10
This topic is locked
Let me preface this by saying that I do think there should be a 'testing' range where you can run around and shoot some very basic bots to test out a design, as this would making using the mechlab somewhat less risky, but this would also be a great feature to ensure you aren't about to drop a cool 10 million CBills for a mech that's good on paper but awful in practice.
Anyway, on to random constructive complaining about things nobody is clear on:
[ CASH ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the developer Q&A 5, it's heavily implied that mechlab changes are free. I adamantly disagree with this. If there was a testing mode to try out a design, which would remove the 'risk' from a mechlab configuration, I think any and every change you make in the mechlab should cost money, proportional to how much you're changing it. Slotting an ERPPC into a space that used to hold a small laser should cost you a considerable amount for a 'refit' fee. Changing out your engine should be tremendously expensive.
I do not agree that players should be able to freely mix-and-match anything they want in the mechlab. Not only is this bad from a business perspective, as in the developer Q&A this was spoken of in the context of being too cheap to buy new guns, so he just recycles the old ones. By giving us a CBills sink for the price of mech customization, you've created a way to not only drain money out of the economy, but to put the brakes on how extremely a mech can be customized. There ought to be limits to these freedoms, and currently it sounds like there are none.
[ HARDPOINTS ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another thing that was mentioned was that hardpoints only count towards the number of weapons you can put in there, not the size. Theoretically, with enough crit space, you could replace a single small laser with a trio of ER large lasers. MWLL has their system planned out to limit how far in size weapons can be changed. My stance is that for a given variant, how much you can change out a weapon system should be limited for Battlemechs (Omnimechs are a different matter). For example, the HBK-4G could change out his AC/20 for an AC/10 and thus assume the -4H model, but not an AC/5, as that would require purchasing the variant with an AC/5, the HBK-4N.
I believe these limits to be necessary to prevent 'over-boating' and retaining some flavor of individual mechs. Players should be able to expect certain mech variant to behave in roughly the same way - an HBK-4G will have heavy-bore ballistics. In this way, you would not be able to come across a Hunchback sporting dual ER-PPCs in the arms. There are no stock variants of the Hunchback that mount even so much as a large laser on it, least of all in the arms, so to retain that flavor, I'd like to see size limits of that sort implemented. Note that this is a Battlemech restriction, not Omnimech - more on that later.
Again, this makes sense from a business standpoint. We can currently see that the HBK-4G, in the mechlab, can mount 6 energy weapons in the arms. The Swayback can carry 8 medium lasers. Theoretically, there is almost no advantage to be had in purchasing the Swayback as you would only get the luxury of two more lasers, at the expense of having almost all of them crammed into one rather easy-to-destroy location. Why would I expend the money for that, when I could split 3 lasers each into the arms, making them somewhat less vulnerable (and easier to aim by virtue of the independent arm reticule)? I'm unsure what the HBK-4G's center torso consists of, but there *is* supposed to be a small laser there - I'm inclined to believe you could probably cram two more medium lasers into the center - and thus you have made a Swayback, without the massive purchase price of a new chassis, and much more survivable. If you had bought the Swayback, you have no option of adding ballistics, making it the inferior chassis.
MWLL is adapting a similar system for not only cosmetic reasons, but specifically to limit what can be put where, and keep the flavor between mech designs. If you were free to put any weapons wherever, with only a very basic hardpoint limit like MWO seems to have now, it almost removes the point to even buy other chassis in a similar weight class. If I can simply make one chassis a complete Frankenmech and change the engine, armor, and all the weapons, and end up with a differently-shaped-but-functionally-identical mech, what's the point of even having different chassis to pick from?
By limiting how many weapons and the size of which can go into a hardpoint, you can retain some of the purity of a mech variant, thus encouraging people who want a laser-boat Hunchback to buy that variant, which equates to potentially more money for PGI.
[ ELECTRONICS HARDPOINTS ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe consideration is being made to this already, but I personally do not want to see the MWLL-syndrome, where the vast majority of mechs are stomping around with a massive array of electronic goodies. I don't agree with the way MW4 handled it, but I agree with the principle, that certain chassis are simply built with the proper hardware to mount and cool electronic warfare suites and sensor probes, and others are not. A Raven should have lots of space and available functionality to mount all kinds of extra accessories by way of hardpoints, and a mech that really doesn't (Hunchback) would be extremely limited in what it can put on there. This could fit in with the same size limits - an ECM suite is too "big" for a normal mech to strap in, not unless it was specially built to hold one, but with "small" equipment slots, almost any mech could mount something smaller like a C3 computer or something along those lines.
[ HARDWARE LIMITS ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the section on why we need more restrictive hardpoint limits, I'd also like to see a range of limits for non-weapon customization of mechs. If you look across the chassis canon variants, you will see very, very few Battlemechs make large changes to armor and engine ratings. As the entire point of this post is to preserve the flavor of an individual chassis, I would like to see a range limitation put on how much armor can be adjusted, and how much engines can be changed. You would not be able to simply slot a Viper engine into a Honda Accord, not without making massive structural changes, as it simply won't fit. Too much was built into the chassis *around* the engine that was built to be put in there. One should not be able to simply jack out the existing fusion engine and stick one 50% larger in, not without expecting to gut the ENTIRE mech and rebuild all its internal hardware from scratch. The only time such an overhaul should be accepted is upgrading an engine to XL (with an absolutely jaw-dropping cost associated with it).
To give a rough example, one would not be allowed to suddenly take a mech that is known for classically weak armor and boost it to a full complement of ferro fibrous. You should expect to not see a 3/6 Hunchback suddenly capable of hauling *** around at 6/9. A simple +- percentage tied to the engine and armor as limits on adjustment, to allow mechs to be slightly customized within the reasonable limits you see on the canon variants, without ending up acting like a completely different mech. Again, this is to retain some of the flavor of a chassis and encourage people to buy others that fit what they're looking for, without making the Mechlab a stand-in for purchasing new chassis.
[ TECHNOLOGY ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't too much of an issue now, but it will be at some point. I'd like to see Clan weapons limited to Omnimechs, unable to be bolted on to IS mechs, and IS weaponry completely incompatible with Clantech, so no heavy gauss Timberwolves. This is compliant with TT rules, so I expect this to happen. I won't harp on this one too much.
The other half of the equation are Omnimechs and Battlemechs. True to the lore, I'd like to see Omnimechs have hardlocked base chassis. You cannot change engine or armor ratings, full stop. However, this limited flexibility could be made up by allowing Omnimechs to be able to more freely mount weaponry in the arms (and the arms alone). Omnitech is classiclly lauded for its ability to allow a mech to stop in and simply swap out arms for another, so to that end, it would make sense to me to allow Omnis more freedom in their hardpoints and hardpoint sizes, with the disadvantage that this firepower would mostly be concentrated in easier-to-destroy arms. Additionally, modifying Omnimechs should simply be more expensive in general, as the technology requirements of working with Omnitech pods is simply too extreme and new to have had time to get cheap.
[ TIME LIMITS ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, I think there should be limits on how often a mech can visit the Mechlab. Ideally, your mech should be down for a 'refit time', especially Battlemechs, that require time to pass in the realtime before it can be used in battle. Rather, I'd prefer to see a timer for how often a mech can visit the Mechlab and be adjusted, based on how extreme the adjustments really are. Bringing the mech back to the mechlab too soon will drive costs up considerably, relative to how little time has passed since your previous visit. If you make tremendous changes to the mech, you may not be able to visit the 'lab again without incurring a hefty price hike for several days. Moving some medium lasers around might not boost the timer very much - changing out the engine, replacing a major weapon system, and adjusting armor values would drive it way up.
Again, this is best for the gameplay - it encourages people to pick and stick with designs, rather than simply chasing 'flavor of the week' designs. Additionally, again, this drives business in the direction of PGI by providing a CBill sink and encouraging people to expand their mech repertoire, rather than simply stripping weapons from one mech and bolting them on another.
I believe that about covers it. I appreciate the added player experience a Mechlab brings, but I vehemently disagree with its standard implementation we've seen to date, where every little feature of a mech can be adjusted. Not only do I believe this is bad for gameplay, but it's bad for variety, and potentially bad for business. Ultimately I think mechlabs do more harm than good, and I think a player's desire for complete freedom to turn any mech into a Clan Heavy Laser carrier is outweighed by the necessity to make a balanced, diverse game that encourages variety.
Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 09:13 AM.
