261 replies to this topic

[Xandre Blackheart]

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

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.

Neither was I. Certainly modular equipment should be free. I was pointing out that tying customization to repair costs is a sensible system. We're talking about facilities capable of repairing CORED mechs. Changing the design parameters and repairing tot he new design shouldn't cost much more than a standard repair.

Unless you want to propose UN-installation fees. And that just seems like extra busywork. Not to mention that when you uninstall something you get the cash for selling it at a reduced cost, so consider the reduced cost part of the retrofit fees.

[Hawkeye 72]

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.

Except you haven't played the game yet, or touched the mechlab, so none of us really have any idea what will be possible and can happen.

The devs have stated they have made a large number of freak mech loadouts in internal playtests, and I know the beta testers are going to town in the mechlab. If any overpowered designs come up, they will be dealt with and the game will be continually balanced even after its launch to avoid further problems.

You also are trying to pick a fight with a game that has already stated they wish to make the mechlab an immersive experience with lots of depth. Even if you have a point, its not going to get far.

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.

Does mean we get canon birds with spears? I want one of those!


There will always be canon deviations. And you even said yourself that you want the devs to have a successful game! So why go against/restrict a feature a lot of people will want?

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 10 June 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Athena Hart]

The Hardpoint system in MW4 was stupid. Many of the mechs had hardpoints where there shouldn't have been any and were limited to a type of weapon where there shouldn't have been limits. If you're basing you info off MW4, really dude, go pick up the Technical Manuals and Rulebooks (Which have clear information on modding mechs). MW4, though fun to play had little to do with any "Real" Battletech information. Basing how you thin MWO should operate based on the hardpoint system from MW4 is absurd.

[Frostiken]

Ninja Chef, on 10 June 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

This is well written, however, to limit the mechlab goes directly agianst one of the key factors that attracts players to this genre.

For the life of the game this is an idea that if implemented would be digital suicide.

I knew there'd be a lot of friction to this, but I believe this is one of those cases - like no third person, no NHUA options, that the players simply do not know what's best for them. People played MW4 under the stupidest rulesets and got the dumbest ideas of what Mechwarrior was about - firing jumpjets and lazily floating through the air, able to make a precise shot directly into the kneecap with all lasers of an advancing mech? I think most rational people would agree that cockpit shake when firing jumpjets is for the best, despite the opposition from the poptards who think that was the greatest most imaginative tactic ever, despite the tremendous negative impact it had on the game.

Consider this: The MW4 devs specifically went out of their way to reprogram the mechlab design to limit hardpoints to type and size which was completely unprecedented. Compared to the MW3 style where you could mount lasers in your knees or something equally ridiculous, the MW4 mechlab was like playing in a straightjacket.

However, how many people said '**** THIS I QUIT'? Honestly from what I've seen, people begrudgingly accepted it, and then grew to like it, especially when they understood why it exists. How often were people seriously complaining that they couldn't strap PPCs on their Hunchback, or autocannons on their Awesome?

PGI apparently took the hint in the form of the hardpoints, but I think they're really making a mistake by taking a step back towards MW3 by more or less eliminating the size constraints.

[Squigles]

Hawkeye 72, on 10 June 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

That is also an early build and was more for demonstration purposes. And that dev was Garth and he said he merely swapped weapons between variants to save money on not having to buy new weapons. He never said the process was free

http://mwomercs.com/...devs-2-answers/

Customization was confirmed to be completely free, as per the final question in that series. That being said a comment was made about planting the idea of charging for customization, however, last official answer to customization costs was free.

[Basilisk51]

Although i do believe that he has several good points. I dont agree with all the suggestions he made to fix them. I play the table game and watching a raptor with 5 flamers and an ER Large laser shut down everything while an Atlas with 20 machine guns ends everything can get annoying. OR some other suitable cheese build i would like to see an end to things like that. That was why we said missiles can only be switched out for missiles and lasers for lasers in our group and it levelled the playing field to tactics and strategy not who had a better mech build. In the end most people went for book builds with major cahgnes being only in 1 or 2 weapons and the systems it had like heat sinks and armor. Either way i dont want to see an atlas running around with as many small lasers as the pilot can put on it. Its boring he runs up and if he gets in range you die. If he doesnt he dies but you were jsut shut down so gg.

[Gauge]

Orion Pirate, on 10 June 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

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!!!

But how much of a difference is it? Is it enough that plenty of people will be interested in spending real money to get that change quickly? I somehow doubt many people will go "Oh, so it's the exact same, EXCEPT the lasers are all in one spot... I must have it!" I think almost everyone would just wait and maybe grab it with C-Bills in time...

But you're right, we haven't played the game yet. But we also might not get to before the game is out. And by then, it's too late. So we're expressing concern NOW. If that is so offensive to you, well, there's nothing we can do about that. But we're not going to not talk about it because it bothers you.

[Thor77]

The original designs are generalists, built to fight across a wide array of conditions. The Mechwarrior games have generally required one thing, and one thing only: killing other mechs as fast as possible. Until the game provides incentive to do otherwise, boating up on the best mech-killing weapons you can stuff in your chassis is the logical player response.

If the game gives incentive/requirement to stay in the same mech across a variety of conditions/objectives, you'll tend to see less ultra-specialized 'boats' of one kind or another.

I would love to see a game where 'balanced' or 'generalist' loadouts are useful. But it would likely mean embarking on multi-engagement campaigns where one must fight in the same mech across a number of scenarios.

But I love playing in the mechlab, almost as much as I love shooting up mechs on the battlefield. Without the ability to customize, half of my interest in the game is gone.

[Frostiken]

Orion Pirate, on 10 June 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

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!!!

Well, would you rather have the Swayback with 3 lasers on opposite sides of the body meaning both arms have to be destroyed to take away 75% of your firepower, absolutely nothing in the side torsos to get destroyed (allowing them to function as free armor), and two lasers in the center (which will work fine as long as you're alive)? Or the one with 75% of your firepower in the side torso, where 6 lasers fit?

This is why I picked this variant, it's almost absurd that what is, in my eyes, a balancing point of the Swayback - that losing your right torso means losing most of your laser firepower (and presumably the arm it's attached to, leaving you with just one medium laser), is circumvented by simply modifying an HBK-4G, a mech that has no business carrying all that firepower in the first place.

Especially since, allegedly, damage doesn't transfer through the torso.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[Orion Pirate]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

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!

No I do not agree with the majority of your posts. You don't seem to understand custom mech designs. Sure the TROs have plenty of mechs to choose from, but nothing EVER stopped me from doing a complete redesign of the mech, or making my own for that matter, giving it a unique name and variant number etc. Canon is there to sell TROs. But if you have imagination, you never need to buy a TRO to play the game.

You want canon, cool, I get that. But BT was never limited to canon only, and I don't want to be limited to canon only as well. It is not my fault if autocannons shoot out of missile pods, because I have no control over the graphics of a video game. I just play it. If I DID have control, I would not have missile pods on my mech if I was not using missiles. You are simply pushing graphics on me and others to limit their creativity for your personal immersion experience.

Imagination goes a long way in playing any game. I can accept autocannons shooting out of missile pods because I understand it is a graphical limitation of the game I am playing. For you, this seems to be asking too much... For the TT I would just use a mini that closely represented my unique design, or the variant I modified... Part of the fun of playing BT is not knowing what the other team fielded, because customization has always been a core design of the BT game... Or at least the BT I played... You and I have different BT experiences...

[Xandre Blackheart]

Squigles, on 10 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...devs-2-answers/

Customization was confirmed to be completely free, as per the final question in that series. That being said a comment was made about planting the idea of charging for customization, however, last official answer to customization costs was free.

I wouldn't mind seeing a minimal amount of customization costs. It would move the unique variants closer to a reward.

However, I'm also still in favor of having to give your mech-tech booze and hookers for customization.

[Orion Pirate]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Well, would you rather have the Swayback with 3 lasers on opposite sides of the body meaning both arms have to be destroyed to take away 75% of your firepower, absolutely nothing in the side torsos to get destroyed (allowing them to function as free armor), and two lasers in the center (which will work fine as long as you're alive)? Or the one with 75% of your firepower in the side torso, where 6 lasers fit?

This is why I picked this variant, it's almost absurd that what is, in my eyes, a balancing point of the Swayback - that losing your right torso means losing most of your laser firepower (and presumably the arm it's attached to, leaving you with just one medium laser), whereas the modified HBK-4G is much more resistant to this kind of attack.

Especially since, allegedly, damage doesn't transfer through the torso.

And again, we agree, however, you and I are not the entire player base. What you or I may or may not like about the swayback, someone else in the mechlab will find its hardpoint layout desirable for their build. THAT is the key to the variants, or that is how I understand it.

[Hawkeye 72]

Squigles, on 10 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...devs-2-answers/

Customization was confirmed to be completely free, as per the final question in that series. That being said a comment was made about planting the idea of charging for customization, however, last official answer to customization costs was free.

Thanks for looking that up. Forgot about that. However it is interesting to note that in that same Q&A, Garth states that there is NO IDEAL LOADOUT, which isn't that why the OP and others are arguing for restricting mechlab? I have heard repeatedly that a coordinated team will beat an uncoordinated team any day, regardless of the chassis.

Garth Erlam, on 14 May 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

Third, what we’ve found is that there is no ideal loadout, it comes down to how you play with the loadout that you’re using that matters. You may think that everyone would jump in an assault ’Mech loaded to the nines with weapons but this isn’t the case. All ’Mech categories are effective against assaults. In fact, all ’Mechs are very capable of taking down any other category of ’Mech. We’ve seen the entire gamut of gameplay playout on the field and it comes down to working together and actually sticking together to be successful. I’ve seen assaults blow holes through lights… I’ve seen lights peck and chip away at assaults and core them… I’ve seen heavies engaged in closed quarter combat only to be outflanked by a fast mover punching holes in the back armor and I’ve seen slower heavies/mediums stand their ground and devastate enemies in outnumbered combat

So doesn't this kinda end the whole debate? I would rather trust the word of someone who is helping make the game rather than the suggestion of a random forum poster who claims his doomsday scenario will occur unless his guidelines are followed

[Frostiken]

Someone might find it useful, but with a more limited mechlab, you start to ensure that people will find it useful, which means more variety overall and more potential money for PGI.

[Hawkeye 72]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Someone might find it useful, but with a more limited mechlab, you start to ensure that people will find it useful, which means more variety overall and more potential money for PGI.

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.

I once again have to point to my previous post and Garth's comment. I am pretty sure they have thoroughly tested the game and will avoid this game-killing mechlab. Considering they are huge BT fans themselves, I know they will have problems with mechs running around with unbelievable loadouts. Just trust what they have told us and that the game works fine how it is.

Edited by Hawkeye 72, 10 June 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[Frostiken]

Quote

Garth states that there is NO IDEAL LOADOUT, which isn't that why the OP and others are arguing for restricting mechlab?

That's only 1/3rd of my reason.

Another 1/3rd is to retain some of the variety and improve the metagame by helping players know what to expect and simply cut down on some of the inevitable absurdity. As another poster mentioned, I'd prefer to see more adaptable, somewhat generalist mechs used, as players would have to make hard decisions on what weapons to bring because visiting the mechlab would be a costly decision to make, so they'd like to take mechs that can handle a variety of situations, rather than ultra-specialists. The first thing a mechlab always kills are these 'generalist' designs in favor of whatever boat is the easiest to use and most lethal.

The final 1/3rd is to ensure PGI aren't shooting themselves in the foot by compromising just about the only reason to actually want to buy different mechs and variants, when inevitably you will be able to find a chassis that has a really good hardpoint layout and you can turn it into damn-near any mech you so chose.

It may seem odd to be asking for ways to sink cash into the game, but as I said, it's free to play, and if people aren't putting money in, we aren't getting content in return. It's a symbiotic relationship, and since gamers are naturally cheap, frugal ********, so from what I understand of the current mechlab based on videos and interviews, there's not really a lot of reason to expand your mechhangar choices very much as you can circumvent the purpose of different chassis by simply getting creative in the mechlab.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Torrix]

Xantars, on 10 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

SLAPS DOWN A BIG VETO STAMP ...... Nope I dont like it Wait till you get into game before you start making you wild *** guesses about what you think there is and what you want Please...

Absolutely ^^^THIS^^^

And yeah, I'm one of those guys who does NOT want to be forced to buy c-bills in order to be able to play around in the mechlab to finally configure a mech I want to pilot. No thanks. I have been playing BT and mechwarrior as long as anybody ('80s), but I don't give a rat's booty about "preserving the identity and functionality of canon mechs". A helluva lot of "canon mechs" are absolute pieces of crap by anyone's estimation, so OP, don't go trying to force me to have to use them.

Edited by Torrix, 10 June 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Meldarth Sunphot]

*coughs* try reading the facts.......hard points will limit what you can put in and where........you want to mount those ER lasers......better be damn sure you can keep them cool.....

wow someone ranting that hasn't truely read the facts.......or doesn't know what's in the game........but Devs know a thing or two about balancing things folks...........this isn't bloody WoT - they actually give a damn about the game and the community.......

[Xandre Blackheart]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

It's a symbiotic relationship, and since gamers are naturally cheap, frugal ********,

Oh hey! they have custom paint jobs and decals?! How much? I gotta get me one of those!

Uhm... I don't think they will have any problem making money. Most gamers I know are not cheap or frugal. Have you ever been to a con even?

"take my damn money and gimmie!"

[Gauge]

Orion Pirate, on 10 June 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

No I do not agree with the majority of your posts. You don't seem to understand custom mech designs. Sure the TROs have plenty of mechs to choose from, but nothing EVER stopped me from doing a complete redesign of the mech, or making my own for that matter, giving it a unique name and variant number etc. Canon is there to sell TROs. But if you have imagination, you never need to buy a TRO to play the game.

But then Battletech goes under because no one wants to spend money for designs that are bad compared to their own... but that could never happen, right?

Joking aside, seriously, this isn't an argument about whether or not you should be able to customize. It's an argument about about keeping the game interesting and giving it real staying power in the industry. Maybe some people will spend money for a long time just on the aesthetics of a mech. Maybe some people will spend money to get all the chassis just to collect them. But I think the majority of people will want a different combat experience when they get a new mech. They want options they didn't have before. And I'm not convinced that's going to be what new chassis and variants bring to the table.

If you can make a fast awesome with 5 small lasers, or a slow charger with 3 PPCs, then why are those two different mechs? Yes, the locations of the hardpoints could differ slightly, but that doesn't feel like enough. There's no longer any flavor to the Charger and the Awesome.

Having imagination is great. I know you just want to basically make your own mech. But as a business model for MWO, having so few reasons to use different chassis isn't great. And I would argue that imagination is much better suited to being creative within restrictions, and not making the rules up as you go.