118 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

This discussion started in a different topic, thanks to the advice of a dear friend i will move it into a different topic.

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 01:34 AM, said:

As soon as you allow any customization, the "intent" of a mech design is a pointless argument.

Karl Streiger, on 07 February 2013 - 01:47 AM, said:

Why this?
Why isn't it possible with the upcomming Perks and Quirks to keep the intent allive.
When the Catapult becomes a superior LRM - because of those Perks and Quirks - it encourage the player to stay in this role. However you may still be able to build a SRM boat - but for some cost, because it is now more difficult to use it.

Kobold, on 07 February 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

Why does a mech have to stay in a specific role, besides your normative belief that it "should"? This is an entirely different argument, if you want to have it. I'm happy to engage in it, but it is outside the scope of a balance thread.

I have the idea for long time, to keep the role alive, a specific mech was designed for.

Lets take a closer look, I don't want to start with the Catapult in the beginning, so i will start with the Awesome. Because it is not my intetion to nerf a mech...just to give it some character - actual mechs are simple hulls without soul"

The Awesome was build in 2665 as successor of the Striker - so the look is similar.
Its major task is to attack fixed position or defend a fixed position, for this task it doesn't need much speed but a good array of long range weapons.
Its task is not fire support or infight.
Other variants like the 8R, 8V, 8T was simple build because lacking PPC - they are meant to be inferior to the 8Q

What are my clues: the AWS is used for direct firing weapons. That means the position and angle of the LRM makes it more difficult to use LRM for indirect fire
the original build has no ammunition feed - so reloading may last longer.
weapons are for medium to long range, so pinpoint weapons below ~90m don't seem necessary.(could become a issue for the AWS with 2 large laser in each arm)

So that are only disadvantages. What may advantages?
A mech so used to heatsinks should have a higher heat threshold. heat dissipation should be improved too.
The missile racks while not so capable for indirect fire should have a tight pattern when used for LOS fire - like using Artemis (without even installing them)
Its more the kind of a walking turret, so torso twist rate and angle should be improved, while arm movement should be reduced.

So thats for the Awesome:
+ better than average torso twist speed
+ better than average torso twist angle
+ reduced spread for missile weapons
+ increased heat threshold
+ increased heat dissipation

- low angle for LRM - bad for indirect fire
- pinpoint issues
- slower reloading of missile weapons
- slower turn and acceleration rate

I will see what your opinion is about, before i will start to doe the same with other mechs.

[Kobold]

Counter argument: The "intended role" of a mech goes out the window as soon as a pilot with access to the right parts and facilities gets their hand on it.

The vast majority of standing armies don't have any interest in customizing their mechs (since standardization is important), and most merc companies don't have the necessary facilities to do anything other than field refits. That doesn't mean that given the opportunity, pilots wouldn't love to correct many of the "mistakes" that were created when mechs are designed by engineers who clearly never pilot them.

I'm not saying that mechs CAN'T have individual quirks. I was initially wildly against the differing number of tubs on the chassis determining how many missiles came out (mainly because I was trying to upgrade a Commando and it pissed me off that replacing a Streak 2 with an SRM6 wouldn't have all the missiles hit at the same time). I've come to accept those small things.

However I am still against introducing quirks for the intent of enforcing roles. Just because someone is using a chassis for something different than the original design expected or intended, it doesn't mean the mechwarrior (player) should be punished.

[Asmudius Heng]

It is not about punishing a player but giving small bonuses to those using it within its intended role. they can go outside the role and it would still be a highly viable mech.

Quirks to give a carrot to the original role i think helps everyone and will not make any uber-mechs unless the quirks were really badly thought out.

Nothing stopping people customisaing out of a broadly defined role on a mech - but why not allow the mechs to retain a bit of character bu having small quirks to encourage that general use ... not forcing stock, just encouraging a broad role.

[Karl Streiger]

Asmudius Heng, on 07 February 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

It is not about punishing a player but giving small bonuses to those using it within its intended role. they can go outside the role and it would still be a highly viable mech.

exactly, you can have still a Awesome with 4 LRM 20 - you can have the advantage of lower missile spread, too
Only thing that wont work well - is using those LRMs for indirect fire.
With higher heat cap you can even remove one or two heatsinks for more ammunition, ams or similar.

SRM Awesome with 3 or 4 SRM 6, will still be able to use them - and again the reduced spread is a advantage, only disadvantage that the SRM 6 on a Atlas will fire faster...so that your 4 SRM 6 vs a Atlas with 3 SRM 6 may be equal - when considering DPS

[TexAce]

Stop say "intended role". Can't hear this anymore. There are no intended roles in MWO. Use it for what you like.

The big merc corps and houses had their customized variants.

So let's just pretend everyone of us is an own house and has tons of ressources and customizes his own build.

From now on its not the AWS-8R anymore, it's the AWS-TX1, because I'm TexAss and I don't approve what OP is suggesting.

[Karl Streiger]

TexAss, on 07 February 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

From now on its not the AWS-8R anymore, it's the AWS-TX1, because I'm TexAss and I don't approve what OP is suggesting.

So you have the first OmniMech of the Inner Sphere - congratulation. But it should called AWS-TO1 or AWS-TO1A

[Joseph Mallan]

TexAss, on 07 February 2013 - 03:55 AM, said:

Stop say "intended role". Can't hear this anymore. There are no intended roles in MWO. Use it for what you like.

The big merc corps and houses had their customized variants.

So let's just pretend everyone of us is an own house and has tons of ressources and customizes his own build.

From now on its not the AWS-8R anymore, it's the AWS-TX1, because I'm TexAss and I don't approve what OP is suggesting.

You are just a little wrong Tex. There are intended roles. An Awesome is intended as a long range support Mech. Either direct or indirect methods. However intent of a design changes if the payload is changed. it does not matter what the designers intended my Mechs to be, It matters what the Pilot intends it to be.

Centurions-Mid range cav mech. Unless the Pilot makes the mech into Yen Lo Wang. Swap out the AC and LRMs for MGs and SRMs and now you make the Centurions role a harasser/brawler.

In the end what You think My Mech should be... is not my concern.

[Kaspirikay]

What I love about MWO, you can loadout your mechs to do things they're not meant to do and still be able to do reasonably well.

It doesn't hinder your creativity, is what I'm saying.

[Stormwolf]

Karl Streiger, on 07 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

So you have the first OmniMech of the Inner Sphere - congratulation. But it should called AWS-TO1 or AWS-TO1A

We are pretty much driving proto-omni's at this point anyway.

I sometimes wish that community warfare would only have customization unlocked at planets with the correct facilities. It wouldn't be available for a time period of let's say 1 hour if you customized it in any fashion. It would show people the viability of omni designs.

Or alternately you could order your mech from the factory with the customizations you want (like in the Warrior Trilogy), the price should be way higher for both the purchase and repairs though.

To offset this, all those TRO 3025 designs should be sold cheaper at the merc market to make room for the TRO 3050 designs (the CN9-A was slowly phased out for the CN9-D in the lore).

Customization is possible, but people in MWO should be subjected to the same limitations as the characters in the lore. You really have to work towards goals, though sometimes you'll get a lucky break and get there a bit faster (plenty of mechs can be captured from a enemy faction).

MWO should be about the skill of how people handle themselves in the BT universe, not the ability to build a cheese build.

[DrxAbstract]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

You are just a little wrong Tex. There are intended roles. An Awesome is intended as a long range support Mech. Either direct or indirect methods. However intent of a design changes if the payload is changed. it does not matter what the designers intended my Mechs to be, It matters what the Pilot intends it to be.

Centurions-Mid range cav mech. Unless the Pilot makes the mech into Yen Lo Wang. Swap out the AC and LRMs for MGs and SRMs and now you make the Centurions role a harasser/brawler.

In the end what You think My Mech should be... is not my concern.

Just to make a minor correction: As far as BT lore goes, changing a mech's payload alone doesnt change the specific needs and reasoning used in designing the chassis unless it was made specifically to be a flexible workhorse model. Internal layout, structuring and even the outward appearance are all considered when a House contracts for a new Battlemech design, and those all depend on what role the House wants the mech to perform... not just the payload. Historically, some mechs run hotter or cooler than others despite having more/less Heatsinks because of their internal layout, or their physical profile lends to their role e.g. the Bushwacker.

Obviously the intended roles of our mechs play less of a part in MWO than BT, since all the characteristics above are ignored, homogenizing them in that regard. So in MWO, sure, changing the payload is to a much greater effect changing the role of it. However there's still the general performance of a chassis (Turn Rate, Torso Twist Speed, etc) that suggests a player stay somewhat within the bounds of the chassis' intended role. The Atlas and Stalker, for example... Which makes a better Brawler design when considering more than just the weapon payload? I suppose opinions will vary with this, but given the Atlas has several performance advantages over the Stalker for Brawling, it would be my choice in this case.

That is, in my opinion, all that should ever be considered when determining what to use a Mech for... penalizing, rewarding or forcing players to adhere to a mech's role other than the innate advantages/disadvantages of the mech's performance capabilities is probably unwise.

[Joseph Mallan]

DrxAbstract, on 07 February 2013 - 05:20 AM, said:

*SNIP*That is, in my opinion, all that should ever be considered when determining what to use a Mech for... penalizing, rewarding or forcing players to adhere to a mech's role other than the innate advantages/disadvantages of the mech's performance capabilities is probably unwise.

Agreed.

[VonRunnegen]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

...
In the end what You think My Mech should be... is not my concern.

The most important thing you said is in the last line, and contradicts your earlier lines.

MWO is not BT Universe come to life. Even if it were, 'intended roles' are what the stock variants had, if customised then they have a very different intended role. If I choose to have all long range, indirect fire weapons on my mech then its intended role is indirect fire support. If I fit all short-range high alpha weapons then the mechs intended role is very different.

What you think my mech should be isn't my concern...

[Stormwolf]

VonRunnegen, on 07 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

MWO is not BT Universe come to life.

I think that it would be a big mistake if it wasn't the BT Universe come to life. There is a ton potential here.

[3rdworld]

nope.

Had this argument in CB more than I would have like to seen.

You lost, this is not and will not be BT online.

Getoverit.jpg

[Karl Streiger]

VonRunnegen, on 07 February 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

MWO is not BT Universe come to life.

Whut?
I think i should ask me to give me my money back. I though that MWO is BattleTech - when it isn't BattleTech then MWO is a major case of a fraud.

I can't loose the feeling that some people think - that a change is just a change for the worst. Even if I don't really think that any similar system will find its way into MWO, its nice to play with the idea.

Actual the behaviour of most MWO players remind me at the time when i started with BattleTech the board game...
ok i want to pilot a Stalker... LRM? SRM? hm bad they can explode...so i used dual clan gauss rifles and 2 large pulse laser bound to a TC (or similar) ... well while effectiv it wasn't a Stalker... it was something else.
Well i wouldn't have problems when i could get a assault with dual gauss... and i wouldn't have problems when it would be a Stalker.

There could be another idea behind perks and quirks.
Although i don't have found perks and quirks for the Catapult yet - i will use it as an example.
So let me guess that the MachineGuns don't need convergence. means that they will fire straight so that the ballistic trajectory will never cross. Means the second bullet will hit a target 1-2m form the hit location of the first one.
What does that means for Gausspult?
Large targets will still be hit in a single location.
But when you aim for a Raven leg or a cockpit you have to keep in mind, that the left bullet will hit a location 50cm left from the position you are aiming at...same with the right gauss. So the pilot of that Gausspult has to become much smarter because his build is much more difficult to use know.
On the other hand that means, GaussCat become less common and the sniper pilots of those builds are the best you will find in MWO.
So you need to bolster the K2s PPC weapons - to give a new player a option - easy but less effective PPC K2 or the Gauss or AC 20 Catapult with a extrem steep learn curve but high gain.

Hope it was understandable, that the aim is not to punish players that move on different routes - but it make it more challenging.

[TexAce]

If someone would come to me and say "hey if you want to play a fast heavy brawler with PPCs you have to get a Catapult." I would quit this game....

The mechs have their own abilities. The cat has its torso-twist / the stalker doesn't. The AWS has it's arms, the Jenner doesn't.
We have:
- Torso Twist (horizontal and vertical)
- Turn Rate
- Arms + Accentuators,
- Engine size limits
- Chassis Design (Awesomes big bulky CT for example is good for having an XL engine, since the CT is the first to come down anyway, same with Cat, but bad for say an Atlas).
- Armor
- Hardpoints (Missile, Laser, Ballistic)
- New quirks

That's enough for me to choose an AWS over an Stalker or an Phract over an Catapult and so on....

[IceCase88]

Each mech does have an intended role. Obviously, people can deviate from that role but they will probably be disappointed with the mech. Certain mech types do not suck it is just players are using it wrong and no matter how you change the weapons loadout it is not going to function the way you want it to.

You cannot turn a CN9 into a brawler. It is a mech designed to support the Trebuchet and other LRM support mechs. The CN9-D can be a medium scout and a skirmisher but that is about it. I am sure there are anecdotal stories of a CN9 taking on an Atlas and winning. However, it was probably a good CN9 pilot against a bad Atlas pilot and ultimately the CN9 pilot was lucky.

Turning an AWS into a brawler is making the mech a failure. It is a huge barn that only the worst pilots cannot hit. It is not designed for brawling. The only times I have lost one-on-one to an AWS is if their teammate saved them when using my Flame and I am an average pilot. Even with the PPC buff I have no fear charging directly at an AWS.

Research the mech you want to buy to see if it fits your play style. Buying a mech because it looks cool and trying to adapt it to your play style will more often than not end in failure. By all means though... Mech your mechs failures because it only helps me in the end!

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 07 February 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

nope.

Had this argument in CB more than I would have like to seen.

You lost, this is not and will not be BT online.

Getoverit.jpg

if it's not, then prepare for a Mass Exodus. I'm here cause this is real time BattleTech. Otherwise I would have saved my money and time. I assume many other are also, not all, but enough.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 07 February 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

if it's not, then prepare for a Mass Exodus. I'm here cause this is real time BattleTech. Otherwise I would have saved my money and time. I assume many other are also, not all, but enough.

pretend there are no diferences between battletech and mechwarrior. But that doesn't make it the case.

[Aym]

I would love to see the "quirk" system improved in this way. torso twist is one thing, but encourage closer-to-canon builds would add to the fun and diversity on the battlefield.
If anyone thinks it would be OP it's an EASY number to tweak, and perhaps things that already boat SRM6's or MLas (Nova and Swayback for instance) would get trivial or non-existant quirks, they would just be what they are.
Of course I also want to pay MC to "buy" stock mechs to go next to my trial mechs and have a stock/trial only queue to drop them in!