273 replies to this topic

[Darkmoose]

MW4 Customization was awful, It made Omni Mechs non-Omni, if you look at the cannon variants of standard mechs, weapons are all over the place anyway, you may have a Hunchback with a AC/20, several LRM or SRM racks, or all the medium lasers and heat sinks you can fit. Some people will Max/Min Mechs, and create munchkins, that just makes it all the better when you kill them with a stock mech.

[Darkmoose]

Just stick to the CGL rules for customizing mechs, have a time and money penalty for outrageous requests, like switching out engines, Internal structure, lostech, etc.

[Thundercles]

I think a lot of it is going to depend on how useful the weapons are. I don't have any books close at hand, but I seem to remember a lot of default configurations using MGs, for example. If this is a weapon you're never going to see any real utility out of, but you're going to be stuck with it... then that is absolutely going to be a problem.

Count me amongst the camp that advocates broad customization, limited by resources available (time, money, parts, facilities) and perhaps 'level' (or rank/prestige... the 'named' guys always have tweaked mechs, right?). I was never a fan of the MW3 system of customization - even if it fit the tabletop, it just seemed like it flew in the face of the concept that its hard to overhaul a mech's configuration. I think MW4 was on to something... without rebuilding the chassis from the ground up, certain places were just designed to deal with certain weapons. Heavy recoil suppression integral to the chassis in ballistic locations. Beefier power conduits to beam locations. Exhaust venting for missiles. It may not fit 100% with tabletop rules, but as has been mentioned elsewhere, they're in this for the money. Static/highly inflexible load-outs would make a minority happy, but in the long run would push away too many people to be viable. At least, in my opinion - which is all this should be taken as.

[CarpeMortis]

I keep trying to stress, that MW2 and MW3 were not really true to the current tabletop customization rules... They were CLOSE to the tabletop construction rules, but they completely ignored a vast majority of the rules regarding costs. You were given a limitless amount of money and parts and techs that could instantly build a mech from the ground up. Even in the Mercenaries expansions you only worried about the parts costs, labor was largely ignored... That is why you saw boats, and min/maxed designs, and ballistic mechs outfitted with PPCs and lasers. Add in the economic consequences and labor time, and you will see a significant change in the way customization is utilized.

[verybad]

I want customization to be limited, so a mech like for instance the Awesome isn't suddenly an AC or missile boat.

Free customization results in every mech being every other mech from it's weight class. It results in less diversity in what is used because players end up taking the mech with the best hit areas.

Additionally, people complain that it's "not like battlemech" Yet in most Battlemech tournaments, you're not allowed to make mechs however you want, you have to use stock mechs.

MW3 online was boring to play because it was almost all Shadowhawks circledeathing you and using lag with layouts that were definately not canon.

Free customization results in people minmaxing their rides, it results in boring gameplay, and most mechs not being used. Even if most players don't want to minmax, the games are won by people that DO minmax, resulting in other players doing the same in order to remain relevant.

I prefer MW4 style limitation. It can be used as a basis, it wasn't perfect, but is resulted in Archers not being Marauders not being Thors. There was a lot more diversity in mechs chosen for actual games, which extended the lifespan of that game a lot.

[CarpeMortis]

Okay lets take a look at these points here...

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

I want customization to be limited, so a mech like for instance the Awesome isn't suddenly an AC or missile boat.

Again the Tabletop rules published by Catalyst Games address this.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Free customization results in every mech being every other mech from it's weight class. It results in less diversity in what is used because players end up taking the mech with the best hit areas.

And at the end of this post you say that you want Mw4 style customization... that system will have basically the same result. Only instead of the best physical profile, the only mechs you will see will be the ones with the best weapon slot options. The solution to this problem is NOT to change what a player can do to his or her mechs, but what the consequences of those modifications are.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Additionally, people complain that it's "not like battlemech" Yet in most Battlemech tournaments, you're not allowed to make mechs however you want, you have to use stock mechs.

Apples and oranges... Most tourneys are simple campaigns that run less than 5 games, and rarely have any complicated salvage or repair mechanics. The official tournaments tend to be designed to reach as many players as possible, and as a result need to be simple. They are run by humans, and in a short time span. This is a computer game, run by computers, and potentially spanning years. Simplification of mechanics is not necessary, because the computers can handle the back-end. All that is needed is an accessible front end.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

MW3 online was boring to play because it was almost all Shadowhawks circledeathing you and using lag with layouts that were definately not canon.

This was addressed in the first two points.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Free customization results in people minmaxing their rides, it results in boring gameplay, and most mechs not being used. Even if most players don't want to minmax, the games are won by people that DO minmax, resulting in other players doing the same in order to remain relevant.

I agree here Again the solution is not to remove customization, but to add in costs and consequences for doing so. MW4 "Slot" style customizing will not remove the min/max issue... see the next point.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

I prefer MW4 style limitation. It can be used as a basis, it wasn't perfect, but is resulted in Archers not being Marauders not being Thors. There was a lot more diversity in mechs chosen for actual games, which extended the lifespan of that game a lot.

That's not what increased the lifespan of the game, the utter lack of an alternative is what increased MW4's life beyond anything else. With slot style customization, you'll have a single mech chassis filling each roll. One chassis will be found to provide the best combination of slots, and will become the dominant unit for the role in question.

The idea of customization, either intentional, or out of nesessity (IE you have no more PPCs, time to slap an AC/5 in there), brings a whole new level of strategy and game play. The problem is one of how to limit customization. A problem that has already been addressed by Catalyst Games in the tabletop customization/repair rules (NOT the construction rules).

[mithril coyote]

looking back at the different mechwarrior games..

MW1....no customization at all. (really sucked due to the lack of mech options)
MW2....extensive customization. almost too good, since you could mess around with total tonnage, and make "underweight" units that actually weighed less than their total tonnage said.
MW2 mercs... same as MW2, but more so. the addition of a cost limit to modifications offset the major problems in the main campaign though.
MW3... extensive customization. this was the first MW game to free itself of the boardgames movement limits. you no longer had to use engine ratings that were multiples of the tonnage... good idea, but allowed for some really munchy customization.
MW4... wide customization, but the switch to pod based weapons mountings made for very bizzare and often rather munchy conversions. it also made it almost impossible to convert to alternate canon models on most mechs. a Vulture was limited entirely to energy and missiles for example..making any config with with an autocannon or guass rifle (well over half the canon configs) impossible.


i'd rather have MW2 mercs style customization, only without the ability to modify the chassis total tonnage. so if i'm modifying a jenner, it has to weigh 35 tons. any result that comes in below that or above that isn't useable.

oh and;

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

I want customization to be limited, so a mech like for instance the Awesome isn't suddenly an AC or missile boat.

Awesome ASW-8R. twin LRM-15's and a large laser.
or the ASW-8. twin LRM-15, twin large laser.
opr the ASW-8V. LRM-15, PPC, large laser.

all canon configs.

Edited by mithril coyote, 01 November 2011 - 01:24 PM.

[Threat Doc]

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 .

I know I've quoted this twice, now, but I really like what is being said, here.

Ruoste, on 01 November 2011 - 11:55 AM, said:

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

I'm seeing your point from both sides, here. OmniMech customization is not all that easy, either, or at least it's not supposed to be, and the folks who build the MW4 series didn't realize what they were doing, the dynamics they were changing simply by making it easy to swap out pods for EVERYONE, Inner Sphere and Clan 'Mechs alike. However, OmniMechs will be in the game shortly after the game is released, whether they are going to be AI enemies or players can swap into the Clans is as yet unknown; regardless, Omni's can have their pods swapped out in far less time than Inner Sphere 'Mechs, which is customization in and of itself, even if there are just a few sets of pods to choose from. So, if customization is going to be allowed for Clan Omni's, then it also needs to be allowed for Inner Sphere 'Mechs.

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 12:07 PM, said:

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?

Having an economy that is persistent, even if limited to battlefield roles, would change the dynamics of the battlefield so greatly that even twitchers would have to think twice.

Darkmoose, on 01 November 2011 - 12:32 PM, said:

Just stick to the CGL rules for customizing mechs, have a time and money penalty for outrageous requests, like switching out engines, Internal structure, lostech, etc.

Okay, so are you saying that small changes, like same or similar weapon types going into a slot, different types of armor, small electronics where they could be placed would not require any money or time factoring, just the larger changes to be made?

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

I keep trying to stress, that MW2 and MW3 were not really true to the current tabletop customization rules... They were CLOSE to the tabletop construction rules, but they completely ignored a vast majority of the rules regarding costs. You were given a limitless amount of money and parts and techs that could instantly build a mech from the ground up. Even in the Mercenaries expansions you only worried about the parts costs, labor was largely ignored... That is why you saw boats, and min/maxed designs, and ballistic mechs outfitted with PPCs and lasers. Add in the economic consequences and labor time, and you will see a significant change in the way customization is utilized.

This is something I can wrap my head around. I love to play with numbers, and I think being limited to the resources a unit is able to gather for field swaps, and then bigger changes to a design requiring some manner of advanced facility to complete, such as a DropShip while en route to a contract or orders, would be an enormously good idea. It would definitely shift the dynamics of almost everything in the game universe, closer to what the tabletop version calls for. Frankly, and I know I might catch trouble for this, but a LOT of people have told me they love the ideals of the BattleTech universe, and even the devs here have said some things won't work in this game, but they don't love the idea of playing them in a computer game version of the universe, but they haven't even tried to incorporate those things, haven't tried to see how they will actually work within the game.

It's a copout, frankly, and the tabletop game universe, for BattleTech and the MechWarrior RPG, were designed to act in a certain way. I believe that, if they really tried to build the game around the universe, it would not only be VERY FAR from boring to play, but the dynamics would be such that concepts such as honor, proper resource management, and others would regain the credence they should have had from the beginning.

[verybad]

You're not going to have concepts of Honor work. It's an online game, and even if only 1% of the players minmax, their success will always lead to others copying their methods. Additionally, one person's "honor" is relative. While some may think Zellbrigen or dueling is the way to fight, other's are going to see that as foolish, and certainly un Mercenary. Who is to say who is right?

Furthermore, the battletech boardgame is far from balanced, some weapons are simply better than others. Some mechs are used for some roles, free customization takes all the traditional role from every mech and makes it a generic weaponsbag.

Economy could be used to limit minmaxing, but eventually you run into MercCorps minmaxing individual's rides to give them an advantage, and other things like that.

I guarantee every trick in the book will be used to minmax. Limiting customization for various mechs to keep them within a certain role will at least lead to some diversity on the battlefield.

[guardiandashi]

my suggestion is either have lots of chassis/varients available with little to no customization
or have something closer to the strategic ops/ or fasa era customization rules
note that is 3 options

under current rules a weapons swap can typically be done in a couple hours or less depending on what is being changed

eg you have a marauder with ppc's and you want erppc's ~2-6 hrs per to change them
you have a 3025 marauder and want to refit to dhs can be done on a dropship, but its going to take 1 tech team ~1-2 weeks to do the job
of course with cannon travel times spending a week or 2 refitting a mech is no biggie since it can take months to go from laio to FRR (Free Raslehague Republic)

personally I HATED the mw4 weapons slots implementation thats not to say I don't understand the logic behind it but the execution did not work well especially when there was insufficient room to make canon configs WORK.

[Pht]

---------------------------------------------

"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.

Should be pretty straight forwards.

Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).

Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.

This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.

Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.

One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).

Edited by Pht, 01 November 2011 - 01:48 PM.

[CarpeMortis]

Okay an abstract of the customization rules from Strategic Operations... (I dont' want to step on any copyright toes here) Keep in mind we are not discussing CONSTRUCTION rules, just CUSTOMIZATION.

Quote

There are two types mentioned (P.188 Strat Ops), Refit Kits and One-off Customization.

Refit Kits are simply a pre-packaged set of equipment and modifications factory designed to be installed on an existing mech. They really arent' what we are talking about here when we discuss "customization", though they could easily have a place in the game. They function basically the same as One-off Customization that i'll discuss next except that you don't get to choose what is changed. However, they are easier and cheaper to obtain and install, plus you don't lose any quality

One-off Customization is what we are discussing here. They are "home brew" modifications to existing mechs.You still have to follow the construction rules, so you can't sue these rules to make an "illegal" mech. They fall into one of 6 classes, and require one of 3 types of facilities. All costs are based on the equipment costs, and labor time. Additionally making any of these modifications reduces the overall quality of the mech. That in turn increases maintenance cycles and costs.

The first two classes can be done in the field, and only allow you to replace items with other items that weigh the same and take up equal or less space, and only to install them in the same location as the replaced part.

The second two classes require a repair bay (For example a Dropship), and allow you to change armor types, and swap item locations. These mods take 2-3 times as long as the first two classes.

The last two classes require a factory, and the let you change things like internal structure type, and engine rating or type. These take 4-5 times as long as the first two classes.

In particular that loss of quality in modifying a mech will go a LONG way towards discouraging massive modification in a persistent game world. more downtime, and increased cost to maintain a unit can quickly outweigh the benefits of swapping out weapons. Another major factor would be the facilities required, most of the time units will only have access to field facilities, with repair bays being limited to between drops, and factories limited to be tween deployments. But in the end, exercising control over the cost and availability of any or all of the things required for customization, will be the key to limiting the abuse of the feature.

Edited by carpemortis, 01 November 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[Master Q]

For my point:

- We're in 3049. There are not that many variants available, and for the most part variants come that way out of the factory. Unless you're Victor Steiner-Davion or you have a bucketload of C-bills and a jury-rigger on payroll in your Solaris VII stable, you can't afford to have your individual 'Mech customized at all. If you're REALLY lucky, you might be able to rig together something like the original Yen-Lo-W-ang, but even that is a result of some serious tinkering and game time. Merc companies with hacked-together variants made from salvage exist, but they spend months of downtime prepping them.

- Further, even what some people are calling "Omnimechs" have limited customizability. If you've ever read your actual sourcebooks, the "Omni" tech isn't so much about swapping out weapons on the fly as it is about making for easier repairs. Every Clan Omni still has a list of approved variants that the targeting computer has to be programmed to handle, has to take those preprogrammed pods or suffer the consequences (unless you're crazy high in the command structure and have one hell of a personal Tech following you around), and most of them don't really allow for swapping of the torso components anyways.

Mechwarrior 4 could have gone the "only stock variants or omnipod swaps" route, but they didn't - they did the next best thing, which was limit you to only similar types of weaponry (so you couldn't dump a bunch of lasers in a bay designed for, say, an AC/20).

I'd honestly think something similar is in order - you take a stock mech till you build up salvage/cred, you spend your cred on 'Mech repairs in order to pay for the labor to do the swaps, and you are limited to where your salvage can be applied. Sure, you can upgrade that Defiance Industries AC/10 to a Pontiac AC/20 or even a Lubalin Ballistics model by dropping your SRM rack and ammo, but you can't trade a PPC out for that Gauss rifle, there just aren't applicable connections on the chassis.

Likewise, I am REALLY hopeful that they start requiring faction-specific 'Mechs. You sign up with Liao, you should have Liao 'Mechs on hand. You join the Free Worlds League? Hermes, Trebuchet, maybe a Stalker for the best of the best. You hitch up with the Draconis Combine? Welcome the army, here's your Dragon.

[Edit: I know we have text/swear filters and all, but really, the name of a famous battlemech getting filtered is just plain annoying]

Edited by master q, 01 November 2011 - 01:54 PM.

[Threat Doc]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

The idea of customization, either intentional, or out of nesessity (IE you have no more PPCs, time to slap an AC/5 in there), brings a whole new level of strategy and game play. The problem is one of how to limit customization. A problem that has already been addressed by Catalyst Games in the tabletop customization/repair rules (NOT the construction rules).

Carpe, what book are those rules in? I need to take a look at them and see what CGL did differently than the previous rules of warfare released by them and FASA before them.

mithril coyote, on 01 November 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

looking back at the different mechwarrior games..

MW1....no customization at all. (really sucked due to the lack of mech options)
MW2....extensive customization. almost too good, since you could mess around with total tonnage, and make "underweight" units that actually weighed less than their total tonnage said.

Have you looked at the TROs, especially the older ones? Many of the 'Mechs in those are short on tonnage. FASA said it was done that way on purpose, though the excuse they gave me was a pretty silly one, to my mind.

Quote

MW3... extensive customization. this was the first MW game to free itself of the boardgames movement limits. you no longer had to use engine ratings that were multiples of the tonnage... good idea, but allowed for some really munchy customization.

On this one I really have to disagree. If the game universe were the real world, then this concept would be pretty nice to have, and a legitimate argument exists for having it in the framework. However, the rule of movement x tonnage = engine rating is actually a very good one.

Quote

MW4... wide customization, but the switch to pod based weapons mountings made for very bizzare and often rather munchy conversions. it also made it almost impossible to convert to alternate canon models on most mechs. a Vulture was limited entirely to energy and missiles for example..making any config with with an autocannon or guass rifle (well over half the canon configs) impossible.

You're arguing against yourself here. It's very bizarre and often rather munchy, but you wanted to be able to place Autocannons or Gauss Rifles? For my money, I believe the original 'Mech development rules should be adhered to, with the addition of the equivalent of the pods from MW4... hear me out... the spaces should be designated, based on original base design and/or variants, for weapon, ammo, and electronic types that will fit into that space. However, that's also a whole lot more work than, I'm sure, the devs really want to see, or do, so I'll be happy to have limited, if any customization.

verybad, on 01 November 2011 - 01:25 PM, said:

You're not going to have concepts of Honor work.

Sure you can. Remember how leg shots, head shots, etc. used to be screamed about in prior MW games? How certain maneuvers and tactics were restricted, or at least shouted down pretty heavily? The same could be done, here... Get a set of honorable conduct rules together, agreed on by the community ~OR~ simply established according to BattleTech code or prior MW community experience, and then assess bonuses and penalties to an honor stat. For example, if someone shoots at someone else's legs, scoring hits, a certain number of times under a particular time limit, they are assessed an honor penalty. The player doesn't have to know what's going on, but they will begin to see their ability to customize, to gain rank, to fight in certain battles, or take on certain contracts {because potential employers would have access to the honor stats of the warriors and, collectively, the unit in question} because their pilots are scum. This would also change the battlefield dynamics, don't ya think? Have a scale be 100 points, everyone begins with 50; each battle won honorably, without any of the honor code violations, is granted a single point toward the 100, and everyone committing honor violations receives the demerits garnered during gameplay, toward 0. More honorable will have better supplies, weapons, armor, electronics availability, from new, though expensive, while less honorable will have better access to black market supplies, etc., perhaps less expensive, but also almost necessarily of lower quality and higher failure and TBO rates.

Again, I know I'm asking for a great deal of work to be done, here, and will not see it, but it's an idea nonetheless.

[CarpeMortis]

kay wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

Carpe, what book are those rules in? I need to take a look at them and see what CGL did differently than the previous rules of warfare released by them and FASA before them.

Strategic Operations: Page 188

kay wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

For my money, I believe the original 'Mech development rules should be adhered to, with the addition of the equivalent of the pods from MW4... hear me out... the spaces should be designated, based on original base design and/or variants, for weapon, ammo, and electronic types that will fit into that space. However, that's also a whole lot more work than, I'm sure, the devs really want to see, or do, so I'll be happy to have limited, if any customization.

The Strat ops covers this. The first class requires the same type of item, and the second lets you switch, but it has to be the same size or smaller (including ammo). The way the tonnage and size spread works across weapons, you are generally very limited in your options here. Anything more extensive requires a dedicated facility, and that means you have to to be off the front lines. that in turns means you are not earning money to pay for these modifications.

[Threat Doc]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 01:47 PM, said:

Quote

There are two types mentioned (P.188 Strat Ops), Refit Kits and One-off Customization.

Refit Kits are simply a pre-packaged set of equipment and modifications factory designed to be installed on an existing mech. They really arent' what we are talking about here when we discuss "customization", though they could easily have a place in the game. They function basically the same as One-off Customization that i'll discuss next except that you don't get to choose what is changed. However, they are easier and cheaper to obtain and install, plus you don't lose any quality

One-off Customization is what we are discussing here. They are "home brew" modifications to existing mechs.You still have to follow the construction rules, so you can't sue these rules to make an "illegal" mech. They fall into one of 6 classes, and require one of 3 types of facilities. All costs are based on the equipment costs, and labor time. Additionally making any of these modifications reduces the overall quality of the mech. That in turn increases maintenance cycles and costs.

The first two classes can be done in the field, and only allow you to replace items with other items that weigh the same and take up equal or less space, and only to install them in the same location as the replaced part.

The second two classes require a repair bay (For example a Dropship), and allow you to change armor types, and swap item locations. These mods take 2-3 times as long as the first two classes.

The last two classes require a factory, and the let you change things like internal structure type, and engine rating or type. These take 4-5 times as long as the first two classes.

In particular that loss of quality in modifying a mech will go a LONG way towards discouraging massive modification in a persistent game world. more downtime, and increased cost to maintain a unit can quickly outweigh the benefits of swapping out weapons. Another major factor would be the facilities required, most of the time units will only have access to field facilities, with repair bays being limited to between drops, and factories limited to be tween deployments. But in the end, exercising control over the cost and availability of any or all of the things required for customization, will be the key to limiting the abuse of the feature.

Okay, see, that's the sort of thing I know I was thinking about, even if I wasn't able to articulate it the way I wanted to, and it makes sense to do it that way.

master q, on 01 November 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

For my point:

- We're in 3049. There are not that many variants available, and for the most part variants come that way out of the factory. Unless you're Victor Steiner-Davion or you have a bucketload of C-bills and a jury-rigger on payroll in your Solaris VII stable, you can't afford to have your individual 'Mech customized at all. If you're REALLY lucky, you might be able to rig together something like the original Yen-Lo-W-ang, but even that is a result of some serious tinkering and game time. Merc companies with hacked-together variants made from salvage exist, but they spend months of downtime prepping them.

Not being able to customize at all? That's not true. I've played in MW games where we went on standard, rolled from the Mercs Handbook, gigs, and individual pilots COULD walk away with enough cash to make changes. Besides, do battlefield mods fall into your calculations?

Quote

- Further, even what some people are calling "Omnimechs" have limited customizability. If you've ever read your actual sourcebooks, the "Omni" tech isn't so much about swapping out weapons on the fly as it is about making for easier repairs.

Yeah, weapons pods, limbs that are easily exchanged, etc. It IS about swapping out weapons on the fly, but it's also for many other things.

Quote

Likewise, I am REALLY hopeful that they start requiring faction-specific 'Mechs. You sign up with Liao, you should have Liao 'Mechs on hand. You join the Free Worlds League? Hermes, Trebuchet, maybe a Stalker for the best of the best. You hitch up with the Draconis Combine? Welcome the army, here's your Dragon.

This I most assuredly agree with. Go with the tables that have already been developed for the various era's to figure out how many 'Mechs and what types go where; that would be ideal.

[Pht]

master q, on 01 November 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

For my point:

- We're in 3049. There are not that many variants available, and for the most part variants come that way out of the factory.

Actually, there's a surprisingly large number of variants. http://www.mektek.ne...ost__p__1352632

Total there are 226 base chassis with 531 variants.

There are 146 Inner Sphere Chassis with 422 variants.

Total there are 80 clan chassis with 109 variants. 25 of them are omnis, with 109 variants.

There are 55 clan second line chassis with no variants.

Quote

Unless you're Victor Steiner-Davion or you have a bucketload of C-bills and a jury-rigger on payroll in your Solaris VII stable, you can't afford to have your individual 'Mech customized at all.

It's not that rare. Battlefield damage and scavenging would dictate that it's not that rare - you don't always have the appropriate replacement weapon, so your techs stuff in what they can out of what they have.

What *is* rare are things like engine refits, internal structure changes, complete re-builds of weapons loadouts, that sort of thing. These things normally only happen in factories or in the top-tier solaris stables with access to 'Mech wizards.

However, things like stuffing in three medium lasers where a PPC was is not really a big deal.

Quote

- Further, even what some people are calling "Omnimechs" have limited customizability. If you've ever read your actual sourcebooks, the "Omni" tech isn't so much about swapping out weapons on the fly as it is about making for easier repairs. Every Clan Omni still has a list of approved variants that the targeting computer has to be programmed to handle, has to take those preprogrammed pods or suffer the consequences (unless you're crazy high in the command structure and have one hell of a personal Tech following you around), and most of them don't really allow for swapping of the torso components anyways.

Omni-pods are about customizability first; that's one of the main reasons they were made. Their ease of repair of busted stuff in o-pods is a secondary follower of the design. As far as stuffing in "just whatever an o-pod can handle" giving their battle computers fits - I don't see any warrant for that anywhere in the lore.

Quote

Likewise, I am REALLY hopeful that they start requiring faction-specific 'Mechs. You sign up with Liao, you should have Liao 'Mechs on hand. You join the Free Worlds League? Hermes, Trebuchet, maybe a Stalker for the best of the best. You hitch up with the Draconis Combine? Welcome the army, here's your Dragon.

Amen. It would be nice to see, alongside the mechs that every faction has, house specific 'Mechs.

kay wolf, on 01 November 2011 - 02:02 PM, said:

Sure you can. Remember how leg shots, head shots, etc. used to be screamed about in prior MW games?

And I remember everyone gleefully head and leg shotting and stripping the whiners who complained about people ... daring to shoot parts of the 'Mech that are, you know .... part of the 'Mechs. I also remember these people getting kicked out of servers for being real pests too...

Honor systems are too much trouble for too little in return.

[Pht]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 02:12 PM, said:

Strategic Operations: Page 188



The Strat ops covers this. The first class requires the same type of item, and the second lets you switch, but it has to be the same size or smaller (including ammo). The way the tonnage and size spread works across weapons, you are generally very limited in your options here. Anything more extensive requires a dedicated facility, and that means you have to to be off the front lines. that in turns means you are not earning money to pay for these modifications.

The strat Ops customization rules are overkill and will, if implemented completely, turn mechs into mw3 style walking gun-bags of differing size and profiles.

*points up to his first post in this thread*

[CarpeMortis]

I did read your post, and it doesnt' explain why the strat ops rules would lead to "Walking gun bags". Instead it comes up with unnecessary modification to canon rules in order to solve problems that will not exist, if proper control over available resources is maintained. The Strat Ops rules are far from overkill. In fact, if "implemented fully", they will cover the entire spectrum of users. The hardcore tinkerers can use the One-off Customization to make personalized mechs, and budget minded players can use the refit kits to re-purpose mechs in their inventory to fit new roles, or to compete with newer designs. With a wealth of variables at their fingertips, the developers can easily tweak the economy for balance, or to encourage/discourage specific activities. You please the Battle-tech design nerds, the mech-combat junkies, and the developers in one already tested rule-set.

[Pht]

carpemortis, on 01 November 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

I did read your post, and it doesnt' explain why the strat ops rules would lead to "Walking gun bags".

It's been about a year since I looked @ strat ops, but if memory serves, if they go the full monty and add the whole of it, anything in a mech can be changed; engines, internal structure, you name it. It basically allows for mech construction (it's harder, but it can be done) instead of mech customization. That means that eventually there will be a well established group of long time and elite players who would have access to mechs modified in some pretty hard-core min-max ways.

Quote

Instead it comes up with unnecessary modification to canon rules in order to solve problems that will not exist, if proper control over available resources is maintained.

Unnecessary how?

As for the problems, allowing the mech construction rules with no limitations at all, as mw3 did caused massive problems and rendered the mechs into different visuals for what amounted to cabinets on legs with no unique loadouts.

Quote

The Strat Ops rules are far from overkill. In fact, if "implemented fully", they will cover the entire spectrum of users. The hardcore tinkerers can use the One-off Customization to make personalized mechs, and budget minded players can use the refit kits to re-purpose mechs in their inventory to fit new roles, or to compete with newer designs. With a wealth of variables at their fingertips, the developers can easily tweak the economy for balance, or to encourage/discourage specific activities. You please the Battle-tech design nerds, the mech-combat junkies, and the developers in one already tested rule-set.

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.

It's better to have the 'Mechs themselves be unique, and there's good lore, gameplay, and other reasons for the implementation I mentioned above.

Speaking of which, the stuff I mentioned earlier is a lot more intuitive and is about as open as is possible for customization without munchkin hades...

I prefer othello or chess like complexity - depth in usage, not depth in number of rules to remember.

Edited by Pht, 01 November 2011 - 03:08 PM.