73 replies to this topic

[Kartr]

Orzorn, on 01 June 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Rapidly switching configurations does not exactly make the mech an omni-lite.

The way I see it, omni-mechs will not have hardpoints, only pod space. Omni mechs will play much more like Mechwarrior 2-3 mechs did.


Yeah, because they can mount any weapon they want?

Oh wait, they can't.

Yes they can. Centurions, Atlas's and Dragons all have missile, ballistic and energy weapon hard points. Lets take the Centurion for example: 2 medium lasers, AC/10 and LRM/10. So we know for 100% that it has 2 Energy weapon hard points, 1 ballistic and 1 missile hard point. Now it's likely to have additional hard points in each of those locations, since in the MechLab video we see that the Hunchback has 3 ballistic hard points in the right torso, only one of which is taken up by the AC/20. The video also shows that, that variant has three energy hard points in the torso, 3 energy hard points in the right arm, and 3 energy hard points in the left arm.

So it seems to be a safe assumption that every place we know we can mount a weapon, there are three hard points for that type of weapon there. So it is probably that the Centurion has 3 missile hard points, 3 ballistic hard points and 6 energy hard points. As long as we have criticals and tonnage available we can put any missile weapon into any of those missile hard points, we can put any ballistic weapon into any of those ballistic hard points and we can put any energy weapon into those energy hard points.

So yes while you can't just place them anywhere you want you can put any weapon into the Centurion, Atlas and Dragon. Plus you can put any weapon in two of the three types in all other BattleMechs. The OmniMech customization advantage has been reduced to almost nothing. It's so little as to not really be even worth it.

Jade Kitsune, on 01 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Ok... so op... your post while good... actually somewhat contradicts itself.

Your basic issue is that battlemechs, if able to hotswap between configs, could be optimized for environments, thus negating the reasoning of Omni mechs...

You seem to forget that Battlemechs in MWO are restricted by a hybrid critical/hardpoint system, that makes it so that, if you want to swap an energy weapon with another energy weapon, fine... but want to swap those ballistic's with an energy weapon... NOPE NOPE NOPE.

Ok since we're using ballistic to energy let me give you an example of something we KNOW can be done. Lets take the Hunchback, drop the AC/20 and it's ammo, this frees up 16 tons and 12 criticals in the torso. Now let's strip the medium lasers out of both arms, this frees up another 2 tons and gives us 8 criticals in each arm. Next I'm going to place a PPC in each arm, leaving me with 4 tons total and 5 criticals in each arm, then I'll switch to DHS and add 2 to each torso location.

Most BattleMechs in the game allow you to do this, some will probably allow you to do even more radical changes because of having all the hard point types, more tonnage, or more stock weapons in different locations. Those that are more restrictive are the lighter 'Mechs which don't really have room to put AC's on anyway. However you could do things like swap out the SRM on a Jenner and replace it with an LRM/10 if you freed up the tonnage elsewhere.

The hard points aren't nearly as restrictive as everyone keeps making them out to be. Are they quite up to OmniMech standards? No, but they give you so much freedom that with the right 'Mech you could create exactly what you want to drive.

Jade Kitsune, on 01 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Omni mechs wouldn't be restricted by this... they would run off a pure critical system. Also your post about the cataphract and it's hardpoints. You say you don't use missiles... that's fine, FOR YOU.

That's the ENTIRE POINT. Omni's are easy to customize no matter the pilot, Take an omni, kit it out just right for you... go.

Battlemechs, you have to take more care in choosing something that works for you.

Yeah I don't care for missiles so I'll never pick the Catapult as something I want to drive (plus it's ugly), but if you want missiles and Lasers in a Heavy Mech you can grab the Catapult. If you want to make a Heavy with an AC dependent load grab the Cataphract or maybe the Dragon. If you want a little bit of everything grab that Dragon and mod the heck out of it because it has hard points for all 3 weapons types.

The Dragon is one of the big problems in this because it is an optimal weight chassis with hard points for every type of weapon. This means someone could easily make a dozen configurations that are all different and all focus on different things, turning it into a functional OmniMech.

Jade Kitsune, on 01 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Basically bro, I hate to say it but your argument is invalid. Not having hardpoints is a rather large advantage for Omni's... not to mention the clantech they'll be bringing to the table ANYWAY.

Not at all "brah" no hard points is and advantage for OmniMechs, but it is a slight advantage thanks to the fact that MW.O's hard point system is much, much less restrictive than MW4's. This honestly has nothing really to do with Clan tech, the IS will get it's own OmniMechs eventually and even if players can start salvaging Clan Omni's after the invasion starts you'll probably still be using IS weapons on it.

Jade Kitsune, on 01 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

The end point is, Omni's would mostlikely be restricted purely by criticals, allowing for FAR more diverse or specilalized loadouts. With a battlemech, you MAY have hardpoints for all 3 weapon types... but you're still limited by criticals in said area, how many of those criticals are allocated to a sepcific hardpoint type? Sure I can mount all 3 weapon types to a mech, but maybe I can only put missles in my left torso, but I'd rather have lasers spread across ALL my torso's? This is what we're talking about concerning Omni's... they would suffer no such restrictions.

Yes you have more freedom where you can put things and you can actually boat (which makes me think that the devs will find someway to restrict OmniMechs to prevent boating, after all that's the whole point behind hard points), with an OmniMech, but you have nearly the same ability to create custom BattleMechs with the MW.O hard point system. The advantage isn't big enough to warrant everyone wanting to jump into Omni's, which is why you have to make sure the OmniMech's other traditional advantage and until MW4 only advantage, which is the ease and speed with which equipment can be swapped out. If BattleMechs have the same mission configurable freedom as OmniMechs, when combined the current flexible MechLab, will make OmniMechs marginally superior at best, rather than revolutionary.

Jade Kitsune, on 01 June 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

In the ABSOLUTE end, it doesn't matter for another year... quit QQing... damn vatborn's.

It matters now, because they have to decide how they're going to make OmniMechs distinctly different and superior to BattleMechs. If they just give players the ability to mission optimize BattleMechs now without thinking through OmniMechs what will they do to make OmniMechs superior? They won't be able to take away the mission optimization ability of BattleMechs, that'd just alienate every single player who had been playing and utilizing that ability through the first year or more of the game. So then what're you going to do? The 'MechLab already gives the BattleMech very near the same customization flexibility and you can't take that away, you can't take away the mission optimization, so what's left? Why should players get excited about OmniMechs? Why should players save up and get the OmniMech, which is so much more expensive, when the much cheaper BattleMechs let them do pretty much the same thing?

This has nothing to do with the Clans, I actually despise those tinpot dictators and slavocrats, so not sure why you're calling me a vatborn.

[Zso Sahal]

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Not true, there should be no penalty for customizing a BattleMech. BattleMechs should just not be allowed to be optimized for each battle.

So you're making a distinction between a blanket customization, and an optimization. Ok, I'll bite.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

If BattleMechs are allowed to change their configuration to best fit the map they're about to fight on then OmniMechs have no real advantage over BattleMechs and that content won't be important or utilized.

This ties into

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

No need to buy three chassis, just buy a Centurion or a Dragon or an Atlas. With the way 'MechLab works those three are functionally OmniMechs. We do not know how many other currently confirmed BattleMechs have had hardpoints added that aren't reflected in their stock profile which could actually function as OmniMechs once we get our hands on them. Any future BattleMech that has hard points for every type will be functionally an OmniMech.

Which is, as I understand it, (feel free to quote me incorrect) flat out wrong. A Hunchback has Ballistic Hardpoints in its Left Torso. This does not mean that I could put an AC in the right arm, as I could with Omni-pod tech. So you're still much more flexible from that aspect. Ergo missles, energy weapons, etc. You're still limited in a Battlemech by where they can be located, and thus are limited by either how many ballistic slots they've allotted there, or merely by how many crits are free in that location.

Thus, variants will be necessary to fill out an armory, leading me back to my resistance to a limitation of the number of mechs that you can own. Lets say I want a Catapult vanilla, and also want the option to fit it with 2 snub nosed ppc's, and some med pulse lasers as a brawler. I'm going to have to buy the K2 as well as the vanilla for the fitting I would like to do.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Limited fitting options due to hard points is a constraint designed to prevent boating and has no basis in the TT rules (what the game is being adapted from). Traditionally any BattleMech can be modified as greatly as it's owner can afford, so long as it does not exceed tonnage and critical space requirements.

Two points here:
A) While never actively prohibited, the concept of Boating was never one that adhered to the spirit of the TT.

I recall reading, thru the haze of 15 years ago, in the battletech handbook that came w/ my old TT box set, that mechs were rarely, if ever Customized. The Battlesheets were provided merely for you to play around with, and Custom mechs just weren't done. Customizing was ok within the bounds of reason, however, a Vanilla Assault mech that you called an Atlas-XX with more medium lasers that it knew what to do with... well, that was just cheese and we all knew it. (Talking about my group of friends, not trying to put words in your mouth.)

2) There's no tradition here, since I can count on one hand the number of individualized varients mentioned on Sarna for each mech class.

I'll give you a generous 250 customized and personalized mechs mentioned in the wiki. Then I'll double it to 500. 2 regiments. Heck, lets double it again! 4 Regiments! In the entirety of canon. Now lets compare that to *name out of a hat* Word of Blake just before Jihad. Estimates vary, but you're looking at 50,000 to 70,000 mechs alone, not counting support structure. (According to Sarna.)

My point is that customizing mechs is something that came about from the computer games, not the TT canon. We had variants in the TT game. Here, we have Mech-Lab. So we're working with a very different set of parameters. This is an online game. Every online game lets its players bend the rules a bit. We get to be the hero. Or anti-hero. We get to do what the Davions and Steiners got to do; play with our own mechs more than most. Thats what the mech lab is, our own personal set of mechanics to tinker with our toy gods.

I liked Zakatak's proposal here, in its broad strokes (leery of the Jump Jet one) but I think it captures the essence of this debate, and provides at least a reasonable framework to move forward with.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Since the MW4 style hardpoints are gone, the MW4 method of making OmniMechs superior to BattleMechs is also gone. The MW4 method to making Omni's better was to allow you more room for customization, since the customization advantage of Omni's has been almost entirely negated we must find a new way of making the OmniMech desirable. The simple cannon answer to this, that fits beautifully with the 12v12 quick battle style that MW.O is initially going to have, is to not let BattleMechs be optimized before each battle.

Pretty sure I responded to this earlier. We're understanding the system differently. First one into beta wins! Coffee, hopefully. As said above, I can put an AC into the proper torso of a Hunchback. You can put one anywhere you like in an Omni-mech. That alone is enough incentive from my side of the table. I disagree that a, this is even an issue, and b, one where the only answer to this would be to lock out a mech after its been customized for one match, just to give Omni's an even bigger advantage than they already have.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

My argument has nothing to do with Clan tech vs IS tech. OmniMechs are better than BattleMechs because they can optimize their equipment for every mission, BattleMechs cannot. It doesn't matter if you're using Clan tech or IS tech, a BattleMech with IS tech is going to be at a disadvantage to an OmniMech with IS tech. This is because the IS BattleMech will have to go into combat without optimizing it's load out for that map/mission, while the OmniMech will be able to. That's how the OmniMech/BattleMech system works and why BattleMechs should not be allowed to reconfigure before every battle.

You're throwing around a lot of absolutes. With my own personal crew of minions to refit, whos to say I cannot refit before a mission?
Point 1: Omni-mech's advantage is that they can refit quickly. Partially true. For a more honest answer, it is that they can fit anything they have the room for it. That is their true advantage over Battlemechs. Refitting speed is merely a function of how many c-bills you throw at the problem.

Point 2: Battlemechs have to go into combat without optimizing. According to you, but not according to Mech-Lab. If we were playing a TT game I'd agree with you, however, this isn't the TT. We've got Mech-Lab, we might as well use it.

Point 3: Thats how the OmniMech/Battlemech system works... again, according to you. You're entitled to your opinion, and the dev's are entitled to make the game they want.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

The technological and industrial decline of the IS was not due to the Succession Wars. The Succession Wars, should have increased the level of technology and made it more common, not less. The only reason that the IS declined so far was because of ComStar and their campaign to cripple the IS so that they could use their more advanced technology to take over.

Religions ruin everything!!! While I agree with you in part, (Comstar) I fail to see how you reason that 4 brutal Succession Wars would increase the level of Technology. Most of the Houses were too busy blowing each other up to devote time to recovering LosTech or building it from scratch.

Kartr, on 01 June 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Personally the optimal way to make the BattleMechs and OmniMechs different is to have people pick their 'Mech for the battle, then get briefed on the fight and if they have an Omni they can select a specific configuration while a BattleMech would have to go "as is."

Again, your opinion, and one that would be, if I may, wildly unbalanced when OmniTech is introduced. I could see it from a game developer standpoint, as it would essentially force people to buy OmniMechs once they were available, however, that strikes me as something EA would do, and I'm sincerely hoping that PGI doesn't go down the "force them to get new ****" route.

Which brings me to my final point: this debate is completely hypothetical at this point, since we haven't seen any SS of Omnimechs in the Mechlab, and have no idea how OmniTech is going to work. I think there have been some very good ideas put forward in this thread, but unfortunately, yours falls to the extreme of those ideas.

Thanks for a great debate so far!

Edited by Zso Sahal, 02 June 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[Zso Sahal]

looks like we were both writing novels.

[Zso Sahal]

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

It matters now, because they have to decide how they're going to make OmniMechs distinctly different and superior to BattleMechs.

Only bit I'm responding to before bed. Since I seem to have anticipated most of what you wrote above.

Who says they have to be "Distinctly Superior"? You? The Clan Tech is what makes them superior, the Omni-Tech is what makes them more versatile. Combine the two, its nasty, as we're going to find out. Distinctly Different is enough, when talking about Omni-Tech as separate from the Clan Weapons, IMO. It provides a different flavor, and is a much easier way to fit; buy the tonnage chassis you want, fit, and voila, mech to your taste. Battlemechs take more time and effort, and as such, develop more character since you know that you're always gonna have a lead shooter in your torso in a Hunchback.

Unless of course you decide on that baby Awesome fit you proposed above.

[Sirius Drake]

this ins an mmo. an mmo is meant to be fun for its players. while i like the idea that switching of weapons costs you a lot of time....its just not wise to implement this into an mmo.
every player who isnt a hardcore BT fan (and i guess even most of the hardcore fans) would be annoyed if the loadout change would take longer then the few seconds you need to put it of and the new loadout onto the mech in the menu.
it just dosent fit into the "hop in and play" gamestyle a game like MWo should have.

[Hawkmoon230]

I love all this discussion before a new game comes out about how they will do this and that and they MUST say now how it will be and stick to it well........ Any computer game and a MMO in particular are a bit like a battle in that things very rarely go how you think they will much beyond when a player hits the start button. The reality is that the game will be tweaked along the way to produce the best balanced most enjoyable experience for all who play, which may or may not be the most true to the original concept. Like Sirius said it is a game to be played for fun, if it is not fun for one side or the other then they will stop playing and hey, you'll all be left playing with yourselves!
You cannot give one side a massive advantage in a game because you don't get the hero charging in and saving the day, the side with the advantage will usually win. It must be balanced and players will make it know if it is not and then things will change and that is that because.....it is a free to play game but lots of people will spend a lot of money playing and the more people that play the more money will be spent and that is what it is all about.


Just my 2 pennies

[Kartr]

Sigh I was going to go to bed after that last monster post, but I can't not reply, I call it Obsessive Replying Disorder.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Which is, as I understand it, (feel free to quote me incorrect) flat out wrong. A Hunchback has Ballistic Hardpoints in its Left Torso. This does not mean that I could put an AC in the right arm, as I could with Omni-pod tech. So you're still much more flexible from that aspect. Ergo missles, energy weapons, etc. You're still limited in a Battlemech by where they can be located, and thus are limited by either how many ballistic slots they've allotted there, or merely by how many crits are free in that location.

Technically it's in the right Torso but that's fairly unimportant for this discussion. So yes you would have more freedom to place different weapons in different locations, how much more dependent on which 'Mech you're talking about. Lets take that Hunchback for example, if you look up a post I showed how you could turn the AC/20 Hunchback into a PPC sniper easily enough. You could also turn it into a Ballistic sniper. Drop the AC/20 and replace it with a Gauss Rifle, loose a half ton of armor and the small laser and you still have 2 tons of ammo. Atlas has an AC/20 and more tonnage to spare than a Hunchback so you could actually drop enough tonnage off of a stock Atlas to replace that AC/20 with a Gauss Rifle and AC/5, or two AC/10s and have the criticals for it.

The BattleMech is less flexible, but you can still do a lot with it and honestly I don't think I'll ever get an OmniMech if the system is like this, no point.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Thus, variants will be necessary to fill out an armory, leading me back to my resistance to a limitation of the number of mechs that you can own. Lets say I want a Catapult vanilla, and also want the option to fit it with 2 snub nosed ppc's, and some med pulse lasers as a brawler. I'm going to have to buy the K2 as well as the vanilla for the fitting I would like to do.

No snubnose PPCs or MPulse Lasers yet.

Remember I said limiting the number of 'Mechs you can own was in response to someone else's idea, or in response to how you would have to keep people from having a mech for ever single map, its late, I forget, it had to do with keeping people from using a large stable of 'Mechs from optimizing their ride for whatever map they were on. Personally I would much rather have it so you picked your 'Mech and then you learned what map you were going to fight on and could only change configurations to optimize for that map if you were in an Omni.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Two points here:
A) While never actively prohibited, the concept of Boating was never one that adhered to the spirit of the TT.

I recall reading, thru the haze of 15 years ago, in the battletech handbook that came w/ my old TT box set, that mechs were rarely, if ever Customized. The Battlesheets were provided merely for you to play around with, and Custom mechs just weren't done. Customizing was ok within the bounds of reason, however, a Vanilla Assault mech that you called an Atlas-XX with more medium lasers that it knew what to do with... well, that was just cheese and we all knew it. (Talking about my group of friends, not trying to put words in your mouth.)

2) There's no tradition here, since I can count on one hand the number of individualized varients mentioned on Sarna for each mech class.

I'll give you a generous 250 customized and personalized mechs mentioned in the wiki. Then I'll double it to 500. 2 regiments. Heck, lets double it again! 4 Regiments! In the entirety of canon. Now lets compare that to *name out of a hat* Word of Blake just before Jihad. Estimates vary, but you're looking at 50,000 to 70,000 mechs alone, not counting support structure. (According to Sarna.)

My point is that customizing mechs is something that came about from the computer games, not the TT canon. We had variants in the TT game. Here, we have Mech-Lab. So we're working with a very different set of parameters. This is an online game. Every online game lets its players bend the rules a bit. We get to be the hero. Or anti-hero. We get to do what the Davions and Steiners got to do; play with our own mechs more than most. Thats what the mech lab is, our own personal set of mechanics to tinker with our toy gods.

You're right and I've never denied it, but customization is not a common thing lore wise. However it has become a staple of MechWarrior franchise and almost all modern games, especially MMO's let you customize your characters statistics some how. If MW.O didn't have customization and everyone was forced to drive variants if they didn't like the stock version, the player base would probably shrink very rapidly, until only the Hard Core BattleTech fans played with any frequency.

Plus we already know that MechLab and customization are in and accessible to all who can afford the C-bill cost. So to me it now boils down to making sure that BattleMechs and OmniMechs are sufficiently differentiated and that OmniMechs have enough of an advantage over BattleMechs to make them worth the much higher cost. Personally all things being equal (both use the same level of Tech) I'm not going to buy an Omni when my BattleMech has the ability to create long/short rang variants and hot/cold variants already and I can switch between them to ensure I'm best equipped for the next map.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

I liked Zakatak's proposal here, in its broad strokes (leery of the Jump Jet one) but I think it captures the essence of this debate, and provides at least a reasonable framework to move forward with.

Problem with Zak's (if we're talking about the same post), locking away people's 'Mechs for a period of time is a bad idea. Doing it for one round after you've customized in order to prevent people from optimizing for their next map is one thing, but preventing them from playing for multiple battles? You want people to be playing the game not sitting around for their new 'Mech to get back from the shop.

Since his idea seems to mostly revolve around time costs and I think time costs are bad, I don't think this idea has much merit. Pretty sure I went over why it's not a great idea in an earlier post.

Edited by Kartr, 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM.

[Sgt Kartr]

spacer to fix quote problems

[Kartr]

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Pretty sure I responded to this earlier. We're understanding the system differently. First one into beta wins! Coffee, hopefully. As said above, I can put an AC into the proper torso of a Hunchback. You can put one anywhere you like in an Omni-mech. That alone is enough incentive from my side of the table. I disagree that a, this is even an issue, and b, one where the only answer to this would be to lock out a mech after its been customized for one match, just to give Omni's an even bigger advantage than they already have.

You can watch the MechLab video and play around with one of the free 'Mech editing programs floating around on the web to get an idea of how it works.

Yes we disagree on whether this is an issue or not, kind of the crux of the matter eh? You don't think this is an issue, which considering the flexibility built into the current MechLab system kind of boggles my mind. Not every 'Mech needs all three kinds of weapons on it's chassis, most let you do some pretty incredible things with the two kinds of weapons they have on the chassis. All can create long/short range configurations and most mediums and up can create hot/cold variants as well.

You only really need 5 configurations: flexible, hot sniper, hot brawler, cold sniper, cold brawler. All the 'Mechs can create a "flexible" configuration, for most that is their stock configuration. All of them can make a brawler and a sniper configuration and most 'Mechs heavier than a light can make hot and cold versions. Again not all of them are going to be able to have missiles and energy and ballistic on the same chassis even in different configurations, but since they can all make flexible, brawler and sniper configurations then if given the ability they can take an optimized configuration. (Most lights can simply be switched to DHS and that will take care of their heat problems)

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

You're throwing around a lot of absolutes. With my own personal crew of minions to refit, whos to say I cannot refit before a mission?
Point 1: Omni-mech's advantage is that they can refit quickly. Partially true. For a more honest answer, it is that they can fit anything they have the room for anywhere. That is their true advantage over Battlemechs. Refitting speed is merely a function of how many c-bills you throw at the problem.

No you can't just throw more C-bills at your techs and have them work faster. There is the law of diminishing returns. Up to a certain point increasing the number techs and tools makes it go faster, after that they just get in each others way and slow things down.

Plus you can only loosen nuts and bolts so fast, or tighten so fast (don't want to strip them). According to Sarna it still takes several hours to reconfigure an OmniMech. BattleMechs will take even longer still since they don't have the easy access OmniPods.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Point 2: Battlemechs have to go into combat without optimizing. According to you, but not according to Mech-Lab. If we were playing a TT game I'd agree with you, however, this isn't the TT. We've got Mech-Lab, we might as well use it.

We've already used the MechLab, we tweaked our 'Mech to get the custom load out we liked. Allowing swapping for mission optimization is taking you out of the 'MechLab and into field conditions which don't support rebuilds like that. If you'll check out the Sarna article on OmniMechs you'll see that OmniMechs didn't gain their place among the Clans because they let the pilot more flexibility in where he placed his weapons. OmniMechs became the front line unit because they allowed their pilots to configure them to fit the mission and/or environment!

Sarna.net/wiki/OmniMech says: [color=#000000]The Coyote's and Sea Foxes' evolutionary changes to BattleMech design resulted revolutionary changes on the battlefield. The OmniMech was more tactically [and] strategically flexible than any BattleMech before, allowing the Coyotes (and to a lesser extent, the demurring Sea Foxes) to choose the capabilities of their machines depending upon the requirements of the mission.[/color]

Like I've been saying OmniMechs main advantage, their reason for superiority, is their ability to change configurations to suit the mission. Notice that it makes them "more tactically [and] strategically flexible then ANY BattleMech before." Why is it more flexible than any before? Is it because the pilot can put weapons anywhere he wants? No, it's because they can be changed to fit the mission requirements.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Point 3: Thats how the OmniMech/Battlemech system works... again, according to you. You're entitled to your opinion, and the dev's are entitled to make the game they want.

Nope that's how the lore says it works, that's the official reason for why it works, it's also common sense for why it works. I am an opinionated person, I'm willing to admit that, but this is not my opinion, this is BattleTech fact.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Religions ruin everything!!! While I agree with you in part, (Comstar) I fail to see how you reason that 4 brutal Succession Wars would increase the level of Technology. Most of the Houses were too busy blowing each other up to devote time to recovering LosTech or building it from scratch.

They wouldn't have needed to recover LosTech because it never would've been lost in the first place. Wars always drive innovation and they always increase industrial bases. This is especially true in a civilization where you can't just launch long range bomber raids deep into enemy territory smash their factories the way the Allies did Germany in WW2. In the BattleTech Universe it takes such a long time to get anywhere that such deep raids would be one way suicide missions, more often than not (probably close to 99%).

Look at the Jihad and Dark Ages for example, the time is much shorter than the Succession Wars, but with the Jihad it is arguably just as and maybe more destructive than even the Second Succession War. However weapon technology actually grew rather than declined, both in commonality and in sophistication. Real historical trends/facts and BattleTech "history" shows that the decline of technology and industry during the Succession Wars was an aberration. Since we know that ComStar was conducting a secret war against the IS with those exact goals (decrease the technological and industrial level of the IS), the logical conclusion is that the aberration was caused by ComStar.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Again, your opinion, and one that would be, if I may, wildly unbalanced when OmniTech is introduced. I could see it from a game developer standpoint, as it would essentially force people to buy OmniMechs once they were available, however, that strikes me as something EA would do, and I'm sincerely hoping that PGI doesn't go down the "force them to get new ****" route.

Yes that's my opinion to what the optimal way is to ensure that OmniMechs are advantageous and have their traditional reason for superiority over BattleMechs. It could be wildly unbalanced and yes it could drive players to buy OmniMechs to replace their BattleMechs. This would not only be faithful to lore (pilots wanted to get Omni's), but would also be right at home with almost all MMORPGs. That being said I don't think it would be good for OmniMechs to force players to upgrade from their BattleMechs.

What if when OmniMechs are introduced you select the 'Mech, then you get the mission details and if you have an Omni you can select the configuration you think is optimal for that map. If you're driving a BattleMech you just have to drive what you've got. However BattleMechs would get a bonus to everything, slightly faster refire rates, slightly less heat, slightly faster, etc., to OmniMechs of equivalent tonnage and tech. This would reflect the fact that while the BattleMech isn't optimized for that mission, it is optimized for that load out.

Essentially the OmniMech gains its tactical and strategic flexibility at the cost of efficiency and performance. While not enough to compensate for the lost flexibility, when combined with the lower cost of a BattleMech, it keeps them viable in the players eyes, on the battlefield and explains why even after the Clan invasion both spheroids and clanners kept designing and producing BattleMechs.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Thanks for a great debate so far!

It's been fun, I just hope I can convince you to see the "truth."

[Kartr]

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

Only bit I'm responding to before bed. Since I seem to have anticipated most of what you wrote above. Who says they have to be "Distinctly Superior"? You? The Clan Tech is what makes them superior, the Omni-Tech is what makes them more versatile. Combine the two, its nasty, as we're going to find out. Distinctly Different is enough, when talking about Omni-Tech as separate from the Clan Weapons, IMO. It provides a different flavor, and is a much easier way to fit; buy the tonnage chassis you want, fit, and voila, mech to your taste. Battlemechs take more time and effort, and as such, develop more character since you know that you're always gonna have a lead shooter in your torso in a Hunchback. Unless of course you decide on that baby Awesome fit you proposed above.

This is partially covered in the above post when I talked about Sarna and the lore behind OmniMechs.

Even considering OmniMechs and BattleMechs of the same tech level, OmniMechs are going to be superior because they can customize their load to fit the mission profile. Not only is that the lore, it's common sense. Clan tech plus OmniMechs are why the Clan invasion was so deadly. Even if the Clans had been merely using standard IS tech when they invaded, the OmniMechs would still have given them a huge advantage. This would've been because they could change the weapons to fit the mission while the IS pilots would be using their fixed configuration BattleMechs to fight back with non-optimized configs.

See my idea for balancing OmniMechs vs BattleMechs when both are using the same level of technology. To me that's what flavor is about, I have the same "character" in the BattleMech that you were talking about only more so. Because you'll use that same configuration over and over again, you'll learn how that AC pulls a little to the right, your PPCs tend to splash when they strike at that angle, etc. While the OmniMechs will have their own just as distinct flavor, sliding into each mission with the perfect balance of weapons, like a Cappellan Death Commando slipping into some poor, doomed and innocent Davion noble's house to inflict death and carnage. Omni's will be technically better, but with the performance optimization of BattleMechs and the familiarity you develop with that machine after so many battles, you won't even notice you're driving an "inferior" machine.

That's the way I see it being the most fun anyway. Holy crap it's 3am!! When did that happen!!

[Zso Sahal]

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Sigh I was going to go to bed after that last monster post, but I can't not reply, I call it Obsessive Replying Disorder.

I know the feeling...

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

The BattleMech is less flexible, but you can still do a lot with it and honestly I don't think I'll ever get an OmniMech if the system is like this, no point.

Exactly. This is why I don't believe any further incentive is necessary to differentiate omni from battlemech technology. The only difference we have is (in regards to this issue) that I consider it enough of a difference, without further penalizing Battlemechs.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

No snubnose PPCs or MPulse Lasers yet.

file:///C:\Users\!\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image004.gifI want RACs, HAGs and LAC's as well... here's to hoping they really crack the armories open later on... There are so many different weapons available, esp once we get to the mid/late 3060s.

In case you couldn't tell, I love my lead shooters.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

... [W]e already know that MechLab and customization are in and accessible to all who can afford the C-bill cost. So to me it now boils down to making sure that BattleMechs and OmniMechs are sufficiently differentiated and that OmniMechs have enough of an advantage over BattleMechs to make them worth the much higher cost. Personally all things being equal (both use the same level of Tech) I'm not going to buy an Omni when my BattleMech has the ability to create long/short rang variants and hot/cold variants already and I can switch between them to ensure I'm best equipped for the next map.

I think the easiest and least restrictive option here would be to not make OmniTech cost "much" more. A modest price increase would be more than sufficient to reflect the wider fitting options available, and from a developer perspective, keep them free to continue adding mechs without having to worry about making stuff that was functionally OP compared to the current Battlemech technology.

Personally, I've never been a fan of OmniTech, but that could just be a bad taste left in my mouth from the Clan structure as a whole that it was introduced with. Yeah, the Mad Dog was awesome, but compared to the mechs I got to play with in MW2:Mercs, they just felt a bit soulless. As I stated in an earlier post, you buy the tonnage you want, and voila, mech exactly to your specs. (Within fitting requirements obviously.) I'm honestly interested to see how they implement Omnitech, if it'll be a free for all, something with pod size limitations on top of weight limitations, or something completely new and AWESOME!

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:48 AM, said:

Problem with Zak's (if we're talking about the same post), locking away people's 'Mechs for a period of time is a bad idea. Doing it for one round after you've customized in order to prevent people from optimizing for their next map is one thing, but preventing them from playing for multiple battles? You want people to be playing the game not sitting around for their new 'Mech to get back from the shop.

What I liked about Zak's post was the intrinsic differentiation it offered re: Battle vs Omni Tech. Specifically how you could change the structure of Battlemechs, but refit costs were higher for any kind of customization that was done. OmniMechs on the other hand were limited to their starting structure, but were cheaper to refit, reflecting the nature of Omnipods. Definately agree that any kind of time constraint will turn people off to the game, which is not something the Dev's would do lightly. Hence my resistance to the 1 round lockout you propose file:///C:\Users\!\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.gif .

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Not every 'Mech needs all three kinds of weapons on it's chassis, most let you do some pretty incredible things with the two kinds of weapons they have on the chassis.

True, but those are limited not just by how many different types of hard points they have, but how many of each specific hard point they have, in relation to what you want to do with it.

Lets take something like the poor Hunchback we keep picking on. Lets say I want to fit 3 small AC's on it. Bummer. Can't do it, unless I somehow manage to cram them into that single torso, vastly limiting my fitting options. I'm slaved to the hardpoint configuration, and cannot spread them out, protecting them individually by putting say 1 in each arm, and one in the torso. Tactically speaking, this is a huge disadvantage, since you only need to disable one location to neutralize my primary armament.

This, compared to the flexibility of an OmniChassis is really the differentiation between BattleMechs and OmniMechs, and its not a difference that should be minimized, or ignored. I personally am looking forward to the fitting challenges, making my own variants of iconic mechs, while still being forced to remain true to the original intent of the Chassis. Is it more difficult than just buying the OmniChassis of the tonnage I want and they saying "Damn it all, full speed ahead"? (Checked posting etiquette before not **** that out) Yeah, definately, but more rewarding for me personally when I make a Mauler like I used a decade ago on the TT. (Please dev's, put it in!!!)

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

No you can't just throw more C-bills at your techs and have them work faster. There is the law of diminishing returns. Up to a certain point increasing the number techs and tools makes it go faster, after that they just get in each others way and slow things down.

So, I made an "All the Things" meme pic for this... but it wouldn't let me load it. Optimize ALL the Repairs!!! (now just imagine it. )

Edited by Zso Sahal, 02 June 2012 - 09:40 PM.

[Zso Sahal]

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

We've already used the MechLab, we tweaked our 'Mech to get the custom load out we liked. Allowing swapping for mission optimization is taking you out of the 'MechLab and into field conditions which don't support rebuilds like that.

A ha! We've found the source of the disagreement! You you've got a very linear view of how the Mech-Lab can be used, one that, IMO is not supported by the revealed information so far. There's no hard information on this yet; we don't know where Mech-Lab is located. It could be on the dropship, or we just accept the mission, and then fit for it. There is nothing forcing us to deploy immediately, especially if we're fighting in the border worlds, a long way from our Faction/MRB base. Which would explain how you could refit after accepting a mission.

This would however, offer the opportunity for an interesting mechanic to be implemented; instead of forcing people to take a non optimized mech, if they want to use it for that mission, as you seem to advocate, we could instead offer incentives.

If mission is completed without refitting, or within a certain time limit, you would receive 20% extra C-Bills and Xp. Something along those lines. I'm honestly just spitballing here, throwing ideas around, I'll get back to the debate as soon as I'm done critiquing my own ideas. The obvious downside to this is that people will just get a stable of mechs, each fit for a different scenario, and just "grab it off the shelf" so to speak. Which really gets us back to square one.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Like I've been saying OmniMechs main advantage, their reason for superiority, is their ability to change configurations to suit the mission.

Honestly, I could see this being a major advantage if the dev's implemented something like campaigns, but for one off matches, there is no reason to assume that it happens IMMEDIATELY after accepting the contract, mission, or to further assume that you're already in drop range of said mission or contract. Hence, there is no reason to assume that refitting based on intel is unfeasible, no matter what kind of mech you're currently piloting.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Nope that's how the lore says it works, that's the official reason for why it works, it's also common sense for why it works. I am an opinionated person, I'm willing to admit that, but this is not my opinion, this is BattleTech fact.

Hopefully the logic above hasn't escaped you, and you can see what this really is your opinion in most areas, and the Facts you've presented are either not applicable, or easily explained away to keep both the fast pace of MW:O, and the immersion factor both in high gear. Honestly, I'm more of a devil's advocate than anything else, and your OP initally drew my attention because of the relative simplicity of the poll.

However, before voting, I read the entirety of the OP, and couldn't square the relatively innocuous nature of the poll vs. the rather extreme implementation you offered in the meat of the proposal.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Since we know that ComStar was conducting a secret war against the IS with those exact goals (decrease the technological and industrial level of the IS), the logical conclusion is that the aberration was caused by ComStar.

A more accurate way to say this would be that the logical conclusion is that Comstar was a contributing factor (a cause), rather than The Cause. It is a logical fallacy to claim that since X was involved in Y, X caused Y. There are actually 3 possibilities here: X may have caused Y, X may simply have been happening while Y occured, or X could have played a roll along with a host of other factors in influencing Y. Scientifically speaking, option 3 is always the most likely. I still hate Comstar.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

What if when OmniMechs are introduced you select the 'Mech, then you get the mission details and if you have an Omni you can select the configuration you think is optimal for that map. If you're driving a BattleMech you just have to drive what you've got. However BattleMechs would get a bonus to everything, slightly faster refire rates, slightly less heat, slightly faster, etc., to OmniMechs of equivalent tonnage and tech. This would reflect the fact that while the BattleMech isn't optimized for that mission, it is optimized for that load out.

I played around with a variation of this further up the post; it was honestly just a "lets see where my fingers take me" writing exercise, but we're both offering some suggestions to what can be offered to alleviate the perceived imbalance OmniMechs would bring to the field if they were implemented along the lines you have suggested. That said, I'm still firmly of the opinion that the freedom of fitting they offer is more than enough incentive for people to desire them, although personally, I prefer my BattleMechs.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

Essentially the OmniMech gains its tactical and strategic flexibility at the cost of efficiency and performance. While not enough to compensate for the lost flexibility, when combined with the lower cost of a BattleMech, it keeps them viable in the players eyes, on the battlefield and explains why even after the Clan invasion both spheroids and clanners kept designing and producing BattleMechs.

Another reason they could've continued to be produced is that the benefits weren't as great as you claim, and merely the freedom of fitting I've been proposing. My claim is that the Clan Tech is what made OmniMechs so OP, rather than their status as OmniMechs alone. I see it as much more of a subtle difference, and one that, taken on its own and ignoring the Clan weapons mounted inside that tech, is not something that confers some massive benefit to the Mech. Its flexibility in long campaigns is arguably a major strategic asset, however in one-off battles and skirmishes, which is what MW:O appears to be offering initially, it'll be of limited value other than its obvious benefits: freedom of customization.

I can't see a further differentiation being necessary, or as good business from PG's side of the table.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 01:50 AM, said:

It's been fun, I just hope I can convince you to see the "truth."

Well, you gave it a good effort. But if I conceded at this point, there'd be no more debate!

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Even considering OmniMechs and BattleMechs of the same tech level, OmniMechs are going to be superior because they can customize their load to fit the mission profile. Not only is that the lore, it's common sense. Clan tech plus OmniMechs are why the Clan invasion was so deadly. Even if the Clans had been merely using standard IS tech when they invaded, the OmniMechs would still have given them a huge advantage. This would've been because they could change the weapons to fit the mission while the IS pilots would be using their fixed configuration BattleMechs to fight back with non-optimized configs.

I agree in principle, however i'd change it to a "the OmniMechs would still have given them a moderate advantage.

Kartr, on 02 June 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

That's the way I see it being the most fun anyway. Holy crap it's 3am!! When did that happen!!

Don't worry, I made a pot of coffee and have 2 more mammoth posts for you to sift thru tonight

Edited by Zso Sahal, 02 June 2012 - 09:48 PM.

[Ian]

As if Clan tech isn't advantage enough.

Remember this is a game about having fun. Having to work 3 copies of the same mech up so you can run it weather you are going to a Hot planet or a Cold planet or a temperate planet is sorta silly and definitely annoying.

I'd be completely ok with a game that had no mechlab at all. But since there is one, I see no point in all the discussions about limiting its use to one set of factions, so the other side can have an even greater advantage than their already superior tech gives them. Call it the trade off for not having to follow zellbrigen, or bid away units to actually get to fight. Or any of that other Clan quasi honor stuff.

Quote

This would've been because they could change the weapons to fit the mission while the IS pilots would be using their fixed configuration BattleMechs to fight back with non-optimized configs.

There are a good many standard Omnimech configurations that are not optimized particularly well. Remember that Only important named Clan pilots really got to configure their own omni's. Sure it says everyone else did, but the standard variants wouldn't be standard if they were not used most of the time.

Edited by Ian, 02 June 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[Quentin Yatoki]

Ian, on 02 June 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Remember this is a game about having fun. Having to work 3 copies of the same mech up so you can run it weather you are going to a Hot planet or a Cold planet or a temperate planet is sorta silly and definitely annoying.

This. It seems to me that this discussion really seems to be about whether or not you should be able to optimize your mech for an upcoming battle.

My personal opinion is that I think you shouldn't. Perhaps once Omnimechs come into play, they can swap out pods before a mission as that is supported by the canon, however, Battlemechs should not.

Why not?

1. It decreases the fun factor of the game. If you can optimize a mech for a particular match once you know the map, then it stops being a game of pilot skill and becomes a game of who can min/max the most.

2. It's non-canonical. While I understand that in canon, customized variants were very rare at best and the mechlab sort of breaks that, it doesn't mean we have to go completely off the deep end. I think we should remember that canonically, battlemechs would take a long time to retrofit and customize. We can do that in between matches in the mech lab, because it's not truly representing a finite length of time between making contact with enemy, and then engaging them.

3. The game should be as true to the spirit of Battletech as possible. The point of playing this game for many of us is to pilot a mech in the Battletech universe. As a result, the game should reflect the realities of the universe unless good game design dictates otherwise.

With that said, here is my proposal for how things should work.

1. You are free to customize your mech within Tonnage/Hardpoint/Critical slots as much as you would like in between matches provided you can afford the equipment.

2. Prior to entering a match, you are given an overview of the planet you are fighting on. You can then choose your mech based on the general information. Then after you choose your mech, you will find out the map you are fighting on. This reflects that Battlemechs canonically weren't able to be optimized for individual battles. Omnimech pilots will have a brief period of time, say 30 seconds, to choose the best preset configuration of their mech after they find out the map.

3. To offset the advantage of Omnis in this situtation, I agree with Kartr's suggestion. Battlemechs should be better optimized for the loadout they carry. Slightly better heat dissipation, slightly increased accuracy, slightly faster weapon cycling. This will allow a balanced Battlemech design of similar BV to be able to go toe to toe with a Omni mech that is specialized for the terrain.

Edited by Quentin Yatoki, 03 June 2012 - 07:46 PM.

[Kartr]

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Kartr said:

The BattleMech is less flexible, but you can still do a lot with it and honestly I don't think I'll ever get an OmniMech if the system is like this, no point.

Exactly. This is why I don't believe any further incentive is necessary to differentiate omni from battlemech technology. The only difference we have is (in regards to this issue) that I consider it enough of a difference, without further penalizing Battlemechs.

See I don't understand this. There is no real differentiation between Omni's and BattleMechs with the current system. There's no reason for me to switch to a 70 ton OmniMech when my 70 ton Cataphract can can switch from 2LLas, 2MLas and LB/10X (my planned load), to 2LB/10X and 2MLas (drop the LLas and extra DHS) for long range low heat sniping. Then go to 2LLas, 10 MLas plus extra DHS for a short range high heat build, then go to an AC/20, AC/2, 4 MLas for a low heat short range build. And finish it off with a high heat sniper using 2PPCs, 2LLas, 19DHS, 12 tons of armor and 4JJ. If I can do all that with a BattleMech then why would I want to spend the money to buy an OmniMech to do the same thing?

The way the system is now and the way you're advocating, OmniMechs are a marginal upgrade to BattleMechs, rather than being something unique and different. This doesn't really reflect the lore, or make for interesting options for the players. While making the BattleMech and OmniMechs very distinct from each other with their own strengths and weaknesses gives players choice and makes the game more interesting and fun. Do I pick the BattleMech for its faster refire, lower heat, faster convergence and sacrifice being able to optimize for each map, or do I take the OmniMech with its slower refire, slower convergence, and higher heat, but optimize the loadout for each map?

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I think the easiest and least restrictive option here would be to not make OmniTech cost "much" more. A modest price increase would be more than sufficient to reflect the wider fitting options available, and from a developer perspective, keep them free to continue adding mechs without having to worry about making stuff that was functionally OP compared to the current Battlemech technology.

Thing is you don't have to balance each OmniMech individually. OmniMechs most likely won't have hard point restrictions and can thus have anything put anywhere. The problem is then keeping BattleMechs viable and effective relative to OmniMechs. This is most easily done by making them very distinct and different. OmniMechs can be optimized for each mission, BattleMechs generate less heat(or dissipate it faster), fire faster and aim faster. If one becomes to OP you just adjust the difference in the heat generation/dissipation, aim times and refire times until both types are back in balance.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

Personally, I've never been a fan of OmniTech, but that could just be a bad taste left in my mouth from the Clan structure as a whole that it was introduced with. Yeah, the Mad Dog was awesome, but compared to the mechs I got to play with in MW2:Mercs, they just felt a bit soulless. As I stated in an earlier post, you buy the tonnage you want, and voila, mech exactly to your specs. (Within fitting requirements obviously.) I'm honestly interested to see how they implement Omnitech, if it'll be a free for all, something with pod size limitations on top of weight limitations, or something completely new and AWESOME!

No need to do something new, no need to restrict them in any way either, just make them less heat efficient and slower to aim/fire than BattleMechs and boom you're balanced, as long as BattleMechs can't optimize for each map.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

What I liked about Zak's post was the intrinsic differentiation it offered re: Battle vs Omni Tech. Specifically how you could change the structure of Battlemechs, but refit costs were higher for any kind of customization that was done. OmniMechs on the other hand were limited to their starting structure, but were cheaper to refit, reflecting the nature of Omnipods. Definately agree that any kind of time constraint will turn people off to the game, which is not something the Dev's would do lightly. Hence my resistance to the 1 round lockout you propose file:///C:\Users\!\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image006.gif .

Well we at least both want BattleMech and OmniMechs to be differentiated, I guess the main difference is that I want them to be extremely different and you want them to be only a little different. Though honestly it's canon that the OmniMech didn't have a wider ability to be customized, or lacked the ability to have its chassis changed, just that it was easier to change the weapon load outs and that was what made them so good.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

True, but those are limited not just by how many different types of hard points they have, but how many of each specific hard point they have, in relation to what you want to do with it.

Lets take something like the poor Hunchback we keep picking on. Lets say I want to fit 3 small AC's on it. Bummer. Can't do it, unless I somehow manage to cram them into that single torso, vastly limiting my fitting options. I'm slaved to the hardpoint configuration, and cannot spread them out, protecting them individually by putting say 1 in each arm, and one in the torso. Tactically speaking, this is a huge disadvantage, since you only need to disable one location to neutralize my primary armament.

The right torso has three hard points and 12 critical slots, the AC/5 takes 4 critical slots which means you could mount three of them (or three AC/2s) in the right torso. That right torso could also carry two LB/10X as they require 6 criticals each.

Yes this is less flexible than OmniMechs in that you are restricted to certain locations. However since critical space is rarely the restricting factor when modifying a BattleMech, the BattleMech even with hardpoints generally has enough room to mount most things they can carry weight wise. Weight is usually the main restriction on what you can place on a 'Mech, the weight saving endosteel and FF armor takes up critical slots, but those slots can traditionally be anywhere you have criticals available. This means you can place them in locations that don't have hard points or hard points you're not going to use and still have room to mount your 3 AC/5s.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

This, compared to the flexibility of an OmniChassis is really the differentiation between BattleMechs and OmniMechs, and its not a difference that should be minimized, or ignored. I personally am looking forward to the fitting challenges, making my own variants of iconic mechs, while still being forced to remain true to the original intent of the Chassis. Is it more difficult than just buying the OmniChassis of the tonnage I want and they saying "Damn it all, full speed ahead"? (Checked posting etiquette before not **** that out) Yeah, definately, but more rewarding for me personally when I make a Mauler like I used a decade ago on the TT. (Please dev's, put it in!!!)

Not traditionally or according to the lore. According to the lore it is the flexibility to customize the 'Mech for a planet or mission and the ease with which damage systems can be removed and replaced is what makes the OmniMech superior. This changed with MW4 since that was the first game to introduce hard points. In MW4 you're right the greater range of customization available to OmniMechs was their defining characteristic. However with the MWO 'MechLab the level of customization for BattleMechs is much closer to that of TT rules than MW4 and so the OmniMech is no longer greatly superior in ease of customization.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

So, I made an "All the Things" meme pic for this... but it wouldn't let me load it. Optimize ALL the Repairs!!! (now just imagine it. )

Seemed like you had a number of pics that didn't load.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

A ha! We've found the source of the disagreement! You you've got a very linear view of how the Mech-Lab can be used, one that, IMO is not supported by the revealed information so far. There's no hard information on this yet; we don't know where Mech-Lab is located. It could be on the dropship, or we just accept the mission, and then fit for it. There is nothing forcing us to deploy immediately, especially if we're fighting in the border worlds, a long way from our Faction/MRB base. Which would explain how you could refit after accepting a mission.

MechLab is a uniquely MechWarrior video game construct, TT gives you rules for customization and the novels mention pilots that do it as well, however BattleMechs are almost never modified during campaigns. Most of the BattleMech modification happens on Solaris, or in the 'Mech hangers of the rich and powerful. BattleMechs are not traditionally able to be modified during military campaigns which is why OmniMechs and their OmniPods which make "hot swapping" possible such a big deal.

The 'MechLab is a video game concession to give players the ability to individualize their 'Mechs in a way that the vast majority of MechWarriors in the lore were never able to. Since we're no longer bound to stock and variants the way lore pilots are it becomes even more important to highlight the flexibility of OmniMechs. You can modify your BattleMech, well you can modify your OmniMech for every battle because its that much more flexible.

Generally if you're defending the attackers don't tell you where they're going to hit you. This means you don't have enough time to refit a BattleMech by the time you know which area they're attacking. If you're attacking you don't always know what kind of environment you're going into, especially when you're attacking an entire planet. By the time you've figured out where to land and hit them you need to hit the ground as quickly as possible, waiting the days or weeks to refit your 'Mech can cost you the initiative and allow them to bring reinforcements in.

OmniMechs can change their configurations in a matter of hours which is why its common practice to optimize them for the next mission. Its more a matter of not knowing exactly what you're getting into until you get there and OmniMechs can allow you to stop for an hour or two once you've got up to date intel, while BattleMechs would take days or weeks even with a top of the line 'MechLab like on Solaris.

[Sgt Kartr]

quote buffer

[Kartr]

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

This would however, offer the opportunity for an interesting mechanic to be implemented; instead of forcing people to take a non optimized mech, if they want to use it for that mission, as you seem to advocate, we could instead offer incentives.

If mission is completed without refitting, or within a certain time limit, you would receive 20% extra C-Bills and Xp. Something along those lines. I'm honestly just spitballing here, throwing ideas around, I'll get back to the debate as soon as I'm done critiquing my own ideas. The obvious downside to this is that people will just get a stable of mechs, each fit for a different scenario, and just "grab it off the shelf" so to speak. Which really gets us back to square one.

Exactly people will find a way around the system and if you give them incentives they'll find a way to get the incentives without meeting the spirit of the conditions. Simplest way to introduce well defined differences between BattleMechs and OmniMechs, to keep munchkins from optimizing for every map, and generally make the game more fair and fun, is to have players select the 'Mech, find out which map and if using an Omni select a configuration. Keep BattleMechs viable and worthwhile by improving their handling compared to Omni's (convergence, refire, heat generation/dissipation) and you have a balanced system that promotes diversity and choice.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Honestly, I could see this being a major advantage if the dev's implemented something like campaigns, but for one off matches, there is no reason to assume that it happens IMMEDIATELY after accepting the contract, mission, or to further assume that you're already in drop range of said mission or contract. Hence, there is no reason to assume that refitting based on intel is unfeasible, no matter what kind of mech you're currently piloting.

Except that it isn't done in fluff and any intel is going to be months old due to the nature of DropShip travel, which means you have no real idea what you're getting into until you arrive at the planet at which point its really to late to undertake a week long refit for all the 'Mechs in your unit, in zero-g. There is a reason BattleMechs are almost never refitted for specific missions in the lore. These reasons are why OmniMechs being able to be refit in a couple of hours to be best prepared for the conditions in the upcoming mission was such a big deal.

So it is actually unfeasible to expect to be able to refit BattleMechs before each mission, or really before any mission. The communication lag in the BattleTech universe means that by the time you get up to date information on the target area, it is already to late to refit your 'Mechs to handle those specific conditions. The best you can do is create a balanced design that lets you handle the widest possible set of conditions with the best possible balance of weapons.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Hopefully the logic above hasn't escaped you, and you can see what this really is your opinion in most areas, and the Facts you've presented are either not applicable, or easily explained away to keep both the fast pace of MW:O, and the immersion factor both in high gear.

/sigh
It's a fact that BattleMechs take days or weeks to customize even with the best 'MechLab and techs, such as on Solaris. Its also a fact that OmniMechs can have their load outs be customized in a matter of hours. Yet another fact is that the ability of OmniMechs to be customized to best meet the next mission parameters and environmental conditions is what made them superior to BattleMechs. Its a fact that BattleTech Universe communications are so slow any intel you get upon hiring is going to be out of date by the time you reach the planet. Its a fact that if you customize your 'Mechs upon reaching the planet and getting up-to-date intel, you would wind up in orbit for weeks as you refit all 12 'Mechs in your company.

Not allowing BattleMechs to be reconfigured before each battle actually speeds up the game since you're not waiting around for someone to tweak their machine before readying up. It increases immersion because anyone who's spent some time in the BattleTech Universe (not including the video games) understands that BattleMechs aren't easily or quickly customized and aren't optimized for each mission. Having people pick their BattleMech before knowing the map and then not being able to customize it for the match helps level the playing field for new players, players with low C-Bill cash flow and players who don't like to min-max for every match, keeping the game more fun for more players.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Honestly, I'm more of a devil's advocate than anything else, and your OP initally drew my attention because of the relative simplicity of the poll.

However, before voting, I read the entirety of the OP, and couldn't square the relatively innocuous nature of the poll vs. the rather extreme implementation you offered in the meat of the proposal.

Honestly that was intentional. You only get so much room to write a question and even less before people start to zone out. Plus if you get them to agree with you once its easier to get them to agree a second time, evil and underhanded I know.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

A more accurate way to say this would be that the logical conclusion is that Comstar was a contributing factor (a cause), rather than The Cause. It is a logical fallacy to claim that since X was involved in Y, X caused Y. There are actually 3 possibilities here: X may have caused Y, X may simply have been happening while Y occured, or X could have played a roll along with a host of other factors in influencing Y. Scientifically speaking, option 3 is always the most likely. I still hate Comstar.

Well yes one can't definitively state that ComStar was the only reason, or that they were even the primary reason. However its a reasonable assumption that they were the primary reason, given that they're the largest anomaly affecting the system and one that was actively trying to reach the abnormal outcome.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I played around with a variation of this further up the post; it was honestly just a "lets see where my fingers take me" writing exercise, but we're both offering some suggestions to what can be offered to alleviate the perceived imbalance OmniMechs would bring to the field if they were implemented along the lines you have suggested. That said, I'm still firmly of the opinion that the freedom of fitting they offer is more than enough incentive for people to desire them, although personally, I prefer my BattleMechs.

If BattleMechs are implemented to where they can be customized or have saved configurations that can be switched between before the map starts, it will create the exact same imbalance OmniMechs will. Namely you will have players with a large amount of time on their hands and thus an intimate knowledge of each map who have the resources to create variants that are optimized for each map. This will put new players, players without as much time and players who would rather not change load outs every match at a disadvantage. At least with my proposal that disadvantage can be minimized by buffing BattleMechs to counter the map specific loads of the OmniMechs.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

Another reason they could've continued to be produced is that the benefits weren't as great as you claim, and merely the freedom of fitting I've been proposing.

I'll let Sarna do the arguing for me:

Sarna.net said:

...the Coyotes and Foxes had evolved the technology to the point of complete reconfiguration of the weapon systems and certain structural components, and these modifications could be performed within hours. The Coyote's and Sea Foxes' evolutionary changes to BattleMech design resulted revolutionary changes on the battlefield. The OmniMech was more tactically strategically flexible than any BattleMech before, allowing the Coyotes (and to a lesser extent, the demurring Sea Foxes) to choose the capabilities of their machines depending upon the requirements of the mission....The modular construction allows MechWarriors to customize their machine's weapon loadout to suit their own skills and preference, and suit specific tactical or environmental needs as required. Where a BattleMech of comparable weight is designed and built for a specific role, a OmniMech can serve as a direct-fire combatant one day, and a missile boat the next. A single 'Mech that can perform the role of four frees up significant logistical space during a campaign....With further regard to costs, even OmniMechs constructed from standard materials are more expensive than comparable BattleMechs of similar weight to both construct and field. While the initial invasion gave the impression that Clan toumans consisted solely of OmniMechs, even they can only afford to outfit their front-line units with them, with their so-called second-line forces generally fielding more cost effective standard BattleMechs, albeit utilizing superior Clan technology.

Emphasis mine.

The benefits I claim are that great, they're also very expensive. However if you make OmniMechs that incredibly expensive in the game it makes it less fun, because only those with the time/money can afford to get the best gear.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

My claim is that the Clan Tech is what made OmniMechs so OP, rather than their status as OmniMechs alone. I see it as much more of a subtle difference, and one that, taken on its own and ignoring the Clan weapons mounted inside that tech, is not something that confers some massive benefit to the Mech. Its flexibility in long campaigns is arguably a major strategic asset, however in one-off battles and skirmishes, which is what MW:O appears to be offering initially, it'll be of limited value other than its obvious benefits: freedom of customization.

See above.

When OmniMechs were first introduced among the Clans they brought about "revolutionary changes to the battlefield." Sarna also had this to say about OmniMechs: "OmniMechs had been nearly unstoppable on the battlefields of the Clan Homeworlds for almost a decade." [/color]Sounds like OmniMechs were pretty OP on their status as OmniMechs alone.

Zso Sahal, on 02 June 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I can't see a further differentiation being necessary, or as good business from PG's side of the table.

Well that's because, in my opinion, you don't want BattleMechs and OmniMechs to be that different at all. I'm sorry I just don't see the extra freedom of customization being that great of a distinction between the two types. Especially since its such a small degree and the lore shows that the ability to customize it for mission parameters and environments was the primary difference and importance of OmniMechs.

Secondly its good business on PGI's part because not allowing BattleMechs to be optimized evens the playing field (until OmniMechs come along), which keeps it more fun for new players and casual players. When OmniMechs come out they will appeal the hard core players, while BattleMechs can be balanced so that they're still competitive which is good for new and casual players. It is also good business because it gives players another layer of choice.

Edited by Kartr, 03 June 2012 - 11:17 PM.

[Kartr]

Quentin Yatoki, on 03 June 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

<snip>

Well put, probably better than I have been saying.

Though I would say I don't think there should be a time limit on selecting an OmniMech configuration. Perhaps you see the planet you're attacking and a list of potential maps you might wind up fighting on. The mission parameters are in a block on one side of the screen (probably left side), the possible maps on the other side of the screen and your available 'Mechs displayed below. Once you pick your 'Mech and hit accept you get taken to the "ready room" where you see the other players on your team and the actual map that you'll be fighting on. At this screen you'll see a picture of your 'Mech with a little drop down bar that displays your configuration. On a BattleMech this drop down bar is grayed out and not selectable, on an OmniMech though you can drop down and select the variant you want to pilot. There would be a ready button at the bottom of the screen and once every pilot had readied up you'd drop into battle.

[Skulls n Guns]

So, BattleMechs have to be customized in the main menu. Omni's Can be customized in the pre-game lobby.


Sounds good to me.

[Kartr]

Ian, on 02 June 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

As if Clan tech isn't advantage enough.

Remember this is a game about having fun. Having to work 3 copies of the same mech up so you can run it weather you are going to a Hot planet or a Cold planet or a temperate planet is sorta silly and definitely annoying.

I'd be completely ok with a game that had no mechlab at all. But since there is one, I see no point in all the discussions about limiting its use to one set of factions, so the other side can have an even greater advantage than their already superior tech gives them. Call it the trade off for not having to follow zellbrigen, or bid away units to actually get to fight. Or any of that other Clan quasi honor stuff.

This doesn't really have anything to do with Clan tech as the IS will also get OmniMechs eventually. Plus as you can see from the sarna page about OmniMechs I linked, only front line Clan units received OmniMechs. If the devs do not allow Clan players access to OmniMechs right away, then this alone helps make the playing field a little more even. Add into that things like reducing the amount of credits and experienced gained by half for every Clan pilot that attacks an IS pilot (enforce the Clan aversion to team work), deny them access to many of the Information Warfare skills/perks that the IS gets (such as air or arty strikes) and only allow them 10 'Mechs instead of 12 and you start getting the framework that keeps the combat fair and fun despite the tech advantage.

Anyway point is this doesn't necessarily increase the Clans OPness and the Clans have to be balanced anyway so that IS players have a fighting chance, and this could actually help if Clan players aren't given access to OmniMechs right away.

Ian, on 02 June 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

There are a good many standard Omnimech configurations that are not optimized particularly well. Remember that Only important named Clan pilots really got to configure their own omni's. Sure it says everyone else did, but the standard variants wouldn't be standard if they were not used most of the time.

Well those standard variants could also be variants established by whatever high command the Clans have. That would allow commanders to tell pilots they're going to be on anti-infantry duty so take the MG/Small Pulse Laser variant, or something like that. Pilots might be able to normally fit what they want, but when the leaders wake up and realize that they need to establish actual doctrine (like the Wolves at Tukayyid) they can use those variants.