significanlty less damage than an SRM6 or PPC what makes it superior against a Jenner compared to those?

Arm ACs + speed = Jenner killer. A good pilot can place those AC right on target, negating the some of the Jenner's advantages.

[Mr Smiles]

Bryan Ekman, on 11 May 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

I'd wait for the game to launch. We're not seeing this effect yet.

Well, does your office contain the combined setting-diluting, minmaxing munchkining power of the entire Internet? Because once the game goes live, we will find ways to poke holes in your game and dilute it as much as possible

What I would like to see is: you currently have a system (IIRC!) in place where a 'Mech can only get jump jets if one of its variants has jump jets (under the assumption that if none of its variants have jump jets, the 'Mech is simply not structurally designed for them--also, differentiating 'Mechs of the same weight classes).

Well, put in place a similar system with endo steel, ferros-fibrous armor, XL engines, double heat sinks, larger engines, smaller engines, etc. Make it so players can only swap out for those things if any of the variants have them.

Thus, the Black Knight for instance, would have access to Endo Steel, XL engine, and Double Heat Sinks, because the BL-6b-KNT has the first two of those and the BL-9-KNT has the XL engine. But, the Black Knight wouldn't be able to get jump jets, ferros-fibrous armor, or an engine size change, because none of its variants have ever had any of those things.

I think this would at least partially alleviate people's concerns that with enough money, every 'Mech is going to be a Clan 'Mech in terms of advanced tech and strength. And of course this would alleviate some people's concerns about flavor and how easy it should be to swap out an engine. But, considering how many variants there are of each 'Mech, it would basically only restrict a couple of options per 'Mech, rather than most of them.

And it would also just help differentiate each 'Mech even further. Otherwise, your MechLab is going to feel VERY lopsided: highly restrictive in terms of hardpoint types, leveling up individual 'Mechs, needing to repair individual weapons, and jump jets, but VERY unrestrictive when it comes to XL engines and endo steel frames (which is odd, because normally those are the things you'd EXPECT would be the ones most restricted, considering swapping an engine basically requires taking the entire 'Mech apart and building a new one from scratch with the old parts around the new engine)

Edited by Mr. Smiles, 11 May 2012 - 08:04 AM.

[Jonas]

Helmer, on 11 May 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

There are also other intangible benefits that we do not know about yet. Namely, how many modules can each chassis take? How quickly does each 'mech turn, torso twist, get up to max speed? The Dragon, being a heavy, will probably be slightly larger and easier to hit.

Guess it will be interested to see , once we get to try matching a Dragon with a Centurions load out and see how each perform.

Good question.

They also said that some variants of the same chassis would have more or less modules. More so looks play a lot in to chassis selection. If some one builds a Dragon one way and it matches my Centurion weapon for weapon dose it really matter? If I am happy and can do well with my variant and they do well with theirs then its all good.

It may be as simple as skills that determine whos has the best Mech.

Edited by Jonas, 11 May 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[Kanatta Jing]

Oh right, during the last Atlas Video they took a second to show off how twitch the arms mounted reticle is.

[Grinner]

Also, I fail to understand the argument. A modified Dragon with a similar weapon configuration as a stock Centurion is of course going to be the better mech. Its bigger, faster, and can mount more armor. The trade off is that it costs more cbills and has a higher battle value. I would hope some sort of calculation, if not straight battle value from the table top, at least something more than tonnage. A stock Charger is not on the same league as an Awesome, though they both weigh 80 tons.

[Ghost73]

Bryan Ekman, on 11 May 2012 - 06:39 AM, said:

I'd wait for the game to launch. We're not seeing this effect yet.

When exactly is game launch? Or perhaps a date for beta?...

Mr. Smiles, on 11 May 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Well, does your office contain the combined setting-diluting, minmaxing munchkining power of the entire Internet? Because once the game goes live, we will find ways to poke holes in your game and dilute it as much as possible

What I would like to see is: you currently have a system (IIRC!) in place where a 'Mech can only get jump jets if one of its variants has jump jets (under the assumption that if none of its variants have jump jets, the 'Mech is simply not structurally designed for them--also, differentiating 'Mechs of the same weight classes).

Well, put in place a similar system with endo steel, ferros-fibrous armor, XL engines, double heat sinks, larger engines, smaller engines, etc. Make it so players can only swap out for those things if any of the variants have them.

Thus, the Black Knight for instance, would have access to Endo Steel, XL engine, and Double Heat Sinks, because the BL-6b-KNT has the first two of those and the BL-9-KNT has the XL engine. But, the Black Knight wouldn't be able to get jump jets, ferros-fibrous armor, or an engine size change, because none of its variants have ever had any of those things.

I think this would at least partially alleviate people's concerns that with enough money, every 'Mech is going to be a Clan 'Mech in terms of advanced tech and strength. And of course this would alleviate some people's concerns about flavor and how easy it should be to swap out an engine. But, considering how many variants there are of each 'Mech, it would basically only restrict a couple of options per 'Mech, rather than most of them.

And it would also just help differentiate each 'Mech even further. Otherwise, your MechLab is going to feel VERY lopsided: highly restrictive in terms of hardpoint types, leveling up individual 'Mechs, needing to repair individual weapons, and jump jets, but VERY unrestrictive when it comes to XL engines and endo steel frames (which is odd, because normally those are the things you'd EXPECT would be the ones most restricted, considering swapping an engine basically requires taking the entire 'Mech apart and building a new one from scratch with the old parts around the new engine)

Well, if PGI is smart, and I believe they are, restricting player options in the mechlab is not the way to go. The reason there are separate chassis and not one "omni-chassis" which all mech designs are based on is because the chassis fundamentally matters in the construction of the mech, beyond the weapon systems and electronics.

Grinner, on 11 May 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

Also, I fail to understand the argument. A modified Dragon with a similar weapon configuration as a stock Centurion is of course going to be the better mech. Its bigger, faster, and can mount more armor. The trade off is that it costs more cbills and has a higher battle value. I would hope some sort of calculation, if not straight battle value from the table top, at least something more than tonnage. A stock Charger is not on the same league as an Awesome, though they both weigh 80 tons.

I hope the game does not end up like this, and I doubt it will. Hopefully, even if the Dragon customized to match a stock Centurion, the Centurion will still win out in other categories, and therefore be different. After all, a Dragon, being larger and heavier, will not be nearly as nimble as a Centurion, ever, and that is because their chassis are fundamentally different. Higher acceleration and tighter turning radius definitely makes for a totally different 'Mech. This might not have been apparent in TT, but in a simulator, there are many more variables to consider when customizing.
Edit: Price should not equate to more power, it should mean more options available.

Edited by Ghost73, 11 May 2012 - 09:20 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

Ghost73, on 11 May 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Higher acceleration and tighter turning radius definitely makes for a totally different 'Mech. This might not have been apparent in TT, but in a simulator, there are many more variables to consider when customizing.
Edit: Price should not equate to more power, it should mean more options available.

Earlier a dev said:

Bryan Ekman, on 11 May 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

Things that we have not discussed much:

• Max Torso Rotation
  
• Torso Rotation Speed
  
• Arm Speed
  
• Pitch Speed
  
• Cockpit design
  
• Mech Height
  
• Arms/No Arms
  
• Module Slots

These are all custom to mechs, giving them a very distinct feel.

One other note. The Dragon is a Jenner killer. Our AC2s and 5s chew through their armour.

so while a Dragon will have more speed, armor, and possibly tons/crit space, there are lots of other things to consider that will make the mechs different, and so in some areas one may be better than the other and in other areas the other may be better. The Dragon may have a higher top speed(depending on engine and other factors such as a Centurion with MASC), more armor, or more room for larger guns, but the Centurion may have very different torso movement and acceleration, they're both different sized targets, not to mention the mythical modules which we have yet to hear much about. I expect medium mechs to have more of these modules, representing more situational utility if you bring the right module for the right job.

The Centurion may be slower and less armoured, and may not stand up to the Dragon toe to toe, but there is a lot more to consider in a simulator than tabletop-derived armor/speed/weapon values.

[Grinner]

I think the main balancing factor should be some sort of calculation, either battle value or something similar. A Dragon modified to be a bigger baddder Centurion should be the better mech, but in taking it you are taking tonnage and battle value that someone else on your team could use.

[Joseph Calvert]

With my back ground mostly in TT, I say mod the mech as much as you can. But, the true test of your changes will be on the battlefield.

What looks good in the mechlab doesn't always work on the field. ( believe me, too many painful defeats on the table top)

[Ghost73]

Grinner, on 11 May 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

I think the main balancing factor should be some sort of calculation, either battle value or something similar. A Dragon modified to be a bigger baddder Centurion should be the better mech, but in taking it you are taking tonnage and battle value that someone else on your team could use.

I think you missed the point that a Dragon cannot be a bigger badder Centurion because the chassis are fundamentally different (see above post). Also, the BV 'balance' would only serve to restrict player freedom and generally frustrate them: only enought tonnage/BV left on a team for a Jenner, but the last player only has an Atlas available (people are gonna pick what they want, not what the team wants). Also, there should be no such thing as an outright better 'Mech in every aspect, everything has tradeoffs. If something is directly better, then the other shouldn't even be in the game.

[Orzorn]

Helmer, on 11 May 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

There are also other intangible benefits that we do not know about yet. Namely, how many modules can each chassis take? How quickly does each 'mech turn, torso twist, get up to max speed? The Dragon, being a heavy, will probably be slightly larger and easier to hit.

Guess it will be interested to see , once we get to try matching a Dragon with a Centurions load out and see how each perform.

Good question.


Cheers.

Don't forget about arms. Mechs with arms have an advantage (at least in that aspect) over mechs without arms or with stubby arms (like the Jenner). Between mechs with arms, arms might have a different movement radius (which we already know they do thanks to the Jenner) and a different movement speed (lighter mechs' arms might move faster than heavier mechs).

This is one reason, for example, that you might take a Commando over a Jenner, even though the Jenner is faster and has a superior armament.

[SideSt3p]

WE can take the MechLab in any direction and to any length we want so long as it falls within the design implementation of the Devs.

The ramifications of those 'Mech modifications will react in different ways and allow for a more complex and interesting game play experience.

The DEVS can take the MechLab in any direction they want to to fix abuse discovered by us


I think it'll work out pretty well.

[Grinner]

Ghost73, on 11 May 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

I think you missed the point that a Dragon cannot be a bigger badder Centurion because the chassis are fundamentally different (see above post). Also, the BV 'balance' would only serve to restrict player freedom and generally frustrate them: only enought tonnage/BV left on a team for a Jenner, but the last player only has an Atlas available (people are gonna pick what they want, not what the team wants). Also, there should be no such thing as an outright better 'Mech in every aspect, everything has tradeoffs. If something is directly better, then the other shouldn't even be in the game.

You make a valid point about the balancing equivalent teams, but surely there has to be something to make the teams roughly even. Coming from years of playing TT, pilots being equal, a company of Cicadas is going to get obliterated by a company of Atlases. The battle value diference between the two forces is laughable. No amount of acceleration or torso twist speed or the like is going to make up for the fundamental inequity between these two forces. That is why something needs to be put in place to prevent this from happening. I don't see why this couldn't be handled during matchmaking?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Bryan Ekman, on 11 May 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Arm ACs + speed = Jenner killer. A good pilot can place those AC right on target, negating the some of the Jenner's advantages.

If I may expand, with your premission, Sir:

• Autocannons deliver their entire damage to one bodypart whereas lasers would scrawl all over a fast-moving Jenner, preventing you from concentrating your fire on a vulnerable location.
  
• AC/5 have long range which allows you to fire while outside of the Jenner's firing range and contine firing upon the Jenner as it attempts to escape
  
• Autocannons do not build-up heat so you can cram the trigger untill that Jenner is either dead or out-of-range without having to worry about cooling yourself down whilst mid-engagement.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 11 May 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Redshift2k5]

Grinner, on 11 May 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

You make a valid point about the balancing equivalent teams, but surely there has to be something to make the teams roughly even. Coming from years of playing TT, pilots being equal, a company of Cicadas is going to get obliterated by a company of Atlases. The battle value diference between the two forces is laughable. No amount of acceleration or torso twist speed or the like is going to make up for the fundamental inequity between these two forces. That is why something needs to be put in place to prevent this from happening. I don't see why this couldn't be handled during matchmaking?

Well, a lance of all Assaults vs a lance of all lights is a different issue than 'whether a Dragon is better in every aspect than a Centurion or not'.

I would hope there is something in place to make the teams reasonably similar in power, but still, bigger mechs do not constitute an instant win when you consider factors beyond armor/damage (strategy, modules, equipment, information warefare, role warfare, etc)

Edited by Redshift2k5, 11 May 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[Haleion]

Motionless, on 10 May 2012 - 10:20 PM, said:

3rd base.

And I dont give a darn!
(Oh thats our shortstop.)