261 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Michavian, on 10 June 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

It's my understanding that battlemechs are extremely modular by design; this means that components are designed to be removed and replaced as easy as possible. I assume this because of all of the customization options of the video games and the designs of the mech labs therein.

Not at all, that's why the OmniMech was considered such an impressive upgrade. Most customization was literally lots of sweat into custom-fitting new parts into a stock chassis, unless it was an out-and-out "refit kit", which is a manufactured, specific design from the factory to equip a Mech into a new configuration. Stock designs are by far the most common, with some field refits and upgrades/factory variants showing up as well.

[phelancracken]

If your a beginning table top gamer with limited funds, that might be all you could afford at the time. I personally have quite a few extra minis that I lend out to people when playing TT just to try and have as many accurate minis on the board as possible. I should say, accurate to the basic mech. Variants, you have to keep track of what's what.

The point is that crits, hardpoints and TONNAGE is all that's really needed to keep mech balance in the lab. We don't know more than the basics of how the lab is going to work. We know they are including crits, tonnage, and cost in the equation. We don't know if something else is going to be included. So again, speculation.

[Frostiken]

LackofCertainty, on 10 June 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I can say the exact same for your idea here though. Your suggestion doesn't stop boating or min/maxing in the slightest, it just punishes people for experimenting. If people are min/maxing, they don't need to do a bunch of modification. All they need to do is plan out the "perfect" mech and then make it. (or more likely go online and look up the perfect mech and then make it) So your idea only really affects the people who want to tinker while being completely ineffective against what you say it's there to stop.

Munchkins don't build their character/mech by experimenting with a chassis over and over, they build it by getting out all their reference materials and looking through them till they find a theoretically breakable mechanic. My DnD group has a powerbuilder in it, and he doesn't come up with characters by playing games with them and then tweaking, he comes up with a build by checking the math on it till he finds the highest possible numbers and synergies.

To sum it up, a delay/increasing cost on Mechlab wouldn't hurt powerbuilders; it would only hurt tinkerers/experimenters like myself.

Hmm... I totally understand your point, and I'm having to work to come up with arguments to it. So here goes: I don't have a lot but optimism to back this up, but I think part of the problem you're describing is related to the god-awful balance that has plagued previous Mechwarrior games. Lasers, for example, were utter absurdity in 3 and 4 with their pixel-perfect accuracy and instant massive damage.

If I operate from the assumption that PGI has actually managed to strike a great balance between all weapon types and actually made 'inferior' weapons finally useful (looking at you, AC/2), I would like to imagine that people going for a 'best build' would still be limiting themselves in an exploitable manner.

The reason I sought to punish people for visiting the mechlab constantly and making ceaseless changes is to:

- Remove the ability to freely float limited parts between various mechs. At some point, you have to pay. I'm a little surprised PGI is even okay with this, as this is just letting you save tons of cbills for only a little bit of effort.
- Discourage flavor-of-the-day boating.

I don't know if it's even possible, but I wouldn't want to see a snow map come up, and then someone goes 'omg brb' and guts their centurion and then it comes back toting a huge energy arsenal. And then a lava map comes up and the same centurion - just one mech he owns - is not wearing a totally different loadout.

I want to encourage people to pursue more generalist loadouts, as they will have to have a mech prepared for ALL situations as they will not have the luxury of being able to go 'Oh they have a bunch of long-ranged mechs? Hang on, my Raven has two missiles slots, let me bolt a couple LRM-20s in there'. So instead they'll go 'what if I encounter enemies that outrange me? I should put an LRM-10 over here so I can harry them without putting myself in immediate danger'.

Generalist loadouts give the game a bit more depth, require more planning (versus going 'PPCs are easy to use, let's just pour those in so all my weapons have the exact same range and ballistic profile'), and make the game just look better.

I suppose a truly balanced mechwarrior could see generalist roles arise as boating would be mitigated, but a balanced Mechwarrior has - let's face it - never really existed so history is more likely to favor boating in my eyes.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 04:01 PM.

[Squigles]

Warfeli, on 10 June 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

I also think that the Mechlab as it is now will not make variants completely useless

This is, I think, thankfully, one thing we don't really have to worry about as far as people actually purchasing the variants. Although they can certainly get by just customizing 1 variant to the ends of the earth, I'm fairly certain they've said to get to the elite level of unlockable bonuses for the mechs, you have to reach the elite tier in all variants of that mech. So break out your in-game check books.

[Henchman 24]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 09:44 AM, said:

Not according to the devs. In the Q&A, one of them outright said he just goes into the mechlab and moves weapons from chassis to chassis so he doesn't have to buy new weapons. This implies that the cost is free.

The Mechlab video confirms it, the only time he spent money was to buy new weapons. Moving things around was completely free, and no cost seemed to be associated with the act of customizing the chassis in the first place.

Ease off on people when they point out your obvious assumptions, even one wrong one, can throw a whole theory down the stairs.

Here's a pillow for that landing.

[Supremacist]

LackofCertainty, on 10 June 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

Small laser in the CT, with 3 energy slots there.

Wrong, 2 of the 3 slots are already taken up by the small laser.
So back to OPs point, no, that doesnt mean he can put three PPCs there since there are 3 energy slots.
At best, a Medium laser is probably 3 points, so he can upgrade the small laser to a medium.
Large lasers are probably 4 points, the PPC most likely is 5

[phelancracken]

We have a lot of unknowns on how the game is going to be when it's finally launched. I can't wait to see what it turns out to be. One thing is for sure, the mechlab isn't completely set in stone. Nothing truly is. Until they get the bugs that are still there worked out from the Beta, we won't know what is going to be the launch product. Then as we as the playing community get to it, we will find more bugs and possibly exploits that no one knew about to cause the devs to have to fix changing how the game works.

As for the mech lab, who knows the finished product. The Mechlab video shows crits, tonnage and cost being used we only know those things for sure. Not everything else.

[Frostiken]

Henchman 24, on 10 June 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Ease off on people when they point out your obvious assumptions, even one wrong one, can throw a whole theory down the stairs.

Here's a pillow for that landing.

Only if you have built your entire argument from that one wrong assumption.

In this case, if I was wrong, it's irrelevant. If I want the simple act of changing things around to cost you money, and it actually does cost money, then I got my way Doesn't really compromise the rest of my post which are totally different points.

Though to be fair, all I have is an interview, a video, a few Q&As, and experience from previous MW games, so there is some assuming going on.

Regardless, my point is try to prevent a problem and encourage ways to improve the game, preemptive though it may be. I think it's worthy of discussion, at least with the few people who are willing to discuss it.

[Frostiken]

Supremacist, on 10 June 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Wrong, 2 of the 3 slots are already taken up by the small laser.

Energy: 2/3.

You're reading it wrong. The devs have said in an interview from GDC (well, 'devs' = the guy with the mustache) that these slots limit the number of weapons. The interviewer specifically asked about large vs. small weapons and was told it wouldn't matter. I'll try to dig it up.
You get a maximum of 3 energy weapons. The AC/20 took up only one ballistic hardpoint slot, and the machine gun took up one ballistic hardpoint slot. Watch the counters as he swaps things in and out.

And now you understand my concern

[Murphy7]

Frostiken said:

I want to encourage people to pursue more generalist loadouts, as they will have to have a mech prepared for ALL situations as they will not have the luxury of being able to go 'Oh they have a bunch of long-ranged mechs? Hang on, my Raven has two missiles slots, let me bolt a couple LRM-20s in there'. So instead they'll go 'what if I encounter enemies that outrange me? I should put an LRM-10 over here so I can harry them without putting myself in immediate danger'.

Generalist loadouts give the game a bit more depth, require more planning (versus going 'PPCs are easy to use, let's just pour those in so all my weapons have the exact same range and ballistic profile'), and make the game just look better.

I suppose a truly balanced mechwarrior could see generalist roles arise as boating would be mitigated, but a balanced Mechwarrior has - let's face it - never really existed so history is more likely to favor boating in my eyes.

Sounds great for when you don't know anything about the environment heading into a match. I feel it is an important aspect of the game that you can best adapt for the situation you are facing. If you know you are signing on for a three match campaign on an icy planet, you might want to:

Increase ammo loads for your weapons
Exchange some ammo dependent weapons for energy
Get a quick paint job so your neon pink and dayglo orange "Solaris camo" isn't still showing

By all means, some limitations in what you can accomplish on a particular chassis is fine, but denying people that aspect of strategizing isn't necessarily good for the game as a whole, in my view anyway.

[Frostiken]

Murphy7, on 10 June 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

By all means, some limitations in what you can accomplish on a particular chassis is fine, but denying people that aspect of strategizing isn't necessarily good for the game as a whole, in my view anyway.

I just dislike these accusations that I'm somehow trying to shut down the mechlab altogether.


The words to describe the mechlab that Mr. Mustache used was "you can fine-tune your mech".

In my eyes, complete weapon gutting and major engine / armor overhaul is not 'fine tuning'. I'm totally cool with fine tuning. I'm pretty cool with general tweaking. I'm not cool with major overhauling. Replacing machine guns with gauss rifles and SRM-2s with MRM-40s is beyond reasonable.

MW4, as much as I dislike that game, had measures in place to ensure this couldn't happen, and I'm happy to continue the trend.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[phelancracken]

I rewatched the video Frost. The tonnage and crits of the weapons are following what's currently available in TT including the crits that are normally open in said locations. There are a couple of things that bother me but it's their game. The energy slots used versus available has nothing to do with tonnage or crits. It works with them, but doesn't replace them.

[Vanguard319]

ya.... no.

The mech lab has enough limitations, between hardpoints, weight restrictions, and additional limits like heat and ammo, it doesn't need what you are proposing.

[UncleKulikov]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I just dislike these accusations that I'm somehow trying to shut down the mechlab altogether.


The words to describe the mechlab that Mr. Mustache used was "you can fine-tune your mech".

In my eyes, complete weapon gutting and major engine / armor overhaul is not 'fine tuning'. I'm totally cool with fine tuning. I'm pretty cool with general tweaking. I'm not cool with overhauling.

That's why I like the hardpoints; it keeps the mech within certain constraints in that you need to purchase another refit of the mech, like the energy hunchback in order to drastically alter the loadout.

[PANZERBUNNY]

I think the complete customization that some may be expect, isn't in the game.

Fine tuning isn't skinnig a fish and then serving pork for dinner.

[Judge Doug]

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

By allowing people to freely change their mech loadouts, they can have a missile boat Catapult in one match, and then without even buying a new mech, probably cram PPCs into the side torsos of the same catapult (I see no reason why you couldn't) the next. Tadah - instant CPLT-K2. You don't get machine guns... on the plus side, your ears can have the armor taken out of them!
Fair enough. Now ask yourself, given those options, how many people - real people, not the BT fans that make up this forum - would actually spend real money just for that? Not many I wager. The CPLT-K2 and the CPLT-C1 are two massively different applications of the same platform. They even made a special model just for the K2. Since the medium lasers are in the side torsos of the CPLT-C1, you can easily cram PPCs in there too, and fill up the rest with the heatsinks. If you get away with it, you can then take all the armor out of the ears and leave them empty.

You have just made a more-indestructible CPLT-K2 without spending a dime on the K2 variant. I foresee a thread on the forums with specifically this kind of stuff. Yeah, you can't make a super energy boat like you might be able to with the K2 itself (with energy hardpoints all over), but it seems to me you can get away with 'good enough'. Certainly enough to save you 9 million CBills that the K2 would cost (or something along those lines).

I totally 100% agree with this and if anyone has had any experience playing any game ever, the forums will be destroyed with people saying "*** why would I buy a K2?!?!?!" you CAN dump those LRM's from the arms, pop PPC's into the torso, and re-arrange all that arm armor to tank up your base C1, inbetween each and every match. So WHAT is the point of a K2?

This and the Swayback/Hunchback argument is 100% valid. A valid, real concern and the people who are saying "you haven't even played yet!!" don't realize that this is a concern that the OP is bringing up in the hopes that either a) the devs DIDN'T think about it beforehand and now have it on the radar, or they've already thought of it, and addressed it. Regardless of a OR b being true, the OP has every right to be worried (and so should you) because with such carefree lack of limitation on some mech redesigns you'll see no reason for people to buy certain variants, the devs won't be able to make real cash for them, and then won't invest any more time in creating alternate skins/variants like the K2.

[Squigles]

Supremacist, on 10 June 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

Wrong, 2 of the 3 slots are already taken up by the small laser.
So back to OPs point, no, that doesnt mean he can put three PPCs there since there are 3 energy slots.
At best, a Medium laser is probably 3 points, so he can upgrade the small laser to a medium.
Large lasers are probably 4 points, the PPC most likely is 5

Everything is actually 1 to the hardpoints, an AC20 is 1 ballistic, an AC 5 is 1 ballistic, it's all just 1 as far as hardpoints go. Also, it's using 1 of the 3 hardpoints, the counter goes down as items are added, not up. Furthermore, looking at the video, we can assume that the entire hardpoint layout for that hunchback is garbage. It has 3! hardpoints in the CT, which will never, ever, ever have more then 2 crits open in it.

So, I'd say any assumption about the hardpoints for that mech besides the basic load out is garbage until we see it live, I'd guess the hardpoint spread on that is for beta testing.

[Anixantheas]

Murphy7, on 10 June 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

But the most TT like reason that is similar to this is wysiwyg - a chassis profile starts identifying the possibilities for you, weapons fired will give you an even clearer idea of what you are facing. As someone who is annoyed by proxies on the tabletop ( No, I don't think your unpainted Commando is a reasonable stand in for your Daishi refitted with a Heavy Gauss and two Rotary AC5s), there is an admirable rationality to Frostliken's suggestions.

As a 40k Player this is exactly how things run in our groups. Sorry that marine is not a greater deamon!
As I stated earlier, I like the idea of paying to customize, now alot of the "but I spent a bagillzion dollars on this an I do not like it and you want me to spend 2 bagillzion becuase I want to switch fast" could easily be negated by a "target range" just off the mechlab. You know like in the beginning of MW4:mercs, where you have to torso twist around a tower, and step on some trucks.

Before hitting Accept on spending you money you should be able to run around that tower, step on some targets, ect... and if you like it, then hit accept. Get yourself a feel for it. now you get to the field and actually take some battle damage and then expect the techie to just shrug and swap things around. naw, I think you should be payin!

[Murphy7]

Frostiken, on 10 June 2012 - 04:21 PM, said:

I just dislike these accusations that I'm somehow trying to shut down the mechlab altogether.
.

You are reading an accusation that isn't there.


I expect that as people collect funds they will build a stable of mechs that meet a variety of roles and environments, and see themselves as being the general purpose part rather than or in addition to their mech designs.

Ooverhauling is more likely if chassis types are limited in accessibilty or early in a player's development when they may have the cash to outfit one or tow chassis for a variety of encounters but has not yet built up the capital for several dedicated chassis.

From your perspective, how is it different for you as an opponent if one player you compete against refits the same chassis several matches in a row, and another opposing player has several chassis dedicated to particular load outs to trot out in successive matches?

Warm fuzzies about how you feel the game ought to be played aside, there isn't a functional difference.

[Remorce]

Go away.

All of you chill the hell out and pull your little TT mech out of your ___.

Now sit down, take a breather, and relax.

Edited by Remorce, 10 June 2012 - 04:39 PM.