46 replies to this topic

[Tuhalu]

I used to try and create mechs from the ground up like you, then I learned there is something damn close to anything you can think of in the stock variants. Will be less so in this game due to relatively few mechs at launch, but I doubt much more than a few tweaks will be necessary on any mech to get what I want out of it.

[Vulpesveritas]

(And yes, I'm well aware that my computer has cooling issues. Hence why I monitor it at all times. )

[osito]

I tend to tweak my mech to fit my needs. That being the case i don't usually strip a mech down and rebuild it as something else. With the different mechs and variant that should be avb i don't think i will need to do a complete rebuild.

[Juiced]

Select a mech and variant that best either fits your playstyle and role or can be best modified to fit your playstyle and role.

[William Petersen]

Re-purpose and always have surprise on your side.  B-)
"I'm gonna run up and own that stupid C1!  OH GOD, THE SRMS!!!!  *Explodes*"

Edited by William Petersen, 13 May 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Gun Bear]

I like to play around in the Mechlab, I do all kinds of tinkering so where is the ALL OF THE ABOVE option?

[MacabreDerek]

Gun Bear, on 13 May 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

I like to play around in the Mechlab, I do all kinds of tinkering so where is the ALL OF THE ABOVE option?

There isn't one because I am pretty sure that would be an overwhelming majority, the topic was brought up to instigate discussion of WHY people take the approach they do when in the mechlab. If you do all of them, that's great! However, I think it would be to our benifit to try to understand the WHY behind the designs and speculative-creations that are appearing all over the forum to gain some insight into alternative ways of thinking and problem solving.

Simple example I would have never came to the conclusion of, though it seems obvious now, is loading up a Catapult with SRMs and armour to make it a real brawler. I like these kinds of ideas shared, and more so the reasons why to understand where each person is coming from rather than saying "WTH GTHO n00B!" when someone posts a mech build that would be considered weak from another player.

[Arbhall Sommers]

Way I see it is this.

Battlemechs are the Kings of the Battlefield. Why? What makes them so much better than conventional vehicles? The answer is the humanoid construction offers more flexible options in the field. Otherwise why isnt everyone using tanks, they are cheaper and can carry as much or more firepower per ton as mechs. They are more flexible, and their weaponry so too must allow them more flexibility. Otherwise, whys spend that kind of money for shock and awe? Airstrikes offer the same potential for shock and awe.
They are the Kings, we should deploy them as such. Sparingly and where they are most effective. And then with overwhelming force.

[Hayden]

I usually try to give the machine I use a bit more longevity, usually increasing the number of heat sinks.

[Pvt Dancer]

MacabreDerek, on 13 May 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Another option is completely repurposing the mech to fill a role it's original design was never expected to do (Catapult with increased armour, slower engine to make room for twin AC/20 brawler).

Zakatak, on 13 May 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'm likely going to strip the Dragon down to nothing, and build it back up as the Ye Olde Vulture C. Managed to make a twin Gauss equipped Dragon with 32 shots of ammunition without going overweight.

Your ignoring the Hardpoint system, as you have to find a variant of the Catapult that has balistic hardpoints to even consider mounting a AC 20, much less two of them. Same thing with the Dragon. Your either putting both Gauss in the right arm (which will not fit) or finding a variant that has multiple balistic hardpoints that can mount them and has the space for them. They have also said that if you have a mech without jump jets, you can not add jump jets to it... just to give you an idea.

I agree I want to do all 4 options, specially in beta. But the one thing we can not do is truily create a 'custom' mech. You can not create hardpoints for a mech. This is a limit, but a limit I can work with. It is to prevent truily broken builds.

[FrostPaw]

In past MW games I have found the stock mechs to be poorly equipped and setup for the job. This could be because they kept them close to tabletop while making the actual game rules vastly different. Or it could just be that the jobs they were designed to do didn't factor in how min/maxing players are in every way.

In tabletop games are defined by dice and hard coded rules, in video games things like player skill, latency and exploitation take a more prevelant role on competition.

So I almost always redesign my mechs removing armour from areas that I made redundant, adding ammo or heatsinks, changing weapons etc. Of course in past games, there was no monetary cost to impact my choices, in this game, my funds will heavily influence how quickly and how much i customise a mech based on how much I can afford!

[MacabreDerek]

Pvt Dancer, on 13 May 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Your ignoring the Hardpoint system, as you have to find a variant of the Catapult that has balistic hardpoints to even consider mounting a AC 20, much less two of them. Same thing with the Dragon. Your either putting both Gauss in the right arm (which will not fit) or finding a variant that has multiple balistic hardpoints that can mount them and has the space for them. They have also said that if you have a mech without jump jets, you can not add jump jets to it... just to give you an idea.

I agree I want to do all 4 options, specially in beta. But the one thing we can not do is truily create a 'custom' mech. You can not create hardpoints for a mech. This is a limit, but a limit I can work with. It is to prevent truily broken builds.

While I agree that the off-the-cuff example was not well thought out (I'll own up to my mistakes), the idea remains the same. You can change what the general purpose of a mech is with a change of weaponry, armour and engine. There is a limit, but they can still give alot of flexibility. Thank you for pointing out the example, as I should have specified. Still, the hard-points system isnt as strict as I think most believe, particularly because of the different variants being effectively different mechs with different hardpoints.

[Mike Silva]

FrostPaw, on 13 May 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

In past MW games I have found the stock mechs to be poorly equipped and setup for the job. This could be because they kept them close to tabletop while making the actual game rules vastly different. Or it could just be that the jobs they were designed to do didn't factor in how min/maxing players are in every way.

In tabletop games are defined by dice and hard coded rules, in video games things like player skill, latency and exploitation take a more prevelant role on competition.

You're not seeing the difference between dice and video games, you're seeing that these 'mechs were never designed to be perfect in the first place. There are stories which surround the circumstances of how certain 'mechs came to be the way they are, as almost none of them are 100% efficient.

[Trevnor]

Haakon Valravn, on 13 May 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

All of the above. Sometimes I like stock. Sometimes I like to tweak stock. Sometimes I think I can do better than stock. And somtimes I just want to completely repurpose something. Like if I like the way a chassis looks, but it is designed for a role that I suck at. Or for any role other than what I like to do. (Like pulling all the fancy electronics out of a Raven and swapping its weapons for a PPC.)

^
This.

[Jonas]

Hawk3y394, on 13 May 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

I find that I do a mix of modifying and re-purposing, I can be content to do nothing but play with the Mech Lab for a couple hours.

I will be doing this too.

[CrunchTheRobot]

For me, it really depends on the model. Some 'Mechs already suit my playing style fairly well and I may simply want to either change the armour type, weapon tech or add heat sinks (most of the time it's all of the above). On the other hand, I may love the specs or design of a particular 'Mech but despise the loadout. Of course, the only thing to do in that case is to completely strip it down and start from scratch. Sometimes I think it's more fun to completely redesign a 'Mech rather than modify it.

[Gun Bear]

Now that I think about it I often try to make my 'mechs more efficient at their job, or just better in general, I try to 'fix' them. For instance I once took a Hellspawn, removed both LRM 10 racks for an LRM 15 and 2 tons of ammo, changed the armor to Light Ferro Fibrous and increased it to 8 tons, and added a BAP and A-pods to it. Came up with a BV almost 300 points higher than the original and was capable of fulfilling the same role (heavy scout/medium support) and had a lot longer lifespan.

[Thor77]

Usually I'll redesign. Take a mech that appeals to me due to styling, name, role, hardpoint config, whatever it is that I like about it. Then I strip it and load it up how I want. Then get killed really fast, figure out what was stupid about my design, and go back and fix it.

[Monky]

Nothing quite like a Dragon rebuilt for brawling, run in, shoot em up, run out.

[Ramien]

I'm usually about halfway between modify and redesign. Usually I swap out standard structure for endo steel or a standard engine for an XL, look at the extra tonnage that gives me, and start modifying the design to get something I like.