268 replies to this topic

[Toothman]

The fun part of Mechwarrior is demolishing the crappy stock builds and making one that is useful. I vote option B also.

[Odanan]

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)
[b]

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.

I'm happy how the rules are right now. The different chassis (and variations) have some customization but retain their unique features.

PS: I'm not in the Beta.

[Jonneh]

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

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*

Have you seen the game? No?

Point invalid. Please just get a grip BT fanboys, jeez. My entire point is that discussing things like variant balance and hardpoint balance are totally irrelevant at this stage because all you're going to do is quote the TT rule book.

IT ISN'T THE SAME GAME! It *cannot be* the same game.

Lets wait and see the actual game before you blabber on and bore the **** out of us with discussions about a different game for heavens sake.

[Bootch]

its fine the way it is

[Future Perfect]

Rigid rules are no fun.

I vote for customization every day of the week.

And it will be interesting if the players finds some weapons loadouts that are considerably superior in terms of dealing massive damage on all ranges.

Edited by Future Perfect, 24 June 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[Harabeck]

Customization has always been an important part of mech sims. Taking that away is eliminating a fun aspect for zero gain. There are still plenty of ways to make each mech unique, and not allowing customization really takes away the feeling that the mech belongs to you.

[PowerKill Necron]

I know everyone does not wat to see 7 ERLL Novacats everywhere like in the old MW4 days(at least in no heat games) but it would be just plain dumb to take one of the biggest draws of the game, customization, and get rid of it because it's not 100% canon. Now the hardcore BT guys will be the ones to be early adopters of the game, but if PGI is going to make money they need WAY more than just those few people to play. They need the masses to play and pay for the game to work, and if they told the Mechwarrior novice that they had all these differnt mechs and different weapons, but you were not allow to use them that would likely turn off many of them. It's one of the things that I loved most about MW, and has to be one of the focal selling points of the game.

Let the masses do what they want when they want. The hardpoint and critical system already limits what people can do enough. If someone uses the mechlab to build a better varient than you, that's YOUR fault, not theirs.

Edited by PKNecron, 24 June 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[Hikaru]

/agree

1. After a few dozen mechs are rolled out, under the current proposed system, essentially the only difference between one mech and another of the same weight class will just be its hard points and jump jets. There will be no incentive to have a varied pool of mechs, and each mech will stop feeling unique.

2. Anyone who says TT is less restrictive than MWO is kind of not considering the realities of 3049. Say you're deployed in the field. After any encounter, you would never be able to just repair instantly with C-bills and then launch a few minutes later. We're playing in "real-time," remember? Not to mention, say if you lose a weapon. Can you just instantly buy a new one? Clearly not. Remember most repairs come from salvage. Most 'mechs are hundreds of years old. Certain 'mechs are only manufactered by certain Houses. Certain 'mechs aren't made anymore, period. And if you die, you die. If MWO were actually as restrictive as TT, you would be crying right now. Stop with the ridiculous notion thinking that TT enables you to strip and rebuild any mech any way you want -- and then instantly repair and reload that same mech with ease.

[zencynic]

Hikaru, on 24 June 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

1. After a few dozen mechs are rolled out, under the current proposed system, essentially the only difference between one mech and another of the same weight class will just be its hard points and jump jets. There will be no incentive to have a varied pool of mechs, and each mech will stop feeling unique.

Begging the question

Hikaru, on 24 June 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:

2. Anyone who says TT is less restrictive than MWO is kind of not considering the realities of 3049. Say you're deployed in the field. After any encounter, you would never be able to just repair instantly with C-bills and then launch a few minutes later. We're playing in "real-time," remember? Not to mention, say if you lose a weapon. Can you just instantly buy a new one? Clearly not. Remember most repairs come from salvage. Most 'mechs are hundreds of years old. Certain 'mechs are only manufactered by certain Houses. Certain 'mechs aren't made anymore, period. And if you die, you die. If MWO were actually as restrictive as TT, you would be crying right now. Stop with the ridiculous notion thinking that TT enables you to strip and rebuild any mech any way you want -- and then instantly repair and reload that same mech with ease.

Straw Man

[Hikaru]

Your responses preclude ridiculous and clearly uninformed assumptions. Not even worth replying.

[zencynic]

Hikaru, on 25 June 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

Your responses preclude ridiculous and clearly uninformed assumptions. Not even worth replying.

I also often reply to things not worth replying to.

I apologize. My above post with links to general info on logical fallacies was so brief as to appear flippant and dismissive. That was not my intent. Please note that in my above post, I did not include your "/agree". I would never say someone's opinion is invalid, no matter how strongly I disagree with them. Walk away, blink hard, giggle, call the police, ask them to explain more, etc. maybe

Lets try this again.

1) Working under the assumption that you do not have a functioning crystal ball or another reliable method of foreseeing the future, we don't know what the meta game will like in MWO, or how it will be influenced by the level of restrictions in the Mech Lab. We can make assumptions, possibly quite good ones given the width and breadth of gaming and human nature experience accumulated by the many fine members of this forum. Still, we cannot cite those assumptions as proof of the point of debate. That is referred to in some circles as begging the question.

2) Humor me and do a search of this thread for the word "restrictive". It is used several times by several different posters. I did not see it used in a way mentioned your reference "Anyone who says TT is less restrictive than MWO is kind of not considering the realities of 3049"

I will ignore for now that FASA/Catalyst/Tops (or whoever has the fiction rights these days) sponsored fiction is not considered Cannonical for game mechanic purposes. Check the front of most of the BT TT rules books for conformation of this.

I will ignore for now the merits of discussing the 'realities of 3049', although it does make me think of a funny story about 2 gamers arguing about what real elves are like.

I will not ignore that you seem to be creating a weak argument and attacking it, rather than attacking someone else's weak argument. That is referred to in some circles as straw man.

Please understand, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I do, however, find your arguments unpersuasive.

Finally, it is possible I misunderstood your broad intentions. If you were not intending to make a persuasive argument, but rather do something else entirely, I misunderstood, I am quite in the wrong here, and I apologize.

Edit - LMAO at myself. I misread the word "preclude" in his response. I read "include" It was a fun rant tho, thanks

Edited by zencynic, 25 June 2012 - 02:31 AM.

[Thariel]

PKNecron, on 24 June 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I know everyone does not wat to see 7 ERLL Novacats everywhere like in the old MW4 days(at least in no heat games) but it would be just plain dumb to take one of the biggest draws of the game, customization, and get rid of it because it's not 100% canon. Now the hardcore BT guys will be the ones to be early adopters of the game, but if PGI is going to make money they need WAY more than just those few people to play. They need the masses to play and pay for the game to work, and if they told the Mechwarrior novice that they had all these differnt mechs and different weapons, but you were not allow to use them that would likely turn off many of them. It's one of the things that I loved most about MW, and has to be one of the focal selling points of the game.

Let the masses do what they want when they want. The hardpoint and critical system already limits what people can do enough. If someone uses the mechlab to build a better varient than you, that's YOUR fault, not theirs.

Don't you think NOT having all options available can't be a fun part, too ? for me character development is great part of the fun, starting a game with god mode is fun for 1 hour, but then it's boring. Well here you don't develop your character but work to get new variants or other mechs. still just my opinion i share with few as it seems.

[Borgar]

When i first heard hardpoints i wasnt happy. I'm definately one who likes the idea of createing my own mech from the ground up. anyway just based on watching the mech lab video the system they have seems fine to me. While it didnt show everything we'd like to know it did show a good example of the hard points i think. From my understanding each mech will have different variants. each variant will have different hardpoints on it depending on whatever load out it has. the example i wanted to make in the video around 1:35 when hes playing with the ac you can see where it says the hardpoint restrictions for the right torso 3/3 ballistic after he removes the ac 20. when he puts on the ac 5 it goes to 2/3. that means as far as that variant of hunchback you could put any 3 ballistic weapons into the right torso as long as you had the tons/crits to do so. so between the different mechs so far say each has 3-4 variants thats still 40+ differnt sets of tonage/hardpoints to play. everyone will most likely be able to find a chasis variant of what ever type is their fav to play with a weapon loadout to suit their needs.
the point i guess i wanted to make is the system seems to me to be set up rather well. at least im not worried about not being able to find a variant i like and want to play.

ps: sorry for grammar and punctuation i'm not an english major

[Tenam]

So far from the sounds of it, the mechlab seems to be a good balance of limitations and freedom to build a mech to suit out indiviualistic play style and desires. The hardpoint, tonnage, heatsink and armor seens to be plenty of factors to keep mech builds reasonable. As well as customizing your mech is always one of the best parts. In previous games it was fun to build one, give it a few runs the figure out this works this doesn't. tweak it a bit, take it out run it again as a refinement process. I believe the cost of certain components will probably come into effect as well. I doubt you would be able to play three matches and afford or tweak every mech in the stable to your desired config. Players who put in a lot of time will eventually earn enough to get all the mechs set as desired. But thats the benefit they will have from logging that much playtime. So in summary I like it the way the Devs are planning it now, I think it is at least a good start of balance but time and some hands on will til the end result.

[BFalcon]

Borgar, on 25 June 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

When i first heard hardpoints i wasnt happy. I'm definately one who likes the idea of createing my own mech from the ground up. anyway just based on watching the mech lab video the system they have seems fine to me. While it didnt show everything we'd like to know it did show a good example of the hard points i think. From my understanding each mech will have different variants. each variant will have different hardpoints on it depending on whatever load out it has. the example i wanted to make in the video around 1:35 when hes playing with the ac you can see where it says the hardpoint restrictions for the right torso 3/3 ballistic after he removes the ac 20. when he puts on the ac 5 it goes to 2/3. that means as far as that variant of hunchback you could put any 3 ballistic weapons into the right torso as long as you had the tons/crits to do so. so between the different mechs so far say each has 3-4 variants thats still 40+ differnt sets of tonage/hardpoints to play. everyone will most likely be able to find a chasis variant of what ever type is their fav to play with a weapon loadout to suit their needs.
the point i guess i wanted to make is the system seems to me to be set up rather well. at least im not worried about not being able to find a variant i like and want to play.

ps: sorry for grammar and punctuation i'm not an english major

Like you, I was worried when I first read about the slot types and restrictions, but when I learned that they also retained the critical slots and tonnage restrictions, I started to worry less. The main thing the system brings in is that people will need to pay more attention to the mech chassis they are buying and maybe spend more on multiple chassis in order to find the loadout they like for any given scenario - particularly if the maps use the environment to influence heat loss (rain, snow, arctic or desert, for example).

I think it will end up being a challenging system and possibly one that shows just how wrong MW4 was to drop the critical slots like they did.

[Dalfsson]

no. not only no, but H*** no. they are already veering away from the original intent of battletech with the "hardpoints". if i want to swap out that AC20 in a atlas for a energy based weapon of the same weight or crit slots, i should be able to. i should have to pay thru the nose to do it though. MW4 ruined btech when they came out with the "hardpoint" garbage.

then you have the clan omnimechs. clanners are going to be screaming bloody murder when they can't swap out those heat hog enegy weapons for cooler running ballistics when they find themselves fighting on a desert planet.

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)
[b]

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.

[Borgar]

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

I would totaly hate this myself. i think the general restiction of ballistic/energy etc. is more than enough. I personaly hate almost every stock mech out there. it would completely ruin the game for me if forced into a stock configuration with no way to tweek or change it. adding specific slots like that is way to close to stock for alot of people i 'm thinking.

[Borgar]

Dalfsson, on 25 June 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

no. not only no, but H*** no. they are already veering away from the original intent of battletech with the "hardpoints". if i want to swap out that AC20 in a atlas for a energy based weapon of the same weight or crit slots, i should be able to. i should have to pay thru the nose to do it though. MW4 ruined btech when they came out with the "hardpoint" garbage.

then you have the clan omnimechs. clanners are going to be screaming bloody murder when they can't swap out those heat hog enegy weapons for cooler running ballistics when they find themselves fighting on a desert planet.

i agree with you completely but i still think the set up they have will work out just fine. they will most like have a variant atlas where you can do that. i cant stand ammo based weaponry myself on a mech far to limiting imo. why field a mech that has to rearm every hour of battle when you can field one that can stay until its blown up. missle boats and longrange arty has its uses but its not for me =)

Edited by Borgar, 25 June 2012 - 03:42 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I agree with the OP...no changing of the chassis.
When you want to have EndoSteel on your Hunchback - you could do this...but you have to sell your Hunchback and order a complete new unique one with a EndoSteel Chassis with additional costs.

To change the type of a fusion plant should always be permitted - no switching between XL and STD Fusion
However the rating of a fusion plant isn't dependend on 30m Hex Grids ...so a Hunchback with a stronger Gyro and a 220 Fusion should be possible. But the costs should include the price of a complete new 220 Fusion Engine.

If you have the money you can make such changes even when it is cheaper to buy a new battlemech

Edited by Karl Streiger, 25 June 2012 - 03:43 AM.

[Ettibber]

ScrapIron Prime, on 23 June 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

And I believe there's a scout ability to detect that on the tree. Go scouts!

of course if it's a catapult k varient i better be able to see...hey look...it's got ppcs instead of LRMS.