268 replies to this topic

[PANZERBUNNY]

Jonneh, on 23 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Clearly the OP is asking for a restriction, quoting the table top as a source. I just responded to his post. I don't know the table top rules, and I don't care to. They are not relevant to this game imo and will not assist me in being a better MWO player.

So, I don't care to learn the facts sorry. I do care to rebutt clueless posts demanding this game be more "true to canon" and "following the TT".

Lets play what they see as the vision for their own game first before we spout fanboyish stuff about how we think it can be better.

We don't need the game going closer to mechassault just because some people are inept with mechlab and want to hamstring everyone else.

[ScientificMethod]

Jonneh, on 23 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

Clearly the OP is asking for a restriction, quoting the table top as a source. I just responded to his post. I don't know the table top rules, and I don't care to. They are not relevant to this game imo and will not assist me in being a better MWO player.

So, I don't care to learn the facts sorry. I do care to rebutt clueless posts demanding this game be more "true to canon" and "following the TT".

Lets play what they see as the vision for their own game first before we spout fanboyish stuff about how we think it can be better.

How can you say TT rules are irrelevant to this game? It's what they stylized the mechlab after. Heck, so far it looks like thats what the mechs are based off as well.

IGP has already released a videogame of the TT rules, it's safe to assume they're not going to recreate MW4 again

Edited by ScientificMethod, 23 June 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[Barlourd]

Black Sunder, on 23 June 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

You're confusing criticals with hardpoints. a Jenner can certaily mount a PPC if there is the tonnage for it.

oops...just running on semi-autopilot. Still, you would need to compromise to accommodate the PPC. This is all that I meant.

[Qayos]

Your idea goes against TT rules, Canon and precident set down by previous Hardpoint system set-ups.

The first problem is, using your example, there really aren't that many non-omni mech designs that have 2 e-weapons in the arms.

Secondly, while you'd have a fantastic heavy Warhammer, you'd have a poor Assault mech if all it carried was 2 ERPPCs, 2 Med lasers, 1 SRM6 and 1 machine gun.

[Badfinger]

Hmmm... Another I can't do, so nerf it for everyone else!

[Bagheera]

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

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.

So basically you want this game to, in no way, shape, manner, or form, resemble the previous 28 years of the IP on which it is based?

No thank you. Custom designs have always been a big part of the BT universe, and well they should.

Jonneh, on 23 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

So, I don't care to learn the facts sorry. I do care to rebutt clueless posts demanding this game be more "true to canon" and "following the TT".

Hard to call others clueless while refusing to learn factual information in the previous sentence.

Edited by Bagheera, 23 June 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[IronGoat]

i half agree i think the restriction should come in the form of the mech being unavailable for use consecutively longer for each major refit (simulating time in an already over worked mech factory being entirely rebuilt) and the cost to do so should also get much higher.

"you want to swap out a PPC for a large pulse? no problem, we can do that for you today sir. OH and you also want your Awesome rebuilt as a speed deamon with all SRM racks? oh ok you can have that buy next september and we WILL need you to leverage your homeworld for collateral"

the restriction should be in cost/time just as it was in TT/rpg rules ( yes i actually played the mechwarrior element to BT)

[Ron Oravec]

sounds like a dumb idea I like the idea or missles old or beams only like making spasific hard points for types of weapons seems as though it would get too confusing I'd rather just have a place to stick my missle not have to worry about if there short or long range type missles cause thats play style not weapon type. I think current system is fine they just need weapon balance cause Plasma Cannons, AC20's, and artilary beacon were extreamly overpowered.

[phinja]

buy legendary pack, feel entitled to change the basis of the games mechlab structure.
.

[Barlourd]

IronGoat, on 23 June 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

i half agree i think the restriction should come in the form of the mech being unavailable for use consecutively longer for each major refit (simulating time in an already over worked mech factory being entirely rebuilt) and the cost to do so should also get much higher.

"you want to swap out a PPC for a large pulse? no problem, we can do that for you today sir. OH and you also want your Awesome rebuilt as a speed deamon with all SRM racks? oh ok you can have that buy next september and we WILL need you to leverage your homeworld for collateral"

the restriction should be in cost/time just as it was in TT/rpg rules ( yes i actually played the mechwarrior element to BT)

Interesting idea, the only problem is that too many players would begin to hate their standard builds and then leave the game. I am not saying this to be rude, just setting it on the table.

[Jonneh]

PANZERBUNNY, on 23 June 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

We don't need the game going closer to mechassault just because some people are inept with mechlab and want to hamstring everyone else.

Who said anything about being inept with the mechlab or wanting to "hamstring everyone" ? My point is quite simple. Are you aware that of all the games made around the battle tech IP there are exactly 0 that have been accepted into canon? We don't need or want to follow the TT rulebook, because it wont necessarily translate well into an online 12v12 pvp game.

Its simple: Nobody here has played the game yet, and nobody here is even remotely qualified to say what should and shouldn't be an available customization for balance reasons or otherwise. So threads like this one the OP made are totally pointless.

ScientificMethod, on 23 June 2012 - 08:12 AM, said:

How can you say TT rules are irrelevant to this game? It's what they stylized the mechlab after. Heck, so far it looks like thats what the mechs are based off as well.

IGP has already released a videogame of the TT rules, it's safe to assume they're not going to recreate MW4 again

Its easy to say because its true. I don;t know the first thing about BT TT, but I'll still be playing and playing well. I couldn't care less about the TT because its not the experience I expect this game to give me.

Making threads asking for this and that to be changed, tweaked, "balanced" and etc at this stage is just moronic. Lets allow Piranha to make the game and get it out into beta before we start asking for things we have no clue or context for.

Edited by Jonneh, 23 June 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Endarius]

phinja, on 23 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

buy legendary pack, feel entitled to change the basis of the games mechlab structure.
.

Lol.

[gregsolidus]

The only problem is the whole "mechlabz iz teh evilzzzz" argument hinges on what era we're talking about,what rules we're following, and what the mech lab actually is.Yeah,massive changes shouldn't be going on in 3015 since you know,the whole death of technology thing, but by 3050 things are back on track and mechs are being made with endo-steel frames and ferro-fibrous armor as standard features.Is it something you can do in the field,no says Tactical Operations,is it possible to do at all and readily available,yep.Also,I see alot of "hur it reallys hardzzz to deo requirrees teh facotirezz",Who's to say the mech lab isn't a fully furnished facility?The third argument I see is "it ruiins teh gmaeplayz".No,it ruined the gameplay of the last games and I can't imagine PGI setting themselves up to fail by including a feature they know is wonky,if its in here then they know what they're doing.
To throw my hat into the balance ring (and quickly pull it out,I hate speculation) I would suppose upgrades like XL engines and endosteel refits would cost a pretty penny serving the triple purpose of attaching greater meaning to your mech (you better be committed to it if your going to pay the c bill equivalent of 1000 dollars to upgrade it),giving more meaning to the cash shop,and as a natural balancing measure.

[IronGoat]

Barlourd, on 23 June 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Interesting idea, the only problem is that too many players would begin to hate their standard builds and then leave the game. I am not saying this to be rude, just setting it on the table.

yea i didnt mean to make the time /cost ridiculous but if you had to wait say a game week/month (whatever works for the community) for a total rebuild you might rethink doing it right away id prefer the mechs internals to be MUCH harder to swap around then weapons it SHOULD cost alot more to rebuild the chasiies of a mech with endo steel then it takes to just put a dif weapon in a weapon slot, same goes for adding xl engine to a non xl chassie ( try wedging a V8 into your hinda civic in a weekend and let me know how that goes for ya LOL)

i dont want the stuff restricted to a no can do status but it SHOULDS be restrictive enough to make you have to decide if what your going to lose in the process is enough for what your going to gain. if not i think we will end up with just 4-6 "boat" mechs that everyone uses


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..

[Thorgar Wulfson]

the hard point system is a restriction on the old table top rules. and does a good job on it. There is no valid reason to restrict the system even further. unless you just want stock mechs and maybe allow one upgrade per weapon type. you would lose a lot of players from that. especially anyone with vested time or interest in the IP itself.

If you don't care as you claim over and over then why push this at all, you just don't care right? unless your trolling.

[Schtirlitz]

No, thanks. I prefer more flexible customization.

[Barlourd]

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

yea i didnt mean to make the time /cost ridiculous but if you had to wait say a game week/month (whatever works for the community) for a total rebuild you might rethink doing it right away id prefer the mechs internals to be MUCH harder to swap around then weapons it SHOULD cost alot more to rebuild the chasiies of a mech with endo steel then it takes to just put a dif weapon in a weapon slot, same goes for adding xl engine to a non xl chassie ( try wedging a V8 into your hinda civic in a weekend and let me know how that goes for ya LOL)

i dont want the stuff restricted to a no can do status but it SHOULDS be restrictive enough to make you have to decide if what your going to lose in the process is enough for what your going to gain. if not i think we will end up with just 4-6 "boat" mechs that everyone uses


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..

Right, right. My only objection was it taking real time. It should be costly and the more radical the design change the more costly it should be. I agree on the no handicap access rulesets...

[Lightdragon]

yet another topic on balancing the game... it hasnt even been released yet, you havent had a chance to play it yet... STOP MAKING SUGGESTIONS FOR BALANCE WHEN YOU HAVENT HAD THE CHANCE TO EXPERIENCE THE GAME!!!

[Barlourd]

It doesn't have to be a suggestion, maybe this is just a thought experiment. I think these can be very enlightening as a look into the psyche of future players or opponents.

[Name113200]

No no no a million times no. Mechwarrior 4 mercenaries turned into all gladiators and black knights due to a rigid mechlab. If we dont allow variety in mechs it will end up the same.