273 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Holy smokes! So much over night... kicking the poo right out of me, here. Believe it or not, however, I have read everything from my last post forward, and the following is what I came up with to answer... now, let's see if it makes any sense to the rest of you, or is simply disjointed because the quotes within posts are also not quoted...

Vance Diamond, on 01 November 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

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.

Work was actually done, back then, to determine if targets needed to be lead when lasers were fired, and the overall community belief was that they did not. They were the only weapons that didn't need to be. A PPC still did, because it's super-heated plasma, not a lightning bolt, not a laser, as has been depicted in the past, so it was more like a ballistic weapons than anything else. For personal experience, I remember being required to readjust my speed or my 'Mechs direction or torso facing in order to fire my lasers because they were direct fire, and then needing to readjust again in order to hit with slower weapons. I do remember the game-play quite well, and yearn for it, again. You had to be trained in lag shooting -a real-world concept I didn't really understand was real until I went into the Army- and tactics were dictated more by that, and terrain, than point-and-click shooting required.

Quote

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.

I will kindly ask you to take that back, because it is patently untrue? A stair-step up from MW2 and a stair-step back down for MW4 I would agree with, but Mech Assault was a joke, and MW3 was not. MW3, as with all the other 'Mech games, was a bastardization of the board game, and you are absolutely correct, and that's the way it should be. However, game-play in all of the other 'Mech games has been based around twitch functionality, having absolutely NOTHING to do with even the physical reality that would take place in a BattleTech universe, let alone the game reality. The developers in ALL of those other 'Mech games took one look at the rules of the BattleTech tabletop game and tossed them out the window as quickly as they could get away with it; MW3 is the ONLY game of the 'Mech series that even came close to what it should have been.

Quote

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.

You must have grown up in a **** small house, then. Just because they're two to three stories tall doesn't mean they have a massive cockpit... living in one of those for more than a few weeks would be hell.

Vance Diamond, on 02 November 2011 - 01:36 AM, said:

Agree with Elucid Ward

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

I have to both agree and disagree here. There are roles in BattleTech, as pointed out elsewhere after your post was made, Vance, even though they don't really show up as hard-fast rules in the game series itself. However, having roles can help give necessary boundaries to people. Freedom, at least absolute freedom, is impossible, it's a total sham. Dictatorships, obviously, take freedoms away. Law is dictatorship, in some small form, even if we don't like or want to admit it. The laws are necessary to prosecute those who hurt others for their own personal gain. Chaos, anarchy, are what happens when you have absolute freedom, and most people will agree that anarchy is a horrible thing to have because, then, there's no way to have prosecuted those who destroy the lives of others. In this latter case, only the strong, literally, will survive, and as long as chaos and anarchy ensue -and there will always come a new Sheriff in town- the weak have no recourse to continue living life. The strong need the weak to be able to have productive lives, so once they're gone, anarchy and chaos would cease as a necessity, anyway.

So, we have to have boundaries, in some small fashion, to help us determine what is best for our lives, the lives of our family members, loved ones, and friends, and the lives of those around us. Boundaries, whether seen as artificial or stone, are necessary. Setting apart roles for players to fall into with this game is anthropologically sound, and it honestly makes sense for command structures, which are an absolutely necessary element if you want to actually construct armies to be able to win.

Quote

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

Agreed.

[Threat Doc]

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

I don't care about catering to the lowest common denominator. ****** 'em. If they get curb stomped by someone better, then they can learn to play better - in fact you learn more in losing than you do in winning. I hate the attitude that EVERYTHING in gaming should be handed to you with a happy ending. That undermines the skill aspect of the game.

Wouldn't you agree that the better learning would be through a relatively rigid training environment, instead, where they can learn all of the aspects necessary to play the game effectively? It is a myth that one learns BETTER by losing than winning, it is an equal bag. However, within a certain range of what an individual already knows, all training, through a rigid regimen, winning, or losing, is useless. In order for a person to grow, in real life or in on-line gaming, they have to get out of their comfort zone and learn how to do new things.

Quote

Any customisation within the bounds of the TRO and practical limitations of each chasis should be acceptable.

Here's some better ideas to control customisation (which i'm actually repeating), without actually limiting it more than the source material requires, along with reasons why.

- A way of curbing stupid boating is keeping the technology's worth canon (STUPIDLY MEGA EXPENSIVE)
- Controlling inflation - expenses and overheads through transport, fuel, repairs, maintenance, ammunition etc (so as to not trivialise the monetary system). Having enough money sinks in the game will mean that accruing vast riches will actually take hard work.
- Limiting the AMMOUNT of equipment one can possess through dropship and warehouse storage space. Too much **** and you gotta sell, or buy up some more real estate/another dropship at a stupid expensive price (money sink, inflation control mechanism).
- Try to limit inflation to a reasonable 2%, and increase costs accordingly as time goes on. That's where WOW failed - gold farming trivialised gold and caused inflation to spiral out of control, devaluing everything within the game, even though collectively, everyone was 'richer'.
- Make the cost of major work, in time and cash value, stupidly expensive - as I said before, it will lead to more thoughtful decisions.

Agreed.

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 03:45 AM, said:

Number one rule of business - you can't please everyone, so focus on your core audience, then expand outwards. Cast your net too wide, and you risk catching nothing at all.

Sound logic.

Amarus Cameron, on 02 November 2011 - 04:02 AM, said:

Also...the canon models really are waaaaay better than ours.

That is a load of ****, and a copout. Almost without exception, my designs have almost universally been far better than anything in canon, at least as far as Battle Value is concerned, anyway. The 'Mechs were designed the way they were, according to Jordan Weisman himself, on purpose, and the BattleMech design rules implemented from the very first box-set, so players would have the freedom to design and test new designs. The Wolverine is my favorite Medium 'Mech of all time, and one I desperately hope to be able to drive in MWO, though Catapult is my favorite 'Mech, period, and my AU1 model (BV 1572) is far and away better in all aspects than the 7D (beats BV by 482) and the 7L (beats BV by 407) models. It can maintain fire from range and, once an opponent has exhausted their munitions, can move in to close range and maintain the same fire values all the way in to 1 hex (30 meters) away. No, my design can deliver stunning firepower, and it's only a 55-ton 'Mech.

Asmudius Heng, on 02 November 2011 - 04:05 AM, said:

Well those that just want to kick *** will leave and thats fine ... but the ones that want to learn and be better will stay if it feels like they are making progress. If it does not then they will also leave and we lose an opportunity to build a bigger community.

Not catering to the entitled brats, just making sure that new people do not get so shat upon they give up before they learn the ropes.

Not certain I understand you completely, but are you saying it's better to cater to the long-time and/or hardcore BT/MW fans than it is to cater to the twitch crowd? If so, I agree with you 100%.

Amarus Cameron, on 02 November 2011 - 04:11 AM, said:

Indeed that is tricky, as most of us would love to teach someone the ropes, but most do seem to want the win button which would frustrate people like us.

That win button doesn't mean **** to me! I want to play, have a good time, and yes be able to teach the youngers what the game is supposed to really be about. If MWO turns out to be like MW2 and/or MW4, then the twitchers will have the game all to themselves before long, and the devs and SnT will be crying in their milk because they no longer have a game franchise to call home.

[Threat Doc]

Guys, I have to bug out of this one. I'm getting absolutely zero done in real life, and this discussion, for me, has run its' course. My hope is that, whatever the devs do, it will turn out to be an experience which welcomes back and fosters all of the old vets as well as striking a decent balance with allowing new folks to come in and play, choose their faction and be fostered within it for the sake of training and advancement, like it used to be in kinder times with MW2 and 3, prior to Pirate's Moon.

See you around the forums, folks.

[Vance Diamond]

Well argued, Kay Wolf

[Lightfoot]

Limit Mechlab? I would use real care here. Mechlab = diversity in gameplay, greater game depth, since battles are never cut and dried-out repeats.

Mechlab allows you to dynamically adapt your mech to a map or a tactic your team wants to employ. This adaptability extends the gameplay by making each encounter a little unique and sometimes completely new. You never know what tactic your opponent will spring on you for sure and they never know what you will do. No other game has that much variability, because it's not just one weapon, a 'mech can carry up to 16 weapons. Change 10-16 weapons and you changed the game.

The hardpoints that MW4 used kept the 'mechs true in spirit to the original, but also allowed them to be adapted to the mission and no mech could do all the missions. You still needed a variety of 'mechs in MW4. So limitation based on a 'mech's chassis hardpoints for weapons is good for game RP. RP in MechWarrior is near the top of gameplay elements.

However over-limitation of Mech-Lab prior to a drop will only hamper gameplay. Some limits, to make you think carefully, might be okay. Restrictive fees or timelines. No way, that's not MechWarrior. Mechlab in MechWarrior is a skill just like piloting and gunnery.

I bought Mech-Assault 1, but not the sequel because, no Mechlab and no Joystick Support. It's that important.

Edited by Lightfoot, 02 November 2011 - 09:17 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I don't buy stratops is the answer to all our problems. Its a relatively obscure system that is played with by people who are mostly "spirit of the rules" sorts of folks. The level of testing its go through will be many orders of magnitude less than MWO will see in the first couple of weeks. Many people online are hardcore break the rules sorts of people and will twist any weakness for advantage. Stratops is going to break. It might be a starting place, but it won't be the end.

[Moku]

Limiting to stock variants to players will allow the lance leaders to know exactly what you have to carry out tactics. In MW4 it was ridiculous how much time players wasted setting up their mechs with the "right" weapon configurations. Using points or paying for each variant loadout/mech plans, a limited weapons customization option, and unlocking 1-3 stat customization slots for each mech would roll in the dough.

That besides the usual cosmetic options, mechbay slots, and maybe renting mechs could bring in the money.

[jparbiter]

Honestly, the only thin Mech Lab should be able to do is allow you to choose between canon variants, nothing more.

[UncleKulikov]

Mechs of a chassis should have "slots" open for the default weapons, and only those slots open. You can swap out that weapon for an equivalent sized weapon, but not rearranging every single thing.

So if I take my atlas, and I remove it's LRM 20, I could replace it with items that took up the same crit space, but no more or less.

[Grimlox]

I would like to see something where you are able to customize within reason, but can't make a mech perform the opposite of it's intended design. It's nice to see a mech and visually have an expectation of what it will be capable of based on what you see visually.

[Elucid Ward]

jparbiter, on 02 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

Honestly, the only thin Mech Lab should be able to do is allow you to choose between canon variants, nothing more.

And thankfully, you're not on the dev team. This attitude has been proven wrong.

UncleKulikov, on 02 November 2011 - 10:18 AM, said:

Mechs of a chassis should have "slots" open for the default weapons, and only those slots open. You can swap out that weapon for an equivalent sized weapon, but not rearranging every single thing.

So if I take my atlas, and I remove it's LRM 20, I could replace it with items that took up the same crit space, but no more or less.

I believe this is incorrect - especially beyond the scope of Inner Sphere standard 'mechs.

[Skoll]

Unless LRMs, etc are an actual hardpoint built into the chassis, say like the Timber Wolf, you should be able to switch out any and all weapons.

That is unless the devs decide to go with MW4 and have there be Ballistic Hardpoints, Beam Hardpoits, and Missile Hardpoints that give you your options for weapon loadouts.

[Woodstock]

I loved being able to customise my mechs and would really struggle with having to use off the shelf variants.

But ... Its kind of canon.

Thats what omni mechs are! mechs you can customise!

Sure there are a few variants but they are all well documented. So allow us to paint our mechs and put company logos etc but limit us to fielding canon variants. Until omni mechs start to filter in and allow more customisation.

[Elucid Ward]

woodstock, on 02 November 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

I loved being able to customise my mechs and would really struggle with having to use off the shelf variants.

But ... Its kind of canon.

Thats what omni mechs are! mechs you can customise!

Sure there are a few variants but they are all well documented. So allow us to paint our mechs and put company logos etc but limit us to fielding canon variants. Until omni mechs start to filter in and allow more customisation.

Everyone is saying 'its canon not to customise' blah blah blah. BS.

Everything I've read from canon, says fkn otherwise. It's canon to CUSTOMISE, hence the ****** TRO frameworks for building your own variants and chasis.

In any given conflict, I have read about jury-rigged weapons systems thrown together in field repair bays from salvage in order to continue fighting, and I dare say, in any given situation, those little backyard jobbies weren't up to 'canon' 'stock' specifications.

[Woodstock]

But there is and should be a huge difference between jury rigged weapon mounts and the efficiency of a manufactured variant.

Jury rigging just screams adhoc and inferior.

Customising weapons ala mw4 etc was as if they just rolled off the production line.

I dont think that was what the books had in mind. maybe I'm wrong.

I would say though that omni mechs are a completely different story (clan and IS) for those I would fully support customising mechs.

I think being forced to use canon variants for the first few years would make us all better pilots

...

not sure about these TRO frameworks you mentioned ... maybe that was after when I got a bit out of touch ... post 3055.

[omegaclawe]

...you could, in the vein of these things being "Modifications" make the mech less... durable, as changes get more complex, too. Adding armor should make it more durable, yes, but not quite to the extent the original armor did, and it should be easier to score a crit on a modded part or something like that... under such a system.

This provides a more different balance to economy. Might be worth trying.

[Asmudius Heng]

It might be canon to customise ... but in btech not every mechwarrior would be able to. In a game everyone thinks they are the hero and should be able to customise to thier liking though so there are no rank and file mechs.

Blank slate = no mech flavours or roles.

Customising should be there though but it need to be done carefully so that the flavour of a mech is retained.

[Elucid Ward]

I'm just going to requote myself, and the solution I'm advocating for this:

Elucid Ward, on 02 November 2011 - 03:16 AM, said:

Any customisation within the bounds of the TRO and practical limitations of each chasis should be acceptable.

Here's some better ideas to control customisation (which i'm actually repeating), without actually limiting it more than the source material requires, along with reasons why.

- A way of curbing stupid boating is keeping the technology's worth canon (STUPIDLY MEGA EXPENSIVE)
- Controlling inflation - expenses and overheads through transport, fuel, repairs, maintenance, ammunition etc (so as to not trivialise the monetary system). Having enough money sinks in the game will mean that accruing vast riches will actually take hard work.
- Limiting the AMMOUNT of equipment one can possess through dropship and warehouse storage space. Too much **** and you gotta sell, or buy up some more real estate/another dropship at a stupid expensive price (money sink, inflation control mechanism).
- Try to limit inflation to a reasonable 2%, and increase costs accordingly as time goes on. That's where WOW failed - gold farming trivialised gold and caused inflation to spiral out of control, devaluing everything within the game, even though collectively, everyone was 'richer'.
- Make the cost of major work, in time and cash value, stupidly expensive - as I said before, it will lead to more thoughtful decisions.

I could go on. These are practical limitations on customisation - the ability to do what you want is still there, but there is a cost associated with everything, and thus, those that do manage to put together some unstoppable juggernaught of a Battlemech, will probably have ****** earned it when all is said and done.

[guardiandashi]

my $0.02 I would prefer some form of customization system be implemented because if feels more "true" to battletech to me.

with that said I would prefer a system more like the strategic ops system than the one implemented in mw4

yes the mw4 system had its positive points but it had a lot of negative points as well.

now when I read about the murcury's semi-modular nature I would liken it to something like:

on a standard battle mech changing a weapon is like (I imagine) changing the main cannon on a tank would be a fairly major production and a major pain in the rear. even though the battlemech has been improved and modularized to the point that swapping a mechs weapons (like changing a marauders ppc for a different one can be done in ~2 hrs) and swapping that example marauders ppc for a erppc can be done (per strategic ops) in somewhere between 2 and 6 hours "in the field"

changing a mechs engine is a lot more complicated and basically needs the equivalant of a dropships transport bay as long as you are just pulling the existing engine and swapping an equivalant, or the same type IE changing the marauders 300 standard fusion engine for either another std 300, or swapping for say a 375 std, or a 225 std (all full mp rating engines for the mech)

changing engine types on the other hand under strategic ops IE going form std to light or XL engines requires a factory level refit.

basically my belief is I would like some level of customization to be allowed.

back to the murcury example
the murcury had semi-modular weapons what this meant was that while you would need to do a standard refit (IE battlemech refit rules) to change the loadout you could pull and replace a damaged weapon (such as a medium laser) in basically omnimech pod swap times

now many people may argue with me about this but per canon resources full on omnimechs "pods" are not specifically a particular "package" of weapons. Yes that is how they are usually used but if I wanted I can essentually pull an autocannon arm off a thor, and mount it on a madcat there may be issues doing so but its possible I can also take the er medium lasers from a nova's cluster pack off and mount them on the timberwolf there may be crit issues but it can be done.

what the omnimechs are all about is flexability both in armament and in speed of repair

[Elucid Ward]

guardiandashi I agree with everything you said. But for some the internal vocalisation of your post was slow, droning, hippy and stoner in fashion... weird...