243 replies to this topic

[zorak ramone]

=====EDIT: added section on omnimechs=======

=====EDIT 2: Download added========
You can download an excell spreadsheet that functions as a mechlab using the rules proposed here with the following link:
http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR%20Mechlab%20v2.1.xlsx
=================================

There’s been a lot of talk about how to do the mech lab, and how it might ruin the game. I’ve been thinking about a way to combine the best of the MW2/MW3 mechlabs (which were basically CBT mech labs) and the more restricted, hardpoint system found in the MW4 mech lab.

In MW2 and 3 single player, I would often configure my mechs to match their geometry and to match or at least come close to their primary configs. Ididn’t play MW2/3 multiplayer, but from what I’ve read, it was horribly min-maxed with mechs bearing no resemblance to their original form.

I played MW4 multiplayer extensively as part of a tonnage and tech restricted leagues (UTS and NBT4/NBT-Mercs). I’m not going to pretend that there weren’t dominant weapons (ERLLs primarily, ERPPCs, GRs, LRMs, LBX10s/20s secondarily) and dominant mechs (Novacats, Shadowcats, etc.), but there was actually a pretty wide variety of mechs used for their different capabilities. Without going into too much detail, I credit the MW4 mech lab’s hardpoint system. Still this system isn’t perfect.

Here are, in my mind, the advantages and disadvantages of both:

MW2/3/CBT
Advantages
--Sticks to the TT game (important for old timers/CBT fans)
--Clear, transparent construction rules (i.e. you know exactly what is on the mech, how much it costs, etc.)
Disadvantages
--Mechs lose their identity (e.g. any IS 100 tonner can be configured exactly the same)
--Aesthetically unpleasing (missles coming out of heavy AC barrels, lasers out of missle racks)
--Easy to min-max mechs. Endgame is that only a few different configurations are used by anyone

MW4
Advantages
--Mechs have more distinct identities because they are limited in what they can carry
--More aesthetically pleasing (e.g. only heavy ACs/GRs fire out of heavy cannons)
--More difficult (but not impossible) to min-max mechs
Disadvantages
--Disconnect from the TT game (i.e. can’t make that one config that you made in CBT)
--Opaque construction rules make it seem like some mechs have unfair advantages (e.g. 360 torso twist, slow heat scale, cheaper engine upgrades)


Here is how I would suggest combining the two. Note that I will work with the IS weapons systems only for the sake of simplicity.

1) Start with the CBT construction system of critical space and tonnage

2) Categorize weapons and equipment based on size and type. I would do it this way:
E1: Small energy (SLs, Flamers)
E2: Medium energy (MLs, MPLs, etc.)
E3: Large energy (LLs, LPLs, etc.)
E4: Heavy energy (PPCs)
B1: Light ballistic (AC2, Mguns)
B2: Medium ballistic (AC5s, LGRs)
B3: Large ballistic (AC10s, GRs)
B4: Heavy ballistic (AC20s, HGRs)
M1 -> M4: Small to large missile launchers (LRM5 -> LRM20, SRM2/4 -> SRM6x2/4x4)
T1 -> Small tech (tag, AMS, C3-slave)
T2 -> Medium tech (BAP, ECM)
T3 -> Large tech (C3-Master, Command Console?)

3) Standardize the critical size for each of categories. This is where we start to deviate from CBT build rules, especially for the heavy ballistics. I would err on the size of less restriction to make sure that all CBT configurations would still fit. For example, I would make B4 = 10 crits, which makes the LBX20 and HGR (I think) smaller by 1 crit. Here is how I would do it:
E1: 1 Crit
E2: 1 Crit
E3: 2 Crit
E4: 3 Crit
B1: 3 Crit
B2: 5 Crit
B3: 7 Crit
B4: 10 Crit
M1 -> M4: 1 -> 4 Crit
T1 -> 1 Crit
T2 -> 2 Crit
T3 -> 5 Crit


4) Treat the categories as MW4 style hardpoints, with the following restrictions: they can only hold one weapon, and can only go up or down one size. For example, if I had a B4 hardpoint, I could put any size 20 AC or HGR in it. I could also put any size 10 AC or normal GR in it. However, I could not put any number of light ACs (2s or 5s), LGRs, or Mguns in it. The only exception to the one weapon rule would be SRMs. CBT only has small sizes of SRMs, so I would suggest including, for the M2 slot SRM8s (2xSRM4), for the M3 slot SRM10s (SRM6+SRM4) and SRM12s (3xSRM4), and for the M4 slot SRM14s (SRM6+2xSRM4) and SRM16s (SRM4x4).

5) Create hardpoint layouts based on CBT prime configurations. The best way to demonstrate this is by example. Take the Atlas AS7-D: 1 ML in each arm, 2 ML in the chest (moving them to the front like as shown in MWO), AC20 I the right torso, LRM20 and SRM6 in the left torso. This would give it the following hardpoint layout and primary config
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML

6) Allocate remaining critical space as “equipment space.” This can be used for ammunition, heat sinks, any other non-electronics equipment (including non-CBT additions like 360 torso twist equipment) and for expanding hardpoints. For example, if I have a B3 slot (standardized to 7 criticals), I could put an AC20 (a B4 sized weapon) in it, but I would need 3 free equipment space to fit it (let’s leave aside critical splitting for now). Given that the atlas has a fully articulated arm, the equipment space for the AS7-D, including ammo and HS for the primary config, would look like this (number in parentheses = space used):
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 1xSRM Ammo, 2xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

7) Set up the mech lab to look like MW4’s but with two screens: hardpoints and equipment space. The player need only view the hardpoints screen to configure a mech. There would be a add/subtract heatsink button, and add/subtract ammo buttons for each ballistic weapon. The mech lab would automatically allocate heatsinks and ammo to free equipment space, but the player could go to the equipment space screen to re-allocate as they want.

8) Change the mech model based on weapons configuration. For example, if we drop the heavy AC from the atlas and leave the B4 empty, remove the AC from the model. If we leave the M2 or M4 empty, cover the missle tubes up with a panel. Externally mounted or internally mounted E2 slots could be removed from the model for covered with a panel, respectively. Furthermore, if you change a weapon from what is found in stock, the model/artwork should change accordingly.


So what could we do with the atlas using this system? The primary config looks like this

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 1xSRM Ammo, 2xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

Lets say we want to turn it into a ranged fighter. Lets also assume that we’re still using 3025 tech. We could swap the AC20 for an AC10, freeing 2 tons (IIRC), and use that two tons to turn the SRM6 into an LRM10.

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 LRM10
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC10
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 3xLRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (-1) 2xAC10 ammo,-3xB4->B3
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

We could also drop the LRM10, and two MLs completely and turn the arm mounted MLs into LLs. Note that there is now equipment space available in the CT and more available in the side torsos.

Hardpoints
LA: E2 LL
LT: M4 LRM20
LT: M2 Empty
CT: E2 Empty
CT: E2 Empty
RT: B4 AC10
RA: E2 LL
Equipment
LA:7ES (1) 1xHS
LT:6ES (2) 1xHS, 2xLRM Ammo, -2xEmpty M2
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
CT:0ES (-2) -1x2xEmpty E2
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (-1) 2xAC10 ammo,-3xB4->B3
RA:7ES (1) 1xHS

What if we wanted to make the Atlas into a dedicated infighter. This is a simple matter of taking the 10 ton LRM20 and turning it into a SRM16 (4xSRM4) with 2 extra HS

Hardpoints
LA: E2 ML
LT: M4 SRM16
LT: M2 SRM6
CT: E2 ML
CT: E2 ML
RT: B4 AC20
RA: E2 ML
Equipment
LA:7ES (2) 2xHS
LT:6ES (4) 1xHS, 3xSRM Ammo
LL:2ES (2) 2xHS
H:1ES (1) 1xHS
RL:2ES (2) 2xHS
RT:2ES (2) 2xAC20 ammo
RA:7ES (2) 2xHS


===================

That’s the overall idea for the system, but there are a lot of other separate issues that could go a number of ways. Here are my suggestions

Armor
I think that in order to keep the character of the mechs, armor changes should be restricted. I don’t know what would be reasonable, but here’s how I would do it
-Base armor levels are set by the CBT stock configuration, according to CBT build rules
-Armor levels may be changed by +/- a certain amount (10%? 20%?)
-*Modified* armor levels may exceed CBT build rule maximums
This would make it so that an Atlas, which has the maximum amount of armor for a 100 tonner in CBT, will always be able to hold more armor than a 100 tonner with less than maximum in the stock config. Perhaps increasing armor over CBT maximums would require equipment space (critical)

FF armor and ES internals
I think that ES internals should be locked down completely, and their critical locations unchangeable. It makes no sense that a mech would be able to change its skeletion. Furthermore, ES internals are simply the best weight saving upgrade period. FF armor is always worse than ES when it comes to saving weight, so I could see a mech shifting to FF armor. However, there should be some restrictions. I don’t think you should be able to choose where the critical go (e.g. a mech going from standard to FF armor would have to have 3 criticals available in each arm and side torso, and at least 2 available in the CT, legs and/or head).

Engines
I would suggest restricting or locking down engine size. Certain mechs, like the Dragon and Banshee are special because they are fast for their size. If you could drop their speed or jack up the speed of other similarly weighted mechs to match, they lose some of their character. I would suggest restricting the range of engines that you can switch to. This is somewhat “realistic.” In reality, you can’t just plop a Mustang’s 5 liter V8 into a Prius. There’s simply no space, the engine mounts almost certainly don’t match, and the chassis probably couldn’t handle the extra weight in front. As for XL and light engines, I could see the argument for upgrading and downgrading. The process should be expensive, and would of course require equipment space in the side torsos.

Electronics
In my system, electronics can already be allocated via the “T” hardpoints. However, my experience in MW4 tells me that mechs that can’t carry any electronics (like, say, AMS) are going to suffer a sever disadvantage. Furthermore, because the stock configs of 3025 mechs have no electronics, all of the old mechs will fall into this category. I suggest the following:
-Add electronics slots to 3025mechs that look like they should have them (e.g. Atlas, Black Knight, Rifleman)
-Give every mech a free “electronics slot.” This slot would take up no crits, could be easily swapped (like ammo, before a drop), but the electronics in the slot would still require free tonnage and would be mounted externally (i.e. easy to shoot off).

==================

Omnimechs
For omnimechs, I think that giving them omni hardpoints, as in MW4 is a mistake. It basically leads to the same gun-bag problem of the MW2/3 mech lab, but on a smaller scale. I would suggest that omnimechs be given “pods” where pods are different configurations of hardpoints for given locations.

I would do the following:

1) The omnimech’s base config (empty of weapons, fixed equipment only) would be based on the CBT construction rules.

2) Unlike battlemechs, omnimechs can not alter their armor at all, and cannot remove or change the location of their fixed equipment. If we go with the “free electronics slot” idea, omnimechs wouldn’t get this.

3) Omnimechs are given “pods.” Pods are configurations of hardpoints and equipment space that fit within a set number of critical. An omnimech may have several pods for a given location. Pods will be unique by mech and will at least initially be based on CBT configurations.

4) Switching pods should cost much less (however cost is assessed) than modifying a battlemech or may even be free. However, maintaining and repairing omnimechs should be more expensive.

Again, the best way to demonstrate this is by example. For this example, I’ll use the Sunder (as opposed to a clan mech) so that all of the hardpoints/critical space etc. from the Atlas will carry over.

The Sunder uses standard armor, standard internals and an XL engine. It has 15 fixed DHS, one of which is external to the engine. This DHS is fixed in the RA. It has no lower arm or had actuators. So the available space (and therefore, the size of each pod) in the sunder is as follows:
RA: 7 (-3 DHS)
RT: 9 (-3 XL engine)
RL: 2
H: 1
CT: 2
LL: 2
LT: 9 (-3 XL engine)
LA: 10

In all of its configurations, the sunder packs the following weapons/electronics by location:
RA: 2xLL, 1xERPPC, MRM30, 2xMPL, 2xPPC
RT: ML, MPL, ML+C3M
RL: Empty
H: SRM4, LRM5, SSRM4, Empty
CT: 2xSRM4, 2xLRM5, LRM10, SSRM4, Empty
LL: Empty
LT: ML, MPL, ML+C3M, ML+C3S
LA: AC20, GR, LRM20, MRM40, LBX20

Based on this, we could represent the Sunder using the following pods
RA-Pod1: E3-E3-ES(3)
RA-Pod2: M3-ES(4)
RT-Pod1: E2-T1-ES(7)
RT-Pod2: E2-T3-ES(3)
RL-Pod1: ES(2)
H-Pod1: M1
CT-Pod1: M2
LL-Pod1: ES(2)
LT-Pod1: E2-T1-ES(7)
LT-Pod2: E2-T3-ES(3)
LA-Pod1: B4
LA-Pod2: M4-ES(6)

So, overall, you could switch your sunder’s left arm between a heavy AC slot or a heavy missle launcher, the right arm between a pair of large beam slots or a large missle slot, and each side torso between a medium beam slot and a light tech slot or a medium beam slot and a large tech slot. Even though the head, CT, and leg slots don’t change, you still have a configuration advantage over battlemechs as you can move things in and out much more easily (i.e. without time/expense/right before drops/etc).

Just for laughs, here’s what a dire wolf would look like using the same system (note that clan weapon slots would all be different):
RA-Pod1: B2-E3-E3-E2-E2-ES(1)
RA-Pod2: E4-E3-ES(2)
RA-Pod3: E4-B3-ES(2)
RT-Pod1: M2-ES(6)
RT-Pod2: B2-B2
RT-Pod3: B4
RT-Pod4: T1-ES(7)
H-Pod1: E2
CT-Pod1: T1-ES(1)
LL-Pod1: ES(2)
LT-Pod1: M2-ES(6)
LT-Pod2: B2-B2
LT-Pod3: B4
LT-Pod4: T1-ES(7)
LA-Pod1: B2-E3-E3-E2-E2-ES(1)
LA-Pod2: E4-E3-ES(2)
LA-Pod3: E4-B3-ES(2)

So the Dire wolf would still have ridiculous configuration possibilities, but there would still be limits to what you could see on a DW.

This system would give Omnimechs much more flexibility than battlemechs. However it would also preserve their character and make it easier for the game designers to model them.

====================

Space restrictions based on size

In CBT, the different sizes (as opposed to masses) of different mechs wasn't really taken into account. Small mechs could, IIRC be as small as 8m high, while the atlas (and later Executioner) were close to 15m. However, all mechs had the same critical space despite their sizes. A good example (from mechs included in MWO) is the commando vs the atlas: both have a fully articulated arm with a single ML in it meaning both have the same amount of remaining critical space for heatsinks/whatever ... even though the commando is much smaller. This wasn't really an issue since being small didn't really give you an advantage ... all mechs were equally hittable.

This becomes an issue in a real-time mech game. Anyone who played MW4 knows that size plays a huge effect: you can get a Loki up to 96kph, but compare it to a similarly fast Raven ... the raven is much smaller and much harder to hit. The size differences is basically a free buff to the Raven, from a mech construction standpoint, and the idea that a much physically smaller mech would have the same space available just doesn't make sense.

I suggest reducing or increasing critical space based on physical mech size. However, to make things fair you have to also mess with FF/ES (and potentially other space-reducing structural equipment) space. This makes sense as the crits taken up by FF/ES don't represent actual equipment, but rather the bulk of the structural elements reducing a % of the avaiable space. A smaller mech would have a smaller skeleton and a less volumnious armored shell.

Here's how I would do it:

1) Lock down the head, CT, and legs, assuming that the cockpit is the same size for every mech, and that the leg actuators, gyros size and engine size scale up with mech size so that there is always 1 crit in the head and 2 in the legs/CT.

2) You now have 4 locations (RT/LT, RA/LA) with 12 crits each for 48 crits, + 7 crits from H/LL/RL/CT for a total of 55 free crits.

3) Standardize mech size by weight class. Consider including "super light" class for really really small mechs (commando, locust, etc).

4) Set assaults as basline and subtract crits by weight class from the RA/LA and RT/LT:
-Assaults: -0 crits per location (CBT standard)
-Heavies: -1 crits per location (-4 total)
-Mediums: -2 crits per location (-8 total)
-Lights: -3 crits per location (-12 total)
-Super-lights -4 crits per location (-4 total) (think 20-25 tonners, maybe really small 30 tonners)

5) Proportionally reduce FF/ES size as crit space decreases
-Assaults: 14 crits (CBT standard)
-Heavies: 13 crits
-Mediums: 12 crits
-Lights: 11 crits
-Super-lights: 10 crits

I already played around with this model and it makes certain configurations (specifically, alot of fast IS meds/lights with ES and FF like the Osiris) impossible. Maybe thats not a bad thing. CBT stock configs can certianly be changed.

=========================

Mechlab simulator

The following link has an Excel spreadsheet that functions as a mechlab that uses the rules suggested in this thread:
http://files.enjin.com/112042/ZR%20Mechlab%20v2.1.xlsx

I've included all of the mechs confirmed for MWO, any confirmed variants of these mechs, and at least one 3050 upgrade for each. I've also included a sheet with a series of mechs that could (by MWO's timeline) and (IMO) should be included in MWO. These include the mechs that won the weight class polls in the general discussion forum, as well as some others that I liked/think would would good to add.

EDIT: Added new version that includes "MWO mode." This removes size restrictions from the hardpoints, consistent with what we know about hardpoints so far.

I haven't added sheets for omnimechs or any clan mechs, but I plan to do this in the future.

Edited by zorak ramone, 26 April 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[Pht]

You mean, something like, say, this?

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__54497

Quote

---------------------------------------------



"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.



Should be pretty straight forwards.



Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:



Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).



Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.



This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.



Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.



One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).



This would stop the MW3 problem where all 'Mechs are rendered into nothing more than visually different bags full of guns - munchkin min/max Sheol misery, and still allow for a LOT of customization.

Edited by Pht, 21 March 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[Johannes Falkner]

If you read the TT rules (Strategic Operations p.187) they already have a lot of this covered, to some extent.

There are six levels of refit, A through F. A and B can be done in the field (refit kits). C and D require a maintenance facility or dropship. E and F require factories. The length of time the refit requires goes up as well with 1x, 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x multipliers for the A through F refits.

A: Replace one weapon with another of the same category and size (or smaller). med laser swapped out for ER med or med pulse
B: Replace one weapon with another of the same size. AC/5 for PPC
C: Armor type change. Add heatsinks. Replace weapon with larger weapon. Ac/10 for AC/20
D: Add weapon where there was not one. Install electronics (ECM, C3, etc.) Change Heatsink types.
E: Myomer types and case
F: Internal structure, engine type, gyro type and cockpit type.

When customizing you take the highest level change and that is the level of the refit. The refit then requires that level of facility and the time to make the changes are multiplied by the modifier.

In campaigns I have run it has worked relatively well. It takes weeks to months of tech work to do any but the most basic work with reliable results. It also keeps to the canon use of refit kits by frontline forces and keeps the flavor of mechs.

Edited by Johannes Falkner, 21 March 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Pht]

Johannes, the strat-ops rules allow all mechs to be come omnimechs as far as their weapons without having to send them to the factory. All you need is enough room and tonnage and a little while in a normal maintenance hanger to do it.

The strat op rules work for the tabletop and the RPG end of the games because there's a GM to stand over your shoulder and say "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."

[Victor Morson]

It sounds like they already have a Mechlab system in place, that uses Hardpoints. I'm looking forward to the next Dev Blog where they've said they'll cover it!

[zorak ramone]

Pht, on 21 March 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

You mean, something like, say, this?

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__54497

*snip*

Great minds think alike, I guess . Did you play NBT or UTS? Mind if I copy/paste that into the OP?

I pretty much agree with everything you posted. I have some other ideas about omnimechs and other things that I'll write up later.

[Johannes Falkner]

Pht, on 21 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Johannes, the strat-ops rules allow all mechs to be come omnimechs as far as their weapons without having to send them to the factory. All you need is enough room and tonnage and a little while in a normal maintenance hanger to do it.

The strat op rules work for the tabletop and the RPG end of the games because there's a GM to stand over your shoulder and say "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."

True to some extent, that is where cost and time come into play. In the longer term, though, you are correct in terms of game play.

The customization does not give standard mechs the flexibility of Omnis, though. This may be an important consideration for gameplay. Omnis can be reconfigured in hours, literally 30 min/weapon pod by the strat ops rules. That would take days/weeks/months for standard mechs so the live timeline plays into game balancing. With some attention to mission design this flexibility or lack of it could be used to control the extent of min/max behavior.

For example:
Mech hunter-killer missions would favor heavy weapons
Police and anti infantry missions would favor machine guns and missiles
Anti-aircraft missions - missiles and ACs
etc.

By requiring players to complete multiple mission types it should be possible to influence min/max behavior.

[Dlardrageth]

One main issue inherent with the "hardpoint" system was (and probably still is), that you might end up with a Mech chassis you can customize till kingdom come, but you cannot get some of the standard canon variants with it. Major letdown in MW4, that one. And using an OmniMech chassis to "emulate" a standard variant of a non-omni is a pretty laughable workaround IMHO. Before a new system leads to a comparable LOL-Mechlab like in MW4, I'd rather have the whole customization issue radically downsized personally. Having effectively standard variants that have been around for decades being unavailable, is too high a price for me just to cater to munchkinism and what not.

Thus I sincerely hope PGI keeps in mind that some of us prefer to have the available standard variants over the option to "design" dozens of new ones. If it comes down to having to make a decision there. The weird MechLab of MW4 and the design concept behind it is one of the "features" of that game that hopefully dies with it.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The hardpoint system is only a problem with variants if we don't have the perticular chassis available. If PGI create the variants with a limited system it may work. While implementing the time/cost constraints would be an ideal solution it would fall foul of the !I want it now" crowd who are used to being able to create whatever they want from the previous games.
One of the problems is the "the mech doesn't suit my style of play" or "it is less than optimal for purpose" which has to be solved by changing the mech, often out of all recognition. Rather than choosing a different mech/variant and changing your style of play. It's the instant gratification syndrome. In many of the threads people are going on about knowing who and what they are fighting etc so that they can make the optimum choice of mech and change it to suit. I'm not sure that this is going to be possible. Knowing which world/terrain/environment type is one thing. Exactly what your opposition is is another matter. Personally I hope that it's going to be "run what you brung".
I'm not sure that the game economics will be such that people will have a massive variety of mechs available to pick from. It goes against the role warfare ideas which focus on you having a mech, and variants, to specialise on.
Hopefully we will find out more next month.

[Karl Streiger]

Johannes Falkner, on 21 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

...
A: Replace one weapon with another of the same category and size (or smaller). med laser swapped out for ER med or med pulse
B: Replace one weapon with another of the same size. AC/5 for PPC
C: Armor type change. Add heatsinks. Replace weapon with larger weapon. Ac/10 for AC/20
D: Add weapon where there was not one. Install electronics (ECM, C3, etc.) Change Heatsink types.
E: Myomer types and case
F: Internal structure, engine type, gyro type and cockpit type.
...

Should be mentioned that A and B could be done in the field
C and D need a mech bay - for example on a drop ship
while E and F are factory builds - hardly possible on a ship or in the field...

By the way Yenlowang is a improper rebuild. with changes in myomer and engine ...hope that the time factor would be implemented. Buy stock and when the unit arrive wade into action or wait some more time for refitting.

[Felbombling]

I don't mind a Mech Lab, but I think it should cost the player something in terms of $$$ and time. The Mech should look like the model, or we can scrap immersion into the BT universe. As has been said already, watching 30 missiles fly out of an AC/20 barrel ruins things for many players. In fact, I think you could enter the Mech lab and tinker with whatever you want, then see a message.

"Your Mech changes have been recorded. Your Mech will be ready in seven days, on September 17th. Do you wish to proceed?"

Then they can play something else while their master-blaster super Mech gets worked on. It would make the changes mean much more to the player when they finally got their Mech, too. Sort of like waiting to unwrap a present on Christmas morning that has been sitting under the tree for twenty days.

[00dlez]

Pht, on 21 March 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

The strat op rules work for the tabletop and the RPG end of the games because there's a GM to stand over your shoulder and say "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."

I would really, really enjoy it if the mechlab would pop that error up if it detected some sort of min/maxing scheme

More than 2 PPCs linked in a weapons group? "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."
An Atlas with nothing but medium lasers? "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."

Lovely

[Nik Van Rhijn]

00dlez, on 22 March 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I would really, really enjoy it if the mechlab would pop that error up if it detected some sort of min/maxing scheme

More than 2 PPCs linked in a weapons group? "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."
An Atlas with nothing but medium lasers? "NO. BECAUSE I SAID SO."

Lovely

***** excellent

[Agent CraZy DiP]

Only problem with time is that... well... The game runs time as a 1:1 day cycle. So changing something that would take a month on TT would, well... you see where this is going. If it takes time to change something on your only mech leaving you without something to play with... They'd lose business.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Alternatively it means your buying a complete new custom mech rather than changing what you have. especially if your putting in a new engine, endo steel or FF. CASE is also a factory refit. As for losing business - the majority of players (hopefully) will be totally new to it and wont know any better. Mind you it only defers the munchkin problem to a month or two down line.

[Pht]

zorak ramone, on 21 March 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Great minds think alike, I guess . Did you play NBT or UTS? Mind if I copy/paste that into the OP?

I pretty much agree with everything you posted. I have some other ideas about omnimechs and other things that I'll write up later.

You can spread it around, as long as you link it back to the mechlab link in my signature line and attribute it. The more the merrier!

about omnimechs - it already covers them.

Johannes Falkner, on 21 March 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

True to some extent, that is where cost and time come into play. In the longer term, though, you are correct in terms of game play.

Which would allow the long time players to completely push out any newcomers, due to a power level difference that is all but virtually impossible to make up for with planning and forethought; very bad for a video game that requires constant fresh blood to be profitable.

Dlardrageth, on 21 March 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

One main issue inherent with the "hardpoint" system was (and probably still is), that you might end up with a Mech chassis you can customize till kingdom come, but you cannot get some of the standard canon variants with it. Major letdown in MW4, that one.

Actually, that problem is not inherent in the hardpoint system. That problem exits because the variant chassis are not put into the game, and if memory serves, I think they are putting in the variant chassis.

[Johannes Falkner]

Karl Streiger, on 22 March 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Should be mentioned that A and B could be done in the field
C and D need a mech bay - for example on a drop ship
while E and F are factory builds - hardly possible on a ship or in the field...

By the way Yenlowang is a improper rebuild. with changes in myomer and engine ...hope that the time factor would be implemented. Buy stock and when the unit arrive wade into action or wait some more time for refitting.

That was in the preceding paragraph...

[Johannes Falkner]

I don't necessarily see how limiting it to variants and customization based on hardpoint variants will save things either. Some variants are inherently better than others. So you still end up with problems.

[Dlardrageth]

Pht, on 22 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

[...]
Actually, that problem is not inherent in the hardpoint system. That problem exits because the variant chassis are not put into the game, and if memory serves, I think they are putting in the variant chassis.

I beg to differ. It is compared to the MechLab system MW 2&3 used. Well, that is one inherent problem there, to be precise. Admittedly I'm more than happy to have all canon chassis variants in MWO. Still not sure having them turned into "pseudo-Omnis" with the hardpoint system and easy-ish swapouts is something I'd want. If that automatically means I'm lobbying for customization timeframes for 1 week+ to get customization done, then I guess that's it.

Like I mentioned elsewhere before - actions have consequences. Noone is forced to customize at gunpoint, so I have not much sympathy for someone wanting "instant gratification" instead of actually having to wait considerable time to get his "revamped" Mech back in action. If you made the decision to have a chassis customized, fine, you better sit and wait there for it to finish. Not much sympathy/pity to be expected from those of us who got denied to use some standard variants completely, due to the sillyness that was the so-called MW4 "MechLab". Which in retrospect I pretty much see as a tool to cater to munchkins mainly.

[zorak ramone]

Pht, on 22 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

You can spread it around, as long as you link it back to the mechlab link in my signature line and attribute it. The more the merrier!

about omnimechs - it already covers them.

I saw that, but I still think its not restrictive enough. Here are my ideas on Omnimechs.

============

Omnimechs
For omnimechs, I think that giving them omni hardpoints, as in MW4 is a mistake. It basically leads to the same gun-bag problem of the MW2/3 mech lab, but on a smaller scale. I would suggest that omnimechs be given “pods” where pods are different configurations of hardpoints for given locations.

I would do the following:

1) The omnimech’s base config (empty of weapons, fixed equipment only) would be based on the CBT construction rules.

2) Unlike battlemechs, omnimechs can not alter their armor at all, and cannot remove or change the location of their fixed equipment. If we go with the “free electronics slot” idea, omnimechs wouldn’t get this.

3) Omnimechs are given “pods.” Pods are configurations of hardpoints and equipment space that fit within a set number of critical. An omnimech may have several pods for a given location. Pods will be unique by mech and will at least initially be based on CBT configurations.

4) Switching pods should cost much less (however cost is assessed) than modifying a battlemech or may even be free. However, maintaining and repairing omnimechs should be more expensive.

Again, the best way to demonstrate this is by example. For this example, I’ll use the Sunder (as opposed to a clan mech) so that all of the hardpoints/critical space etc. from the Atlas will carry over.

The Sunder uses standard armor, standard internals and an XL engine. It has 15 fixed DHS, one of which is external to the engine. This DHS is fixed in the RA. It has no lower arm or had actuators. So the available space (and therefore, the size of each pod) in the sunder is as follows:
RA: 7 (-3 DHS)
RT: 9 (-3 XL engine)
RL: 2
H: 1
CT: 2
LL: 2
LT: 9 (-3 XL engine)
LA: 10

In all of its configurations, the sunder packs the following weapons/electronics by location:
RA: 2xLL, 1xERPPC, MRM30, 2xMPL, 2xPPC
RT: ML, MPL, ML+C3M
RL: Empty
H: SRM4, LRM5, SSRM4, Empty
CT: 2xSRM4, 2xLRM5, LRM10, SSRM4, Empty
LL: Empty
LT: ML, MPL, ML+C3M, ML+C3S
LA: AC20, GR, LRM20, MRM40, LBX20

Based on this, we could represent the Sunder using the following pods
RA-Pod1: E3-E3-ES(3)
RA-Pod2: M3-ES(4)
RT-Pod1: E2-T1-ES(7)
RT-Pod2: E2-T3-ES(3)
RL-Pod1: ES(2)
H-Pod1: M1
CT-Pod1: M2
LL-Pod1: ES(2)
LT-Pod1: E2-T1-ES(7)
LT-Pod2: E2-T3-ES(3)
LA-Pod1: B4
LA-Pod2: M4-ES(6)

So, overall, you could switch your sunder’s left arm between a heavy AC slot or a heavy missle launcher, the right arm between a pair of large beam slots or a large missle slot, and each side torso between a medium beam slot and a light tech slot or a medium beam slot and a large tech slot. Even though the head, CT, and leg slots don’t change, you still have a configuration advantage over battlemechs as you can move things in and out much more easily (i.e. without time/expense/right before drops/etc).

Just for laughs, here’s what a dire wolf would look like using the same system (note that clan weapon slots would all be different):
RA-Pod1: B2-E3-E3-E2-E2-ES(1)
RA-Pod2: E4-E4-E3-E3-ES(2)
RA-Pod3: E4-B3-ES(2)
RT-Pod1: M2-ES(6)
RT-Pod2: B2-B2
RT-Pod3: B4
RT-Pod4: T1-ES(7)
H-Pod1: E2
CT-Pod1: T1-ES(1)
LL-Pod1: ES(2)
LT-Pod1: M2-ES(6)
LT-Pod2: B2-B2
LT-Pod3: B4
LT-Pod4: T1-ES(7)
LA-Pod1: B2-E3-E3-E2-E2-ES(1)
LA-Pod2: E4-E4-E3-E3-ES(2)
LA-Pod3: E4-B3-ES(2)

So the Dire wolf would still have ridiculous configuration possibilities, but there would still be limits to what you could see on a DW.

This system would give Omnimechs much more flexibility than battlemechs. However it would also preserve their character and make it easier for the game designers to model them.

Johannes Falkner, on 21 March 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you read the TT rules (Strategic Operations p.187) they already have a lot of this covered, to some extent.

There are six levels of refit, A through F. A and B can be done in the field (refit kits). C and D require a maintenance facility or dropship. E and F require factories. The length of time the refit requires goes up as well with 1x, 1x, 2x, 3x, 4x, and 5x multipliers for the A through F refits.

A: Replace one weapon with another of the same category and size (or smaller). med laser swapped out for ER med or med pulse
B: Replace one weapon with another of the same size. AC/5 for PPC
C: Armor type change. Add heatsinks. Replace weapon with larger weapon. Ac/10 for AC/20
D: Add weapon where there was not one. Install electronics (ECM, C3, etc.) Change Heatsink types.
E: Myomer types and case
F: Internal structure, engine type, gyro type and cockpit type.

When customizing you take the highest level change and that is the level of the refit. The refit then requires that level of facility and the time to make the changes are multiplied by the modifier.

In campaigns I have run it has worked relatively well. It takes weeks to months of tech work to do any but the most basic work with reliable results. It also keeps to the canon use of refit kits by frontline forces and keeps the flavor of mechs.

I wasn't unaware of the TT rules. The TT rules are, in my opinion not restrictive enough. The TT rules are especially not restrictive enough on Omnimechs. Small groups of players can regulate themselves based on what they think is best. Large, open PVP environments require more regulation for everyone's sake.