201 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

MaddMaxx, on 26 January 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Perfect. Now which variant would you buy, and drive as described, or would you further tweak any of those loadouts if allowed in the MechLab?

Well, based on only what I posted previously... I'm kinda liking that ANH-1E. That seems pretty good as-is.

Really, though, I would have to go with a Marauder - preferably either a MAD-1MDb or a MAD-1Rb if highly-custom variants are allowed, or either a MAD-5D or a Bounty Hunter 3015 variant if only canon, non/minimally-modifiable 'Mechs are allowed.

And yourself?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 27 January 2012 - 06:40 AM.

[Merovigian]

I sincerely hope we get to keep customisation as a part of the game, it's integral to the battletech experience!
Most of the 'mechs we're seeing have alternatives, and if they're going to get put in with special allowances, then why not allow an individual pilot make his own changes?

The important part of this is, while you're losing "just another" AS7-D Atlas if your stock variant is blasted, you lose the cost of both that chassis PLUS customised parts PLUS cost to modify PLUS time with the 'mech in the hangar getting overhauled PLUS the only one of its kind when your customised Atlas is destroyed.

It's simple, kill the Batman by not allowing config saving, instead keeping your own chassis saved, like in MW2 Mercs campaign.
And if they want to live, then they have to keep it repaired and nice and squeaky clean. Which would also take time and money. If you boat it out, you're going to draw the ire of many other players, and your damage level will get severe over time. Hell, it might even be a close call every match.
Then what? You either keep on going with your banged-up 'mech, or you put it away for a few days to fix it.
So the guy who's got a boat every day of the same 'mech at full power is rolling in dough to the point of having an Overlord filled with his/her own favourite chassis (which they've had to customise and remember the variant of over and again). They've spend many millions of C-bills, possiby close to a billion, to get this.
Then when you all team up on the boater out of anger, he has to spend another similar amount to get a replacement or risk losing his constant presence.

Repairs should cost as much time as adding the amount of armour and/or components you've lost. That being said, armour should be quick.
Boating is the elegant manner in which to run a 'mech, wasting little thanks to a homogenous build. But if it's such a problem, I believe the meta-game of wailing on these people at any opportunity will even that out a bit.
God help me. I always liked the Rifleman IIC.

[blackwingz]

there should be custom settings as long as the game is balanced

[MaddMaxx]

Strum Wealh, on 26 January 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Well, based on only what I posted previously... I'm kinda liking that ANH-1E. That seems pretty good as-is.

Really, though, I would have to go with a Marauder - preferably either a MAD-1MDb or a MAD-1Rb if highly-custom variants are allowed, or either a MAD-5D or a Bounty Hunter 3015 variant if only canon, non/minimally-modifiable 'Mechs are allowed.

And yourself?

Given what we have been shown, and using a bare bones allowed customization model, I would use a modified mech. Since we apparently will be able to do some tweaking.

The Dragon - MDX1 which leaves the AC/5 while removing the LRM-10 which is replaced by 2 SRM-4 (with 1T additional ammo) and 3 extra HS's. Same engine and armor config. Heat is 17/15 so managable.

[Solis Obscuri]

I'd rather we were mainly confined to stock variants. I did my experimenting with seeing how many medium pulse lasers/machine guns/inferno streak SRMs I could effectively cram into a 'mech configuration years ago, and it got pretty boring after a while. I'm not really interested in making this a game of seeing who can munchkin-out their 'mech the most for cheap tactics.

[chill1ray]

I think total custom variant should be allowed but their might be special rules to stop the small laser/machinegun/flamer mechs
Like anything over 3 laser systems in one torso causes additional heat!
Increase chance of jamming if more then 3 or 4 maching guns in one torso!
Chance of self immolation if you go over 3 flamers in one torso!

[Lorcan Lladd]

=Outlaw=, on 26 January 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

Sorry.. gonna sound mean here, but your entire post reeks of naivete. Boating dominates the competitive online matches...

I admit I have no experience with online gameplay, and I'm willing to take your word on this one that boating is both more effective and predominant in it than I have imagined.

The problem I see with some of the various suggestions players have made to restrict or prevent the boating problems with 'Mech customization is that they sound like something you have in other kinds of online games, such as RPGs, like 'roll d20 to see whether or not you blow up during an alpha strike' or first person shooters, like 'equip this to get a bonus of this much percent to such and such statuses' - MW:O will end up looking like one of those if such things were implemented.

It would face even more problems with min-maxing and munchkins, just those of a different brand.
Which is, I don't know, alright, then?

Edit for spacing.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 29 January 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[Harrow]

Aegis Kleais™, on 22 January 2012 - 06:45 PM, said:

To me, the perfect balance is that a Mech is limited to what it can carry in varying parts of the body.

I don't care if it's a PPC/ERL/etc., but if you know "OK, THIS Mech can carry ENERGY weapons at THIS location" then you can familiarize yourself with knowing how to cripple your enemy based on the type of weapon you want to take out. Long story short, the majority of a Timberwolf's projectile capabilities are in his "ears". Clip them and you help diminish that threat.

I'm not for the Mech just being an X ton weapons platform where you can put any type of weapon in any location; Mechs were specialized for different roles.

Most TT rules regaurding how you can spec a mech address these concerns don't they? The use of critical slots and non critical slots in each section, LA/RA LT/CT/RT LL/RL, determine the limits to each mechs possible loadouts and the inherent weaknesses of each one.

[Aegis Kleais]

Harrow, on 29 January 2012 - 12:50 PM, said:

Most TT rules regaurding how you can spec a mech address these concerns don't they? The use of critical slots and non critical slots in each section, LA/RA LT/CT/RT LL/RL, determine the limits to each mechs possible loadouts and the inherent weaknesses of each one.

They do, but what we need to understand is that this isn't BattleTech Online. The devs have stated that adjustments to the BT universe will be made so we can't necessarily expect a 1:1 conversion of the TT rules over to what we'll see in MWO.

[Blackfire1]

Quote

Command your Mech™ and customize it to suit your battlefield role; upgrade systems, replace weapons, and tweak armor with endless options.

I like cannon. Varients are cheaper. Custom stuff is EXPENSIVE as hell.

[Pinkamena Pie]

The problem with using in game finances as a balance is that it can be hard to get right. You can easily end up with a situation whereby new players are excluded from mechlab altogether, whilst longer term players have enough income for the same costs to be considered insignificant, even when going silly with the mechlab. Put the two together, and you get an environment which doesn't exactly encourage new blood.

[Hayden]

Maximilian Thorn, on 22 January 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

I would like to see a fully customizable mechlab with all the trimmings! Being able to choose your Mech's weapon loadout is a major selling point for this game! Remember, not everone who plays MW games has a clue about BT lore "variants". If the Devs wanna make money...they shouldn't hamstring the mechlabs, or, they can allow full mechlab customization via a cash shop purchase. I would definitely shell out a few bucks to be able to use the mechlab to make my own variants.

And even though I'm more of a proponent of just using variants, this view will probably carry the day.

ED: But I feel that until the advent of OmniMechs in the inner sphere that modifications should cost money. Maybe a system of exponential growth in cost. Sure, it's fairly inexpensive to make one or two modifications, but as the player makes more changes the cost grows rapidly, eventually becoming prohibitive?

Edited by Hayden, 29 January 2012 - 11:48 PM.

[Elizander]

Min maxing a mech really isn't hard though having an inefficient stock design can be quite frustrating. I'll adjust either way it goes.

[KJ Crow]

The key to a successful game?...... Variety!

From a storyline perspective, don't merc corps have to scavenge the battlefield for compaonents to keep their mechs running?.... unless there is a serious amount of customization allowed I can just imagine all those mercs running around only picking battles with mechs that are going to drop the parts they are shopping for!

As for those that like to boat.... have the heat sinks take up critical slots in the same way as weapons and IW components... so there is a limit to the amount of heat sinks a mech can fit.... and make these damageable in combat so the mechs efficiency degrades as they are destroyed

Alot of these 'canon' variants only come about because some techy got bored and decided that they wanted to try something else.... anyway, think it is a moot point...am sure I read somewhere that Mechlab was back in all its fully cutomisable mech glory!

[RJF Falconer]

Stock Mechs Only! Canon Only!

[Chuckie]

Graphite, on 23 January 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

They've said a full-on mechlab could muck up balance. They say some sort of compromised mechlab is likely (although to be fair they'e been saying that for a while), but there's plenty of other work to do first.

I would think in MWLL is since you don't keep the Mechs.. you would have to be fast in the Mech Lab, because you would be limited in Cbills and time to do anything, you would also have to remember the mech layout to use it each time.

[Unclecid]

Pinkamena Pie, on 29 January 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

The problem with using in game finances as a balance is that it can be hard to get right. You can easily end up with a situation whereby new players are excluded from mechlab altogether, whilst longer term players have enough income for the same costs to be considered insignificant, even when going silly with the mechlab. Put the two together, and you get an environment which doesn't exactly encourage new blood.

ah but TT has rules for that.
they got prices for everything.
new meks, used meks, parts, etc.
there are even formulas for determing cost of building a mek from the ground up.
and for repairs, mods, etc
there is stuff on salaries, contracts, etc.

when i was GM'ing TT Battletech my guys all had to do a TO&E sheet (slightly different ones for mercs and house units)
BT sourcebooks have exmaples and blanks of these for player use.

IMHO it would make perfect sense to use this provided info to run the economy and players finances.

Edited by Unclecid, 30 January 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[Blackfire1]

Pinkamena Pie, on 29 January 2012 - 11:09 PM, said:

The problem with using in game finances as a balance is that it can be hard to get right. You can easily end up with a situation whereby new players are excluded from mechlab altogether, whilst longer term players have enough income for the same costs to be considered insignificant, even when going silly with the mechlab. Put the two together, and you get an environment which doesn't exactly encourage new blood.

Not true. You forget we don't know alot about how the system will work and how long the system will take. it takes time in cannon to replace a stystem. Most weapons are hardwaired into the chasis. Makeing it like surgery to get everything in and out in one peice. This will be limiting what a rich player can do. The more the cost and the extreme the loadout the longer itll have to wait. Hopefully. Also new plaers will not be running in assaults. hopefully. Chaning a weapons load out on the larger mechs is also harder then lighter ones.

[DRevD]

Lorcan Lladd, on 29 January 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

I admit I have no experience with online gameplay, and I'm willing to take your word on this one that boating is both more effective and predominant in it than I have imagined.

The problem I see with some of the various suggestions players have made to restrict or prevent the boating problems with 'Mech customization is that they sound like something you have in other kinds of online games, such as RPGs, like 'roll d20 to see whether or not you blow up during an alpha strike' or first person shooters, like 'equip this to get a bonus of this much percent to such and such statuses' - MW:O will end up looking like one of those if such things were implemented.

It would face even more problems with min-maxing and munchkins, just those of a different brand.
Which is, I don't know, alright, then?

Edit for spacing.

You first need to clearly understand why boating is bad. Its not min-maxing. Players are going to min-max regardless. Its not even alpha strikes (though its a debatable side problem). The main problem with boating is that it trivializes the majority of the games content. The Mechwarrior PC games always had problems with lots of redundant and useless content when compared to other PC games. Mechwarrior has a boat'load of weapons and content to draw upon from its rich history... but that were never designed with the PC games in mind. When developers try to translate it to the PC game, they fail..often hard. I think you need to get over the idea that there is a beautiful and elegant solution for boating just waiting for it to be found. It aint there

[Strum Wealh]

RJF_Falconer, on 30 January 2012 - 04:31 AM, said:

Stock Mechs Only! Canon Only!

"Canon only" and "stock only" aren't necessarily the same thing...

Canon custom Marauders
Canon custom Nightstars
Canon custom Centurions (Yen-Lo-Wang)
Canon custom Atlases
Canon custom Timber Wolves (Aidan Pryde's non-standard configuration)
Canon custom Dire Wolves (Prometheus and Widowmaker)

It's okay to argue in favor of both, but please try not to conflate those stances...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 30 January 2012 - 10:02 AM.