268 replies to this topic

[Filter Decay]

do away with slots. I want 40 machine guns.

Edited by Filter Decay, 23 June 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[Teralitha]

The OP has a very valid point. With full customization.... why have so many different types of mechs? all we need is 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy, and 1 assault. Customized any way we want. We dont need any other type of chassis.

PURETECH STOCK VARIANTS FOR THE WIN WOOT. And the only thing you can do in mechlab is repair or swap out weapons on omni slots(if we get any) or add/remove armor, add/remove heatsinks, add/remove electronics, add/remove CASE and ammo. Thats it! Happy days will be here to stay.

[Robovski]

Even if it were utter unlimited customization, I'd want 17 mechs, one at each of the 5 ton intervals from 20 to 100.

But hardpoints is fine with me.

[trycksh0t]

ScientificMethod, on 23 June 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Isn't ferro fibrous the armor that takes up internal space? It's been a number of years since I've tried to modify mechs in TT.

Yes it is. That was thrown in as a representation that FF is bulkier than standard armor. But, it still boils down to welding armor plating to the chassis.

Double heatsinks have already had the impressive limitation of costing 50% extra space compared to normal heatsinks, ontop of the extra cost. I think the modifications you've suggested would just needlessly complicate things.

My reasoning on this one was that, as soon as you change a 'Mech from singles to doubles, it changes all of the engine's integrated heatsinks to doubles. Most 'Mechs are able to run without any additional heatsinks once they start using doubles. The limitations of DHS only enter the equation when you have to start adding additionals, which many designs don't need.

I'd have to get into the beta and their current mechbay to see how I feel about these things, so I'll just keep my thoughts to myself here.
Good thoughts all around though, I like your input trycksh0t.

Much appreciated, thank you

[zencynic]

Robovski, on 23 June 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Even if it were utter unlimited customization, I'd want 17 mechs, one at each of the 5 ton intervals from 20 to 100.

But hardpoints is fine with me.

Agreed

My 2 cents ...
**** Give me as many options as you can without overwhelming me. Take away any option that will likely ruin the game for a large segment of the player population or make the game financially unsound.

I think the hardpoint system meets my needs nicely. I will want to see it in use before passing final judgement, but it looks good so far. If it doesn't result in the sort of competitive environment that PGI is trying to create, I hope they change/overhaul it.

Most of the reasons I have hear for stricter Mech lab customization rules fall into one of two catagories

• These aren't omni mechs, this is non-Cannon
  
• Game balance issues

The 2nd one, I respect more. Many posters on this forum have loads of experience in competitive PvP play, Battletech and non-Battletech. I hope the Devs are listening for potential problems and solutions. However, I think too tight of restrictions early on will discourage new players more than it helps.

**** Finally, I would suggest that this thread is much more appropriate for the Suggestions forum

[ScientificMethod]

Teralitha, on 23 June 2012 - 08:08 PM, said:

The OP has a very valid point. With full customization.... why have so many different types of mechs? all we need is 1 light, 1 medium, 1 heavy, and 1 assault. Customized any way we want. We dont need any other type of chassis.

PURETECH STOCK VARIANTS FOR THE WIN WOOT. And the only thing you can do in mechlab is repair or swap out weapons on omni slots(if we get any) or add/remove armor, add/remove heatsinks, add/remove electronics, add/remove CASE and ammo. Thats it! Happy days will be here to stay.

So you're saying that a missile focused Catapult is the same as the PPC slinging Warhammer? They're both heavy mechs after all. I guess there is the fact that the Catapult doesn't have the hardpoints to carry the same amount or type of energy weapons as the Warhammer. No one ever said there weren't limits to the customization in this game, it's just people don't understand what they are.

And why not include medium mechs in this list? They seem to be a favorite of the books and the PG developers. If we can take their word at face value, I'd rather get good at piloting mediums. The trebuchet (medium) has the same offensive abilities as a catapult (heavy) but it goes a good 20kph faster. If I get good at piloting and indirect fire I'll never really have to worry about someone catching me.

Edited by ScientificMethod, 23 June 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Jonneh]

PANZERBUNNY, on 23 June 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Game is based off of tabletop. Stop living in denial and ignorance.

I think a better assumption about people not playing the game yet here is that there are plenty who are holding their tongue because of the NDA.

It can be based off anything, my point is still that we have not seen it and cannot comment or suggest changes.. so the thread is pointless. My secondary point is that copying the rules from the TT won't work for an online game. Its been proven, shown and dare I say it is known

Kindly take your fanboy attitude somewhere else The mere mention of someone castigating your beloved table top rulebook has obviously thrown you into a loop. This isn't the place to defend it, it has no place here other than the one it already has as an inspiration.

[Kenshar]

Horrible idea..

[Thariel]

Sierra19, on 23 June 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

But in that case, you run into the problem of "Are there enough critical spaces in the arm to mount a PPC?", and "do I have enough tonnage left over to mount a PPC on each arm?". The answer is "No." You are constrained firstly by the type of Hardpoint it is (in this case energy), secondly, you are constrained by how many "critical slots", and tonnage you have available, i.e. how much space a particular weapon system will take up and how much it weighs, and a PPC takes up a LOT more space and tonnage than a Medium Laser, so you can't just swap out the ML for a PPC, and toss in a couple of extra heat sinks. You don't have the tonnage to do that. So I feel, that your fears of "OMG HE'S GOT 6 PPC'S HAXXORZ!" is unfounded and unjustified. Now I could be totally wrong, but the devs seem to have a handle on these things, so I for one, am not worried. But for the sake of argument, assuming you COULD do that, doesn't necessarily make it a wise choice, as your armor would be nonexistent, and if somebody sneezed on your mech, it'd blow up.

Before I make any examples with mech builds, you could be sure they are working. 2PPC in an catapult is working, hardpoint -wise. there are enough free criticals for the ppcs in the torsos TT-rule-wise and as in the mechlab video shown, 1 slot is 1 slot, so 1 small laser is slot wise as large as 1 ppc slot. also you got genough free tonnage to fill up some heatsinks. i am not posting ridicolous examples, just things you could do very easily and still alter the game completely and making it into one other asian grinder mecha game".

ScientificMethod, on 23 June 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

The medium lasers are spread out through all three torsos, each torso having two energy slots. A ppc takes up three slots. Ergo, no ppc will be able to fit due to hardpoint restrictions. Sure, overall it has enough space, but not once you look at where the hardpoints are and how they're spread out.

As sid before, my examples are working, both via TT rules and mechlab rules. 1 slot = 1 slot, crits aplenty.

ScientificMethod, on 23 June 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Unless you're thinking of the CPLT-K2 but that's an entirely different mech variant all together.

Onto the rest of defending myself, must I really go through your entire post?



1. Why would anyone want to do that to a catapult? There are other mechs that do it better. That build just wastes the team's tonnage and if you mismanage your heat sinks it's going to run far too hot to be effective.

2. I agree, limitations are good. So tonnage, cost, internal space, and hardpoints aren't enough limitations for you? Armor type has never been limited and I don't see a reason why it should be, same with internals and engine. These give bonuses yes, and also have serious costs. Sure, get your fancy armor. It also takes up about 1/5th your mech's internal slots (you know, the places where you'd put heatsinks, weapons, ammo, etc). Sureee, grab the xl engine. Now you can get taken out simply by losing a side torso since your reactor is spread out across all three. The only reason I see to limit all this is if someone wanted a simple game like MW4 (not saying it's bad, but there was a whole lot more pew-pew than thinking to that game)

3. Omni mechs still will have an advantage. Yes they will have hardpoints, but their omni hardpoints will allow any weapon type. That still gives them an edge in versatility.
"even omnis couldn't change anything about their general mech layout (engine armour, internals, fixed heat sinks), just the free weapon slots could be altered."
I assume you're referring to one of the videogames, because everywhere else in the battle tech universe and game-verse this is wrong. Omnis were notable for being extremely versatile and easy to fit to the owner's play style.
4. Who knows how pvp will work? Not us, that's who. Shooting down the mechbay because you don't have experience in the game is putting the cart before the horse. Yes MW4 had laser boat and balance issues. This isn't MW4:Online. This mechlab system will limit a good deal of the MW4 balance issues and their adherence to TT heat rules will make most player-made laserboats laughable.
5. I'm sure inflexible players still will have their favorite mech they use all the time. Heck, even I probably will end up with a favorite and I bet I could run it every match if I wanted to. Does that mean it's a smart thing for me to do? No, but the ratio of bad:good:amazing players isn't going to lean towards experience until you get high into your house or merc-group.


I think you have some well thoughtout points but I disagree with the conclusions you're reaching. Personally I feel like you're taking your feelings and experiences from MW4 and superimposing them on this game. While in my mind I find myself thinking that this game should be far different than MW4, especially from everything the dev's have been hinting at. Line of sight radar, hinting that the weight classes will be balanced, talking about the changes to lrm's, etc etc.

mainly about point 2+3: have you ever played TT battletech? ever read all the Technical readouts, all the spreadsheets all the novels, all the magazines etc.? I did. There's not a single !! Mech within several thousand pages that has it's reactor or armour or internal structure changed as a field variant. There are about a handful Mechs in the novels where something ill-fitting had to be built in (like another reactor) to get the mech running at all, but not improving it. There are few super heroes, like Kai-Allard_liao who have small changes to their mechs. Even Trueborn don't just swap weapons free at will, for they now their different setups (primaray, a,b,c, etc.) are just superior and intended, so they don't see any reason to do so. Custom Omni mechs are as rare as custom Mechs within the IS. There are of course other stock variants for Is mechs or newer IS mechs with new tech.

I DON'T WANT NO changes, my suggestion ist just them to be limited in a way that fits into a) TT rules, for they are made over decades and have proven to be a great ruleset for players to have fun making this game a fun game without Kiddies running their imbalanced boats c) this becoming some asian grinder game. As someone posted (later in thsi quote) stock mechs have flaws for they are supposed to work together. The Hunchback is no killer, it's a armour breaker. It's job is to go to the front, rip open some torsos then come back and let the lrm/srm guys exploit the holes made by it.


I think the main reason people want full customization, they want to rule all alone. running around like in CS and headshotting everything on their own. Maybe we talk different languages and play a different mech-game and most of all different MULTI-player game. I want a game where I have a specific role, where I NEED to play with my teammates. where i take a mech that fills my role, like the archer or catapult, standing behind and waitng for the Hunchie to give me targets he has opened up.

You can see this by the Clan-Omni setups. They are not made for special roles, but they all are killer-mechs, for they are designed totally different, as Clan always fight 1vs1 and wouldn't dare to shoot another enemy, cause it's such an shameful act, you might as well be killed for it after the war by your own starmates.

Kael Tropheus, on 23 June 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

I love the "I want to customize munchkins versus the vets" argument. Personally I am totally against the mech lab except incredibly minor changes. Nothing else is in cannon nor should it be in the game. There are plenty enough stock mechs out there to suit the boaters. Perhaps a good compromise is to have two servers, one for munchkins and whiners who like unbalanced custom mechs, and one for the fans and vets of the BT universe which only have stock mechs and the oficial varients. It isnt really fair at all to force those that want the Battletech experience to deal with the custom kiddies on a regular basis, the matches will be very unbalanced with hyper efficient mechs on one side and stock mechs with intentional balancing flaws on the other.

doesn't need to be servers, but the fights are limited to company vs company as far as i can see, so there could just be different match setups, so one could chose, do i take my imbalanced super power custom mech or do i play stock with small changes for different matches.

Kusak Snowtiger, on 23 June 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

I think we all just need to wait and see what the dev's give us. Yup modification was the spice of life in the TT version if you had the creds. the tech's. The time and anothe ride while your's was down. ohhh and the access to the gantry shop to do the work. I Know my HGN-732. Spent more than enough time in the shop getting upgrades over the years of service. Yank those blasted mediums and give me some er med's please. when they came about. That old SRM 6 eventuanlly hit the floor with a clang and a spanking knew Streak SRM - 4 went in its place at one time. But if memory serves me correctly their was a stint of Streak SRM2 and a inferno 2 launcher for awhile before the Streak srm 4 went in. I think I spent as much time in my back up mech which was a Mad-5S as I did in my HGN. But that insanity only came along after I was well enough off as a mech warrior to afford to have a Assault as my prime ride and a Heavy as my backup.

Ive got faith in the Dev's. May take them awhile but ive seen enough commentary that many of them are loyal to the original game. And they are going to do their best to make it popular with everyone. They need to make money to pay for it. Im sure their will be things ill go what the heck. But in the end Im happy just to see the game return. Just to be able to play again. Just to be able to hear the thump of outgoing missiles once again in the BT world

Now someone twist the dev's arms. I want my HGN-732 Highlander. Get on with it NOW.

Again like Sierra19' example, your alterations are little tweaks, fully in line with the BT Universe. swapping meds against med puls, when the tech is developed, swapping srm 6 against streak srm 4. It's like the way i suggested it could be. alteration is good, tinkering is good, just limit it a little, or we have kind of a mw2-4 game.

Who wants less freedom? most people want less freedom, without rules society isn't working, you accept rules in sports, even if you have some alterations in mind , that could give the game more fun aspects.

[zencynic]

My initial response was to just post the butthurt form and leave it at that. I quickly realized I didn't want to quite that rude or dismissive. I also don't want to get into this on a point by point basis, so I will try to keep it brief.

• Many people here disagree with you. That doesn't make them right or you wrong. This is not a moral quandary. It's a matter of choice and opinion.
  
• This is not a port of Table Top Battletech rules to an PC MMO environment. From what I have read, http://mwtactics.com/ is much closer to that.
  
• This is not the Suggestions forum. If you want to suggest something to the PGI Devs, this is not the place.

I'm going to leave you with a quote from a Dev Q&A. I have found this particular passage helps address issues like this.
"What difficulties have you had transferring the mechanics from the tabletop game to a PC game, and what mechanics have you had to change or modify? Since this is a reboot, will history change in-game or do you mean reboot in the same way as a movie franchise is rebooted?


[MATT N] Hey you said REBOOT! You win a prize! Someone knows how to get their questions answered! Good job!

[PAUL] Challenging question and I’ll try my best to answer. There’s been a common misconception amongst the community that I’d like to clear up. While MechWarrior® Online™ does refer to BattleTech® for historical and canon reference, it does not mean that it’s a direct port of the table top rules to a videogame. The table top rules are laid out to make sense for a turn based strategy game. Some of those rules just don’t apply when dealing with a real time game environment. Core rules such as munitions accuracy, heat management and movement speed will have to be tuned for real time gameplay and will differ in varying degrees from the table top rules. How far they differ will come out of gameplay testing and tuning and at this point I cannot comment further on how that progress is going. It is an exciting time in the studio right now and I don’t want to release information too soon and have it change on you, the community, later. I am quite vulnerable to pitchforks and torches."

If you would like a point by point reply, I will be looking for your post in the suggestions forum

[Bluey]

To OP
LETS MAKE A HUGE DEBATE ABOUT A MECHLAB DOESNT EVEN HAVE MISSLES TAB

wait a month more will you?

[Steinar Bergstol]

Mechlab and customization is here to stay. Nothing to be done about that at this point I imagine. And that's why my suggestion is adding a "Canon Mechs and Variants only" game mode for those of us who would like to fight our battles with things which were actually available and possible to get your hands on without being an insanely wealthy mechfactory owner in the canon universe. That way the customization fans get to fight with their personal designs and have fun with that, the canon purists get to use stock designs with all their faults and blemishes without having to worry about competing against min/maxed custom designs and everyone else who don't care much one way or the other get to switch between the two modes whenever the fancy strikes them for some variety from one or the other mode.

I think it could work, but hey, maybe I'm just crazy.

And I want my stock Thunderbolt and Phoenix Hawk, darnit!

Edited by Steinar Bergstol, 24 June 2012 - 04:42 AM.

[Myc]

I liked the mechlab in MW4, and the mechlab in MWO looks good to me as well. I don't see why people keep talking about historical accuracy and no cross-tech. I had a lot of mechs that I used in MW4, for a variety of roles, with a variety of weapons. With no cross-tech or very limited customization, I think a lot of IS mechs would be come seldom if ever used.

I have seen people post that cross tech would ruin the game. I don't know the story as well as a lot of people here. From what I remember though, clan mechs were just plain better. They had better technology, and would generally win in a 1 on 1.

I think a liberal mechlab makes the game more fair (coupled with a little intelligence anyway).

[zencynic]

Steinar Bergstol, on 24 June 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

Mechlab and customization is here to stay. Nothing to be done about that at this point I imagine. And that's why my suggestion is adding a "Canon Mechs and Variants only" game mode

I like this idea. It is amazingly reasonable and do-able.

In addition to keeping things Cannon-ish for those who want that, it would be a great place for starting players who don't want to face super-custom-leet-XL-Endo-Ferro-double amazing mechs until they can build their own super-custom-leet-XL-Endo-Ferro-double amazing mechs

Edited by zencynic, 24 June 2012 - 05:08 AM.

[Fl3tcher]

Jonneh, on 23 June 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Another thread trying to turn the PC game into the table top.

Sorry dudes. Freedom, customization and accessibility are a big pull for me and I'm sure a lot of others. I don't want to be restricted just because the table top says so.

I'm sure the Devs are capable of balancing this game without the need to pick up the rule book and start copying it into the mechlab. Lets see what they come up with before making more threads like this ok?

Sorry, but if the Devs turned around and told us that the mechs in this game would be identical to their TT versions and there was no mech lab ( you had to unlock and buy the different varients) True fans of BT/MW would still play it

*Unrelated, but still pertinent to this thread, too many people want easy modo*

[Latriam]

not being able to switch weapons or FF or endo steel those are some of the exact mods that came out of 3050
many of those mechs came out the factory different but..... there were a bunch of field upgrade kits that were FFarmor Lb's or Er's etc.

sorry man but as long as I keep in the realm of a variant I should be able to do whatever I want.
I agree you cant turn the main cata into a ppc shooting variant so missiles or gun or laser touting variants should stay that way but... the really versatile mechs will be the most fun since you get a few slots for each. thinking like the rifleman large lasers and ac's so I could go with ppc's and smaller ac's (known variant) the limitations just make you think within that variants standard role.
no turning a hunchie into an over armored trebuchet.

on the other hand I want to lose a med laser to gain some armor then thats my option.

[Redshift2k5]

Thariel, on 23 June 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

As we all know there's hardpoints for weapons and these are limited by numbers, not weight, like 1 Slot energy-weapon can be re-equipped with just one e-weapon, no matter what kind (if the tonnage and max-crits fit).

first i'd like to have this more strictly. like not just energy-slot but Laser-slots, PPC-slots, AC-slots, Gauss-Slots etc.

So you can change your PPC for the ER-Variant , but not for lasers.

Same goes with this: (From the dev-Corner-thread Q& A no. 5)


I hope this gets changed so the engine can't be altered at all, armor can be upgraded only and only a little and no further heatsinks can be added, no change from normal to endo- structure, normal to ferro-fibrus armour, normal to xxl engine.


Why do i want it this way? Well if we can change whatever we want, what's the use of different mechs. I chose the speed i want, take a mech builder programm, find out what weight gives me most free tonnage for my desired speed and buy that mech and then just rebuild it.

Example:
I want to play a warhammer? Sure, but why stick with it, I need 4/6 movement (tabletop). So with a xxl reactor, a 95 ton mech gives me the most free tonnage. So I can take any 95 ton mech, boost it to 4/6 speed, pick one of the dozens of variants that has 2 e-slots in the arms, put the ppc's in, add 2 med lasers srm6 and a machine gun, add a huge amount of double heatsinks and have still about 10 tons left, means I have an even better warhammer with way more armour, way more heatsinks and room for another ppc+ heatsinks at no disadvantage (this doesn't even include ferro-fibrus or endo steel, with both I have more than 15 tons free).

If we do so, why do we need lots of different mechs. One of the fun parts of battletech is having lots and lots of different mechs. If I could change 1 mech into whatever I need atm, I lose one major part of the game.


Would like to hear you unbiased ("I want want want want to play MY build") opinions on that.

you are forgetting a LOT of factors.

Arms? no arms?

size of the head hit box?

size of the CT or the RT/LT ? (is it easier to lose a CT in that mech or or another mech? are you using an XL engine?)

weapons in the torso? Weapons in the arms? does it have the hardpoints where you want them?

[b]there is a lot more at work than only the weight/space

[Xando]

It's difficult to strike a balance between total customization and no customization. Hard to please everyone.

[zencynic]

Xando, on 24 June 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

It's difficult to strike a balance between total customization and no customization. Hard to please everyone.

Agreed, dare I say it, impossible to please everyone. Thank for trying Devs

Fl3tcher, on 24 June 2012 - 05:09 AM, said:

*Unrelated, but still pertinent to this thread, too many people want easy modo*

I'm not sure I follow your argument here. You're correct because most people disagree with you? This is a game. To a certain extent, the Devs should give people what they want. If you feel they have exceeded that point, please tell us why? Will it hurt the game in the short/long run? Is it what we think we want but we don't know better?

[latdheretic]

One point that bears note: It is true that custom variants of mechs where quite rare, but notable if you look through the variant lists of mechs, you are as likely as not going to find a variant custom to a specific hero who did have the opportunity to tweak their setup.

Just looking at the announced light mechs in the game in Sarna and 2/3 of them have listed custom variants.
The Raven did not, but the Commando has one, and the Jenner has Three.

These variants to me are cannon justifications for having the mechlab, and keeping it flexible. Sure it's not easy or cheap in cannon, but it DOES happen.

The way I look at it, each player is the hero of their own story, and should have the opportunity to tweak their mechs within the framework of it's capabilities.

My opinion is that the Devs implementation of the hardpoints is a compromise between keeping multiple mech and variants unique, and sellable, and letting players have the ability to make the mech their own.

I have met 2 kinds of Table Top players of Battletech. The first are those who will always pick stock variants, and use the listed battle values. The second are people who love building their own mech designs from scratch and like to see how they do. I fully admit to being one of the latter, though I can see merit to both camps.

From the first introductory boxed set I got filled with now unseen mechs back about 20 years ago right through to my latest version of the battle tech rules all have contained the rules for building battlemechs from the ground up. To me customization is part of the hobby. Obviously in a computer game environment you can't have you own custom mech show up on the battlefield. Somebody is going to have to model it. However to me people asking to nerf, or remove the mechlab seems just as ridiculous as me demanding that PGI model my custom mechs. They've already picked their point of compromise, and it is logically sound. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything.

To me it seems like the core concern is fear that the customization is going to unbalance the game. I can't say that the fear is completely unfounded. I for one do not want to see clan tech become available at all on Inner Sphere Battlemechs for much the same reason. However a good battle value considering match balancing mechanic will be able to handle the differences in effectiveness between custom build fine tuned mechs, and less than optimal stock mechs, and let everybody have a fair fight and a fun match.