201 replies to this topic

[TheRulesLawyer]

Love these polls where they say the TT rules but don't mention if they mean the construction rules or the modification rules. They are quite different.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Many of the people here probably don't know the difference. The construction rules changed slightly didn't they from different editions (long time ago for me). To be honest for construction these days I use Skunk Werks.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 30 January 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Many of the people here probably don't know the difference. The construction rules changed slightly didn't they from different editions (long time ago for me). To be honest for construction these days I use Skunk Werks.

Minor changes here and there over time. However there are two distinct rulesets. Mech construction which is in Total Warfare (aka main rule book) and the modification/refit rules in StratOps.

Since we're talking about modifying an existing mech rather than having a new one made from the ground up we should be using the stratops rules.

Unfortunately many people have only every played the video games and they set some bad precedents. As much as people like to hate on mw4's mech lab, its closer to the refit rules (despite its abstraction) than mw3 which did the construction rules pretty close to whats in total warfare.

[Steel Talon]

KJ Crow, on 30 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

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

Tonage should be main limit, weapons slots are for weapons.
In CryEngine3, there is possibility to make customized weapon loadouts visible, how would u like to represent a heat sink in weapon slot?
Armor upgrades should be separated to back torso, side torso, front torso, legs to make super armored juggernauts harder to made
Aswell u have to choose armor type:
Reflective (+def VS energy weapons)
Reactive (+def VS cumulative based projectiles -- AC10/20, most missiles)
...

Edited by steel talon, 30 January 2012 - 04:16 PM.

[Pinkamena Pie]

Blackfire1, on 30 January 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

Not true. Stating that "relying on finances for balance is hard to get right" (a general observation) does not forget at all that we don't know how the designers are handling timescales. How long a mech takes to modify and how much it costs are separate issues.

That said, on the subject of timescale balancing:
- Whilst the dev team are trying where possible to remain faithful to Battletech, my understanding is that most people agree that modification times in a realtime setting would put too many people off of the game.
- Even if such a system was put into MWO, it could easily he bypassed as a balancing factor, and would unfairly favour occasional players IMO. As an example, I can only play once a week at times. I would be able to mostly ignore time as a balancing factor, as after each game I would be able to do drastic modifications to be completed before next logon.
- If the times are so drastic that even a weekend player can't ignore them, see the first point - it would seriously affect playability for most players.

This is why I support the idea of an alternative system for balancing modifications by making jury rigged items less efficient than purpose built designs. Computers have their own set of benefits over pen and paper. Lets use them.

[Vexgrave Lars]

I want to strap a Long Tom to a Hunchback... is that going far enough?

Please note: Balance buffs, balance is in the equalization of opportunity, not confirmed in the result. Real war is about the utilization of available resources to achieve victory, not have the "United Nations" (aka in this case... the Devs) determine what toys you can and cannot play with, and in what way.

Please leave some use of tactics and planning in the game, allow strategies! allow variance in the methodologies of your team and self, allow growth and development! Unite and agree, more options, less restrictions

Total freedom, anything goes (within TT rules)

Edited by Vexgrave Lars, 30 January 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Hayden]

Strum Wealh, on 30 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

"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...

I just wanna note that the bulk of these are owned/piloted by very high-ranking individuals. Just saying

[Drell]

I think targetable heat sinks would be a good first step in curbing boating if full customization is allowed. Allowing us to lower the heat efficiency against a fully lazer based mech would be a very strong way of curbing it I think.

[RoninV3]

Customization is a tricky thing and there are many different levels to consider.
As a few have said there were those players in TT that would break all conventions and it was a numbers game, Heat,damage, tonnage, space were the only concerns for them. Then there are the guys that are all canon, can't change anything. However you have to find a middle ground and I think the ability to modify or refit was one of the things that made us all love the game. If Piranha can make it work it should be allowed however within scope and scale. Mechs were designed by teams of engineers, tested and tweaked till they ready for production. Now if this really is an attempt to drive along the story as well as the combat you have to have both aspects of the game. Balance is key though, A missle pack could be changed out with missles, Ballistic weapons the same, however you should watch out for the guy who wants to strap 7 small lasers to a Wasp. Othe that that I am looking forward to this.

[Strum Wealh]

Hayden, on 30 January 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

I just wanna note that the bulk of these are owned/piloted by very high-ranking individuals. Just saying

Indeed. :-)
However, my point was that while "arguing in favor of only stock 'Mech variants being possible/available" and "arguing in favor of only canon 'Mech variants being available/possible" often go hand-in-hand, they are not necessarily the same thing...

For example, I might want to emulate the Bounty Hunter's 3015 or 3044 Marauder loadouts - they're certainly "canon", but not "stock".
And with the Centurion out, I would imagine that quite a few people will want to emulate Yen-Lo-Wang's fitting - again, not "stock" but still "canon".

[Yeach]

TheRulesLawyer, on 30 January 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Love these polls where they say the TT rules but don't mention if they mean the construction rules or the modification rules. They are quite different.

Right now customization seems to be an all-or-nothing approach with nothing in regards to semi customization/construction such as
1. Armour
2. Engine
3. Weapons and Equipment.
These can be separate and I think I would like to make a poll in regards to them. MW3/4 had 3 seperate tabs for each.

I think weapons and Equipment should be modifyable but engine and armour stay as is.
I mean we all know the knock on the rifleman -> tissue back armor ; what is the first mod people due to the chassis in MW2/3/4... is mod the armor to max for the torso.

[MaddMaxx]

Yeach, on 30 January 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Right now customization seems to be an all-or-nothing approach with nothing in regards to semi customization/construction such as
1. Armour
2. Engine
3. Weapons and Equipment.
These can be separate and I think I would like to make a poll in regards to them. MW3/4 had 3 seperate tabs for each.

I think weapons and Equipment should be modifyable but engine and armour stay as is.
I mean we all know the knock on the rifleman -> tissue back armor ; what is the first mod people due to the chassis in MW2/3/4... is mod the armor to max for the torso.

And I would be OK with no Engine Mods. The whole Mech dynamic changes when a BIG Bruiser is seen running 95kph. Sure it doesn't have much armor, but it hits so hard that it matters little. Or the opposite. Downgrading to a snails pace to free up space for more guns and some Jets and Pop goes the Tart.

Armor has a Max. allowed limit. Using that max amount takes away from the usable weight left over. The pliiot has to balance what he runs with. Yes, less Armor frees up tonnage but at the expense of hardiness/survivability on the feild. Again another Pilot decision.

It is all so whacked really. How do you prevent the crazy builds while allowing alot of Customization? The Dev will have to find that Balance, and they know it.

So I guess perhaps a Poll would be good, a Good Poll would be best to see what everyone would give up for a Balanced MechLab.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 31 January 2012 - 06:30 AM.

[Man From AUNTIE]

One thing that sticks with me is in the TT rules, there was some fluff fiction about mounting a PPC to a Locust and how it slid backwards on it's rear for like 100 ft. I think it was the crazies at New Avalon trying that, but that lil bit of fluff sticks with me when it comes to total customizations. I would prefer the MW4 styled mech lab to MW3's, even though 3's was more fun, it wasn't to canonical.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Actually I thought that 3's Mechlab was perfectly in line with the mech creation rules? Other than it happened immediately and it based your "creation" on the in game model of an existing mech. Although the model looked the same the only relationship to the original was the tonnage and outward appearance. All the existing mechs we have been shown so far are nominally Level 1 tech. Although there is some Level 2 tech around, it may be that PGI will deny access to it at game launch as part of their balancing. They have said that we will have a Mechlab, the only other thing we know is that it will have "drop down menu's". What this means and to what extent we can "customise" our mech's remains to be seen, hopefully in "Mech Warfare Month".

[Tadakuma]

KingCobra, on 24 January 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

I have to dive back in on this topic.First and for most MW:0 need a full mech lab just like it needs nose art and custom decals when you start to take away the fun things about mechwarrior for the boring sterile things your talking about the game just is not a fun game anymore.It would suit me fine to have a Stock Variant then a-f stock TT/CBT variants but then i want to spend hours in my mechlab making my own designs.There should be limits though like no MIX TECH thats what i hated about MW4 mechlabs.(IS weapons for IS)( Clan weapons for Clan) if they implement the clans and some rules on weapons slots based on the mech chassis designs and tonnages and roles the mechs play in the new MW:0 game.And this might be a better suggestion than just(ow no full lab no customization outside of stock TT,CBT)i say that is rubbish and a full working mechlab is needed to make the game a great game.

I think that initially I would be happy if the 'mechlab only allowed you to switch between canon variants. The idea that a machine as complex and, in this period at least, as poorly understood as a 'mech could be easily modifed has always seemed a bit odd. It also makes game balance easier to maintain and as has been pointed out makes the game easier to put into place and run.

I'd prefer to have the game well put together and simpler then seeing it suffer due to trying to do much with limited resources.

I always thought it would be possible only with large state or mercenary groups who had the resources and skilled manpower to undertake it.

Or organisations like VEST who are on Solaris and have a ready made client base.

If we are going to allow it I would do something like a commission system, we're you design the variant and the you have to put funds and time into it. How long and how much depends on how far you're taking it from a canon variant.

For example, switching an arm mounted PPC to a large laser is fairly simple. While Changing an AC20 into a cluster of medium lasers is very difficult and complex.

Edited by Tadakuma, 31 January 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Ravenhawke]

Riordan Lionheart, on 22 January 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

I think of course mechs should be customizable in game but at the same time I don't want it like MW4 where you could just mount practically anything on the heaviest assault mechs as long as it had room i.e. nothing but PPCs and Gauss Rifles on on atlas etc. thoughts?

Exactly. Should take into account weapon weight, ammo locations (for kinetic weapons) and power allocations. Not to mention heat sink allocations.

[Arc Rin Fitzmorris]

As long as I can build a similar Mech to the Yen-Lo-Wang for even just showing off in the parade grounds I'll be one happy camper.

[CapperDeluxe]

I like the idea of limited as opposed to total reconfiguration.

For example:
- Centurion with 12 medium lasers shouldn't be possible.
- Centurion with Large laser (instead of AC10), 2x SRM6 (instead of LRM10), and 2 medium lasers should be possible.

It would also be nice to be able to make slight engine modifications as well, but nothing crazy like getting the Centurion to go 120kph... maybe ~80kph tops

[MaddMaxx]

Arc Rin Fitzmorris, on 31 January 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

As long as I can build a similar Mech to the Yen-Lo-Wang for even just showing off in the parade grounds I'll be one happy camper.

If we desire to keep a decent MSRB Rating, we can't all be wanting to show off our "Wangs" to all the happy campers on the bloody pardade grounds. Please, think of the children. sheesh.

[Arc Rin Fitzmorris]

MaddMaxx, on 31 January 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

If we desire to keep a decent MSRB Rating, we can't all be wanting to show off our "Wangs" to all the happy campers on the bloody pardade grounds. Please, think of the children. sheesh.

For a moment there you had me thinking I had spelled it wrong, but as we don't want to corrupt the kiddies, I will clarify to those that may not have heard of Justin Xiang-Allard's famous Mech.

"The Yen-Lo-Wang, named after the Chinese god of death, is a custom Centurion that was originally used by Justin Xiang-Allard in 3027 during his "exile" on Solaris VII and his Solaris Championship run. He modified the 'Mech originally with an Assault Autocannon and placed Titanium "nails" on the 'Mech's hand actuator. He used the 'Mech later during his career with House Liao's Maskirovka during the Fourth Succession War." -Sarna.net



Edit: Stupid Color codes...

Edited by Arc Rin Fitzmorris, 31 January 2012 - 12:00 PM.