273 replies to this topic

[Woodstock]

fearfactory, on 02 November 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

Honestly, I think all of the systems were bad. If customization was allowed I would actually hope that the rules from Strategic Operations were somehow applied... you know... Class A, B, C etc refits... in other words if you are out fighting and don't have a factory you're not throwing double heat sinks or CASE on the 'Mech.

But that style of situation is kind of dependant on a game that is more closely in line with a MMO RPG which we wont be getting. According to interviews it will be instant battles and also some kind of conquest system where more instant battles will contribute to the ownership of the world. So there wont be a (in the field situation etc.

[Woodstock]

I'd like some way to combine the MW4 System with space for ammo. It makes sense that they should take up space.

Or are we to assume that that has already been taken into account with the size of the weapon?

Either way I would like the opportunity to add extra ammo.

[IS Wolf]

Mercurial, on 02 November 2011 - 10:43 PM, said:

I could argue that was, in fact, a mistake on FASA's part, but in that case, it worked because we're talking about an eye-of-a-deity (really? That word's censored? Interesting). viewpoint strategy game with so many other complexities (many of which simply can't easily be built into a simulation style game) made such variables acceptable. But more to the point, such variations were at least something you could account for: Either it's loadout was this or this or this, it's a matter of identifying a weapon that gave away the particular variant. If you allow people to just make whatever you want, then you can't 'identify' anything. It's still an interesting mechanic even with variants, because assessing WHICH variant is still a neat gameplay mechanic that goes out the window if every player modifies the Mechs to the point where the chasis barely matters at all. It also allows for a metagame to 'bleed out' mech weaknesses. Which might be alright, as it changes the shift of the game slightly, I'm just not sure I like that shift.

(Grr.. Board ate my response.)

Even in the BTech Sim BattlePods, you could not be sure what you would be facing. Could be a lance of Lights, could be a lance of Heavies. Even in the novel setting, folks sometimes did not know what they would be up against.

First time a Timber Wolf was seen, the targeting computer could not decide if it was a Marauder or a Catapult.
Whereas normally it would be able to say MAD-3M or MAD-3D, provided that the machine had been updated. But the first time against a new variant? Good luck.

This is not the type of setting or game, in which you can afford to just rush wildly and go pewpew and just make snap decisions based on chassis.

And mech customization has been an integral part of the board game, the novels (the Allard Centurion, I'd use the actual name, but it just gets censored) and the video games, whether it be the Crescent Hawk's Inception, the Mechwarrior series or even the Mech Commander ones.

So going no customization is pretty anathema to one of the core concepts of what has kept this IP alive, for all these years.

Oh and just to repeat my objection to the Mechwarrior 4 type Mechlab.
It did not solve the problem of "boating", which is an argument that folks are using against Mech Customization.
And it actually prevented players from recreating canon configs for their mechs, whether it be the Mad Dog C, Summoner B, Cougar A, B or C, to name just a few.

So if it does not solve the problem, and actually causes more, then implementing it here, would be as silly as having a game centered around Wimbledom Champions and it subsequently excluding Borg, McEnroe, Conners, Navrátilová or Graff.

[Mchawkeye]

you know the one thing I've realised since i started play mektek MW4 mercs a few days ago?

I don't care how the mechlab actually works, so long as my wheel on my mouse CAN BE USED TO SCROLL THE POO MENUS.

It is surprisingly annoying.

[Corsair114]

# of viable top tier chassis will run inverse to the amount of customization allowed, as the emphasis on factors OTHER than payload and chassis performance will become more important. As noted above (likely several times at this point) silhouette will be extremely important, as it would be one of, and potentially the only, immutable factor.

This, for the record, would be even more important if some of the suggestions for weapons handling (such as using a cone of fire instead of pinpoint accuracy) were to be implemented.

Mark me down for limited customization. Something along the lines of Assault Tech 1 would be pretty close to ideal, though I'd like a bit more flexibility in kitting out electronics.

[Svaje]

I have glanced through this thread and one thing stands out. This is supposed to be a reboot of a simulator game.
Many people are talking about what different earlier games was like and how to get the right mix between custom and stock options.
The thing I do not see is sugestions how to do this in a new way.

I liked the feeling in the old 3025 RPG when your mech was a pile of salvaged parts held together with chewinggum and mettal wire. When the summit of several nights hard campaining was the conqered enemys stash of good quality lrm-missiles or late in the campaign a mint condition starleague-ppc.

If you think in a more RPG oriented way there are many options on how to limit the effect of exessive customiseing. Slower speed of mech due to too heavy load out. Extra heat due to poorly insulated connecion hoses. Slow turn speed due to a long barrel weapon. Limping due to changed center of gravity. Slow or jittery aming due to wrong size of myomer in the arm compared to the weight of the weapon.

This can even be randomized depending on what facilities you have access to during the procedure so no two "change of one mlas too two slas" procedures gives the same effect two times in a row. This would give the option of custimizeing with the risk of getting a altered mech, temporarily or permanent. Do you want that llas/ac20/ppc badly enough to take the risk of damaging your knee joints every time you land from a jump ?

My 2 cents.

/Svaje

[fearfactory]

omegaclawe, on 02 November 2011 - 09:53 PM, said:

This is a free-to-play game. It incentivizes purchases by offering them as a way to avoid the grind you'd get otherwise. The developers have already stated that there will be RPG-like advancement. You will never be on the same footing in such a game with someone who has played/paid more. That's by design. If you do not like it, well, you aren't the sort to get them much money, are you? Hardly a loss for them.

I hope PGI will be somewhat polite about it, but the underlying message is pretty much going to be "if you don't like it, go elsewhere". And you will have other places to go, too. MWLL, Mercs MP3, AT1:BT, etc. But you will not win that battle here.

Oh... wow. Apparently I'm broke.

Also I really don't care about who's better than me and such. The problem is customs because they are often there to break the game. Then we'll have to deal with patch after patch to try and balance the game because of them. Which, everything would be much easier with stock configs that, IMO, really test the skill of the person rather than "***, THIS CATAPULT SUCKS, LRMS SUCK, IMMA LASER SPAM NOOBS IN IT!!!!111" I'm sorry, I think people who can kick *** with "crappy stock configs" show more skills than boaters or those who need to customize a design.

Please, enough with the insults. I was kicked from a server before for spanking assault jumpers with a Dasher so I would hardly put myself in the "unskilled" category. Plus, I pay for a subscription game.

[ice trey]

I agree with the idea of Battlemech customization, but would like to see it done from a different perspective.

For me, the idea of going back to the Mechwarrior 2/3 style customization system, which was true to the board game, would be the most satisfying way (to me) to render the game. Why? I see Mechwarrior online as being a marketing tool that will boost interest in the tabletop game. When people played the video games back in 1995 and 1999 and got acquainted with that customization system, they would try the boardgame out and, WHAM, they'd be familiar with what they saw. It made the transition from computer game to tabletop really quite easy, and ideas like ammo explosions and critical hits actually computed in their heads. Fast forward two years later to Mechwarrior 4, and the whole system is dumbed down to the point that it doesn't even resemble the tabletop. It became hard to interest even people who played the mechwarrior games - the people who are supposedly the easiest to get into it - in giving the tabletop game a chance.

Now, what a lot of people complain about is "too much customization", and I agree, that someone turning an Archer into an Autocannon-boat seems strange. Instead, while the traditional Battletech style should be maintained for easy bridging between franchises (as well as a nod to a strong community who've stuck with the franchise through thick and thin for the better part of two decades), I'd encourage the writers of the game (as well as anyone curious) to check the old rules for customization in Battletech Master Rules (2002) or Strategic Operations (2009) In these rules, every time you tried to replace a component in a 'mech, there was a high chance that the component could either break outright, or install with a defect. Further more, depending on the complexity of the refits, some basic modifications could be done in the field, while complex ones required you send the 'mech back to the factory to be refitted. Either way, it would cost time, money, and risk the quality of your family-heirloom battle machine.


These rules are a great, straightforward means to not only give players unlimited customization abilities, but make a strong argument for keeping a 'mech a stock configuration, If things work out right, players should only want to swap out weapons when they can't find a replacement for a broken one - just like the way the universe works.

Edited by ice trey, 03 November 2011 - 05:21 AM.

[gilliam]

**** this topic has grown. I am not even going to other quoting every person I am responding to.

First of all. In my opening post, I was not saying the MW4 mech la was good, even after the modifications Mek Tek have made, it is still quite restrictive and had it's problems. Beyond that it prevented players from making many canon designs. Still, the fact that it imposed restrictions prevented certain abuses and wierd designs that cropped up in previous games.

Second: boating. I don't think any restrictions would prevent it, nor should they. Many canon designs are boats; the nova prime has nothing but lasers, there are many mechs that have nothing but LRMs, and the gausszilla is even canon now. I agree boating can be a problem in some cases, but, if it is, the problem and solution are not going to be found in the mech lab. I think something like that is a game balance issue where players benefit from having along the same weapon. I think having some equivalent to how battletech requires a mix of high damage, hole punchers and cluster hit, crit seekers backed up by a utility weapon or two to take out most targets in a respectably short period of time would help the problem. Even if some designs are boats, they should require a unit with an opposing focus to be paired up with to be useful.

The biggest problem I see, is that damage in mechwarrior games is always applied in a point and shoot fashion where everything hits where your crosshairs are aimed, while the boardgame spreads damage. Barring lucky dice rolls, you can't stack damage in battletech most of the time. I really think this game needs to apply some sort of deviation to weapons fire based on how much the chassis is being rocked back and forth (from running), so your weapons don't all hit the same spot. Having good aim would still be important (you can't guarantee every weapon will hit where you aim, but it will still matter where you aim since the guns will hit near there), but you also need to know how fast a particular weapon slews and the best place to aim on an enemy chassis as well as to control your speed in order to get the best shot. Gunnery is more than just aim, it also knowing how to react to battlefield conditions. A targeting computer would help you by stabilizing the weapons and calculating lead for you, but even with one, you should still have some difficulty hammering on just one location on the target unless both of you are standing still right next to each other.

Another thing mentioned in here is that, in mechwarrior games, there is no reason to put weapons in your arms. The reason to do so in battletech is a larger firing arc. Such things should be realized here as well. Your torso weaponry might be able to slew a bit, but they are still constrained to the direction the torso is pointing. For that to matter, your aim point should be able to be somewhere other than straight in front of your torso (a free reticule), so you can aim outside of just torso twisting. In such a case arm weapons would have a much larger firing arc than torso weapons since you can aim them to the side, up or down in addition to torso twisting and leaning forward or back. Additionally, if the arms can tradition faster than the torso, you would benefit from having certain weapons in the arms by being able to track faster targets more effectively with those weapons.

Back on the subject of the mech lab itself, strat ops should be where the customization policy starts, but not where it ends. As a video game they can't apply tabletop rules exactly. The damage values of the weapons will have to be different, so will the refit restrictions and times. Nevertheless, I fell that basing the refits on strat ops is a good start.

As for the concerns that allowing the changing of everything by older players with tons of money to allow min maxed designs, first of all, all games with a progression have that issue. Older players have the best gear, and part of why people play is to acquire the best gear. There is nothing wrong with that. If it leads to a small number of optimal designs, then the problem is likely with game balance rather than the system of progression. Even if we were restricted to canon designs, bad game balance would lead to just a few of them being used for being the best. Finding the best is always a huge meta game, but if things are properly balanced, we should have a good enough category that is still able to be effective even against the optimal designs. In and of itself, the mech lab shouldn't be unbalancing.

The biggest reason for going with a strat ops set of limitations is that it means that if brings practicality into the picture. You can overhaul your mech to be a completely different machine, but it is far cheaper to just buy a different mech and apply more basic modifications to that one instead. The game isn't shoehorning us into a set method of play, but encourages it, instead. To completely overhaul a mech would require a special attachment to it to want to keep it and spend so much time and money instead of replacing it. By the same token, the cheapness of the more basic field refits would actively encourage a bit of customization to fit our playstyle, and would help increase variety.

As for mech roles and expectations of what a chassis does, the fact that more extensive refits are harder to pull off, the expectations would remain, most mechs would retain their role for the reasons mentioned above. Another thing I think would help is something I have been wanting since I played mechwarrior 2: visible weaponry. I hope when we fit something to our mechs, rather than it just getting assigned a firepoint on the model, I think the chassis should have a model, and each weapon should have a model, and when we fit weapons to a chassis, the corresponding weapon model is attached to the mech model. Not only would it increase visual variety, it would also allow players to visually identify loadouts; you wouldn't recognize a CPLT-K2 because PPC bolts came from the missile ports, you should recognize it by the PPC barrels you can see attached to either side of the torso.

[Grimjax]

I completely agree with you there Gilliam!

Edited by Grimjax, 03 November 2011 - 06:48 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

As do I.

It also occurs to me that if a mech design is REALLY broken, being as it's an online game, it should be easy enough to patch and restrict any less honourable intentions.
Though obviously they would have to be careful not to poo over any peeps who have worked hard to get what they have,

[Cifu]

Honestly i personally say the customization is Needed, yes, like it, or not, but even in the canon Battletech the customization is existed. You can put for example an AC/10 in a Hunchback instead of the AC/20, and add several extra ammunition plus armour. The rules are developed in the tabletop game, so can't argue it's not follow the Battletech! Even can be seen the Sarna net Battlemech section, as custom version: http://www.sarna.net...as_(BattleMech)

And do not forget, the original tabletop game are not count in many respect to become a real action game or simulator. Just think it over: why do you put a Machine Gun in a 'Mech, when the game do not have infantry of any kind? Too useless in Mech-to-Mech combat (well, exception in the light mech's battle), so you can put anything else there, which is more usefull (armour, heat sink, etc.).

So yes, we need customization. Limited (only armour and weapons), and very-very expensive, so you need to grind enough credit for change it, but absolutely needed!

[Lightfoot]

Mechlab has been part of every successful MechWarrior game and missing from Mech games that failed to make it to the PC. Mechlab is a MechWarrior skill you learn like piloting and gunnery.

You are going to lose alot of MechWarrior Multiplayer veterans if you leave Mechlab out of MWO. You will get alot more players into MWO if Mechlab is included because it is such a unique and dynamic gameplay factor. No other game has the variability that Mechlab brings. The game will diminish in value rapidly with no Mechlab because it will be static gameplay. Nothing will change except the map.

MWO needs to draw players in and keep them playing and Mechlab is the best tool to put in their hands to do that.

Now it can be limited to a hardpoint capability system, but with no Mechlab at all MWO will become a much duller and less engaging game. That will translate into a much lower player base over time.

Edited by Lightfoot, 04 November 2011 - 12:11 PM.

[Darklord]

Save mechlab for a Solaris arenas then you can custom make mechs to your hearts content.
If you look at mechs from a milatry point of view you would want mechs loadouts to be easy to upkeep, repair and reload
If the unit has abunch of different configured mechs it be a pain to keep the unit running 100% in ammo and repair parts.
Mechlab will just make balancing teh game that much harder.

DL

[Razor Kotovsky]

Darklord, on 04 November 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Save mechlab for a Solaris arenas then you can custom make mechs to your hearts content.
If you look at mechs from a milatry point of view you would want mechs loadouts to be easy to upkeep, repair and reload
If the unit has abunch of different configured mechs it be a pain to keep the unit running 100% in ammo and repair parts.
Mechlab will just make balancing teh game that much harder.

DL

And looking at them twice bears the realization that maintenance costs that are also based on a partially player-run market (salvage, ammo, entire mechs) are entirely implementable. Long way from Eve (1400mm and 800mm fire the same ammo, etc) but why the hell not?
I would literally *** with rainbows if my mech has a deadweight instead of an arm that i lost and can't find a replacement for.

If the devs are actually playing their own game and observe the community balancing is not an issue. This might be just the case.

RZR

Edited by Razor Kotovsky, 04 November 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[wanderer]

I'm all for the Strat Ops refit ratings, with refit rating ability limited by -planet- and available parts.

Rate a planet's ability to do conversions A to F- some Periphery world can only do A-rated conversions, but Hesperus II's factories can manage anything up to a class F refit.

Refits take time and money. The more things that change, the more time and money is involved- and the refit level also adds a multiplier as well. And the person who wants the refit has to supply all the parts needed.

And of course, if the 'Mech is destroyed....you'll need to build a new one. It shouldn't be easy to have a radical custom job...and it shouldn't be cheap. Just like rest of the Battletech universe.

[Odin]

Mech customization is is a fine feature, yes, we want that.

Lets assume, we not only get cool looking Mech, we can customize to our hearts' content,
more then that, imagine: Bryan's new Mechs will actually show what you have achieved in all your cunning!

Lets assume the Mech model shows what you've done in the Mechlab.
Lets assume all changes are shown on the chasis!
Only because all Mechs we saw until now, show stock configs - it's exactly this - which prevents a harsh (dis)grace,
if ppl show up in their boats, pretending to be (still) true to the BT lore!
Outright silly mech models that would be, and in no way, BT.

Would you run around in such a thing, really???

Mech customization is is a fine feature and yes, we want that.
But I for my part want it limited, in a way that keeps the lore, the fiction, the sense of what drives us to BT true.
If you need a boat, take a stock one, no one complains.
Play the game as you like it!, but thats my opinion about the matter.
my 2 cents.

[gregsolidus]

I just want PPCs where my Mad Cat's missile launchers are.

[Pht]

Kay Wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

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,...

Of course I won't answer a question which anyone not on the dev team for this game has any means of addressing. If you want to be that way, than this game is impossible to make and have *any* 'Mech customization, because they'll have to find a way to visually render any and all different weapons groups on every part of every 'Mech that can mount them!

Quote

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.

Helicopters are not Battlemechs.

Quote

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.

I'm going to trust the people who write the canon. If it takes a while in the canon and knocks the quality rating down, than it's obviously not as easy as all that.

Quote

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.

No, I shouldn't. You're not a proper authority on Battlemechs in and of yourself. The Lore is the proper authority, and more specifically the rules which are laid out, because the source books clearly say that the novels and artwork should not be construed as rules. That and the fact that the books came after the boardgame and were based upon it, not the other way around.

Quote

Excuse me, Pht, and whether I missed the point of a previous post or not I could care less...

I suppose by extension that makes it ok for me to care less about your arguments for your position when it suits me?

Quote

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.

I was specifically referring to the mechlab setup I had proposed and the picture of the Awesome that I posted which only has one three-slot area in each side torso.

Ignorance of peoples arguments that you are trying to dispute doesn't serve you very well.

[Pht]

CarpeMortis, on 01 November 2011 - 08:19 PM, said:

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.

First, I haven't proposed that there shouldn't be maintenance costs on customized 'Mechs.

As far as solving the disparity between resource-rich pilots versus resource-poor pilots - both pilots have an equal ability to customize their 'Mechs - they can both modify their 'Mechs as much as the chassis will allow that they have the resources for. Equality of opportunity in customization.

Quote

We are not talking about macro economics here...

That's disputable, but even with a single person it's impossible to control their choices in such a manner as to be able to actually predict the outcome with certainty.

Quote

We are talking about a finite number of variables.

No, we aren't. You have to know what any given person will choose in any given situation.

Quote

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.

Yeah.

Quote

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:

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

It doesn't remove this tendency - it keeps those top level mechs from being nothing more than MechWarrior 3 style "gunbags" that are not unique at all.

Quote

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.

Certainly, they make them expensive - but they do not stop anyone with the resources from ultimately rendering mechs into different looking gunbags on legs, which is quite frankly, horrible.

Quote

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.

You're presuming that there will be less "lowbie" players, that their opponent can afford to lose his mech, neither of which appear to be valid. As far as Veteran players having access to lostech and possibly a bigger 'Mech - yes, that's the way the BTU is *supposed* to be. Your point? There should be some differences.

Quote

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.

Oh, boy, ... things can get screwed up even faster!

Quote

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.

What I've blurbed doesn't negate the ability nor the sense of using refits, nor of going after resources as a target.