9 replies to this topic

[Deadoon]

This is something of a difficult subject to deal with, slot sharing.

For example you put an xl engine in, you cannot use a Ac/20 in your side torso, problem is that you actually can fit it in your side torso by putting 2 of the extra slots in the center. Proof; http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Barghest is used as an example mech in the current version of battletech, it has a XL engine and a lb-20x AC using a IS tech base. It takes 11 slots for the ac and 3 for the XL in the side torso, but you can move 2 of the AC slots to the center toro, due to it being adjacent. Same goes for the atlas as7-s2, it has a heavy guass rifle that shares 2 slots with the center torso. With the current system, niether of these mech designs are even physically possible in the slightest in MWO, despite being 100% canon.

[Roland]

I think it may be something we just need to accept, that certain rare situations like the Barghest (which, frankly, is not likely to ever get in the game anyway) just won't be possible.

The major issue is just making the user interface capable of handling the kind of flexibility you're talking about, and then determining whether or not it's actually worth putting forth the effort and potentially complicating the interface for the most common use cases.

Perhaps you could suggest an actual usage mechanism which would enable the ability to share slots, which wouldn't detract from the most common usage of the mechlab.

In terms of slot sharing, does it always put 2 slots from the weapon into the CT? Or were you able to be more flexible in where those slots went?

[Strum Wealh]

Deadoon, on 10 December 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

This is something of a difficult subject to deal with, slot sharing.

For example you put an xl engine in, you cannot use a Ac/20 in your side torso, problem is that you actually can fit it in your side torso by putting 2 of the extra slots in the center. Proof; http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Barghest is used as an example mech in the current version of battletech, it has a XL engine and a lb-20x AC using a IS tech base. It takes 11 slots for the ac and 3 for the XL in the side torso, but you can move 2 of the AC slots to the center toro, due to it being adjacent. Same goes for the atlas as7-s2, it has a heavy guass rifle that shares 2 slots with the center torso. With the current system, niether of these mech designs are even physically possible in the slightest in MWO, despite being 100% canon.

Seconded - this is needed to make the King Crab (and, along with melee, the Axman) possible!
Though, it should be noted that this was canonically an ability that was only usable on the AC/20, LB 20-X (both tech bases), UAC/20 (both tech bases), the Heavy Gauss Rifle, and the artillery weapons (Arrow IV, Long Tom, etc.); non class-20 ACs, standard Gauss Rifles, LRM launchers, and everything else should not have this ability.

[Deadoon]

From what I've read and seen it can move to any adjacent section, but it recieves the most restrictive firing arc(if it is arm/torso, it can only use the torso firing arc, so it may as well be a torso mounted weapon).
For gameplay purposes, they could make it so that arms with these weapons are locked into place and move with the torso.

Strum Wealh, on 10 December 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

Seconded - this is needed to make the King Crab (and, along with melee, the Axman) possible!
Though, it should be noted that this was canonically an ability that was only usable on the AC/20, LB 20-X (both tech bases), UAC/20 (both tech bases), the Heavy Gauss Rifle, and the artillery weapons (Arrow IV, Long Tom, etc.); non class-20 ACs, standard Gauss Rifles, LRM launchers, and everything else should not have this ability.

Correct, it is only possible on weapons that are under normal circumastances would be impossible to mount in that section otherwise due to slot limitations.

Edited by Deadoon, 10 December 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[Roland]

The mechanism itself is great, and I'd support the addition. But like I said, I think you need to work on figuring out what the actual interface interactions would be, that the user would go through in the mechlab, to enable such a feature.

Perhaps leveraging something akin to the dynamic structure slot mechanism that is currently in game.

[Willie Sauerland]

Actually, if I remember correctly, this technology is about 10 years or so in the future of where we are now in-game. Maybe one day it will be available, but I don't think it should be available now based on the timeline presented thus far.

Plus, PGIGP have enough bugs to work on and the additional idea of moving slots around (and the inherent potential for bugs in such a system) should really wait until higher priority bugs have been resolved.

[Strum Wealh]

Willie Sauerland, on 10 December 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

Actually, if I remember correctly, this technology is about 10 years or so in the future of where we are now in-game. Maybe one day it will be available, but I don't think it should be available now based on the timeline presented thus far.

Plus, PGIGP have enough bugs to work on and the additional idea of moving slots around (and the inherent potential for bugs in such a system) should really wait until higher priority bugs have been resolved.

The AXM-1N variant of the Axman splits its AC/20 across the Center-Torso and the Right-Torso, and it was created in 3048.
Both the KGC-000 and KGC-0000 variants of the King Crab split their AC/20s between the side-torsos and the arms, and it has been in service since the Star League era.
The ability to split the certain large weapons across two (and only two) adjacent locations has always been there.

I would imagine the interface to be relatively straightforward - for those specific weapons, if there is not enough space remaining in the location, a prompt comes up and asks "Would you like to split this weapon across two adjacent locations? Please select the primary and secondary mounting locations..." with two drop-down menus that would allow for the weapon to be split across two adjacent locations (that is, one could not allow one to select 1.} an arm and the CT together, 2.} both side-torsos, 3.} an arm and the opposite side-torso, 4.} both arms, or 5.} the Head or either leg as a mounting location).

Though, I do agree that PGI would have some other, more-pressing issues to address...

[Aurien Titus]

Here goes the pertinent section from FASA.

[Willie Sauerland]

Well, I guess this just goes to show how faulty my memory can be at times...

I do like the fact that an AC/20 split between the arm and the torso requires it to fire as if it were in the torso. This is entertaining and not at all what people are wanting. However, PGIGP has thrown canon out before to make this game more playable - maybe someday this will be an option.

Again, I defer to the fact there are more important things to do than implement this as anybody who has played this game is aware...

[Voidsinger]

I think it's interesting that there were only two mechs in 3050 that had location sharing.

The ArrowIV Catapult. This was a specially developed Catapult Variant by the Capellan Confederation to carry ArrowIV. Very limited ammunition, and three with a Raven-3L as spotter/designator with TAG made a lance.

The Axman. Yes, and this put the engine offcentre to mount the AC/20 with an XL. It was considered very problematic. Hence, you had the twin LRM15 variant in the khartun.

Later maybe, but right now, it is very rare, involving very special modifications.