64 replies to this topic

[Miles Tails Prower]

I liked the MW4 system.

It gave each mech its own function, provided logical limitations that streamlined customization without squelching creativity. It really lets you get into the action quickly, without feeling like you aren't playing Mechwarrior anymore.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Miles Tails Prower, on 14 November 2011 - 06:27 PM, said:

I liked the MW4 system. It gave each mech its own function, provided logical limitations that streamlined customization without squelching creativity. It really lets you get into the action quickly, without feeling like you aren't playing Mechwarrior anymore.

I chose method #4 but with a refined hardpoint system method #4 could easily be achieved.

[Banthersnide]

In my experience with the MW saga (and the tabletop) customization breaks the game and turns many designs obsolete,but I got to admit that this is one of the key factors of the game and make it quite enjoyable. One solution that I were discussing with my friends was the possibility of free customization like MW2 but when you go far from the canon/tro variants the game will punish you heavily (In cost/stats/etc) . This will encourage using stock models and I think that I could help the devs in balancing the game.

Edited by Banthersnide, 14 November 2011 - 07:20 PM.

[DFDelta]

I'd prefer something like 6 combined with 3.
You can only buy canon mechs, but you can do modifications to mechs for a high price and maybe some out of commision time (if we can have several mechs at once).
At the same time make mechs run into trouble if customized to far and to much.
Small changes should always be possible without problems, but if I build something that differs from what the variant was supposed to be in the beginning it'll start to have malfunctions.
Also custom mechs should be more expensive to repair.

[MagnusEffect]

@ hiemfire, (check 1st page)

wow, good post man. didn't know about the "class" refits. that would actually be a really good measuring stick to go by for an updated version of this poll. It is entirely possible that such class refits could actually be implemented into the game. For example, more intensive refits would actually require the player being based on a planet that allowed such refits or force them to "mail" their mech to the appropriate facility (which of course, should take awhile to happen).

DFDelta, on 14 November 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

I'd prefer something like 6 combined with 3.
You can only buy canon mechs, but you can do modifications to mechs for a high price and maybe some out of commision time (if we can have several mechs at once).
At the same time make mechs run into trouble if customized to far and to much.
Small changes should always be possible without problems, but if I build something that differs from what the variant was supposed to be in the beginning it'll start to have malfunctions.
Also custom mechs should be more expensive to repair.

3 & 6? That sounds mostly just like 3, but with a wait time, higher price for modding, etc. Method 6 is for people that ONLY want canon variants. Am I wrong?

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 08:58 PM.

[Zakatak]

Here's how I think it should work.

Weapons are split between 3 types, and 5 sizes.
Type: Energy, Kinetic, Missile
Size: Mini, Small, Medium, Large, Assault

Examples:
Gauss = kinetic large
ER SBL = energy small
SRM6 = missile medium
Machine Gun = kinetic mini
PPC = energy large
Arrow IV = missile assault

Weapons can only be replaced with weapon of the same type, and within 1 size of it. An ERBL (energy large) can be replaced with a MPL (energy medium) or an ERLPL (energy assault), but not a AC/10 (kinetic large) or a TAG (energy mini).

Who likes it?

Edited by Zakatak, 14 November 2011 - 09:08 PM.

[Tsen Shang]

Voted 3.

There were rules back in Max Tech about customization that I really liked. You could put whatever you wanted anywhere you wanted to, but it had to meet the same weight distribution requirements of the mech. For example, you can't just strip the large laser from the right arm of the Thunderbolt and put it in the right because the mech itself is balanced to have a specific amount of tonnage in the right arm. That's why I voted weapon swap, sounded like the closest. It'd be perfectly acceptable though to switch out the LL for 5 mediums. They may take more room, but the tonnage is the same.

Regardless of which allocation decision is used, I want to SEE what the other guy is using. I want someone's mech to be a mystery when the match is being prepared, but I want to be able to visually see if someone has slapped 15 medium lasers on a charger.

[Ogre Magi]

a large part of this will depend on what era we are talking about. If this is a Starleague tech/3025 era then its not really a problem. Most of the standard tech weapons dont have the alpha ability and the ones that do take up a lot of space/tonnage. The best upgrades for mechs in that era are double heatsinks limit those then you can keep the uber mech problems out of it.

later eras with XL engines, Clan tech, C3i ect ect do change the flavor of the game. I would suggest teh 3025 era with some modifications, changing out missles for energy weapons dumping the weapons load to mount a single AC 20 but limiting the double heat sink on mods.

[HIemfire]

CaveMan, on 14 November 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

There's probably a Catapult out there somewhere in the universe that's had it's LRM-15s swapped out for a bunch of medium/small lasers and the sick SOB who did the conversion just stuck the laser barrels through the missile tubes to make it look like nothing changed.

Be a pretty vicious urban fighter, really...

I see no reason to deny the possibility, there are people who think that way. Still in fairness, it would probably be better that regardless of the customization system used that the weapons in use have some sort of physical rendition on the unit. Might not happen though (that is allot of different models to draw).

[Aeolian]

Good weapon balance means that customisation is more about the player's preferred weapons than minmaxing. For that reason I voted for option 7.

To clarify, someone that totally customised their Atlas wouldn't do more damage than someone using a stock variant. MW4 failed on this one because the stock variants sucked and weapon loadouts were too unbalanced - it was feasible to alpha strike a laser boat, wheras with a proper heat management system this would be insane. You would also want significant modifications to be prohibitively expensive, risky and hard to use - for example if the modification procedure goes wrong somewhere your gun might stop working in the middle of a battle. However if it went fine, it would work perfectly. Sometimes you're told it went wrong, sometimes you're not (human error).

This would mean chasis would still be relevant - people would still use Uziels for the PPCs but if someone really, really loved the way Catapults looked, handled or really liked some other characteristc of the mech and had a load of money it would be possible but difficult for them to turn it into a PPC boat.

The idea is that it's less about minmaxing and more about character and personalisation. The guy who just took the Uziel would have considerably more money, would have saved loads of time and wouldn't have to deal with the possiblity of things failing in combat. Or the weapons being less effective because they don't work with the targetting computer as well. These downsides should NOT be inveitable, they should depend on either some trait (tech team skill level?), luck (human error) or part compatibility (this would probably be too complex to put in without adding a lot of time to the development process).

Edited by Aeolian, 14 November 2011 - 11:30 PM.

[ice trey]

Method 7 would be best, to me.

HOWEVER, if there's one thing that I am, it's someone that loves to see people stick to canon variants. While I don't want to see customization struck from the game outright, and I don't want to see a gimped system with a huge disparity from the Battletech record sheets (As when I try to teach them the game, you can tell the Mechwarrior2 and 3 players from the Mechwarrior 4 players. Mechwarrior 2 and 3 players recognize the sight of a record sheet and have a good idea what everything represents. Mech4 players tend to get confused and turned off immediately when they don't recognize the system that they're familiar with.)

What I want to see is the Customization rules as listed in the Battletech Master Rules book (Circa 2004) and/or Strategic Ops (Circa 2009), where you can customize your 'mech, but depending on how you're customizing it, or what you're customizing, the chances of either damaging the 'mech, ruining the component, or improperly installing the component (And henceforth unable to be fixed without destroying the component and replacing it with a brand new one) causing adverse effects ranging from extra heat produced to a potential to jam until your next repair or maintenance.

What is more, certain customizations (or refit kits, which should offer canon variants of existing 'mech designs, but at a significantly lower difficulty and cost than a true customization) should be more complex than others, thus increasing the chances of it failing. For example, swapping a medium laser for a medium pulse laser should be easy enough to do in an MFB in a matter of hours with some luck, while tearing out the engine and putting in a new one would require taking a 'mech to a fully-outfitted Battlemech factory, forking over wads of cash, and crossing your fingers that the Elite Technician team you hired don't break anything during the 12-hour process.

This is a great system from the Battletech board game, and before people complain about it being too complex, this is something that people do on paper or with a calculator, for fun. PC players are not so casual that they'll let a bit of complexity stop them if it gives them a (risky) chance at tweaking their mechs, especially if the computer is doing all the math and die-rolling.

Long story short, the game should not be gimped, but there should be a very good reason why players should want to keep their 'mechs in their stock configs. Unlimited customization - but with risks, costs, and requirements scaling with the intensity of the customization.

Edited by ice trey, 14 November 2011 - 11:30 PM.

[Marxman]

I think the mechlab of mw4 is probably close to a good enough solution. I personaly didnt like the critsystem in mw2/mw3 bacause it makes all mechs the same and youll end up with boats full of whatever weapon is the most effective.
Giving the mechs hardpoints like in mw4 makes the mechs unique and suited to certain roles. sure you cant swap a ppc for an ac5 as someone mentioned, but there could be a subvariant that has balistic slots insted of laser slots. so each mech should have enough subvariants to allow most if not all canon loadouts.
And considering game balance the slotsystem tones down the advantage of omnimechs to some extend. In mw4 even the omnimechs have some slots that are not omni.

and if thats too much customization for a balanced games some weapons could be made fixed, meaning you cant put a diffferent weapon in this slot no matter what.

I would however make slots bigger than in mw 4. in mw4 a AC20 used up 3 slots. i would pump it up to 5. and i would also make the hardpoints on the mechs bigger. because limiting the game to 1, 2 and 3 slot weapons leads to boating of 1slot weapons. Like in the netmech or hardcore mod for mw4 the slots were arranged the way i think it should be. and each mech had enough subvariants to allow canonlike loadouts.

Another posibility to limit boating could be to make heatsinks, or at least doubleheatsinks , to take up slots.

In any way the available tonnage usable for weapons and armor should be on a level with cbt. In MW4 the mechs had way more free tonnage. I suspect this was done because of their heatsystem wich had only on type of heatsink available and those reduced heat rather slowly. So for having cool running laserboats you need alot of tonnage for heatsinks, especialy for pulselasers wich are completly broken in mw4 imho.
But the amount of tonnage available made boating small balistics and missles alot easier.

Of cause it also had to do with the fact that most oneslot weapons were pretty ineffective unless you mounted loads of them.
So weaponstat should be a consideration too when it comes to slots or crits.
Id do the weaponstats and armor stats first. then id look into how accurate weaponsfire is ingame and THEN its time to talk about how the mechs could be customized.
So you have some basic formulas to translate weaponstats into a realtimegame , test it , tweak it where neccesary and then we can talk. Balance and the Funfactor should be above everything considering customization.

Edited by Marxman, 15 November 2011 - 03:48 AM.

[SumthinBurnin]

OK sooo as an old school pen and paper Battletech player, i totally vote for old school customization.

(Now that its been changed again, LOL option 7 is cool.)

This is what we did in my group back in the day for extreme or EVIL designs as they put it, it was outstanding.

Your brand new totally awesome mech is an (SORRY Star League duh its been a while. all references to old I.S mean Star League)---.>OLD Inner Sphere<--- PROTO TYPE. it got lost durring transport to a test site/planet. You have the location, and so does whoever owns the planet (NPC or Live) . You then have to get to your design, and either get it/them on a new Dropship or get the old one/ ones running.

(in our case we used 2 crashed Leopards i think they were.) Dropship size never bigger than a union, never more than company size (active possible units probably only a lance or so with the rest being spare parts mostly. Oh and theres no rule against you getting in there and starting up one of those puppys to defend the site,....other than the age and lack of maint. (in our case it was a frozen planet)

Could even take it a step farther, have the computer set values for each upgrade. the more u change the more likely its old IS tech

The rest is just old game talk read only if you want, its fleshing it out a bit.


They only made us do this with 1 redesign.

It was a 100 ton Battlemaster (15 ton full upgrade) it was a work of art. The design didnt come to life until FASA released a campaign with I.S. tech in it as a reward. My unitwon the double heatsinks (1ton weight or something like that. same weight as single HS double effect) Everyone hated that design. It had full armor, most of it movement, Dual PPC cannon (in the gun each barrel was a PPC. Fired like a double barrel shotgun, single or double. Either both hit or neither did) It lost MGs, and 2 med lasers, if memory serves me right..

We also re-designed almost all of the robotech designs(not so radical, but still most were full 15 ton re-designs if i remember right) to be a closer match to the TV series, oh my warhammer was sweet, second favorite design. If anyone wants to see them i think i still have copies in my foot locker We even made the robotech cyclone bikes,...those were *******. Infantry on those freakin ruled the field.

Edited by 19CJ70, 15 November 2011 - 11:40 AM.

[ice trey]

hiemfire, on 14 November 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

To be honest I'm torn. Methods 7 and 8 are the closest to what I would like to see (being able to visually see what a mech's loadout would be a major plus) but the slot limitations (Ballistics only, Missiles only, energy only, heat only, etc.) of the MW4 system is too limiting for my taste while the pure openness of the MW3/MW2 system is more for original designs and not field/mech bay customizations. Method 4 with the adjustments being see able is allot closer.

What I would like would be up to a class D refit as outlined in the CBT Strategic Operations (Class E and F refits are factory level, or mail it back to the builder and have them do it refits) but have a wait time (modifications take time, the more in-depth/complex the modification should take more time) before the modified mech is available. Doing that (the time taken part) in the same manner as the table top rules would probably risk chasing some of the player base away though, something I don't think Piranha would like to do.

(Edit) For ease of understanding here are the Strategic Operations refit/customization level definitions (pg 188 for those of you who have it):

Class A Refit (Field): This kit allows players to replace one weapon with another of the same category and with the same (or fewer) critical spaces (including ammunition). For example, players may replace a medium laser with a medium pulse laser or ER medium laser, or replace an AC/10 with an LB 10-X AC, and so on. Additionally, changing a weapon’s location or facing falls into this category.

Class B Refit (Field): This kit allows replacement of one category of weapon with another class of weapon(s), but with the same or fewer critical spaces (including ammunition); for example, replacing a machine gun and ammo with a small pulse laser, replacing a Gauss rifl e with two large lasers (as they’re both the same class and have fewer critical slots), and so on.

Class C Refit (Maintenance): This kit allows players to replace one type of armor with another (all locations); for example, replacing standard armor with ferro-fibrous. A Class C kit also enables replacement of a weapon or item of equipment with any other, even if it is larger than the item(s) being replaced; for example, replacing an ER large laser with an LRM-10 launcher and ammunition. Players may also change armor quantity and/or distribution, move a component, or add ammunition or a heat sink.

Class D Refit (Maintenance): This kit permits players to install a new item where previously there was none, or to install an ECM suite, C3 system or targeting computer. Players may also change heat sink types (including those integral to an engine) or engine ratings (but not the engine type). Finally, a Class D kit allows players to replace a location with a custom part.

Class E Refit (Factory): This kit lets players change the type of myomer installed, install CASE, and/or increase the unit’s Quality Rating one level.

Class F Refit (Factory): This kit lets players change a unit’s internal structure type (all locations), engine type, gyro type, or cockpit type. If a fusion engine is replaced by another type of power plant, i.e. Fission or ICE, then the total number of heat sinks mounted should be adjusted as indicated on the bonus heat sink
table (see p. 71, TM).

What ever system they do use, having the changes be observable by the opposition is, in my honest opinion, necessary. Even if for no other reason than to prevent someone from taking a Mad Dog C and have it still look like the primary variant or a Laserboat Catapult with those Mickey ears.

Quoting this because this is exactly what I want to see.

There are some things that can't be ported or translated from the tabletop, simply because the medium would make it feel weird, or it would just not be easy to program.

However, the closer we stay to the source material, the more flavorful and fun this game will be.

[Cronicus]

I do not want limited customization like Mech warrior 4 I HATED mech warrior 4's mech bay the limited customization abilities RUINED my game play for that game and STILL make me rage to this day.

Give me the oldschool customization and Mechbay from the MechWarrior 2 days. Plus if the customizations and changes are visable so much the better it will add to the mad max feel that some points of battletech do have.

I Just want my personal Awesome custome Thats all I want I personaly will probably be a merc and I want to be able to create an all energy weapon platform if I can do so.

People who scream about balance can clam up honestly all that is need to be done to keep customs balanced is a well designed and balanced heat/damage system and honestly my customs tend to have less potential firepower then cannon variants the main difference is I customize for sustainable firepower wich means I usualy have smaller weapons that can fire for longer periods or I set up groups dedicated to long and short range combat.

My Awesome custom from MechWarrior 2 Mercs:
3 ER PPC's this is fire group 1 I chain fire PPC's on approach
5 Inner Sphere Medium lasers this is fire group 2 and I usually link them and use them exclusively at close range.

Now in game this variant was balanced because even with double heat sinks I could not alpha strike even with Double heat sinks without risking shut down and overheating but seperate the PPC's and lasers (It could sustain alpha strikes with it's medium lasers without the PPC heat build up) and it could sustain fire and it was a critical hit machine.

I say the more customization the better let the players be creative with there own mech I want to see GAUSZILLAS PPC PLATFORMS and ARROW 4 platforms it will keep the game challenging and extend playing time.

After I beat my old MechWarrior games I spent years still playing them because of the oldSchool customization system and instant action setups the more customization you have the more you extend gameplay potential because people can and will make variants on something that will come strait out of left field.

This is especially true if you can own multiple mechs at once because people will create specific mechs for whatever situation they wish to find themselves in.

The more customization the better I will wait for any time or waiting period that the game needs me to wait for to get the customs I want because the oldschool mechlab made the game for me in the old days.

DO NOT GO THE MECHWARRIOR 4 ROUTE PLEASE!!!

[Shadowstarr]

I really want customization but fear the TT mw 2 level of it. I'd love to see all manner of cosmetic options. Maybe have a few different grades or brands of med laser. further complicate that by wear or damage of the part. Obviously electronic options and tweaks are all good. Once the tech is avail stuff like changed LB-X cannons or ultra Canon for regular ones. ( yeah i know there is a difference in tonnage size ect,)

I can't really wrap my head around this topic so much when i got a lot of questions about the strategic / logistical end of things with the campaign mode. Like how damage and mech destruction is played out or even an issue. If there is not perm mech destruction of a player's personal mechs then customization is far more sensible to explore. Or will the player is provided their mech at the expense of their house or merc unit then. Is it possible for a player to become dispossessed? Will lines of supply be issues? Customization might be a minor afterthought when basic replacement parts are scarce. Will your house loyalty effect your available mech choices? I think it should.


don't get me wrong I'll play the hell out of any game they produce with the IP just saying it'd be nice if there was real risk to combat, planetary / star sector capture strategies. I feel MPBT 3025 should be the model here. players joined a house, you fight for rank points higher your rank the better your mech selection among each of the house's available mech / variant tables.

[Daneiel]

Can i suggest one more method - No weapon changes , but modification -> same weapon manufactured by the different houses - > example - AC/20 can be from 25mm to 203mm
Aldis Industries - ChemJet Gun 185mm
Defiance Industries - Defiance Mech Hunter

So you can exchange existing weapon with the same different manufacture , they will have different stats and ammo but same Damage per minute , heat build up and rate of fire .
That will give much more chance to mechs which dont have enough room for big customization like the light and medium mechs and also they will have a good chance against bigger opponents .

[Cifu]

Actually i say neither one of the above.

-We need customization.
-The original loadouts are made for table-top game, not simulators. In some case you have 5 or 6 different weapon system on a Mech. That's simply too complex and become useless in a simulator-based game. This means the canon-only variants are sucked in many time (who gonna choose a wierd mixed short-, medium and long-range loadout? Effectively no one.)
-We need to make the customization very-very heavly priced, this actually represent the canon way.
-The Min-maxing is can be handled with the correct way of weapon rebalance. One such example i noted in the QNA:

AC/20: dmg: 20 point, heat: 7, weight: 14 tons (+5 shot / 1 tons of ammunition)

4x. Med. Laser: dmg: 4x 5 (20) point), heat: 4x 3 (12), weight: 4 tons (plus you can add 5 tons of Heat Sink to reduce the heat build up the same level ( seven point ).

So in the end, the 4 Medium Laser with 5 Heat Sink give the same range, and the same punch, but for only 9 tons (5 tons fewer, even without the ammo of the AC!), and you never run out of ammo - so there is no point to use the AC/20... if we count the cost, this is more uneven match (the AC/20 cost 300.000 c-bills without ammo, the 4 Med Laser cost 40.000 each, so even with the Heat Sinks, the laser option cost 2/3 as much as the AC!!!). So either the AC/20 need to be buffed (made radically cheaper, than the lasers, or give them better stats) and/or the Med Lasers nerfed (double the weight for example, or double the heat generation, or such thing).

I suggest there is something around the Method 5, but very pricely, and need some restriction.

Edited by Cifu, 15 November 2011 - 12:28 PM.

[Kudzu]

Actually cifu, if they get rid of pinpoint targeting and add scatter (like in the TT) the AC/20 looks a lot better because it's guaranteed to do 20 points of damage to a single location rather than spreading it out all over.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Kudzu, on 15 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

Actually cifu, if they get rid of pinpoint targeting and add scatter (like in the TT) the AC/20 looks a lot better because it's guaranteed to do 20 points of damage to a single location rather than spreading it out all over.

QFT. Plus, since its a 12pt+ gun it'll kill a mech in a single headshot. Previous MW games completely ignore the benefits of damage clumping.