261 replies to this topic

[Xaxius Colnier]

Xandre Blackheart, on 10 June 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

Well that makes no sense. You have to pay a mech tech to unbolt the thing and wire it back up. There should be a minimal (and I mean minimal) cost to move things around. Comparable to the repair costs.

I'd not be against something like that. But are you sure that's not just how it's currently working in beta?

no mechwarriors dont pay their techs the house or merc corp the warrior works for pays them so it makes sence that there is no cost... except for lone wolfs...they are screwed.

[Frostiken]

Vollstrecker, on 10 June 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

I'm appreciative of the stock designs and canon variants, and people really can be assured that there's a design out there for everyone's playstyle if minor tweaks are allowed, however the point is that we have 12 mechs right now. This would only really work if all designs were available at launch.

I see it as the opposite - with a fairly 'free' mechlab with little restraint, like we have now, I guarantee you you can find a way to make the current mechs function like other, similar mechs in the same weight group.

Remember that, Omnimechs and TRO artwork aside, every mech of the same tonnage is exactly the same as another mech in the same tonnage range.

Take a Shadow Hawk, give it an XL engine and armor values around, and replace the weapons (has roughly the same weapon layout so hardpoints would be similar), and you have a Bushwacker that doesn't look like a Bushwacker. If it's the same speed, has the same weapons, and the same armor, what exactly is the motivation to buy the Bushwacker when you have the Chinese knockoff already? Especially if it threatens your pool of CBills, which presumably equates to 'spend real life money on something you don't really need'.

In the interest of not seeing this happen, and in the interest of being able to get excited about new mechs that offer unique setups that cannot be effectively replicated, and in the interest of ensuring PGI makes a steady stream of income to keep this game alive, I demand limits on the Mechlab.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Vollstrecker, on 10 June 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Not quite, these are not Omnimechs. You're not removing a pod and simply adding a different one, we're swapping out components that are "hard-wired" into the system.

Imagine taking the 4-cylinder engine out of a sedan and fitting in an 8-cylinder. You have to completely realign all of the hoses, connections, wiring, and everything. You're basically redoing the entire engine compartment with a custom-fit job. This is extremely time-intensive and expensive since you need amazing techs to do it.

The game assumes amazing techs by default. And I was referring to weapons systems, probably with engines there should be a higher cost, but then engine components have a higher repair cost also, so I stand by my earlier statement of costs comparable with repair costs.

[Orion Pirate]

How do I ignore people? Seriously...

I thought the purpose of BT was to design your own mechs, and have incredible amounts of fun fielding your designs against other people.

if you only wanted to use mechs from the TRO, then so be it, nothing stops you. Personlly I LOVE that PGI has limited hardpoints to ballistic, energy and missile. It makes good sense to me, but I don't want or need any more then that.

Frostiken, why don't you apply for a job with PGI? You seem desperate to be in charge in the developement of the game, you seem to think that you know better then the game developers... Most of what you are asking for is too much for the average player which is what we need for this to work, otherwise only a small amount of people will like this game and it will fail, and we will have to wait another 10 years...

How about this, go make your own game, and please stop trying to ruin this one.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Xaxius Colnier, on 10 June 2012 - 09:56 AM, said:

no mechwarriors dont pay their techs the house or merc corp the warrior works for pays them so it makes sence that there is no cost... except for lone wolfs...they are screwed.

For customization? oh no. Have you ever done military service? Special favors always cost. It doesn't matter if you're not signing his check. I suppose you could specify booze and hookers, but that would require extra programing. Easier to just use c-bills.

[Frostiken]

Orion Pirate, on 10 June 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

I thought the purpose of BT was to design your own mechs, and have incredible amounts of fun fielding your designs against other people.

You thought wrong. Battletech is and always has been about the canon variants first, with custom mechs being a secondary.

I'm glad my completely neutral posts fill you with so much extreme nerd rage that you're happy to show your *** to everyone on the forum about it.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[Hawkeye 72]

Oppi, on 10 June 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Customization makes all chassis of a certain weight class equal on the long run (because an "optimal" loadout or a small number of "optimal" loadouts will be found sooner or later). This is the exact opposite of character flavor and diversity.

And that is why the devs included hard points, so while each chassis might have an optimal loadout, those loadouts will vary among mechs. Sure in Chromehounds everyone ran around with the same loadout (piles of grenade launchers) because they were ridiculously overpowered and you didn't have something like hardpoints in place.

Customization may lead to optimal loadouts, but people still like the ability to define themselves and standout.

There is also a closed beta for a reason-to ensure an endgame like this doesn't occur. In fact there are over 4000 people testing and tweaking and balancing the game as we speak.

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I demand limits on the Mechlab.

and I demand a beta key! neither of which will be met! lol

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 10 June 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Athena Hart]

OP, How a person Loads out their mech is is their choice. If the Space and Tonnage is available and they want to mount 3 ER Lg Lasers somewher, then fine, makes it easier to cripple their weaponry. Its not up to you to define how anyone builds their mech, nor theirs to tell you how to build yours. People will make boats. More power to them, with our luck the proper physics will be in place to take advantage of them.Missle boats are prime targets for targeted attacks to take out their ammo stores causing an internal explosion and premature destruction of their mech.

As to charging everyone for making mods to your mech?..Umm.. No, Unless there is a C-Bill reward for winning/loosing matches it would quickly become unprofitable as you have to pay for repairs and then mechlab, weapons etc. Eventually you'd be forced to dish out "Real" currency, and though that would benefit MWO, it would quickly bleed many players wallets dry. You may have money to throw away, but I )we) don't.

The C3 Computer was not Small, it was Huge and took up many slots on a mech and weighed as much as a Lg Laser or more (Weight and space was determined on how many Slaves were to be linked to the C3 Computer). ECM, Beagle Active Probes, etc. Are cheaper and require "Less" space, not more. You're thinking of a C3 Slave wich is linked to a C3 Computer (Normally mounted on the command mech) Keep in mind this was all from FASA, MWO may use a entirely different matrix than FASA CBT system.

Umm.. You realize that in 3050 many mech factories began producing mech designs that did indeed give the XL Engines, improving Speed, Armaments and Armor. So your example of the modded Hunchback is not far fetched, but had been done.

Time Limits, You realize some people spend "Hours" in the 'mech lab, not only adjusting loadouts, armor, movement, but also on the mechs appearance. I for one like all my mechs to have a distinct look to them.

[Zutara Astray]

The amount of nerd rage expressed in this discussion is astounding. Where as I understand this logic to want everything to be as logically in sync with MechWarrior "canon" as possible.... This is a game. We're allowed certain freedoms to bend and/or expand upon existing "rules" within the verse. And in this case, I imagine they're making things the way they are and not the way "You want them to be" because that makes it more fun for "Everyone".

Will this lead to some people making ridiculous mech builds that make no logical sense to you (or anyone else)? Yeah. Pretty much. But that's freedom of customization for you. Given the opportunity, stupid people will do stupid things. Fact of games, Fact of life. Deal with it.

As for how they're gonna pay for things and get people to pay for stuff... well, they've been working on this for a while now... and there are how many free-to-play mmos for them to analyze payment systems and metrics from now? Oh, right, a fuckton. They've got annalists, mathematicians, and accountants working overtime to figure that stuff out. You don't need to worry about it, trust me. XP

[DocBach]

Balance is for sissies nerds and crybabies

[Xandre Blackheart]

I'm still in favor of having to give your mech tech booze and hookers to do custom jobs though. It has the right "flavor".

[Orion Pirate]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

You thought wrong. Battletech is and always has been about the canon variants first, with custom mechs being a secondary.

I disagree. Sorry. The rules are there to make custom mechs. It was not hard and usually fun for those that enjoy designing and building things.

NOWHERE in the rules did it ever suggest that you should play canon mechs and consider custom mechs as a secondary role of the game. This is where you are completely wrong, and demonstrates where the majority of your nerd rage comes from.

[Vollstrecker]

Xandre Blackheart, on 10 June 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

The game assumes amazing techs by default. And I was referring to weapons systems, probably with engines there should be a higher cost, but then engine components have a higher repair cost also, so I stand by my earlier statement of costs comparable with repair costs.

I'm not strictly talking about engines, weapon systems would require power feed adjustments, redesigns of coolant delivery, ammo delivery systems being redesigned (if you're going from an AC10 to AC20, etc). It was just an example showing how you're not just swapping out modular equipment.

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I see it as the opposite - with a fairly 'free' mechlab with little restraint, like we have now, I guarantee you you can find a way to make the current mechs function like other, similar mechs in the same weight group.

I think you're storming a friendly beachhead here. I'm personally in favor of using stock variants, however limiting people with only 12 mechs to choose from isn't cool. We don't even have a single mech for every weight yet. Out of the thousands of designs and variants out there, 12 stock chassis and their variants is a drop in the bucket.

If they release most of the mechs and variants available, then limiting to stock machines and minor tweaks would be fine in most respects.

[Frostiken]

Hawkeye 72, on 10 June 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

And that is why the devs included hard points, so while each chassis might have an optimal loadout, those loadouts will vary among mechs. Sure in Chromehounds everyone ran around with the same loadout (piles of grenade launchers) because they were ridiculously overpowered and you didn't have something like hardpoints in place.

Customization may lead to optimal loadouts, but people still like the ability to define themselves and standout.

But, like I said, this doesn't work in theory. The hardpoint system we have in MWO is much, much more generous than the hardpoint system in MW4, which limited the size of your weapons considerably. With no limit on the weapon size in MWO besides crits, it greatly expands your options beyond what anyone should consider plausible for a chassis with a giant autocannon built into the shoulder.

Turning the Hunchback in the Swayback is not something that could've been done in the field. The entire point of the new variant was that it had to be rebuilt in the factory like that. However, as I've pointed out, you can easily turn the Hunchback with an AC/20 into a Swayback with at least 7 of the 8 medium lasers. If the center torso supports 2 energy slots, then you can fit all 8. Fill up the rest with heatsinks, and you have yourself a much harder to kill Swayback, without any need to purchase that variant. And for free, assuming you have the lasers on hand.

The MW4 hardpoints were size-limited for this very reason. In MW4, the Hunchback was limited to two energy slots in each arm. This meant that you could only fit two large lasers, or four medium lasers, and not a single one more. The MWO Hunchback is "limited" to 7, possibly 8. And this is just the AC/20 one.

[Vasces Diablo]

I was really hoping for min customization actually. I think it would be interesting if the load outs stuck to the cannon varients. Full customization really blurs the lines between the different chasis and takes a bit of the flavor out of the game (imo). Part of what made inner sphere mechs challanging, was how hard it was for them to adapt. While the current system does have some limits, you are still going to have people that just going to build boats....

[Gauge]

Listen people, if you're going to TL;DR, then just post that and nothing else. If you did read, you would know that the OP was not suggesting no customization, but a way to control it so that the Hunchback and the Centurion don't turn into (roughly) the same mech.

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

Right, so those of you pooh-poohing a post obviously none of you read...

Please, pray tell how exactly do you think PGI is going to make any money with the almost-limitless customization we're currently offered? As I pointed out, the HBK-4G (standard Hunchback) is a different variant than the Swayback. The idea is that if you want to laser things, you buy the Swayback variant. However, it's easy to see that with the current mechlab setup, you can easily change the HBK-4G into a slightly-differently setup Swayback (I would actually say it's superior, as it spreads out the lasers more, thus making the right torso no longer a liability). So why would anyone ever actually spend CBills (and thus real money) on a variant they can simply, for free, change in the Mechlab?

This game isn't going to survive to the Clan invasion if nobody's giving PGI money, you realize that, right?


This is not me "making you wild *** guesses about what you think there is". All of this is based off of what was seen in the mechlab video and what the developers have said themselves. Someone conducting an interview even specifically asked about limiting how huge of a weapon you could put into a hardpoint, and he was told 'no', meaning a 3-hardpoint limit means you can put only 3 small lasers, or 3 CERPPCs.

Read through your post, and yeah, I think I'm seeing things your way at this point.

C-Bill cost simply for the act of refitting - I don't like it if we can't 'test' the mech, but I think that's the only reason. From a construction perspective, it doesn't make sense that it costs nothing to fit a PPC into the spot a small laser was. From a game perspective, it doesn't make sense that once you own a handful of your favorite weapons, you never have to buy again (This will be 4 PPCs for a lot of people).

Hardpoints - They don't seem completely thought out. They prevent small weapon spam, but really don't do much of anything against the classic 'PPC in every slot it fits'. You can probably find 3-4 energy hardpoints on almost every chassis, and most mechs probably can't squeeze on more than that anyways for tonnage reasons. I would love to see hardpoints have a type and a size. So medium lasers fit in a small energy hardpoint (which is 1-2 crit slots), while a Gauss rifle fits in a large ballistic hardpoint (7+ crit slots). So a PPC doesn't go in a small energy hardpoint, and a machine gun doesn't go in a large ballistic hardpoint. There's still customization, but it brings focus back onto the varients and how they differ.

Electronics Hardpoints - Sure, makes sense to keep the mech flavors.

Hardware Changes - Armor: wouldn't mind seeing a certain limit placed on this, maybe only being able to add up to X many tons of armor, where X is dependant on the tonnage of the mech? Something like that.
Engine Power: I think bumping your engine up or down one rating is okay, but it seems odd that an awesome can just become a charger because you tossed an engine in. I'd limit the amount you can change engine power somehow.
Engine Type(Standard vs. XL): Should probably be based on variant. Though I think every mech should have an XL variant, even if it doesn't in canon.

Omni-Tech: No comment, hard to make a judgement when it's so far away.

Refit Time: Nah, I don't think that's necessary if we have all these other controls in place.

I don't think this will be overly restrictive at launch (at least twelve mechs are planned, and the devs have said with variants, there will be 'dozens' of options). The fact is, if you love the (example mech) Charger, you should get super excited when they announce it's being added to the game, and maybe think about spending a little cash to get it fast. You should not go 'Lol, already made a charger out of an Awesome, thx tho'.

And I don't think it's silly to place restrictions. Rules are what make games interesting, because you search for interesting ways to play within them.

[Frostiken]

Orion Pirate, on 10 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

I disagree. Sorry. The rules are there to make custom mechs.

Which, ironically, means you agree with several parts of my original post, specifically the limitations on Clantech, as well as Omnimechs being unable to adjust the base chassis in any way.

Or let me guess, you want that all to be thrown out too so you can turn your laser-armed fire-support Mad Dog into an LB-X AC-armed brawler? Just ignore the superfluous missile racks guys!

[Ninja Chef]

This is well written, however, to limit the mechlab goes directly agianst one of the key factors that attracts players to this genre. (yes i do realize the lore and role playing aspect is cool to some) BUT when you strip away the awesome creative power that makes the game so amazing in scope and allows players to adapt themselves to numerous roles on the battlefield. THAT makes the game no fun to play and does not cash make for PGI.

So....to make it short. While this is in a lore perspective a decent idea. For the life of the game this is an idea that if implemented would be digital suicide.

[Elysion]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

I see it as the opposite - with a fairly 'free' mechlab with little restraint, like we have now, I guarantee you you can find a way to make the current mechs function like other, similar mechs in the same weight group.

What exactly is the problem there? You are not considering that the chassis themselves have strenghts and weaknessess based on hardpoint placement and overall design.

So you may have two things with the same weapons, and more or less the same handling, but one has harder to hit legs but is weaker all around, whereas another has easy to hit legs but good angles further up that make it easy to scatter incoming fire between multiple sections.

you could use them for the same things sure, but they would be optimized for specific situations, and at the end of the day the point of customization is always to get things that are absolutly perfect for what you want to use them for.

A chassis should be a chassis, its a shell, It has characteristics like weight, angles, how many weapons you can fit on it and where. Filling that shell with specific parts for your specific specifications has always been one of the reasons i enjoyed playing mech games.

[Orion Pirate]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

But, like I said, this doesn't work in theory. The hardpoint system we have in MWO is much, much more generous than the hardpoint system in MW4, which limited the size of your weapons considerably. With no limit on the weapon size in MWO besides crits, it greatly expands your options beyond what anyone should consider plausible for a chassis with a giant autocannon built into the shoulder.

Turning the Hunchback in the Swayback is not something that could've been done in the field. The entire point of the new variant was that it had to be rebuilt in the factory like that. However, as I've pointed out, you can easily turn the Hunchback with an AC/20 into a Swayback with at least 7 of the 8 medium lasers. If the center torso supports 2 energy slots, then you can fit all 8. Fill up the rest with heatsinks, and you have yourself a much harder to kill Swayback, without any need to purchase that variant. And for free, assuming you have the lasers on hand.

The MW4 hardpoints were size-limited for this very reason. In MW4, the Hunchback was limited to two energy slots in each arm. This meant that you could only fit two large lasers, or four medium lasers, and not a single one more. The MWO Hunchback is "limited" to 7, possibly 8. And this is just the AC/20 one.

You know what, you are right about this.

But the difference between the custom laser boat Hunchback you mention and the base Swayback is where you can place those energy weapons. To some people that will be worth purchasing the variant. You might not see a difference, but that is because YOU HAVE NOT PLAYED THIS GAME YET!!!