273 replies to this topic

[gilliam]

Say what you will about the MW4 mech lab, but it did solve a problem previous games had, in that there was no real distinguishing factor between mechs, so everyone ended up just choosing the mech with the best target silhouette or that they liked the best, and modified it top to bottom, and we could have a single mech refitted between missions.

More realistically, and following battletech rules, there are some limits to modifications. I really think such limits should bee imposed regarding customization and refitting, so players can't completely overhaul one mech into something completely different instantly.


For campaign play at least, the Battletech rules solve this by making more extensive refits take longer and cost more. I hope something like this gets implemented here to avoid abominations like missile boat rifleman, or archers with the torsos decked out with autocannons. Another effect would be that omnimechs would have a point since the whole point is that you can change the equipment loadout quickly by swapping pods at the expense of not being able to alter the fixed equipment.

[Stahlseele]

The MW4 Mercs Version was . . bad, at best.
Better to go with the MekTek MW4 Mercs Free Release Version.
Direct Fire and Missle and Heat.

[Youngblood]

While customization was nice and easy, MechWarrior 4 tended to have certain weapons that were a bit...unbalanced, given the maps in the game, and those weapons were subsequently overused. I'm already liking the aim of MWO to do more urban combat with team play focus.

Edited by youngblood, 31 October 2011 - 02:54 PM.

[Darklord]

They should stick the TRO for the mech variants instead of the mechlabs that the MW games had.

DL

[Youngblood]

That would certainly work, although in 3049 there are some 'Mech design concepts that I believe hadn't been explored until later, such as an AC/20 carrier that could move faster than 64kph, for heavy strike missions.

[fieryone]

My two cents, I think they should give us the variants but still give us a Mechlab to customize units, and put a time limit down for the customized unit we built before we can use it. This means that players who really want a custom mech can get one, but allows others to easily jump into the game and play.

The reason the mechlab should have a cooldown is because at this point Inner Sphere mechs aren't machines with swapping capabilities, and for a custom mech to be built it would take an extensive rebuild.

[CarpeMortis]

Canonically, the "similarity" between mechs in 2 was a result of the Omnimechs. Technically it was actually a result of bad implementation of said Omnimechs. 2 (and later 3), gave you the option to reassign slots in every mech, even Non-Omnis. On top of that, it let you reassign critical slots that in table top were Fixed. Things like Endosteel and Ferro-Fiberous. Leaving out the fact that in 3050, no one has ever HEARD of Omnis, the table-top has rules for "customization" of mechs, ranging from full factory refits, to field mods. These rules do infact limit what can be changed and places requirements on the changes such as specific facilities etc. Couple that with faction specific equipment, and there is allot of meta game potential.

I would LOVE to see this become a feature of the persistent game world. Limit the players to certain levels of modifications, based on the resources held. Deployed on some backwater rock? Best you can do replace that damaged ER Medium Laser with a salvaged Medium Laser. Working for Steiner? Then that shiny new ECM suite is gonna cost double to import from Liao.

[gilliam]

I am definitely not advocating the wierd MW4 style mechlab. I preferred the BT style the older games used. My poit was that some limits are good, to prevent customization oddities. I wouldn't be adverse to certain chassis having limitations on the type of weaponry they can fit, but requiring you to pay extra for more major refits would already limit stuff like that a bit.

carpemortis, on 31 October 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Canonically, the "similarity" between mechs in 2 was a result of the Omnimechs. Technically it was actually a result of bad implementation of said Omnimechs. 2 (and later 3), gave you the option to reassign slots in every mech, even Non-Omnis. On top of that, it let you reassign critical slots that in table top were Fixed. Things like Endosteel and Ferro-Fiberous. Leaving out the fact that in 3050, no one has ever HEARD of Omnis, the table-top has rules for "customization" of mechs, ranging from full factory refits, to field mods. These rules do infact limit what can be changed and places requirements on the changes such as specific facilities etc. Couple that with faction specific equipment, and there is allot of meta game potential.

I would LOVE to see this become a feature of the persistent game world. Limit the players to certain levels of modifications, based on the resources held. Deployed on some backwater rock? Best you can do replace that damaged ER Medium Laser with a salvaged Medium Laser. Working for Steiner? Then that shiny new ECM suite is gonna cost double to import from Liao.

I hadn't even considered the metagaming based on certain factions having access to certain equipment, but that is a great idea having to pay extra to import out of faction equipment.

As for the refit rules. I think they should have a read through Strat Ops and use it as a basis for the refit rules in this game. They don't limit what can be changed, but major overhauls are quite prohibitive, changing the engines or structure are effectively full rebuilds and take a long time, and adding equipment the mech doesn't originally have takes a while to do while swapping one weapon for another of the same sort is quick and easy. The other aspect is that each additional modification adds time. Omnimechs, on the other hand can have equipment swapped out in minutes, but you can't modify the innards or armor nor can you remove the fixed equipment

Edited by gilliam, 31 October 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[CarpeMortis]

Again, that "cool down" time is covered by existing tabletop rules. With every possible change you could make to a mech given a cost, a minimum requirement of facilities, and a base time frame. You can pay more to speed up that process, or to make it more likely to succeed. Or you can pay less to give it to green techs, and it might not work properly, or it might take longer. The more i think about it, the more I can see this being a source of income for the game. Pay to speed up repairs and refits...

Edited by carpemortis, 31 October 2011 - 03:20 PM.

[Threat Doc]

For my two cents worth, I believe all 'Mechs should begin stock -if a pilot is allowed to keep their 'Mech(s) between missions, anyway- and then pilots, if they earn C-Bills during play, are allowed to make small modifications within their budget and time constraints. However, 'Mech design should have areas where the type of items/weapons that can be mounted in a certain area are limited to the design. Not pods... those are supposed to be for Clan 'Mechs, to make it very fast switching out armaments. However, those pods should be limited to the accepted TRO designs, the items/weapons/electronics within unchangeable at all by Clan pilots.

[Buck Rogers]

The only way to make all (or most) mechs desirable in game is by keeping them stock. There are quite a few variants of most mech designs by 3050.

In MW3 the online community almost exclusively used Shadowcats with the exact same weapon loadout, because in terms of speed+armor+guns, it was deemed the absolute best, so that was literally all anyone drove normally.

Never again. You're going to drive that funky stock mech and you're going to like it . You want an AC-20 boat? Theres a canon design called the King Crab. Save up a kabillion C-Bills and buy one. There are canon 3025-3050 era IS mechs that suit everyones gaming styles. Picking one, and getting good at it, sounds way more fun than getting to dork around with different loadouts every single game.

---Buck.

[gilliam]

Customization is part of battletech, though. It'd be a shame not to have any. Mechs should certainly start off as stock, but we should be able to adjust them to better fit our style. Sure there's mechs with AC-20s, but each of us has a preferred type of setup, and you can't always find a mech that fits perfectly.

Also, an every single game loadout change should be out the window. Unless you are doing a minor weapon swap, you should have to wait till tomorrow for your new loadout to be ready.

Edited by gilliam, 31 October 2011 - 03:44 PM.

[CarpeMortis]

Stock only cuts off so much opportunity for interesting game play... Your CN9's LB-10X gets tagged in a fight, do you have enough money to repair it? Can you even get a replacement LB-10X out in the periphery? What about the that ON1 you took the head off of? doesn't it have an AC/10? Can you strap that on instead?

Edited by carpemortis, 31 October 2011 - 03:46 PM.

[Stahlseele]

Stock only Variants . .
Hunchback . .
Hunchback 4P . . GIMME!

[CarpeMortis]

Hunchback 4P... That's the laser-boat / cross weapon type field refit I was trying to remember...

[Stahlseele]

Yep.
And the Hunchback 5P is even worse.

[Odin]

Limiting customization is a MUST, if this online game should stand a chance.
There are so many natural bouts out there, we don't need no kids ruin gameplay, cos they can't fight and think.
I'm sure the Devs know this.
All previous online gaming experiences were often ruined by boats.

[Odin]

delete please double post

Edited by odin, 31 October 2011 - 04:16 PM.

[Gemini]

The funny thing about boating is that, from a design perspective, it only ruins the gameplay if there are balancing issues. Placing arbitrary limits on customization to discourage boating is not the answer. Besides, sometimes it's fun to deck a mech out in hoards of Streak SRMs or Medium Lasers to see how well it fares against more balanced designs. Skill will always be a factor too. Loading a mech up with nothing but Medium Lasers won't help you at all if you can't hit the broad side of a dropship. :P

The better answer is to tweak the relational capabilities of the weapons until they are more balanced. Some would argue that doing this doesn't stay true to the formulas and damage/heat tables of the original tabletop game, but then, Mech 2 and 3 followed those formulas almost TOO perfectly and those games had serious balancing issues with some of its weapons. (For instance: Getting hit in the same leg just twice by an AC 20 in Mech 3 = Game Over, and that could happen in a heartbeat due to low AC refire times.)

Tabletop math doesn't exactly translate perfectly to a real-time simulation. I feel that so long as the devs do their job and make the weapons as balanced as possible, arbitrary customization limits will not be necessary.

And for the record, the only two times I boated a mech in Mech 3 while playing online, I got last place and 2nd-to-last place.

[Buck Rogers]

I think it's also just logical to think of this from a business viewpoint.

Being able to deck out a 45 ton battlemech mostly however you want dissuades you from earning experience to unlock/purchase a mech that more suits your playing style.

MW:O is a business. They want you to keep playing, to feel a need for progress. It would be a terrible business practice if they allowed much mech lab work, because the more you have of it, the less variety of mechs there needs to be. I'd personally prefer to eventually have almost every 3050 era IS mech in game. That would be neat, and I think we'd all get a kick out of that. If you could basically turn one mech into another, then what would be the point?

Just my personal opinion.

---Buck.