273 replies to this topic

[Pht]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 05:37 PM, said:

Do we get to know what those problems are? Aside from economy balancing issues. Those are solved through iteration.

I've mentioned several times that it will create an unequal playing field of entrenched players who will make the game experience miserable for anyone not at their level. That's a game-breaking problem for MMOs, which need to have a long lifespan to profit.

Quote

You need to re-read those rules then, because while you can change quite a few things they are restricted heavily by multiple factors... THIS IS KEY... Adjusting those factors allows for fine tuning and control of the economy. These factors (supply of parts facilities and labor) can be used to effectively forbid any given customization. Conversely they can be used to encourage certain customization.

Um, it's impossible to control any economy without unintended consequences biting you on the rump. It's a bad idea from the word "go." Nobody can account for the way that all the players are making their choices (it's not humanly possible), so they cannot predict what their actions will result in. The best they can do is engage in uncoerced trading with the players ... speaking of which, this idea has microtransaction written all over it... I do not relish the idea of having to pay real money to refit a mech... that's heinous.

Quote

There are actually two problems in the statement that references:

The first is the explicitly stated:
That eventually a "prefect" mech config will be found. Your solution completely fails to address this problem. All it does is change the parameters of what "perfect" would be. The factors mentioned in above can be used to dynamically adjust the economy to counter trends, should that be deemed a problem.

I didn't state that the "perfect" mech would be found. If I meant to say that, I would have used the word perfect or some synonym for it, and I didn't. It's routine in games of the same type that certain setups become very common at the top end, because they're successful for some end or the other, and they become almost obligatory - and than the developers have the conundrum of patching the game to address any issues it might bring up... and again, they can't control the economy. It's not humanly possible; nobody can understand why the players do what they do in reaction to their tweaks. sometimes people don't even understand why they did something themselves!

Quote

The second problem is the implicit one you replied to:
The disparity between New players and veterans. Ignoring the fact that this problem exists in ALL Persistent multiplayer games, from Call of Duty, to World of Warcraft. And ignoring the fact that it is a game design choice, between catering to the people who have invested in the game and garnering new players.

Yes, there will always be a "best" and "not best." I'm not interested in trying to get rid of that. I'm interested in an equal playing field of opportunity for everyone.

Quote

Your Solution still fails to solve this issue. It looks like it, but in fact all it does is move the disparity to a new place. Vets will not have slick custom mechs, but they will have more advanced and expensive stock designs, and likely more total mechs to choose from. This gives them a greter tactical advantage as they can afford to keep a mech on hand for a wider variety of situations. Your system simply removes one of the veteran's choices about how and where to spend his or her hard earned rewards. The Strat Ops rules don't solve this problem either.

Some people being better and than others at something is not a problem to be solved and is not something I'm going after in a stupid whack-a-mole fashion.

So, yes, of course the vet players will have certain advantages, and they ought to. They just shouldn't be advantages that are so great that they can't be overcome.

Quote

I contend that the customization rules a re not the place to solve that issue, at least not by themselves.

No, not by themselves, for certain.

Quote

This is again NOT a problem with customization, but one inherent in the concept of a persistent game world. And again a problem your system doesnt' solve either. See the above point.

Strat ops rules - potentially players with completely min-maxed builds fighting players who possibly cannot even afford a refit... and even those that can get a refit are still at a massive disadvantage to the players who can essentially do whatever they want with their mechs.

Quote

Nope, only the ones you explicitly state, and the ones i can infer from the rules themselves, would you care to share the rest of them with us?

Assuming... it does ugly things in discussions. Lets see - same as the strat ops setup, it restricts people from changing those things in the field that are hard to do in a factory with a team of engineers; it addresses the uniqueness of the mechs in a way that the strat ops rules at their extremes wont... that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. I was mostly just trying to point out the assuming things issue.

Quote

What Cost in complexity for the user? Properly designed User Interface can make it simple enough for the beginner to understand, with no need to expose them to the complicated back end. This holds true for any system. Just tell them "Yes you can do that", or "No you can't do that." And if they want to, then give them a way to find out why the can or cannot do it.

And the "why" is the issue - with it. I'll strive to go lay eyes on strat-ops again so we can have a more meaningful discussion.

Quote

As for meaningful returns, I've mentioned a few already, I'll compile them here.
1) Dynamic control of the customization process by the devs.
2) More personalized experience for the users.
3) Appeal to all levels of users
4) A more in-depth campaign experience
5) A greater range of objectives for conquest
6) More options in weakening your enemies
7) The ability to stretch the service life of old units.

I don't see that there's any benefit to the first one. The urge to tinker with a basic system after it's built has resulted, time and again, in patches that have broken gaming communities.

I can't see how the second would be more personalized - allowing the mechs to ultimately become whatever will most likely result in the same effect seen in other games with that level of customization (anarchy online, for example) - cookie cutter builds that everyone uses because they're effective.

4-6 aren't obvious to me in how it would have those advantages over what I've blurbed. Could you clarifiy?

7 - nah, not buying it. I've used the idea I've blurbed in the boardgame and it allows enough customization to keep older mechs going just fine.

[omegaclawe]

Hoo boy, this is getting long and heated. I'mma keep this simple.

No matter what you do, a "best" setup for any given role will be found. This will be true even if limited to the TRO's, or just a single stock variant per mech. This is unavoidable. At a pure, competitive level, the only major variations will be in which role you're trying to do, something PG has apparently been working hard on.

Customization has been a huge part of previous mechwarrior games. Dropping it in favor of TRO's might appease a small minority of fans, but many, many players, especially the (more) casual ones who do not generally post here, are likely to be up in arms about the removal of one of the core, fun features from the previous mechwarrior games. From a business standpoint, removing customization entirely is a terrible idea.

You can't make the TRO's the best variants. You can attempt to ignore the problem by making them the only variants, but it doesn't really help anyone. Better to, say, economically restrict the heavily modded mechs so that only the best players can really afford to operate them regularly. Seems to have support from the canon, anyway. Fabulously rich merc commanders might get more stuff; all the more reason to be a fabulously rich merc commander.

In short, don't remove customization, restrict it. Most players will thank you.

[Threat Doc]

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 04:34 PM, said:

And how do you know it would require all the work you're saying it will? Are you on the dev team so that you'd know? I think it's best to leave the discussions of these implementation limitations to the devs.

That's an obtuse means of leaving that portion of the conversation behind, especially since you didn't answer my question personalized to you. Since you won't answer it, let's hear it from others... Hey, MechWarriors, if you were a developer of an MMO Combat Game, and you had over 200 prime chassis and over 500 variants to program in, from pre-3048 Tech Readouts, animate in, macro anything special to the prime chassis and their variants, etc., and you only had 45 months to do it all in, with a crew of around 30 people, only a fraction of which could actually work this part of the project, do you believe it could be done?

Quote

Hardpoints (and I think you're not talking about the MW4 idea) cannot be moved. They are built into the bones of the mech from the factory. You have to modify the bones themselves to rig up the mount points, or rig up brackets to attach to the stock mount points if you have the room for it.

Y'know, Pht, I've worked pretty closely with our sheet metal guys, where they've had to remove the 'skin' of our aircraft in various places, and perform major changes to heavily occupied portions of the helicopter, namely the main transmission, accessory modules, etc. (1,150 pounds of gear right over their heads), and they were able to relocate, drill, stop-drill, patch, etc. in the 'bones' of the aircraft in order to make mods happen, and were able, on one particular repair, to complete their work within three days, without removing the equipment I mentioned immediately above.

If the BlackHawk Utility Helicopter, which I am school-trained to work on, began initial production work in, say, 1975 (the first production model rolled off the line in '76), and the Mackie, the first BattleMech in our wonderful fictional universe, first rolled off the assembly line circa 2438, and since maintenance practices, procedures, and engineering are improving all the time, don't you think general maintenance, construction, and engineering practices and procedures, the construction of the 'Mech, would have been elegant by today's standards? Now, I know you said reality and the BattleTech universe seldom meet, but are you going to trust the word of those who have ZERO clue about how maintenance on much of ANYTHING works, or are you going to trust a 13-year mechanic whose worked on military vehicles almost exclusively? Oh, and not just the BlackHawk, I've also worked on the Apache, the Kiowa Warrior, the Chinook, the Iroquois, and one Cobra, and the maintenance practices and procedures are always better for the younger designed aircraft than the elder.

When I tell you that initial maintenance cost is almost always the only requirement for modifications, you should probably believe what I'm telling you.

Quote

I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. If it's attached to a mech, it's a valid target, or if your mech is down its still a valid target, and IMO complaining about someone shooting one part of your mech over another or shooting you when your 'Mech is down is whining.

I'm not talking about shooting one part of a 'Mech over another, I'm talking about consistently, psychotically, shooting one part of a 'Mech in order to eliminate it. If elimination is your only concern, not the lore of the game, not the history that says these 'Mechs are, typically, very old war machines because the ability to produce them was destroyed during the 1st and 2nd and most of the 3rd Succession Wars, then I really do hope they have an appropriate economy in this game, so that when your 'Mech is shot out from under you and you've not won any salvage, you have to start over from scratch. I'll be watching for you.

Quote

People in the BTU lore routinely blast legs and downed 'Mechs. The only thing somewhat frowned upon is targeting the opposing pilot - but only when you or your faction have a little respect for them.

I've read every book up to the Dark Ages, and quite a few of those, as well, and I've read a good deal of all the lore for the game. I have, after all, been doing this since '85, and in all of the lore I have ever read, I have never heard of someone purposefully taking out someone's leg or head, maliciously, non-accidentally, unless they were a major scumbag. That will hold true in this game, as well, Pht.

Mr_Blastman, on 01 November 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

It was terribly limiting to variety we saw on the battlefield. We need complete customizability in the spirit of Battletech, not a crutch like Microsoft tried to shove on us.

Mechlab work is CRITICAL for this to succeed. Most of us oldtimers do not like being forced to run stock mechs. Trust me, it gets old after a while and what separates a good pilot from an average one (well, one of many things) is how we know how to load our mechs out.

(thumbs up) Very nice, Blastman, and I agree with you 100%.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 04:57 PM, said:

You *cannot* put all four ppcs in the chest. You can only fit one in each side torso. The idea modifies the "hardpoint" system from mechwarrior four (only allowed to put weapons of similar types into an area) and uses the tabletop layout and weights/etc with some restrictions.

Excuse me, Pht, and whether I missed the point of a previous post or not I could care less... you can put up to 4 PPCs in EACH of the Right and Left Torso. It wouldn't be very smart, but it can be done. Run an XL engine in an IS 'Mech and you're down to 3 in each side. Fit an IS Double HS in each torso and you're down to two in each side. I agree with the hardpoint restrictions bit, though being modified as I explained, above. Have each set of weapon, ammo, and/or electronics critical slots in a machine be restricted in what can be carried there, but allow the slots to be filled per tabletop design rules, and then only if you have the resources to make the mods; the part(s), money, facility, and time.

Pht, you've been taking fire all day long, you've been wrong, whether factually or ideally, on a number of points, and you've been absolutely hammered in place. Stop, while you're still a head AND a body, hehe.

[Alekseyev]

Haven't read the entire thread but I'm posting my support for the limit-customization-movement. Unrestricted refitting of mechs will remove a lot of flavor and gameplay nuance to the MWO experience. Mech variants have always existed in BTech but there was still some degree of predictability and game play associated to each Mech unit. I agree there should be some level of customization for non-omni's but I deeply hope the developers have the foresight and restraint to constrain what players can do to a Mech chassis to prevent homogenization.

[ilion]

Learn from World of tanks guys, from its pros and cons, in every aspect. Its the best advice i can give you guys.

[CarpeMortis]

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

I've mentioned several times that it will create an unequal playing field of entrenched players who will make the game experience miserable for anyone not at their level. That's a game-breaking problem for MMOs, which need to have a long lifespan to profit.

You still have yet to provide any arguement that your system "fixes" this issue. As far as I can see it only moves the disparity from personalized custom mechs that are hard to maintain, to more expensive stock mechs that are easier (than a customized mech) to maintain. I put it to you to prove that one is a greater threat than the other.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

Um, it's impossible to control any economy without unintended consequences biting you on the rump. It's a bad idea from the word "go." Nobody can account for the way that all the players are making their choices (it's not humanly possible), so they cannot predict what their actions will result in. The best they can do is engage in uncoerced trading with the players ... speaking of which, this idea has microtransaction written all over it... I do not relish the idea of having to pay real money to refit a mech... that's heinous.

We are not talking about macro economics here... And balancing a simplified economy is kind of a basic requirement of any game with a trade system. We are talking about a finite number of variables. The important part here is the ability to react. Should laser boats become a problem, you tweak the cost or availability of energy weapons, or heat sinks. If you dont' want them to change the engine rating, make factories unavailable. These are simple controls, and it is a simple if tedious matter of iteration to find an initial balance during beta, but that's what beta is for... THEN once in a live state, if a unwelcome trend arises, the controls can be adjusted serverside WITHOUT patching, and without making sweeping changes to the entire economy. It's not a mater of prediction, it's a mater of correction. Like driving on a bumpy road, you swerve to avoid the large obvious problems, and correct your course after you hit the smaller bumps.

As for the money... Someone is gonna have to pay money for something, that's how this F2P thing works. A good number of us are waiting for that other shoe to drop. It just a mater of what color, and how stinky that shoe is.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

I didn't state that the "perfect" mech would be found. If I meant to say that, I would have used the word perfect or some synonym for it, and I didn't. It's routine in games of the same type that certain setups become very common at the top end, because they're successful for some end or the other, and they become almost obligatory - and than the developers have the conundrum of patching the game to address any issues it might bring up... and again, they can't control the economy. It's not humanly possible; nobody can understand why the players do what they do in reaction to their tweaks. sometimes people don't even understand why they did something themselves!

Fine, I'll amend my statement:

"That eventually the community will find out what is the most capable design."

You brought this up as a problem with the Start ops rules:

Quote

The hardcore tinkerers will be everyone in the game that's been around long enough to have access to the resources needed to turn their 'Mech into whatever the community has found out is the most capable design. This is pretty much the same in any MMO game.

I was merely piointing out that your system did not fix it either.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

Yes, there will always be a "best" and "not best." I'm not interested in trying to get rid of that. I'm interested in an equal playing field of opportunity for everyone.

Some people being better and than others at something is not a problem to be solved and is not something I'm going after in a stupid whack-a-mole fashion.

So, yes, of course the vet players will have certain advantages, and they ought to. They just shouldn't be advantages that are so great that they can't be overcome.

Strat ops rules - potentially players with completely min-maxed builds fighting players who possibly cannot even afford a refit... and even those that can get a refit are still at a massive disadvantage to the players who can essentially do whatever they want with their mechs.

I am hardly advocating unfettered customization. The Strat ops rules make not only the initial customization of a unit expensive, but it also make maintenance of that customized unit more frequent and expensive. Additionally the ability to take a mech and drastically alter it's capabilities is exponentially more expensive than simply upgrading a few lasers to ER. The things your system (we need a better name for it) restrict, cost 2-3 time the parts and labor to do, and can only be done in a dedicated facility. Once you start doing the things your system forbids, you are talking factory level and 4-5 times the cost in labor and parts. When you are dealing with gyros, engines and internals, you are talking about the cost of at least 1 new mech.

I'm VERY hard pressed to believe that your system is less of a challenge to over come for a new player, when they would be facing either a 2-3 disadvantage in numbers, a significant out classing in weight, a significant out classing in lostech, an opponent who can afford to lose a mech or two in order to hold the objective or some combination of all of the above. Especially when the alternative is facing a prized mech that your veteran opponent can barely afford to repair, let alone replace.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

I don't see that there's any benefit to the first one. The urge to tinker with a basic system after it's built has resulted, time and again, in patches that have broken gaming communities.

That's EXCATLY why it's a benefit. "Dynamic" control means they can change the values without patching or even rebooting the server... This allows for extreme flexibility in maintaining balance. Like you said ther are some tiems unseen consequences... Mistakenly Nerf something? No big deal, just telnet in and change it back. All the users see is that there was a sudden drop in the supply of ferro-fiberous armor for about 3 hours.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

I can't see how the second would be more personalized - allowing the mechs to ultimately become whatever will most likely result in the same effect seen in other games with that level of customization (anarchy online, for example) - cookie cutter builds that everyone uses because they're effective.

Many of the (in)famous merc leaders had personalized mechs. Natsha Kerensky, Kai Allard, the Bounty Hunter... But I meant personal as in attachment. Your trusty ON1... after countless battles it no longer has the original weapons, an SRM salvaged to replace a dead LRM, an LB-10X taken of a fallen rival's mech, Ferro-Fiberous armor retrofitted by your last employer as a bonus... This is YOUR mech, and you have made it so.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

4-6 aren't obvious to me in how it would have those advantages over what I've blurbed. Could you clarifiy?

4: By offering both the simple option of refit kits, you give the ability to change tactics without significant reinvestment. Giving the option for One-offs adds not only the ability to personalize,and optimize your units, but makes the salvage rights a very important part of a contract. It's no longer just about how much you get payed but about what you might get to take home. This in turn makes tricked out mechs tempting targets on the field, forcing them to be used carefully.

5 and 6: are closely linked: Since now supply of parts and techs is essential, they are valued strategic assets. You can cripple an enemy by taking out these supplies. They become another item on the list of objectives. Having a hard time kicking your rival off a planet? Hit the employer's armor supply. Either a lightning raid to destroy a convoy so that no one can use it, or a more risky capture operation to claim teh armor for yourself.

Pht, on 01 November 2011 - 06:45 PM, said:

7 - nah, not buying it. I've used the idea I've blurbed in the boardgame and it allows enough customization to keep older mechs going just fine.

I'll concede that it's speculation as to which is better at this in this particular context.

Edited by carpemortis, 01 November 2011 - 08:25 PM.

[CarpeMortis]

And to clarify for the TL:DR crowd:

The heated discussion is not about allowing or disallowing customization, or even if it should be restricted. The main points of contention here are how it should be restricted.

Edited by carpemortis, 01 November 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[Drayco]

One of the main reasons I loved Battle Tech (first ed.) right from the start when I played as a board game was the ability to modify or in fact build designs from the get go. It allows mechs built to exactly your play style and tactics. I believe that the inbuilt systems of weight/space/ammo/heat etc are more than strong enough to control any apparently unbalanced loadouts without any artificial limitations.
Obviously as a real time game there are many considerations for balance but please don't shoe horn everyone into a set mech build, I personally find many of the base variants to be pretty **** and always modify them when given the chance.

The simple option in my book is to allow a complicated construction option limited only by (mostly) original design rules and available in game resources. When the era advances far enough for Omnis to come into play let them be the only ones that can 'hot swap' weapons between battles rather than in long term down time. I mean who wants to be stuck in a basic Rifleman for Gods sake, what a pile of crud !

Oh and please let this game be good !

[Vance Diamond]

kay wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 05:40 AM, said:

First, of the MW games, 3 was the absolute best. Back in the day, the net code was the best it could be and 56k was enormously fast, and it worked for on-line game-play. The lack of maps was the only thing I had trouble with, and the fact that most folks didn't have enough imagination to use anything other than Shadowcats was the problem of the people, not the game. Oh, and leading your target, that's really close to reality, and it beats the **** out of point and click. Only twitchers call point and click skill.

I think you are forgetting what the game was like. Depending on your ping and the opponent mek's speed- you would lead anywhere from a millimeter in front of the enemy to a full inch to hit them. And let's not forget that we are shooting lasers- which tend to travel at the speed of light. Leading targets? That's so ballistic age, man.

People used fast meks because slow ones could be hit by actually, you know, aiming at the mech- not the empty air in front of them. The only skill in that game was latency calculation. People used Shadowcats because it was the best mek for this style of combat, and they could pack 7 medium lasers- an amount that generally only assault meks carry in the tabletop game (without being like +10 heat, anyway). MW3 was a sort of bastardization of Battletech- a half-way stop from Mechwarrior 2 to Mech Assault. MW4 attempted to bring it back to its roots.

Accuracy isn't really the heart of piloting skills- after all, you are shooting things that are bigger than the house you grew up in. It's all about movement.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 01 November 2011 - 10:09 PM.

[IS Wolf]

Deadmeat313, on 01 November 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

I want to be able to say to myself as my opponents approach "So , they've got a Catapult, a Hunchback, a Centurion and a Javelin. The Cat is going to be fire support with its LRMs. The Hunchback represents short-range autocannon death: Avoid. The Centurion is a trooper mech with a solid AC10 and LRM10 setup. The Javelin will be mobile but with a respectable SRM volley if I get too close."

And you could be dead wrong even with canon versions.
That Catapult could be a CPLT-K2, with PPCs instead of LRMs.
That Hunchback could be a a HBK-4P or a HBK-4SP, which are both medium range sluggers.
That Centurion could be a CN9-AL, and thus a lot less ammo dependent, even if it's still a trooper mech.
And that Javelin could be a JVN-10F or a JVN-11A, which again makes it hell at medium range with no ammo worries.

daneiel varna, on 01 November 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

I think that customization must be only in manufacturing difference in the weapons - what i mean as we know AC/20 means auto canon 20 , that 20 is not a caliber of the gun that is the damage rating , the caliber can be from 25mm - 203mm .So your customization to be limited what kind model of that gun you like and prefer to use.
P.S. Don't forget these are not omni mechs .

Not quite, consider the CLNT-2-3U, which was a Capellan field modification kit for the CLNT-2-3T. And I seem to recall that the fluff of the latter even mentioned that some mechjocks already replaced the AC 10 with a PPC prior to that 3U being released. Think it was the 3025 TRO, unfortunately mine is in storage so I can't double check. But it would explain why the 3U was standardized.

Anyway, the limitations mentioned by Carpe Mortis are quite acceptable.
Not that different from the MW2:Merc ones. Going to take time and C-Bills to tweak the machine in the way that you like.

Does this favour long time players? Yup, but as mentioned that's always a problem.
Even with a game like WoT where the varying tiers are separated from one other, you'll still come across it. If I'm in a tier 3 machine and get matched against a tier 7, then I'm going to get squished.

But that's no different from that Jenner getting mauled by that Warhammer in that trailer from 2009.
And the same applies to the Atlas stomping a mudhole in the Warhammer.

All part of the game.

[Asmudius Heng]

Agree with everyone who like custom limitations. It makes sense with the idea of having more defined roles. MW4 and its various mods were all pretty good in that regard compared to the open slather of previous games.

The mech type should have a defined role or subset of roles. Enough so you know what you are facing - but enough customisation that it can throw a curveball into the mix if you like without totally destroying what that mech is all about.

[Elucid Ward]

Arbitrary limitation of a game's renowned customisation aspect. Hmmm... who else is doing that, and how many people aren't happy?

Limiting customisation beyond the scope of canon and tech readouts is possibly the worst thing that could be done. Sure, have canon constraints that fit the mech's in question (ie - you're not going to jam a long tom into a Jenner, no matter how much you stuff around with it), but don't just limit it to a bunch of bog stock Mechs and go "Hey, your customisation aspect ends at what we give you."

Make the hardware realistically expensive relative to canon. Make the people WORK for it - that awesome Clan tech ER PPC that was salvaged in the last scrim with the Jade Falcons along their invasion corridor is NOT going to be cheap on the black market.

There are so many ways to implement 'limited' unlimited customisation and maintain balance - dropships aren't even remotely cheap, and let's forget about Jumpships. An effective limitation would be weight based, a'la MW3's MFBs - even top tier merc bands won't be able to amass bullsh*t levels of hardware if they are unable to cart it around everywher. This idea in itself would discourage hoarding, and potentially stimulate the in game economy;
ie. Just got an awesome Los-Tech Large PLaser or what have you. But it's going to push you over your available dropship tonnage... Hmmm... let's strip out that old Large Laser and flog it off to make some coin back on the investment.

And so on and so forth.

[Mchawkeye]

Hmmm....some interesting points in here, it's good to see so people being so passionate.
I do think extensive customisation is a key thing, as I've said before. But I also agree that game balance could be screwed if mechs were completely open to tinkering.
I like the idea of pulling rules from the board game, but the board game simply plays differently. on the table it comes down to dice roles, not hand eye co-ordination. Thus rules for balancing mechs and limiting thier effectiveness between the two have to be different.
As a game mechanic, I like he idea of 'refit packs' (I think someone mentioned them before) as a way to control mech balance. I think time and money should also be a huge factor in limiting customisation. I also thought maybe, as an extension of the 'role' (I.e scout mech) type of game play mechs are given a primary load out style. Support mechs must have x many slots filled with missles, mechs traditionally designed primarily with lasers must have x many slots filled with beam weapons and so on and so forth. These styles can obviously change for any given varient for any given mech.
However it works out I think we need to move away from the tabletop rules and look to something more appropriate for a PC game.

[Vance Diamond]

Agree with Elucid Ward

Iron-locked specific role specialization- aka. classes - is not Battletech.

It's called Chrome Hounds.

It was pretty cool, but not Battletech.

In the end, all arguments against customization are advocations for dictating how everyone else plays the game.

[Mchawkeye]

Classes are simply the implementation of designers intent. Most mechs I've read about, fluff wise, were always designed for a specific role. While the game let you ignore this, using it as a mechanic would not be inappropriate.
And yes, I want to dictate how everyone else plays the game. Its called balance and works better in the long run.

[Vance Diamond]

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 01:40 AM, said:

And yes, I want to dictate how everyone else plays the game. Its called balance and works better in the long run.

If the game is designed correctly, you don't need to dictate anything.

[Mchawkeye]

No, if the game is designed correctly you won't notice the imposed limitations.

[Skoll]

There will probably be balance issues in the beginning, there always is, but there shouldn't be enough of a problem to dictate that everyone must have a stock mech.

[Vance Diamond]

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 01:44 AM, said:

No, if the game is designed correctly you won't notice the imposed limitations.

A limitation is different from a dictation.

Weight and heat are limitations.

Having players pick from Fire Support Mech, Assault Mech, Scout Mech, Sniper Mek is a dictation.

[Elucid Ward]

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 01:40 AM, said:

Classes are simply the implementation of designers intent. Most mechs I've read about, fluff wise, were always designed for a specific role. While the game let you ignore this, using it as a mechanic would not be inappropriate.
And yes, I want to dictate how everyone else plays the game. Its called balance and works better in the long run.

And what makes you right in this regard? Who are you to dictate this?

Fluff wise, 9 times out of ten, the mech's were not deployed as originally intended. ESPECIALLY in mercenary operations.

Mchawkeye, on 02 November 2011 - 01:44 AM, said:

No, if the game is designed correctly you won't notice the imposed limitations.

That's what HiRez said about Tribes: Ascend. And they are royally scr3wing the pooch on that one.

Edited by Elucid Ward, 02 November 2011 - 01:59 AM.