3
Mechlab Background: The BT table top game allows for a ton of customization, if you want to go that route. So did past games like MW2 and 3, where customization was nearly unlimited - within only the constraints of critical space and weight. More recent games like MW4 and MC2 limited things much more drastically.
For MWO: I really like most of what I have seen so far in the videos and interviews. We are limited by weight and crit space, which looks to be almost perfectly matched to BT tabletop, and further by hardpoints of various types for weapons. This makes good sense, but I have seen in the videos that some mechs sport hardpoints that are not used by their stock variant... and that makes me worry that the current incarnation may be too lenient. I would be all for hardpoints *only* existing where the specific variant of the mech had weapons, and in the exact same quantity.
Armor and engines have also been indicated to be customizable, and I think that is good. But what I do worry about is that in the past the devs have stated customization will be free: this is something I would argue against. To be at least somewhat realistic, I think there should be moderate to steep costs associated with customization: this will encourage some to stick with stock mechs, at least for a while after getting a new chassis, and it will make for a good economic sink. Here is what I think would work nicely:
- Every time something is removed from or added to a crit space there is a cost. Removal would be half the price of adding something new. In this way, if I wanted to upgrade a weapon, I would have to:
Purchase the new weapon
Pay to remove the old one
Pay to mount the new one
Optionally, sell back the old one at a reduced price
- Armor would work in a similar fashion, with removing armor costing less than adding it. However, I would not have a requirement to purchase armor first: the cost of it would be included in the adding / removing fee.
- Engines would be expensive in their own right, and moving from a normal to a XL engine would also cost a ton because of the affected critical space. Similarly, if Endosteel and Ferrofibrous armor were ever added as options they would cost a good bit as well (not only because of their inherent costs, but because of the 14 crit spaces you'd have to add).
To round out the economic side of things, I think that repairs should be relatively expensive - with costs increasing on larger mechs because there is more armor to repair (assuming it was heavily damaged in battle) and on higher tech level weapons. This would further discourage using the biggest mechs with the best weapons all the time: make it so that such setups would be hard to recoup enough c-bills in to cover your costs. Ammo reloads should also cost a small amount, and if we have the option to flush coolant then refills of that after a match should also be a factor.
With all of that properly balanced, though, I don't think we should ever be able to completely lose a mech or even weapons in battle. Repairs for a completely destroyed weapon might be nearly as high as buying the weapon over again, but I think making players go through the trouble of making sure they repurchase all the right stuff every battle would be too much.
Another neat option for a money sink, if they need more, would be charges for dropship and jumpship travel: the further you are going from your home base (especially in the case of merc corps) the more it could cost, but maybe the rewards for fighting would be higher too? This could actually be a neat way to encourage some folks to sign up with houses: they could get free transport, since a soldier isn't usually charged by his commander to travel to a mission
Now, on the matchmaking side, I want a bit of realism myself. I don't want matches that pair up just certain classes or sizes of mechs, and I don't want ones with more than three factions involved: 2 houses + mercs on either side should be the maximum. At any given time I would like to see a couple of planets that are being contested on the border between each house's territory, with members of those house's military able to join those battles as well as mercenaries, and the mercs would be encouraged to go to the side with less real military presence by being offered a larger c-bill contract based on how many folks are in queue on each side.
When enough folks are queued up for a specific planet, matchmaking would be done to try and pair roughly equal teams in terms of either tonnage or some variant of battle value. At first I would not take player records into account in this, but if it was found to be imbalanced over time that could be factored in as well.
I should also note that I would like us to be able to see the basic planetary conditions - climate, gravity, maybe population and a couple of other things - before selecting a mech and signing up for combat. I do *not* think we should be able to do any more than bring a specific mech, with its loadout already set in the mechlab, to take to a planet. We should *not* be able to customize further based on the specific map, or even things like day vs night, weather, etc. That will again make folks more likely to pick a good all-around mech design, rather than something super specialized.
And lastly, I don't know if this is technically feasible or not - but I think it would amazing. I would love to see about 5-10 maps at game launch, covering various types of terrain... but with customizable climate and weather conditions. This way we might know we are going to an ice planet, but it could still be any of the various maps - just with snow, colder temps, and a chance of snow storms during the match. Then those same maps could be on a desert planet, or any other type you can think of. Maybe some maps would be unlikely to show on a certain planet - like a city map may be more or less likely depending on population - but it would allow for a lot more flexibility without having to make as many different maps. Wishful thinking?
