64 replies to this topic

[MagnusEffect]

An amendment to the canon vs full customization argument:
http://mwomercs.com/...ent/#entry48133

More fun polls can be found here:
http://mwomercs.com/...eference-guide/

Method 1: MW2/BT level customization: everything but the kitchen sink can be modified (not the most "realistic", but who cares?!). Maybe balance this by being prohibitively expensive to do complete overhauls and allow for complete mech destruction (balance the use of expensive designs by allowing the loss of them).

Method 2: MW4 level customization: mechs still keep *some* of their basic traits in weapon configuration, but there is a great amount of leeway. Maybe balance this by being prohibitively expensive to do complete overhauls and allow for complete mech destruction (balance the use of expensive designs by allowing the loss of them).

Method 3: "Large Weapon Swapping." It allows players to do *some* customization without it getting ridiculous. Essentially, this means that bigger weapons can be swapped out for others on a 1:1 basis. This keeps mechs from losing their basic weapon "hardpoint" configurations. A hunchback still retains its behavior as a "mech built around one bigass gun", but now players have the option of deciding what that big gun is (example: swap out for a Gauss Rifle). If a pilot decides to downgrade to a slightly smaller "big gun" (say from a AC/20->PPC) they can use the remaining tonnage to fit smaller weapons, extra heatsinks, armor, or other "minor" upgrades as needed wherever. Obviously, it would be up to the devs to balance this accordingly (Honestly, it *sounds* more complicated than it is, really)

Method 4: "Limited Variant Modification": Essentially, this allows rather minor modification of existing canonical (or dev balanced) variants. Large weapons cannot be changed or moved (PPCs, Large Lasers, AC/5s or bigger as an example), but smaller weapons, heatsinks, armor, or "minor" items can be added or dropped as needed. This allows players the freedom to at least tweak a mech more to their liking while still retaining the mech's primary characteristics. Base variants would be either canon or tweaked by devs to be more balanced (depending on design).

Method 5: Hardset variants designed by the devs to be BALANCED (whatever that means), guided by canon, but not limited to ONLY canon. The problem with canon is that many canon variants sucked. This forced the player to choose mechs that actually worked, rather than the ones they aesthetically liked.

Method 6: Canon variants only: Models from the BT technical readouts are allowed only (no customization). To be fair, this does easily remove the problem of min-maxing with x7 large laser boats that has plagued previous MW games.

Method 7: Similar to method 1, but mechs are visually updated to show what they carry (similar to AssaulTech)

Method 8: Similar to method 2, but mechs are visually updated to show what they carry (somewhat like MWLL)

... for science!

PERSONAL (BIASED) NOTE: The biggest problem with all previous MW titles was that customizing caused mechs to lose their "feel". A Catapult with 3 Large Lasers didn't really "behave" like a Catapult at all, but it still looked like a Catapult; the obvious missile racks being little more than large ornaments. This made encounters somewhat boring and cookiecutter-ish. For those who have played MWLL or AssaulTech, this issue was somewhat resolved. Still, most agree it would be a step in the right direction if variants/modifications of mechs could be somewhat easily distinguished while still keeping the flavor of the original designs.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 12:32 PM.

[Kudzu]

I keep seeing people use expense as a balance for customization when all it does is expand the gap: the faster you get up in cash, the faster you make a "perfect" mech, the faster you kill people without "perfect mechs". It becomes a vicious cycle where new people and those that don't play constantly get hit harder and harder until they can't really compete.

Yes, many of the canon designs were imperfect-- they were intentionally designed that way. A bit of dev tweaking and a well planned bv system should fix the worst of the problems.

Customization is great for single player modes because the AI doesn't care how cheesy you make a mech... in a multiplayer setting it becomes a gigantic issue.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Somewhere between 4 and 5 really.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Kudzu, on 14 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

I keep seeing people use expense as a balance for customization when all it does is expand the gap: the faster you get up in cash, the faster you make a "perfect" mech, the faster you kill people without "perfect mechs". It becomes a vicious cycle where new people and those that don't play constantly get hit harder and harder until they can't really compete.

Yup. There needs to be some sort of on-going penalty for custom mechs. Preferably in game, not just economics. Otherwise it just makes things worse for new players. It really should be a choice you have to make all the time, not a "I finally made enough money!" once sort of thing.

[MagnusEffect]

Kudzu, on 14 November 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

I keep seeing people use expense as a balance for customization when all it does is expand the gap: the faster you get up in cash, the faster you make a "perfect" mech, the faster you kill people without "perfect mechs". It becomes a vicious cycle where new people and those that don't play constantly get hit harder and harder until they can't really compete.

Totally agree. Rephrased to a better idea.

TheRulesLawyer, on 14 November 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Somewhere between 4 and 5 really.

Exactly where I stand with maybe more leanings towards 4. I loved the rifleman in theory but so much about it was just baaad. I always had to refit it with more armor and heatsinks.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 03:15 PM.

[Gaius Cavadus]

TheRulesLawyer, on 14 November 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Somewhere between 4 and 5 really.

This.

[rollermint]

I would like to order 4 sprinkled with 5, please. Thank you very much.

[MagnusEffect]

Choices should be mostly fixed now, recast your votes as needed.

[MagnusEffect]

<deleted> rephrased method 4 slightly

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 03:54 PM.

[Neanot]

One of the best parts of the previous MW pc games was always the customisation. MW2 gave too much flexibility, and in a PVP game, it is probably best to have predicatable behaviour for each silouette. Whilst I liked being able to shove a tonne of medium ER lasers on any chassis I chose, that really shouldn't be the case in this game. MWO should have mechs that are consitant to their recognised rolls, with weapons approapriate.

However, I don't like being restricted to pre-defined variants. I am all for having variants available for those who aren't fussed on customising, and for easy entry into new chassis when you want to swap rolls or mechs without having to work out exactly which setup works best with each body. But, there should also still be a good level of customisation available for those who like to tinker.

For me, something similar to MW4 would be good. Each hardpoint would have a specific type of weapon class that it could accomodate, be it energy, missle or projectile. You are then free to put as many of that type of weapon in that you want, up to the size/weight limit for that point, but can't put a different type of weapon there. No omni-slots. That way, a mech with missle racks would be forced to maintain the missles, but you could choose to use SRM, MRM or LRMs to preference. Similarly, a mech with huge cannons on the arms would be forced to stick with a projectile, and not load up on an array of small lasers. Heatsinks and armour plating should be completely customisable.

Everyone has their prefered mech, and prefered playstyle, be it up-close and personal, or standoffish. There shouldn't be too much of a penalty for being able to up- or down-size the effective range of a mech by changing the exact weapon loadout, as long as the mech setup is forced to stay true to the appearance of the mech, and general recognised usage.

[Barantor]

TheRulesLawyer, on 14 November 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

Somewhere between 4 and 5 really.

This.

[MagnusEffect]

Neanot, on 14 November 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

One of the best parts of the previous MW pc games was always the customisation. MW2 gave too much flexibility, and in a PVP game, it is probably best to have predicatable behaviour for each silouette. Whilst I liked being able to shove a tonne of medium ER lasers on any chassis I chose, that really shouldn't be the case in this game. MWO should have mechs that are consitant to their recognised rolls, with weapons approapriate.

However, I don't like being restricted to pre-defined variants. I am all for having variants available for those who aren't fussed on customising, and for easy entry into new chassis when you want to swap rolls or mechs without having to work out exactly which setup works best with each body. But, there should also still be a good level of customisation available for those who like to tinker.

For me, something similar to MW4 would be good. Each hardpoint would have a specific type of weapon class that it could accomodate, be it energy, missle or projectile. You are then free to put as many of that type of weapon in that you want, up to the size/weight limit for that point, but can't put a different type of weapon there. No omni-slots. That way, a mech with missle racks would be forced to maintain the missles, but you could choose to use SRM, MRM or LRMs to preference. Similarly, a mech with huge cannons on the arms would be forced to stick with a projectile, and not load up on an array of small lasers. Heatsinks and armour plating should be completely customisable.

Everyone has their prefered mech, and prefered playstyle, be it up-close and personal, or standoffish. There shouldn't be too much of a penalty for being able to up- or down-size the effective range of a mech by changing the exact weapon loadout, as long as the mech setup is forced to stay true to the appearance of the mech, and general recognised usage.

So basically similar to method 3 but if you had say... an AC/20... you could fit it for a Gauss rifle OR two Ac/5s... basically as long as whatever you put there doesn't exceed the size of the AC/20. That is not really any different from MW4, currently (for better or for worse).

To be honest, I don't think MW4 idea was that bad, but it did run you into a specific problem; what if someone wants to swap an AC/5 for a PPC? Theoretically, there shouldn't be any good reason it can't be done. The Shadowhawk variants are a classic example of this and it is very much NOT an omnimech. (Also, the boating did get a bit ridiculous in MW4, but that is another matter that should be handled separately I think).

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 04:09 PM.

[MagnusEffect]

ANOTHER UPDATE!:

Okay.. found a VERY big error on my part involving method 4:

I said "anything "bigger than a Large Laser, AC/5".... etc. when I meant to say "Large Laser, AC/5... OR BIGGER". Ah yes... phrasing is everything.

I also removed Method 9 as I thought the *new* Method 4 sort of made it redundant. Remember people, you are picking the one that mostly closely fits your ideal choice. Ultimately, it will be up to the devs during playtests to tweak accordingly.

Sorry about the constant changes guys. Really not trying to ***** with people's votes. I have to be careful about typing too much and being timed out by the forums (has happened before). Everything *should* be fixed now. Please check for changes and recast votes as needed.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[feor]

Method one, full blown swap out whatever you want as much as you want style. Battletech the board game already has an extremely well laid out systems for doing this, including how long it takes to make changes, and the potential repercussions if your tech screws it up.

Plus from a Dev's point of view, this is the least amount of work for them, both short term, and going forward as they add new mechs to the game. If you implement it in this way then the individual chassis are really just cosmetic. And as long as you put an obvious "Weapon panel" or 3 on each limb/torso it would be fairly simple to even have the appearance of the mech change with differing loadouts.

And if they actually implement the StratOps refit/repair rules in universe it also auto-balances Omnis once they show up, since you get the ability to change out their weapons very quickly, but any changes or repairs to fixed components take even longer and are more likely to fail.

[CaveMan]

If they'd stick with strictly 3025 weapons and equipment, I'd say go for full customization, all the way. You can't make an imbalanced 'Mech with level 1 gear, heat/ammunition/armor/something will kick your ***.

Since it's pretty clear we're going to have level 2 and maybe even 3 tech starting out, with the Clans to come a year later, I say options 4 and 6. Canon 'Mechs (they suck because they're supposed to suck, don't think the people writing the TROs didnt understand how to game the system) with very limited customization.

[Datum]

I want full customization, preferably with the Assaulttech visual tweaks.
As long as they balance out the way the systems work as to limiting the possible insanity of the ensuing designs, it will be fine.

[MagnusEffect]

I don't think there will be lvl 3 stuff for awhile (possibly never). Just Star League era gear it looks like. So lvl 2-ish. Basically whatever the IS had right before the Clans showed up... at least for the first year after launch.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 November 2011 - 05:03 PM.

[Undead]

I chose Method 7. Full-blown customization is part of the appeal of BT (for me anyway). No dumbed-down MW4 mechlab for me, thanks. Having the mech visually updated with its current loadout would be awesome.

[HIemfire]

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.

Edited by hiemfire, 14 November 2011 - 05:39 PM.

[CaveMan]

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

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.

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...