I added an edit to clarify what I mean. I'm talking about in game design on PC going forward.
I definitely don't want to rewrite THE rules.
Preserving Mech Identity (or why does the CN9-A mount an AC20?)
- Thread starter Adam Steiner
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I added an edit to clarify what I mean. I'm talking about in game design on PC going forward.
I definitely don't want to rewrite THE rules.
One last thing.
The CN9-YLW is a unique mech that was modified from a CN9-A. The CN9-AH is not a non hero version of the CN9-YLW.
They all have different hard point arrangements.
The CN9-YLW is a unique mech that was modified from a CN9-A. The CN9-AH is not a non hero version of the CN9-YLW.
They all have different hard point arrangements.
Then the issue is that the gameplay mechanics for MWO only define the gameplay mechanics for MWO. Nowhere else. Eg. The CN9-A may not be able to mount and AC20 in MWO, but that is not the case here, and the mechanics in MWO have no bearing here. Therefore the roles in MWO do not matter here. They are inherited from table top, per the intent of the developers of this game.
Yen Lo Wang and the AH varient are not the same. Yen Lo Wang drops the LRMs for the AC20 and a claw/hatchet. The AH drops the MLs for the upgrade. They are unrelated except for being on the same chassis.
You do realize the hard point restrictions in MWO is part of their monetization model, right?
Man this thread was confusing to sift through:
Here's the actual record sheet for the CN9-AH. (From Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged)https://i.imgur.com/OqNREzu.png
This design variant is specifically assigned to Davion units on Random Assignment Tables, in limited numbers. From a purely stock perspective, the CN9-A and CN9-AH are two distinctly different designs. The Yen-Lo-Wang is a unique one off design and from a purely canon perspective it would be assumed there is none other like it.
However, as is the case in everyone's personal TT sessions, there are those that like to insert their selves into the lore when creating stories and make non-canon designs for fun or stay pure to canon only. This BattleTech game stays truer to a TT session where the GM decides if players can modify or not, in the single player we basically are 'part' GM where we decide to customize or not while playing along with the HBS GM story + the construction rules they've incorporated with hardpoints.
As someone who plays stock, a CN9-A could be modified to an AC/20, but is not really an "A" variant at that point, it is something else entirely - but again that comes down to player choice and different ways people tend to play it.
Here's the actual record sheet for the CN9-AH. (From Record Sheets: 3039 Unabridged)https://i.imgur.com/OqNREzu.png
This design variant is specifically assigned to Davion units on Random Assignment Tables, in limited numbers. From a purely stock perspective, the CN9-A and CN9-AH are two distinctly different designs. The Yen-Lo-Wang is a unique one off design and from a purely canon perspective it would be assumed there is none other like it.
However, as is the case in everyone's personal TT sessions, there are those that like to insert their selves into the lore when creating stories and make non-canon designs for fun or stay pure to canon only. This BattleTech game stays truer to a TT session where the GM decides if players can modify or not, in the single player we basically are 'part' GM where we decide to customize or not while playing along with the HBS GM story + the construction rules they've incorporated with hardpoints.
As someone who plays stock, a CN9-A could be modified to an AC/20, but is not really an "A" variant at that point, it is something else entirely - but again that comes down to player choice and different ways people tend to play it.
Its your interpretation on hardpoints; specifically the ballistic/beam/missile type and not size. (Mechwarrior4?)
Swayback (6 ML) - the medium lasers are all mounted in the RT previously reserved for the AC20. Is that not the same as a hardpoint?
Other variants have various weapons mounted in the RT
No weapons SHOULD be mountable in the left torso or center torso of the Hunchback.
(In which case I disagree with the SP variant which mounts a SRM6 on the LT being the exception to this rule)
Catapult with twin PPCs are mounted in the arms to replace the LRMs
No large weapons SHOULD be mountable in the RT/LT of the Catapult
Want 4 Large lasers? All 4 go straight to the arms. (None allowed in the torso)
etc
I maybe downvoted for this but Mechwarrior4 was on the right track for weapons mounted by size.
Classify the weapons by size and where you can mount them. (criticals in TT do a poor correlation because of heatsink/ammo allocation of weapons)
In regards to the Centurion, yup the AC20 should be mountable in the RA to replace the AC10
But it should also be reasonable that you can't just mount just one single AC2, medium laser or machinegun in the right arm. (unless its damaged)
...No. The Hunchback hardpoint in MWO would limit the weapons to ballistics.
@Adam Steiner, great thread and excellent discussion. :bow:
In an effort to preserve "Mech Identity" while still ensuring "Deep Customization" HBS has chosen the following as a Mech Variant's baseline:
1.) Locked Engines
2.) Hardpoints, with limited but purposeful Hardpoint Inflation
3.) Creation of the Support Hardpoint
4.) Requirement for three Mech Pieces from the same Mech Variant in order to salvage a Mech
HBS has chosen a Middle Ground between "Stock" and Full Customization. It does not please everyone, but it does offer meaningful concessions to both sides.
A very workable compromise that is yet open to refinement as HBS moves forward toward any post-Launch development.
In an effort to preserve "Mech Identity" while still ensuring "Deep Customization" HBS has chosen the following as a Mech Variant's baseline:
1.) Locked Engines
2.) Hardpoints, with limited but purposeful Hardpoint Inflation
3.) Creation of the Support Hardpoint
4.) Requirement for three Mech Pieces from the same Mech Variant in order to salvage a Mech
HBS has chosen a Middle Ground between "Stock" and Full Customization. It does not please everyone, but it does offer meaningful concessions to both sides.
A very workable compromise that is yet open to refinement as HBS moves forward toward any post-Launch development.
No, Clans will still have Hardpoints. It has to do with the amount of modelling work that has to be done when you allow an unlimited number of weapons in a single location. While some may not be very hard (mount a big AC in an arm with a Laser), some variants could be very op. Just imagine a Manowar/Gargoyle that mounts something like 30 Small Laser for insane onehit-kills. While this would be very much possible, you would be just a wall of Laser rectangles.
After reading all this, its insane what some of you define as "Canon" or "Identity". There is a very strict definition that was already linked, there isnt much room for arguing there. You can have another opinion, but you have to accept that its house rules. Dont try to convince people that your definition is the only one, if its not the official definition to begin with.
To identity: I dont want to complain but the Centurion doesnt get its Identity because you can only mount an AC10 in the arm. It doesnt matter if you use an AC20, AC10, AC5 or even a Gauss Rifle. As long as its a ballistic weapon, it does preserve its role as a Medium Mech with a heavy ballistic weapon that does mount multiple weapons as support. It would be something different if you mount 6 LRM5 in the Arms and Torso of an Centurion.
Lets do another example: Centurion AL. This Mech removes the AC for a Laser and Small Laser. The MWO variant has no hard point inflation to speak of, but you can mount an additional Missile. You could remove the LRM10 for 2 LRM5 (which would be better in BT) or even mount 2 SRM launcher to make it better on short range. This doesnt change the profile much. But the Hardpoints allow you to mount 2 PPCs and make the Centurion into a pure ranged sniper, or mount 2 LRM15s instead to make it into a semi decent missile boat. All this is possible in MWO. But would a Centurion with 2 PPCs or 2 LRM15s have the same Identity as the stock CN9 AL?
After reading all this, its insane what some of you define as "Canon" or "Identity". There is a very strict definition that was already linked, there isnt much room for arguing there. You can have another opinion, but you have to accept that its house rules. Dont try to convince people that your definition is the only one, if its not the official definition to begin with.
To identity: I dont want to complain but the Centurion doesnt get its Identity because you can only mount an AC10 in the arm. It doesnt matter if you use an AC20, AC10, AC5 or even a Gauss Rifle. As long as its a ballistic weapon, it does preserve its role as a Medium Mech with a heavy ballistic weapon that does mount multiple weapons as support. It would be something different if you mount 6 LRM5 in the Arms and Torso of an Centurion.
Lets do another example: Centurion AL. This Mech removes the AC for a Laser and Small Laser. The MWO variant has no hard point inflation to speak of, but you can mount an additional Missile. You could remove the LRM10 for 2 LRM5 (which would be better in BT) or even mount 2 SRM launcher to make it better on short range. This doesnt change the profile much. But the Hardpoints allow you to mount 2 PPCs and make the Centurion into a pure ranged sniper, or mount 2 LRM15s instead to make it into a semi decent missile boat. All this is possible in MWO. But would a Centurion with 2 PPCs or 2 LRM15s have the same Identity as the stock CN9 AL?
Seems strange that the devs would've gone for crit space reductions like this. I guess it's probably to make it possible for people to use models like the CN9-AH without having to model in an entirely new Centurion model with the lower arm actuator taken out in order to fit the AC20. I'm skeptical, especially considering the road ahead when slots vs weight becomes a big deal for weight saving tech, but we shall see I suppose.
One major thing you have to keep in mind is that the damage of the ACs isnt proportional to the numbers.
AC2: 25 dmg - 12.5x TT value - 1 Slot - 6 tons
AC5: 45 dmg- 9x TT value - 2 Slots - 8 tons
AC10: 60 dmg- 6x TT value - 3 Slots - 12 tons
AC20: 100 dmg- 5x TT value - 4 Slots - 14 tons
This is more in line with the tonnage of each weapon and you get more Stability damage with bigger caliber. I think its "okay" to reduce the amount of crit spaces of the AC10 and 20 to bring it more in line with their damage value. Right now i think the weapons are very well balanced. You are not penalized for taking AC2s since they are just so inefficient while some assaults with AC20s are just OP when they can close the gap.
AC2: 25 dmg - 12.5x TT value - 1 Slot - 6 tons
AC5: 45 dmg- 9x TT value - 2 Slots - 8 tons
AC10: 60 dmg- 6x TT value - 3 Slots - 12 tons
AC20: 100 dmg- 5x TT value - 4 Slots - 14 tons
This is more in line with the tonnage of each weapon and you get more Stability damage with bigger caliber. I think its "okay" to reduce the amount of crit spaces of the AC10 and 20 to bring it more in line with their damage value. Right now i think the weapons are very well balanced. You are not penalized for taking AC2s since they are just so inefficient while some assaults with AC20s are just OP when they can close the gap.
Just as a point of order, according to the TT record sheets (3039 Unabridged) all Centurions are built with no right arm hand actuators. It was done to match the artwork used in the original release. Even the base CN9-A with the AC/10 lacks a hand actuator, and it still has 2 unused crit slots in the arm. In actuality, swapping the AC/10 for the AC/20 is one of the easiest conversions possible in tabletop. Adding the hatchet to make a Yen Lo Wang is a bigger pain.
Swapping the AC/10 to the AC/20, at least in my opinion does nothing to change the identity of the mech. It remains a medium weight ballistic-based brawler.
Swapping the AC/10 to the AC/20, at least in my opinion does nothing to change the identity of the mech. It remains a medium weight ballistic-based brawler.
I think it's a combination of factors. For one, space isn't being necessarily reserved for actuators in the first place, lest you be adding a "specialized suite" such as an "Arm Mod". So those are already out of the picture. CASE has been freely implemented as well, and free spotting . . . I could go on, but let's cut to the chase. There's a lot of fundamental changes to the game systems from tabletop to just place your hands on the table and accept this incarnation is not a direct translation. It does not seek to emulate the way the tabletop behaves and is carving out its own identity.
This game is inspired by and sourced from the tabletop Classic BattleTech and MechWarrior Online together, and is its own take on the IP at this point. Let's accept that, please, and move ahead with seeing this game prosper?
I quite like the course that Jordan is charting for BATTLETECH, and I have no doubt that he isn't done yet.
Please don't misunderstand me, I like his mid-1980's work too, but in BATTLETECH (and just as he shared with us at GenCon this past August) Jordan is more closely approximating what he had in mind all along. :bow:
Please don't misunderstand me, I like his mid-1980's work too, but in BATTLETECH (and just as he shared with us at GenCon this past August) Jordan is more closely approximating what he had in mind all along. :bow: