273 replies to this topic

[Amarus Cameron]

How about we simply run with the FASA mechs and rules for customization. As has been said here in many many different ways, the mechlabs in the original mechwarrior's were broken. If we go by strict rules as FASA had to prevent stupid mechs that break game balance then you have people crying about stifling creativity, but hey not everyone is going to be happy about it. In my opinion, because that is all this forum is for, the idea of a mech lab was originally an idea concocted by surats for the other savarshi freebirths that thought they knew better than game creators. If you want anything beyond what was originally lined out as a way to customize a mech then I believe we have had at least one good opinion presented by CarpeMortis on the first page.

[Threat Doc]

Amarus Cameron (oof), that is the perfect solution. However, you will have those who are not BT vets who will always say they love the MW series means of 'Mech development. Now, MWIII had the perfect 'Mechlab, it was absolutely correct according to the board game, and I loved it. For my part, I still believe heavily that everyone should begin with a stock 'Mech of their choice, in accordance with their role, and then have the option to modify as money and parts become available through game-play.

[Threat Doc]

I hate Windows Live Mail because it flip-flops my Ascending/Descending setting all the time, and no one has any answer to change it, so I answer younger emails rather than older ones, first.

Vance Diamond, on 31 October 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

The MW3 environment is not really something you can hold up as an example because that was back in the early days of online gaming- when net code was **** and people thought 56k modems were fast. People used Shadowcats because you had to lead your targets, and the faster you were, the harder it was to calculate the lag.

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.

Quote

In the modern online environment- a Shadowcat popping 16 flamers and no armor is going to get drilled so fast it won't even be funny.

And if heat is worked correctly, shooting that many flamers will cripple your movement speed, if not shut you down altogether. If damage is worked correctly (as in, excess damage properly transfers and internal components are actually tracked and destroyed) your engine is going to be destroyed before you get close. You're going to need armor, and heavier teammates to distract your foes so you can strike at the rear arc.

Flamers raise 3 heat to give 2 damage under 90 meters, and should never have been such a good weapon to use in any game. So, yeah, any 'Mech padded with big heat, low damage, short range weapons should suffer. Long range weapons with low damage and/or low heat, such as the AC/2, are also pretty heavy, and that's as it should be.

My problem with the ER Large Laser and the AC/2 from MW4 is that they would knock a 'Mech's cockpit around so badly that if, for instance, someone were piloting a Deimos, with 4 AC/2s, or someone were driving a 'Mech equipped with 4 ER Large Lasers, all an attacking pilot needed to do was hold a count between each discharge of one weapon in their chain, and they could destroy an enemy without any possibility of retaliation, which is wrong. With MechWarrior III, if you were fired at by anything smaller than an AC/20 or PPC, you had almost no reaction whatsoever. The weapons, heat, damage, knock-around, etc., etc., etc., were the most balanced in MWIII.

Quote

Customization does not have to be limited if the foundational mechanics of mech components is correctly implemented.

Agreed.

[Owl Cutter]

Whoa, MW3's mechlab was not "absolutely correct according to the board game." Even ignoring the fact that it did not seem to differentiate between a simple field-refit level swap and replacing the whole chassis or engine, for one it had Tarcomps being always one ton.

I'm in the camp supporting lots of customisation, with lots of restrictions like time, money, whether you have access to a factory, etc. The construction rules and the myriad possibilities they allow are one of the biggest draws of the board game, and the tiered limitations developed for role play and campaigns seem perfect for a Mechwarrior game with individualised character progression.

[Threat Doc]

Hmm, you are correct, as far as I can tell, about the targeting computer ("The size and weight of an advanced targeting computer depends on the amount of direct-fire weaponry it will control. For every 5 tons or fraction thereof of direct-fire weapons it will control, the targeting computer requires 1 ton and 1 critical space." ye auld BattleTech Compendium, copyright 1994)

Targeting computers in MWIII were useless, anyway, and I never used them, so I didn't have anything to wrestle over. And, as for changing everything out, the Mechlab in MWIII was as close to perfect as they could get, and absolutely perfect compared to every other MW game produced before or since. Now, if you've read this entire thread, you will remember that I have advocated several times for limited customization, requiring money, resources, and/or time. If I did not say that in THIS particular thread, I have said it in others.

[Amarus Cameron]

kay wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 05:23 AM, said:

Amarus Cameron (oof)

I figure I will grab quite a bit of flak for the name but in time it will make sense until then I patiently take the jibes, if I was you looking at me, I would blast me for the blasphemy of my name.

(BTW Amarus is actually A'marus, it has been my handle for years...not Amaris, Kerensky forbid it!)

[Threat Doc]

At least it's not Amaris Kerensky, hehe. And, I suppose Saddam and Osama are used frequently throughout the Middle East, and not all of those folks are terrorists, so the Usurper's name could be used frequently, as well. Besides, as you pointed out, it's A'marUs, not AmarIs, hehe.

[CarpeMortis]

The fear and mistrust of customization is a result of of the unrestricted customization options available in the past games... Even MW4's "slot" system was still unbound by any real kind of economy. The free customization even extends to the tabletop game. Few gaming groups take the time and effort to really simulate an economy of any significant complexity. Why should they? IF they can keep it balanced among a few friends, then there is no reason to delve into the incredibly detailed and math-heavy rules required to track every expense and time every repair action...


That's why we have computers! The rules can be broken into easily digestible chunks, and the math can be automated. A real economy, with real supply and demand, coupled with a persistent stable of mechs for each player or merc company would solve the problems associated with customization in the old games. Got yourself a CN9 with a Gauss rifle? Congratulations, you are the proud owner of a target. Scraped up enough cash to buy that AWS? Good for you, now pay to fix it. You want to slap that shiny new ER Large Laser in your Crocket? Too bad, cause your new tech just scratched the focusing lens, it'll cost you another 5000 Cbills and 2 weeks to get a new lens. Your spider has double heat sinks? Oops! the supply just ran dry... Is it hot in here?

Gone are the free LB-10X reloads, and easy weapon swaps. In their place you now have a rich and rewarding persistent campaign.

P.S. Amarus, you capitalized my name right, even though the forums did not. Do I know you by some other name? I've always been so bad with proper nouns... Okay just nouns in general really

Edited by carpemortis, 01 November 2011 - 07:59 AM.

[omegaclawe]

I'm not really feelin' like reading this whole topic, so forgive me if this was suggested at some point after the first page, but...

Customization should probably mostly be limited by pilot level. Straight out of the gun, a pilot should only be able to use basic stock configurations, but as they level up, they can unlock the ability to use other variants, before moving to something similar to Mektek's take on MW4 Free, and finally reaching the point where they can put almost anything anywhere. To help balance this late-game customization, it should be prohibitively expensive to, for instance, swap out an autocannon with an LRM, or fit a large weapon in place of where smaller weapons go. If this also raises repair costs, or whatever they may have in place of that, you wouldn't see too many of those fruity mechs, but there'd still be the ability to use them.

[Threat Doc]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

The rules can be broken into easily digestible chunks, and the math can be automated. A real economy, with real supply and demand, coupled with a persistent stable of mechs for each player or merc company would solve the problems associated with customization in the old games. Got yourself a CN9 with a Gauss rifle? Congratulations, you are the proud owner of a target. Scraped up enough cash to buy that AWS? Good for you, now pay to fix it. You want to slap that shiny new ER Large Laser in your Crocket? Too bad, cause your new tech just scratched the focusing lens, it'll cost you another 5000 Cbills and 2 weeks to get a new lens. Your spider has double heat sinks? Oops! the supply just ran dry... Is it hot in here?

Gone are the free LB-10X reloads, and easy weapon swaps. In their place you now have a rich and rewarding persistent campaign.

Man, that sounds so good. Good way to look at it Carpe...

omegaclawe, on 01 November 2011 - 07:53 AM, said:

Customization should probably mostly be limited by pilot level. Straight out of the gun, a pilot should only be able to use basic stock configurations, but as they level up, they can unlock the ability to use other variants, before moving to something similar to Mektek's take on MW4 Free, and finally reaching the point where they can put almost anything anywhere. To help balance this late-game customization, it should be prohibitively expensive to, for instance, swap out an autocannon with an LRM, or fit a large weapon in place of where smaller weapons go. If this also raises repair costs, or whatever they may have in place of that, you wouldn't see too many of those fruity mechs, but there'd still be the ability to use them.

I like that option, actually, as it would further limit even those who are able to raise resources quickly. Nicely thought.

[Mchawkeye]

My two cents?
Mech4 mechlab had the right idea, if poorly implemented. I like the idea that certain points on mechs were only viable for certain types of weaponry, with clan omnis and more advanced IS designs being more flexible in this respect. This, I think, would maintain balance as well as enforce the role based game play they want; i.e. the glorious Vulture is always going to be a missile based fire support mech, because the main armament will always be huge rack of missiles.
I firmly believe that customisation of an individuals mech is one of the things that will keep people around. I know I love to fiddle with my load-outs (heh) until I'm happy and I expect nothing less from MWO. Possibly some kind of in-game VR simulation to allow you to test your mechs might be cool.
Obviously, equipment installation (like targeting computers, for example) would need to be handled more complexly than in mech4.
Also they need to make the GUI for such a thing far less stupid than it was in Mech4. Sometimes, with the big boxes and colours, it felt like I was playing with some kind of kids activity book. I much preferred the data-like readouts of MW2.
HOWEVER
I suspect, since they want to appeal to a broad range of gamers, I get the feeling that levels of customisation (and perhaps even the nature of it) will be as deep or as shallow as you want.
Me? I'll probably spend as much time tinkering with my mechs as I will in game blowing the **** outta folks. Hopefully.

[omegaclawe]

IIRC, there's a vulture variant that replaces the missiles with a pair of Gauss Rifles, but it's an Omnimech, so... yeah.

[Nebfer]

Mchawkeye, on 01 November 2011 - 10:29 AM, said:

My two cents?
Mech4 mechlab had the right idea, if poorly implemented. I like the idea that certain points on mechs were only viable for certain types of weaponry, with clan omnis and more advanced IS designs being more flexible in this respect. This, I think, would maintain balance as well as enforce the role based game play they want; i.e. the glorious Vulture is always going to be a missile based fire support mech, because the main armament will always be huge rack of missiles.

The Mad dog (Vulture) is an Omnimech, it should not of had any fixed hard points (unless that item was fixed). In fact the C, E and F configurations do not have any missiles on them, and the F configuration has lasers where the "missile racks" should be. Though the MW4 system changed a lot of the regular B-tech rules (it also changed a few mechs default configs).



Well maintaining things should take time and (in game) money (MW 2 Mercs had the money part).
An items quality should also have something to do with this.

Maintaining a mech should not be cheap, no should repair or customizing a mech. Also paying for good quality techs to maintain your mech should be not cheap as well.

Edited by nebfer, 01 November 2011 - 11:30 AM.

[CoffiNail]

omegaclawe, on 01 November 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

IIRC, there's a vulture variant that replaces the missiles with a pair of Gauss Rifles, but it's an Omnimech, so... yeah.

Mad Dog C Surats!

One of my favourite mechs... has limited ammuntion, but ohh boy, what a punch! My desire is to see the Mad Dog as the weapons platform it should be and not the support mech it always seems to be.

Yeah, it works good as support, but, clans fight 1 on 1 mostly. Mad Dog B is one of my favourite on paper omnimechs though. Mix ranged, if only it had the heat sinks to support it.
Downgrade the LRM20 to LRM15 and it lets you add a couple more sinks.

[Amarus Cameron]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 07:47 AM, said:

P.S. Amarus, you capitalized my name right, even though the forums did not. Do I know you by some other name? I've always been so bad with proper nouns... Okay just nouns in general really

first of all I like you further sugestion on this, the idea of a persistance and in depth economy of damage and resupply is an excellent addendum to the game, more of a game within a game for those of us that like to run numbers.

And to answer your question, no I dod not know you but I figured that they were both separate words changed into a callsign, much as my name is Amarus as I chose it way back in 2001 when I saw the word A'marus...and as we know many games do not like apostrophes in names. So I have been Amarus for a decade...dang time flies.

[Deadmeat313]

Really, I think mech modding should be kept to a minimum.

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."

Thats actually a pretty good lance. The Hunchback can lurk near the Catapult and discourage enemies from approaching too closely. The Centurion is good at all ranges. The Javelin can scout and spot for indirect LRM fire. The Catapult can use its mobility to get to fire positions, and can duck behind his lance mates when danger looms too close.

If they then all run up and start to chop me to pieces with pulse lasers I will be miffed. Whats the point of having all the amazingly varied models of mechs in the game if you can just hit "Strip All Weapons" and completely re-fit them.

The canon mechs have roles and capabilities that make them useful on the battlefield. They need to be deployed and played to their strengths, not homogenised.

What I would like to see are progressions of mech upgrades that keep the feel of each mech. AC5s being upgraded to PPCs (as happens on the Zeus and Dragon); Pulse lasers being fitted in place of medium lasers; Artemis IV making LRMs better. Eventually, Clan equivalents of the standard weapons making the mech top of its class. You'd still know roughly what the mech was capable of if you met it on the field though. I think that is important.

T.

[Daneiel]

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 .

[Ruoste]

One big question! Why clans designed OMNI mechs If the mech customization is so easy??
NO to custom mechs!!!!!

[saviour]

MW4's mechlab was the mst logical one - poorly implemented though because they did not factor in ammo and the bulk of the weapons. Anyone that tried the NM4 mod would know what I mean.

That or the MW2 Mercs way, were you can customise everything, but will pay a hefty price.

To strip an AC20 would cost as much as the weapon itself. A fully customised Hunchback with some jjets, an XL engine and double H/S could end up costing double the original amount.

I'd rather have that option to be honest. I'm not sure why people do not mention this. Too many young ones around me thinks.

You want customisation? Prepare to pay for it.

[CarpeMortis]

Again shy of posting the rules from the books verbatim (And then having them taken down for copyright violations), I can't stress enough, that the published tabletop rules for customization cover this VERY well. In the context of a game that a large audience would want to play, Merc units spend a vast majority of time deployed. When deployed they have limited facilities, ranging in capabilities from simple reloading platforms to minor refit stations, depending on where they are deployed. the MOST you can do at those facilities, is swap a weapon, or change an armor type. And it's not cheap, easy, or quick to do anything on that level. That's EXACTLY why Omnis were invented, so you could quickly swap weapons. But we don't have Omnis. So if you want to swap a weapon, it's possible, and will cost you time and money... Time that could be spent out earning more money... In the tabletop rules Weapons have a type, tonnage, and take up space (just like in MW2 & 3). If you want to swap a weapon that is the same type, same tonnage, and same size (Say a flamer for a Medium laser) then it's relatively easy. You could get it done in a day, and it won't cost you much... The more of those things (type weight and size) you want to change, the harder more expensive and longer it will take... The presence of a persistent game world, would make these factors VERY important, as money and time become far more important than in the previous Mwechwarriors. Do you spend an week swapping out an AC for a PPC, or do you deploy the mech to earn more money?

P.S. Amarus, that's good. I just did the math, I've been CarpeMortis for 16 years, and a mechwarrior for 20... add in the possibility of memory loss, and I'm not sure I could handle it.

Edited by carpemortis, 01 November 2011 - 12:11 PM.