34 replies to this topic

[Gorith]

I Know not everyone likes me or how I feel about things but when I get an Idea regardless of what it is I tend to throw it out even if I myself don't like it but think it's a valid idea/option

So hear me out for a minute.

We all know mech lab, perma-loss/salvage is a big topic on these forums. I note before hand this would only work WITH mech-loss and salvage

My Idea is to allow mechlab in a tiered aspect. I will outline an example.

Tier 1:
Procedure time: 30 minutes
Cost: 2x the mech chassis cost
Allowances: Allows you to swap out the secondary weapons, heatsinks, and ammo on a mech with weapons equaling the same tonnage total of course meaning you could replace 2 light lasers with a medium.
Restrictions: Certain large weapon systems like PPCs, Large lasers and so forth cannot be added this way. And may not change engine, armor, jump jets, ECM gear.

Tier 2:
Procedure time: 2.5 Hours
Cost: 5x the mech chassis cost
Allowances: Allows you to change out ALL of the mechs weapon systems ,heatsinks and ammo so long as the tonnage end value remains the same
Restrictions: May not change armor, engine, jumpjets, and ECM.

Tier 3:
Procedure Time: 12 Hours
Cost: 20x Mech chassis cost
Allowances: ALL this is a complete refit of, Engine, armor, ECM, jump jets, weapons, ammo, heatsinks.

This allows for both fairly quick limited refitting and completely custom refits but adds major costs for the latter and you stand a chance of losing it in combat

[Omigir]

I like this. Ontop of being restricted by what you salvage, it would also make it hard for someone to ubermech it up due to the costs and time constraints.

Considering I like perma death/customization/1 life to live standpoint, this works for me. that, and after someone ubermech, they get legged because they have no armor on their legs, they just sunk probably 6 months of c-bills into what was probably their prized mech.. I don’t think they will do that again. The risk of losing a mech I think will help encourage players to not make a mech that is fire power over armor unbalanced.
Great suggestion Gorith.

ALSO! it’s great to see a balanced suggestion or at least some kind of suggestion that tries to meet half way rather than just 'no, its not my way' +1 for making concessions.

Missused frankenmech, so threw in 'ubermech' instead. Thank you for pointing that out black sunder!

Edited by Omigir, 19 December 2011 - 06:22 AM.

[Black Sunder]

I'm assuming none of you get this but I'll say it anyway. Frankenmechs DO NOT equal customizing a weapon loadout. Frankenmechs are taking actual pieces of different mechs and cobbling them together.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

As distinct from the much classier ubermech (sounds much better than "gunbag")

[KingCobra]

I think the idea has merit but the kids wont buy it or play very long under such restrictions a more open approch is needed 10-15 year olds which will be the vast majority of new mechwarrior pilot in the game dont want to wait hours to make a custom mech maybe tops 30 min.So i dont think your idea will work.Gorith i have noticed you say (WE) alot in your posts so who is (WE)? i dont think you are representing a group?are you?.Your opinions are your own if you are representing a group name them? nothing is cut and dry as far as how the game will look,play.mechlab,ect yet so i do like a few of your ideas but who knows maybe a few of your ideas will make it into the game good luck.

[Red Beard]

Permanently losing a mech if you lose it in battle, in this VIDEO GAME, will not work. There is NO in between with this. No player is going to be willing to risk real life cash on a single battle. Guys who want this feature to be added are, IMO, attempting to come across as virtual toughy's. It just won't work, and they should give it up. As such, the suggestions you make Gorith, are, at least, going in the right direction should the devs open the flood gates to customizing. If players are given free range to mix and match at will, and have no cost of money or time, then the game goes WAY out of whack, balance wise. I am a staunch advocate for stock variants only, but at least your thoughts put a much more constrained idea to it all. Well said.

[Gorith]

KingCobra, on 19 December 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

I think the idea has merit but the kids wont buy it or play very long under such restrictions a more open approch is needed 10-15 year olds which will be the vast majority of new mechwarrior pilot in the game dont want to wait hours to make a custom mech maybe tops 30 min.So i dont think your idea will work.Gorith i have noticed you say (WE) alot in your posts so who is (WE)? i dont think you are representing a group?are you?.Your opinions are your own if you are representing a group name them? nothing is cut and dry as far as how the game will look,play.mechlab,ect yet so i do like a few of your ideas but who knows maybe a few of your ideas will make it into the game good luck.

Interesting could you point out some places I have done it in an inappropriate place? in this post I don't think it's use was inappropriate as I was just using it in the context that we the community (unless I am somehow not part of this community). Aside that it is very possible I have misused it in several places... the word kinda becomes used as part of your normal speech pattern when you are the rep and spokesperson for a demographic in social clubs with multiple demographics for a long time (In this case I blame 4+ years in EVE alliance and corp politics)

anyway Back on topic please

Edited by Gorith, 19 December 2011 - 11:57 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Opposed to OP's Tier-2 and Tier-3 suggestions. There will be no OmniMechs at game start due to timeline (3049). Thus there is no reason to try and circumvent that limitation by being able to "jury-rig" one with using the MechLab. In particular not if it takes only a few hours. Yeah, right, before I log off for the day, I just quickly reconfigure my Mech, so it will be ready for play tomorrow.

Considering we can expect OmniMechs to appear in a future expansion of the game (ref. in-game timeline again), there is absoultely no need for exhaustive Mech construction/tweaking/rebuild options. I'd rather have a couple more different "canon" variants available (whatever "canon" means in this context), than a "build your all.new Mech in 12 hours" facility that has nothing to do with BT/MW and is of very questionable value. Especially considering the whole amount of coding that had to be done and deviated from more important game features.

[CaveMan]

KingCobra, on 19 December 2011 - 11:06 AM, said:

a more open approch is needed 10-15 year olds which will be the vast majority of new mechwarrior pilot in the game

I don't think that's going to be the case. I really don't.

MW is an old franchise, most of the kids in that age range won't have even heard of it, and the game isn't getting a huge amount of publicity. Plus it's going to be "simmier" which means "requires an attention span of more than 3 seconds" so there's not much to draw them away from CoD. I think it's more likely the ranks will be filled by people who played the previous MW games as kids, and we're all 18+ now.

[Kaemon]

CaveMan, on 19 December 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

I don't think that's going to be the case. I really don't.

MW is an old franchise, most of the kids in that age range won't have even heard of it, and the game isn't getting a huge amount of publicity. Plus it's going to be "simmier" which means "requires an attention span of more than 3 seconds" so there's not much to draw them away from CoD. I think it's more likely the ranks will be filled by people who played the previous MW games as kids, and we're all 18+ now.

They really need to leave room for new players, Kids or adults, online games live or die by the increase in their player base. Starting a game by limiting that base to exclude new players is pretty faulty logic and will doom it to failure.

Now that's not to say the decisions need to exclude the existing die-hards of the IP, but when decisions come that are decided by just these factors, I expect the 'inclusion' of new players to win out over the 'exclusion' peeps a majority of the time.

[Dlardrageth]

Additionally going for 10-year-olds and getting the appropriate ESRB rating won't exactly do wonders for classical BT/MW gameplay. I'd rather expect PGI to go for a "teen" rating which might up the average entry level to 16 years perhaps. Probably a smart call, as those quoted "10-15 year olds" often have a tendency to move on to yet another new game after a month or two, no matter what you offer them. Thus for a long-standing customer base they shouldn't be your prime consideration.

[verybad]

I don't think there will be any salvage personally. Taking over planets sure, the game's economy has to run on something however, I think if you're going to want new toys, you're going to have to buy them.

There will be tier 1 equipment you can use without spending any money, but if you want the high end stuff (star league or clan tech level), it will cost money. I don't have a problem with this. Piranha doesn't "owe" me anything, when I was playing Team Fortress a lot I bought stuff, enjoyed my time and felt it was money well spent. The base game will be free for those in financial difficulties, and I'm sure various equipment will be relatively cheap and there will prboably be sales...sales on Steam get me going like a girl at a shoe sale so I know I'll vulnerable there.

You might be able to earn C-Bills that you can buy nice stuff with through in game features, but they're going to be a lot slower than just spending a few bucks on a new mech, or say 99 cents on having a gauss rifle (probably charge for each advanced weapon, but let you move them to various mechs in your "stable" for free similiar to team fortress 2. So for instyance, spend 3 bucks and you've got 3 gauss rifles, spend 5.99 and maybe you've got a Devastator...we'll see when the game comes out of course, but this seems like the best way for it to make money (and therefore be well supplied with DLC)

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I'd hope this game would appeal to the older gamer who perhaps doesn't want the 10-15 year olds around. Although they tend to have less time they have more money and perhaps less tendancy to move on to the next thing in a month or two. Whatever they do this game is going to have a steeper learning curve than many of the alternatives out there.

[Red Beard]

It has been my experience that a 15 year old can adapt to a steep learning curve faster than a 35 year old. I think it would be folley to think that PGI should be shooting for the higher aged audience. I believe they are casting a much wider net. Besides, if they only cater to the existing base, how will the franchise grow? Indeed, if they offer a large number of items for sale at really low real life cash prices, they are more likely to get the younger audience that can afford to spend 99 cents five or six times instead of 10 USD two or three times. The more people that play, the better.

Can I also say that it gets rather tiresome hearing others complain about younger players and their inability to play on a mature level. Some of the most mature and respectable players I know are young. My son included. This game cannot and will not be a MW elitists club, for gentleman over 20 only. A bit more positive attitude toward the incoming crowd might prove fruitful.

[verybad]

On that note, most clan warriors are considered over the hill at around 30. The next generation of sibkos is coming out by then.

I agree that the whole concern about younger players is unbased. There are a lot of jerks who are older players as well. Every player is an individual. As the basis is free, there will undoubtedly be some disruptive behavior among some players, they will likely move on after a while. That's just how gaming is.

[Dlardrageth]

Can I also say that it gets rather tiresome hearing others complain about older players and their inability to adapt to an arcade-ish level. Some of the most mature and respectable players I know are old. TT veterans included. This game cannot and will not be a FPS elitists club, for gentleman under 20 only. A bit more positive attitude toward the incoming crowd might prove fruitful.

Hm, see what I did there? One man's hero is another man's villain, right?

[CaveMan]

Red Beard, on 19 December 2011 - 12:45 PM, said:

ICan I also say that it gets rather tiresome hearing others complain about younger players and their inability to play on a mature level. Some of the most mature and respectable players I know are young. My son included. This game cannot and will not be a MW elitists club, for gentleman over 20 only. A bit more positive attitude toward the incoming crowd might prove fruitful.

There's a big difference between being accepting/encouraging of younger players and targeting the 10-15 demographic though. A game aimed at an older audience will still draw younger players (particularly if the community doesn't try to exclude them), but a game pitched at a younger demographic is by definition going to be pitched at the lowest common denominator in that demographic, and may end up too shallow to interest the rest of us.
I don't want to keep younger players out (was always one of those younger players running with the older crowd in games other kids my age thought were too complicated, myself), but I don't want the game to be like one of those dreadful movies that advertises itself as "fun for the whole family" either.

[MaddMaxx]

I am not sure about anyone else, save those I played with, in the days past, but MechWarrior was always a serious game when it came right down to it.

When we played leagues, we trained our arses off to compete and we fought with honor. Sure there was a lot of FUN to be had, driving Mechs in itself is FUN, but when it came right down to it, we played to win and did whatever it took to make that happen. What we didn't have was members that weren't also serious about the Team and their effort.

We enjoyed every player they joined our Ranks and their age soon became a non-issue as they showed they had what it took to fight and help the Team.

As to the topic a basic MechLab would be best to start, creating known variants, then once the Omni's show... then go nuts. Salvage is still very mucha pipe dream as the Dev have not said Boo (that I can find) on the subject...yet.

[John Frye]

Red Beard, on 19 December 2011 - 11:10 AM, said:

Permanently losing a mech if you lose it in battle, in this VIDEO GAME, will not work. There is NO in between with this. No player is going to be willing to risk real life cash on a single battle. Guys who want this feature to be added are, IMO, attempting to come across as virtual toughy's. It just won't work, and they should give it up. As such, the suggestions you make Gorith, are, at least, going in the right direction should the devs open the flood gates to customizing. If players are given free range to mix and match at will, and have no cost of money or time, then the game goes WAY out of whack, balance wise. I am a staunch advocate for stock variants only, but at least your thoughts put a much more constrained idea to it all. Well said.

Actually, I am going to have to disagree with you on the not paying for equipment getting blown up. I know everyone hates the Eve references, but I have to trot one out here. There are folks on Eve that regularly drop RL cash for in-game currency to buy ships that frequently get destroyed (I personally know at least half a dozen folks that use Eve's plex system to fund PvP). Additionally that is on top of the money they use for pay to play. Yet Eve had over 40,000 simultaneous accounts logged in at one point during this weekend. By deduction, I don't think permanent loss inhibits people from continuing to spend money provided it is a model they understand up front.

Edited by John Frye, 19 December 2011 - 07:37 PM.

[SGT Unther]

Personally I believe there should be a chance for teammates to recover your downed mech, really it should depend on how the match went. If your team won but you ended up losing your mech there should be a chance to recover whats left of it. If your team lost, the probability of you recovering your mech outside of friendly territory is next to nothing. So what you lost a mech deal with it and move on, the game you guys are talking about sounds too much like COD to me.

As for the tiered mech lab I mostly agree with it, however I believe the customization should follow

On contact/campaign (operating out of a MFB or dropship)
Can only swap out broken weapons and make repairs, any customization that's available would likely cost a whole lot more and take longer as well.

On Outreach/base
Here you can make any customization or repair that you wish. The cost will be lower and the time to complete it will be much faster.