268 replies to this topic

[Comguard]

A well done Mechlab could help bring more variety into the game. Just imagine, every match will be a different experience because you face new enemies all the time.

I hope there is a certain degree of strictness in the mechlab, but also some freedom. Hope the devs hit the sweet spot.

Total freedom is a bad idea because the chassis has no meaning with total modification. Why take a Centurion over a Hunchback? Doesn't matter, both can be outfitted with 20 MG's. Has nothing to do with a Centurion or Hunchback, but who cares?

That was my nightmare. But logical Upgrades should be allowed. Switching Laser for Pulse Laser? Makes sense, fine for me. AC for Gauss? Ballistic for Ballistic, why not? LRM for SRM? Of course.

And just imagine you couldn't upgarde to DHs: the starter mechs, even our expensive founder machines, would die out.

What I'm against: modifying engine size and type. Again, the more strict you handle this subject, the more variety you get on the field.

By the way, this would also be in the interest of the devs. Instead of just randomly adjusting a mech in the mechlab grinding or buying the machine that fits your needs. Hunchback too slow? Buy something faster.

[Rychard Starheart]

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

how about no. that is stupid as hell.

[Xune]

As i already said in a nother topic. A part of my wants to mod the hell out of my mechs. I always loved to spend hours in the mech lab to squeeze the last bit out of it.

Then again i allso think its nessesary to stop the 8 ER-Lasers 1 volly shutdown mechs alpha-shooting everyone

[Papertarget]

One of the main draws for BT for me, was being limited in what I could put into a mech. If I don't want that build, try a different Variant. If I don't like the mech, get a different one. I think the customization should be in the different chassis, not in the way you can tweak the ones you get. That way all mech chassis will be viable, and all mech chassis will be used. If I could make an Atlas into any other mech, why get a different mech? If I could finagle out a Hunchback Build into the "Ultimate Scout for one match, and then decide I would like to make it into the "Ultimate Missile boat" in the next round, then you take away from the role of any other mech in game that has that particular niche.

[ollo]

IronGoat, on 23 June 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

just a pointon a personal note:
ive noticed that online games seem to be the only ones that the player base has a belief there should in essence be no rules or restrictions on. i mean you dont go into a basball game and say " i dont like not tackling other players so i want the rulles to be relaxed so i can have my own way" "i dont care the rules say baseball bats I insist on using a goalie stick from hockey and if i cant i wont play"

rules bring structure and balance. people who dont want structure and balance in the games they play usually have ego issues about losing.
find learning to play properly to be more then they are capable of. im all for handi cap access door ways not so for handicap access rulesets..

Yes. There are Rules, since 1984 or sth. And you're breaking them. Even MWO is already breaking them by using hardpoints.

YOU are proposing to only tackle backwards and only allowing hits that go to a 15° area in the left field...

[Skadi]

cant realy ask for more rigid rules in the mechlab, if we havnt used it to see how strict it is in the first place.

[Graphite]

Comguard, on 15 July 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

What I'm against: modifying engine size and type. Again, the more strict you handle this subject, the more variety you get on the field.

Um, let's think about the logic of that statement.

You want MORE VARIETY by RESTRICTING OPTIONS.

.....doesn't work like that.

Anyway, the hard point restrictions already means every available chassis is unique.

That's plenty of restriction, no more is needed.

[Ninja Snarl]

Definitely more in support of a less restricted Mechlab, provided we don't end up with weapon-boating that ruins the balance and fun of the game. Coming off of Living Legends, which has no customization and uses only predefined variants, it sucks to not have any real control of a weapons loadout. A large number of the tabletop variants were created for circumstances that don't exist now and likely won't ever exist at all; that's why we get predefined variants with wacky loadouts. Being able to make some sacrifices and fit in a PPC instead of medium laser or take out a lone SRM2 for extra weight to work with lets people not only custom-tailor their mech to their preferred gameplay style, but also improves the variety in the game.

What would be the point of having MWO at all if it's just a slightly more customizable Living Legends? As long as they have appropriate balances, there's no good reason to prevent people from swapping armor types (it would all bolt on just the same) or putting in extra/double heat sinks (more weight and space in heat sinks means less for armor and weapons).

There are just too many variants with superfluous/useless weapons and configurations to not have a fairly robust customization system. And the variant system already enforces variety; you can't take a standard Catapult variant and slap PPCs on it, just swap out the missile weapons. Neither can the standard Hunchback load up on missiles, but instead has to rely on a mix of energy and ballistic weapons.

Edited by Ninja Snarl, 15 July 2012 - 10:51 PM.

[Graphite]

Ninja Snarl, on 15 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

And the variant system already enforces variety; you can't take a standard Catapult variant and slap PPCs on it, just swap out the missile weapons.

The hardpoints don't give more variety - their role is to prevent the most extreme designs (laser boats) and give some semblance of "correctness" for story canon fans.

For laserboat cheese munckhins even with these restrictions there will STILL only be:
- one "best" chassis for any given weight
- one "best" weapon loadout for any given chassis - only difference is it won't be 15 ML.

So although the hardpoint system has it's good points (in the eyes of some people - I personally would have preferred not to have it) it is NOT to provide variety.
It provides a slight degree of canon and limits the performance difference between min-max designs and "normal" designs.

Edited by Graphite, 15 July 2012 - 11:18 PM.

[Huscarl]

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.

No you fool. Customisation = success. Half the reason we all play MW is to satisfy our mechanic's need to tinker and change our mechs. The less customisation we have the closer to WoT we get

Every enemy I destroy, I want to be unique, so it doesn't feel like a grind, but a marathon rise through the mech ranks against individuals!

P.S You're dull for wanting such.

[Cybra]

The Mechlab is good as is. The problem I have with being able to change your heat sink/engine/internal structure type is that in the BT universe, these changes required a factory. These changes require lots of time and effort. The only thing I would change is that if you change a fundamental part of the mech (engine/heat sinks/gyro/internal structure), then you would lose access to the mech for a predetermined amount of time, based on what you are changing.

Consider this:

Technician 1: "So, you want to replace the LRMs with SRMs and change the armor to ferro? Give me 3 to 4 days and it'll be done."


Technician 2: "You want to lighten the frame, switch to double heat sinks and mount some more lasers? Give me a month or two."

Mechwarrior: "Why?"

Technician 2: "I gotta pull everything off the frame, replacing the coolant system as I go, then put it all back onto a new frame and then add some more weapons. And that's if nothing goes wrong."

[Graphite]

Cybra, on 15 July 2012 - 11:20 PM, said:

Technician 2: "You want to lighten the frame, switch to double heat sinks and mount some more lasers? Give me a month or two."

Not good for business (RL). People (customers - yes I know it's ftp) want to be able to mod these things, and they don't want to be locked out of their mech for a month.

At the end of the day this is a game, and a business, and if it doesn't function well in those roles it would die.

[Co Starring]

Speaks for itself

Edited by Co Starring, 16 July 2012 - 12:04 AM.

[Comguard]

Graphite, on 15 July 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Um, let's think about the logic of that statement.

You want MORE VARIETY by RESTRICTING OPTIONS.

.....doesn't work like that.

Anyway, the hard point restrictions already means every available chassis is unique.

That's plenty of restriction, no more is needed.

Of course it works like that. If you can upgrade the engine of a Hunchback, why should you buy a mech with a different engine? You already can upgarde your Hunchback to death. By restricting modification options you will see a wider range of mechs on the field.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

hell i dont care if some puts wants 21 medium lasers on his awesome. It just makes him a short ranged target thats easier to kill by staying out of his range. he slaps in 8 large lasers.. ok find kill him after he shuts down from heat.

I am sick and tired of people restricting **** becaue some one may be more creative than them. or a specific build will be used by 60% of the lemmings called gamers. who cares? be yourself and do what you want. dont force me into a pigeon hole because you cant handle free thought and the ability to apply it.

[Graphite]

Comguard, on 16 July 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Of course it works like that. If you can upgrade the engine of a Hunchback, why should you buy a mech with a different engine?

Because it's a different weight, or IT HAS DIFFERENT HARDPOINT RESTRICTIONS.

Quote

You already can upgarde your Hunchback to death. By restricting modification options you will see a wider range of mechs on the field.

Do you really think some chassis won't be used?
Being allowed to mod engines means you'll face a MUCH larger variety of designs.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Honestly I view the mechlab as giving us the construction rules from the TT within the limits of the game. I loved creating my own mechs all the time from scratch using the construction rules, creating my own personal TRO of various designs (as well as 'tweaking' the existing canon models.) Not surprisingly that would not work so well in MWO, hundreds of unique mechs running around with different skins and such. However, by allowing us to modify existing designs, we still get that fun thrill of seeing if our idea of a 'great loadout' is actually that, and creating our 'ideal' mech. Currently the hardpoint system seems to be a good idea in terms of limiting boating while allowing us to make the mech we want.

[ROMS777]

Without reading through all of these posts, I'm going to reply also; if it's already been said in so many words by others, then here it is again.

A huge part of any mechwarrior game has always been the mechlab. I believe that MW2 had the best lab and it looks like the DEVs may have thought so too, judging by the way they've pretty-much returned to that format. The only real difference will be the hardpoints format, similar to MW4 etc.
Swapping out engines, internals and heatsinks, and not just armour and weapons, is what brings out the best mechs because it forces people to think their mechs through. Each has its own strength and weakness and I predict that if you've got the CBills, you'll have a hangar full of variants that you'll use for different scenarios. And with only one life on the battlefield, you'll want to win without completely wrecking your mech while you're doing it.

Another way to view all of this mdofication is this:
Mercenaries don't play by the rules anyway. Merc units start off by scrounging and stealing bits and pieces, then modifying them to WIN, not to salute the opposition after losing in battle. No employer is going to pay you to fight fair, they want you to win at all costs and if your mechs aren't up to the task then you won't get any contracts and you won't get paid, simple as that. The Mercs who win, with their highly-modified and better thought out mechs, are going to get the coin.

I believe that those that stick to the board-game rigidity with their mechs, will miss out on alot of the fun of this mechwarrior game.

[Graphite]

ROMS777, on 16 July 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

I believe that those that stick to the board-game rigidity with their mechs, will miss out on alot of the fun of this mechwarrior game.

I'm a little sick of seeing this ;-)

The "board game" (TT) has maximum customisation! The only restrictions to customisation in TT is weight and space (i.e. the minimum possible restriction). There is no other BT game with more customisation than TT - it's not possible.

From what I hear it's the BT novels that have very little customisation. It certainly isn't TT.

Edited by Graphite, 16 July 2012 - 12:52 AM.

[Okita Sougo]

I don't understand the argument that restricting options would increase the viability of a wider range of variants. Let's face it: some people will always min/max regardless of the system that's in place. But if you restrict the modification options of mech variants, then people will simply gravitate towards the variants that have the most "optimal" default setup.

If you look at modification options on a scale from 0 to infinity (from no modification possible to endless modification options), which side of the scale would allow for a wider range of viable options? I don't believe that an infinite range of modification would be ideal (or possible), but it seems clear to me that allowing a sensible but not completely unrestricted amount of modification (which I think is their goal with the hardpoint system) would be the best solution for allowing "suboptimal" mech chassis to find viable use on the battlefield.