Jump to content

Mech Customization (more detailed)


45 replies to this topic

Poll: Mech Customizations Poll (141 member(s) have cast votes)

On warzones/contested planets, the following items can be modified.

  1. Stock (no customization) (36 votes [25.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.53%

  2. Weapons only (12 votes [8.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.51%

  3. Weapons and equipment only (ie Mechcommander) (30 votes [21.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.28%

  4. Weapons, Equipment and Armor (ie Mechcommander 2) (24 votes [17.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.02%

  5. Weapons, Equipment, Armor and Engine/Internal Structure (previous Mechwarrior games) (31 votes [21.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.99%

  6. Other (8 votes [5.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.67%

On Outreach and other Manufacturing planets, the following items can be modified.

  1. Stock (no customization) (9 votes [6.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.38%

  2. Weapons only (2 votes [1.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.42%

  3. Weapons and equipment only (ie Mechcommander) (8 votes [5.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.67%

  4. Weapons, Equipment and Armor (ie Mechcommander 2) (21 votes [14.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.89%

  5. Weapons, Equipment, Armor and Engine/Internal Structure (previous Mechwarrior games) (95 votes [67.38%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.38%

  6. Other (6 votes [4.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.26%

If customization of weapons/equipment they should follow:

  1. No modifying weapons placement (12 votes [8.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.51%

  2. Hardpoints (Mechwarrior 4, only specific weapons can fit into certain slots) (37 votes [26.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.24%

  3. Hardpoints (Mechwarrior LL, weapons fit based on hardpoint/pod selection) (24 votes [17.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.02%

  4. Limited TT (assigned criticals for weapons/equipment) (something that Pht posted) (18 votes [12.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.77%

  5. Full TT (as long as you have crits and tonnage available you can build it) (45 votes [31.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.91%

  6. Other (5 votes [3.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.55%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:43 PM

Or not another customization thread / poll.

Anyways the threads for customization/construction for BattleMech have all been an all-or-nothing approach.

In the pervious mechwarrior games, there were two sometimes three tabs that related to customizing/modifying your mech. The question was never asked about if the three parts were equally modifiable. (or if they should be)

The three categories I have are
1. Weapons (and or equipment)
2. Armour
3. Engine and internal structure.

I don't have the BattleTech reference books on customizing/construction, but I think that some parts were possible in the field and some required a factory to do it. In the latter case it may have been better to just build the mech from ground up).

In all cases, armor/weapons can be replaced up to its default configuration.

Weapons only would include weapons, ammunition and/or heatsinks; (anything directly related to weapons)
Equipment would include BAP, ECM, Jumpjets, CASE, AMS and/or heatsinks;


Other notes specifically I wanted to address was armor.
In Mechcommander you could not add armor, the Jagermech was sometimes cheaper than the Catapult but it was also less armored.
Rifleman is described as "tissue-paper" rear armor. Should you be able to modify it to have more?
Jenner doesn't have max armor for its weight but a Wolfhound does. If you add armor to the Jenner is it still a Jenner?

edit: explain about weapons only and weapons and equipment.

Edited by Yeach, 31 January 2012 - 05:00 PM.


#2 Nik Van Rhijn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,905 posts
  • LocationLost

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:49 PM

@Yeach- I would think that as weapons may be contentious equipment perhaps should be with armour or separate. I am assuming tht equipment is CASE, Hearsinks, BAP, AMS etc. Would this also include ammo?

#3 Naughtyboy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:52 PM

i am very stockminded when it comes to battletech..but from the novels it is not uncommon that modifications is made on solaris/galathea so for 1st Q i am against any mods at all(except these elelctronic specials beeing implemented) on 2nd Q i am pretty much for mods

#4 Damocles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,527 posts
  • LocationOakland, CA

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:52 PM

so many customization threads/polls.

What happened to that big ole survey from back in November? People need to keep relinking that. :|

#5 Zimm Kotare

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 232 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationSolaris 7

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:57 PM

Personally, I always felt there was a middle ground to be found between MW4 & MW3. I loved the freedom of MW3, but always tried to stick to only sticking missiles in missile pods, rather than going a bit crazy. Most of the time I just left missiles out entirely!

I think iconic areas, like the missile pod on a Thor/Madcat/Vulture/Catapault, should be kept for Missiles only, but generally I would feel that arms should be something that could ultimately be removed & replaced with a same mech-type arm, but which allowed different equipment.

Of course, this would mean some mechs might look slightly different to standard, but a modular weapons platform just makes sense to me.

Beyond that, I'd personally stick with the MW3 system, but I'm aware that my experience is limited to these two games & their add-ons & this might give me a bias :D

#6 Felicitatem Parco

    Professor of Memetics

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 13,522 posts
  • LocationIs Being Obscured By ECM

Posted 31 January 2012 - 12:57 PM

Can you imagine how much actual cash the owners of this game would rake in using a F2P-model for a game based largely on taking advantage of the limitless numbers of possible tactical customizations you can make to your inventory items and vehicles?

It would generate Posted Image amounts of profit.
Please allow for players who "invest" a certain amount of somethingness to have more and more customization capacity as their Player becomes more XPerienced! That would definately encourage people to play more...

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 January 2012 - 12:58 PM.


#7 Damocles

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 1,527 posts
  • LocationOakland, CA

Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:03 PM

found it:
http://mwomercs.com/...phere-analysis/

#8 Durant Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,877 posts
  • LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.

Posted 31 January 2012 - 02:25 PM

On war-zone/contested planets you're there to fight, not customize. Whatever you came with is what you have to use.

On "safe" factory planets, anything and everything can be customized.

Two options for customization:
1. If PGI is doing modular visuals where the appearance of the 'Mech changes depending on what weapons you install, then "full TT" rules should be used.

2. If PGI has only one model (or few models) per 'Mech then customization should be limited by weapon type similar to MW4, so you don't have laser beams shooting out of a missile rack or missiles coming out of a cannon barrel.

#9 BarHaid

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 1,071 posts
  • LocationMid-Cascadia

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:16 PM

I went for weapons allowed on contested planets just for the hope of jury rigging something together to get a mech back into the fight. That might be a fun dynamic; if you know that you're stuck on a planet for a set amount of time, you won't want to get your mech too chewed up. You have to wait until you're somewhere safe to fully repair your ride.

#10 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:29 PM

In the final analysis I would like that any Customization be made to have sense, as in design doctrines, be maintained.

If I start with a bare chassis and am allowed freedom to build as I see fit, the only restaints I would have no issues with is if I had to maintain a Mechs balance throughout the build process.

An example might be if I place an AC/10 on the left arm (12T - 7 Crits) the Mech is now unbalanced on the right side by 12T. Assuming the best thing for a Gyro is to have a balanced Mech design, you now have to add 12 tons to the right arm whatever that be. HS's, Armor and or Weapons - to correct that weight imbalance.

The same principle also applies as the weight added is moved upwards beyond the center of gravity (CoG). The closer to the CoG of the Mech, RT/CT/LT, the need to offset specific weight add-ons may be reduced by some factor, 40%-60%, due to proximity to the COG of the Mech.

The Hunchback is a good example. It's AC/20 on the Right shoulder has to be offset to Balance the Mech so it can maneuver properly without stressing the Gyro and myomer etc, etc.

That is a small idea of what I would see as how to allow Full Custom but still have to be realisitic when it comes to design parameters. That should keep things in check.

The MechLab needs only a RED/YELLOW/GREEN alert as items are placed in the particular areas indicating were any imbalance exists and needs attention. No Imbalnced Mech can be saved. :D

Sorry to ramble but this I see this as an over-all key game play item.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 31 January 2012 - 03:36 PM.


#11 Steel Talon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 03:46 PM

the modular system from MW:LL wery likely, due to engine similarities
main limit should be tonnage & heat capacity (+ u must leave some tonnage for ammo)

#12 Old Baldy

    Rookie

  • 4 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:03 PM

Be careful what you wish for: from a design standpoint the game needs to ensure a reasonable degree of balance. Customization is certainly nice, but when n00bs are left unable to compete against veteran players because the vets have tricked out their 'mechs to a degree where they're basically untouchable, or can do far more damage, or have some other unassailable advantage, it's going to limit the game's ability to keep players engaged. If there aren't enough players, the game won't be profitable for Piranha to run and you effectively kill the game off in the long run.

#13 Omigir

    Can I have a hug? :(

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,800 posts
  • LocationVa

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:13 PM

Yeah, im going to be that guy. I voted other (for 2 topics) and here is why:

I dint think customization should have anything to do with what planet your are on. We are going to probably be hopping planets quite a bit, particularly for mission to mission. That being said, who is to stop some one from going to (a) any planet between battles to just do full customization? So it mutes its own point.

The only place customization should not be able to be done, is when your in the middle of a battle.

As far as what kind of customization, something between MW:LL and MW4 should work. < Still voting other.

#14 Chuckie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 1,738 posts
  • LocationHell if I don't change my ways

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:26 PM

Personally I can't wat to customize my Mech :D

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__100112

#15 Outlaw2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationIn a van...

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:31 PM

Something like MW4 or MWLL has, but better. Also, dole out a bonus system for mechs that have non-boating builds (aka gimping themselves) otherwise you'll never see anything but boats.

Sure it sounds badass to say you want unlimited freedom in the mechlab, but someone should also b_slap you. Gameplay and balance first please.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 31 January 2012 - 04:32 PM.


#16 Omigir

    Can I have a hug? :(

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 1,800 posts
  • LocationVa

Posted 31 January 2012 - 04:38 PM

Outlaw, how about all non boaters get a +2 to save throws? or an additional 1d6 of health!

#17 Outlaw2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationIn a van...

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:01 PM

View PostOmigir, on 31 January 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Outlaw, how about all non boaters get a +2 to save throws? or an additional 1d6 of health!

Ohh dear

Speaking of brain hemorrhages, mech customization in the TT was never meant to be super serious. It was not meant to be balanced and competitive. It WAS meant to allow the player to make whatever his/her heart desired. It allowed more customization than it should, but it didn't really matter. Battletech TT is all about the setting, rich background history, big mechs and 4 guys in a basement making their own game/balance/fun. It was never designed for a super serious competitive setting. Thats why wanting the TT to be ported directly into a competitive online PC game is just ..silly.

Edited by =Outlaw=, 31 January 2012 - 05:13 PM.


#18 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:06 PM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 31 January 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

In the final analysis I would like that any Customization be made to have sense, as in design doctrines, be maintained.

If I start with a bare chassis and am allowed freedom to build as I see fit, the only restaints I would have no issues with is if I had to maintain a Mechs balance throughout the build process.

An example might be if I place an AC/10 on the left arm (12T - 7 Crits) the Mech is now unbalanced on the right side by 12T. Assuming the best thing for a Gyro is to have a balanced Mech design, you now have to add 12 tons to the right arm whatever that be. HS's, Armor and or Weapons - to correct that weight imbalance.

The same principle also applies as the weight added is moved upwards beyond the center of gravity (CoG). The closer to the CoG of the Mech, RT/CT/LT, the need to offset specific weight add-ons may be reduced by some factor, 40%-60%, due to proximity to the COG of the Mech.

The Hunchback is a good example. It's AC/20 on the Right shoulder has to be offset to Balance the Mech so it can maneuver properly without stressing the Gyro and myomer etc, etc.

That is a small idea of what I would see as how to allow Full Custom but still have to be realisitic when it comes to design parameters. That should keep things in check.

The MechLab needs only a RED/YELLOW/GREEN alert as items are placed in the particular areas indicating were any imbalance exists and needs attention. No Imbalnced Mech can be saved. :D

Sorry to ramble but this I see this as an over-all key game play item.


Normally I would agree with you but since BattleMechs were made without thought on balances to begin with (I am sure someone can provide a BattleMech with such as such more tonnage on one side than the other; thinking Victor atm but not sure) , I would say that the gyro can compensate for all these differences in tonnages. It is set for it.

Also your concept seems to favour pushing weapons towards the centre torso which I strongly disagree; we need to have more weapons pushed towards arms... where they should belong... mostly.

#19 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:18 PM

View PostYeach, on 31 January 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:


Normally I would agree with you but since BattleMechs were made without thought on balances to begin with (I am sure someone can provide a BattleMech with such as such more tonnage on one side than the other; thinking Victor atm but not sure) , I would say that the gyro can compensate for all these differences in tonnages. It is set for it.

Also your concept seems to favour pushing weapons towards the centre torso which I strongly disagree; we need to have more weapons pushed towards arms... where they should belong... mostly.


And if that is the case then that is an issue. Far from moving things inwards, as the center area fills, it leaves only the arms, assuming the Legs are exempt, as they should be.

If a player does not like to put stuff on the arms, but has no choice, due to space restriction, they are left with but 2 choices.

Move the systems to the arms, or go without. I can't see that as a big drawback. Especailly given that, if allowed, most builders will leave the arms for such things as HS's, which in the last MechLab iterations, had no draw back when lost.

Change that, and you change the basic needs of a Mechs design, until all things added have to be accounted for and factored in to the over-all design scheme.

That is what the previous Mech Labs have lacked and what some have attempted to account for, set space units, but did so without the proper thought applied.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 31 January 2012 - 05:21 PM.


#20 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 31 January 2012 - 05:26 PM

Anyways I guess I should explain my thoughts
because I didn't vote (I mean whoever votes in their own polls)

The first option of weapons only was that destroyed/disabled weapons could be removed and replace with weapons of similar size. Say your flamer could be replaced with a small laser. On a more complex level you could replace your AC/5 (and ammo) with a PPC and heatsinks; Armor could be replaced up to default amount.

The second instance of weapons and equipment is more laxed in that jumpjets, BAP and ECM, light ampification, zoom magnification, basic sensors, or other types of equipment could be swapped along with weapons.

The third option was that armor was flexible in that you could add more armor than the mech default configuration has. This is what I think the most contentious issue because the Rifleman having less armor on the flank and the Marauder (loading up on weapons) having less than full armor were mech character traits / flaws.

The fourth option was for full customization as previous games; in that an engine could be upsize and downsized at will. At this point it makes a default scout mech redundant if you could squeeze the largest engine onto an Urbanmech and have it scout.

At each progressing level, the Mech loses some distinctive character on being one-of-a-kind. The poll was to find a middle-ground (or not) for the characterization and role of each mech.

The question on being in a warzone or factory was that of convenience and praticality; would it be feasible and realistic that you would get the option for customizing in the field? You could lose a medium laser in the field but would you be allowed to jury rig and replace with a different weapon and continue fighting or would you have keep fighting (on that planet) sans one medium laser. Ultimately the factory would allow you to do the maximum amount of customization for the mech.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users