268 replies to this topic

[grimzod]

BLeeD, on 23 June 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

Freaking table toppers. Its a video game, this is made for mass appeal not a small % of the population of table top players. We understand you love the game and want it to be whats written in the game manual but this game has evolved. Its going to be a semi persistent or persistent universe. Try it before you start bashing it please.

I hate the haters,

raging , , im out

And this is the perfect way not to **** us off right?

Your trolling skills need work too.

[ScrapIron Prime]

And his penmanship. That font is wicked hard to read.

[grimzod]

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?

They've already spilled the beans on how they intend to make all chassis relevant. Hard points. Standard tabletop tonnage limitations and critical slots. 90% of what is seen in the mechlab is pure tabletop. And as for the clans, its likely they'll have a more liberal 'omni' hardpoint system but thats guessing at this point.

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

I think a lot of people just want this game to be a great mechwarrior experience and they really fear it turning into a 15 med pulse laser to the leg circle strive game.

The hardpoint system already prevents that.

[Ishtar]

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.

are you trying to implement another game rules to another? If its not in the original battletech source books with no conflicts, I don't see any reason for changes.


You cant have everything done your way, just cause you don't like it.

I think you need more weigh in your debate, and not put in a just cause answer.

There is a reason for everything, if you have the time and money. I think amazon has some of the old technical readouts, and I'm not pointing to the ones that show the Mech art work and designs.

You also gotta accept the sh!t happens factor and suck it in and deal with it.

[ScientificMethod]

Am I the only one that feels like I can tell what mech games someone has played based on how they talk and what they talk about?

Also Ishtar, thats a bit harsh don't you think? Being a jerk won't win you any debates

[PANZERBUNNY]

grimzod, on 23 June 2012 - 07:43 AM, said:

They've already spilled the beans on how they intend to make all chassis relevant. Hard points. Standard tabletop tonnage limitations and critical slots. 90% of what is seen in the mechlab is pure tabletop. And as for the clans, its likely they'll have a more liberal 'omni' hardpoint system but thats guessing at this point.



The hardpoint system already prevents that.

If people are whining about laser boats now, wait until the omni system is included. I think it's safe to say they won't be limited, only the maximum number of hard points.

The tears will be triumphant and I'm sure Clans will have a nerf bat swung at them a few times. At that point we get to see even MORE tears about people playing a free game and how the clans have been nerfed when they should be rolling over IS players.

I get these prophetic visions sometimes.

I think Battle Value will solve this, but without it, nerfs will happen.

[Holski77]

There is no reason for us to limit mechlab.

aka: don't be boring

[grimzod]

Setting one star of omnis vs one company of IS mechs will be balanced - in the clans favor. If you want to win a stand up fight against the clans dont expect to come out of it with even semi intact mechs. Even if you enjoy a three to one number ratio. Nerfing the clans will be funny and unneeded all they do is limit the max clanners per match and you have your balance.

In point of fact it would be best if only th ebest pilots were even allowed to pilot clan mechs to start - having no skill pubs in clan mechs will make them much less capable.

Edited by grimzod, 23 June 2012 - 07:50 AM.

[Ishtar]

[color=#A4A4A4]
Posted Today, 11:39 AM[/color]
[color=#959595]
[color=#CCCCCC]
BLeeD, on 23 June 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:[/color]


Freaking table toppers. Its a video game, this is made for mass appeal not a small % of the population of table top players. We understand you love the game and want it to be whats written in the game manual but this game has evolved. Its going to be a semi persistent or persistent universe. Try it before you start bashing it please.

I hate the haters,

raging , , im out

[/color]


You do understand the reason why and how Mechwarrior came to be what was the major influences to all video games? Instead of just finishing my response I find it alot easier to just report your idiotic response.

Edited by Ishtar, 23 June 2012 - 07:51 AM.

[Thariel]

I have read many cons and some pros now, and I just want to state, I am not a "fanatic table-topper".
Also I am not against cumstomization, but it needs to be in line.
E.G. taking a Catapult removing the Lrms and putting 2x srm2 in it and therefore removing 2 meds and putting 2 ppcs in it makes it a totally different mech. Why play a Catapult then? This new mech is more like a jumping Warhammer than a catapult. If there's too much freedom , everyone will run the same mech (fotm-setup) as well as if there is too few freedom (fotm killer-mech). Would love to see it balanced out very well. I just posted a suggestion as to how balance it, restrict it, but not too much, give freedom, but not too much either.

So all i want is a little restriction. You can still have lots of fun tinkering with your mechs, but stay closer to the original. Changing internals , armourtype and engine is way too much in my opinion.

The only mechs that could swap weapons free at will are Clan-Omnis, and they are special for that ability. With variants to IS mechs available, and therefore lots of diffrerent hardpoint setups , what's the difference to omnis. and 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 dunno how teamplay will be matched, but if it is e.g. per tonnage, each team will just pick the tonnage then select appropriate weighted mechs and build e.g. laserboats out of all of them. I can't see the real fun in that. a good PvP lives from difference.

Again: I don't want NO changes, I just want them to stay within some range so it doesn't turn into a fotm setup 1 mech for everything game.

[Endarius]

What you say flies in the face of everything battletech stands for. Terrible idea. The hardpoint system is more than restrictive enough. To go further would actually be in direct violation of lore and canon. It would also bring the game one perilous step closer to mechassault. Not only does this post likely infuriate 95% of the community. You're also citing examples which include clan tech, which doesn't exist in this game. In your model basically there would be no weapons that you could switch at all, except maybe laser types. It also is pretty unlikely the Dev's will do this simply because that is obviously not the standpoint they are working from. You havn't even played the game yet, I would suggest you do before making demands of Pirhana games with regards to an opinion on mech customization that is not only limiting, but likely yours alone.

[ScientificMethod]

Thariel, on 23 June 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I have read many cons and some pros now, and I just want to state, I am not a "fanatic table-topper".
Also I am not against cumstomization, but it needs to be in line.
E.G. taking a Catapult removing the Lrms and putting 2x srm2 in it and therefore removing 2 meds and putting 2 ppcs in it makes it a totally different mech. Why play a Catapult then? This new mech is more like a jumping Warhammer than a catapult. If there's too much freedom , everyone will run the same mech (fotm-setup) as well as if there is too few freedom (fotm killer-mech). Would love to see it balanced out very well. I just posted a suggestion as to how balance it, restrict it, but not too much, give freedom, but not too much either.

You can't fit 2 ppc's in a standard catapult

[Ishtar]

ScientificMethod, on 23 June 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

Am I the only one that feels like I can tell what mech games someone has played based on how they talk and what they talk about?

Also Ishtar, thats a bit harsh don't you think? Being a jerk won't win you any debates

I'm sorry, how am I being a jerk? Since you want go off with the childish name callings, I think we can go another direction to end this.


*.. never mind don't even bother with answering this thread*

Edited by Ishtar, 23 June 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[Rashhaverak]

Limiting the lab is a horrible idea.

Maintain sufficient limits to ensure game balance (don't want every mech to be the identical gunboat A.K.A. Chromehounds), but allow sufficient variability to let those of us who want to customize to be able to have fun.

Since the chassis are fixed and other features limit variability to certain specs, MWO should, hopefully, not have the same issues that CH had with overly dominant single mech designs.

[perfectblue]

ITT: Pointless speculation that is subject to change.

[Sierra19]

Kreator666, on 23 June 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Wow what a hatestorm on OP... to be expected tho... basic human taugh patterns... you limit my freedom, I cry (wich is ok in itself

I'm not hating the OP, I'm just trying to explain to him the reason the mechlab works the way it does. Let's take the Hunchback 4G: Standard layout is one AC20 (right torso), and 2 ML's (one on each arm), and one SL on the head. So to customize it (the way I understand it), you have one ballistic hardpoint, and 3 energy hardpoints. I don't think we'll see as much min/maxing as we will see "The AC20 is too short ranged for me, so I'll swap it for an AC 10 and get more shots for the ammo tonnage to boot" Or, you can go with a canon variant, and drive Shakir Jerrar's ride with and UAC10, and 2 MPL's (medium pulse lasers), and you'll be all pimped out, Dragon style. And that's a 4G varaint, not a different model. If you do a little digging around in source material, it'll be hard for you to come up with something that some other mech pilot of note hasn't already done.

Edited by Sierra19, 23 June 2012 - 08:06 AM.

[Barlourd]

There will also be a restriction on heat sinks. This will affect home many and what type of weapons can be placed on a particular mech. Everything is a tradeoff. Now I have lost some of the versatility provided and limited myself. I want to add jumpjets so I remove armor or downgrade the engine to make room for them.

Limiting the type and number of hardpoints will accomplish the balance.Lighter mechs will not have enough hardpoints to mount PPCs in place of their small/medium beam lasers. Or they will have to remove too many other weapons to become the one shot wonder. Differences in armor vs. engine vs. weapons will also affect the choice of mechs. All I am saying is that each player and playstyle will choose something different to suit their needs.

This is speculation and only represents what I believe will be present in the game.

[Jonneh]

PANZERBUNNY, on 23 June 2012 - 07:21 AM, said:

Actually it's the other way around. This game is restricting it where the TT gives you complete freedom.

Learn your facts please.

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.

[Black Sunder]

Barlourd, on 23 June 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

There will also be a restriction on heat sinks. This will affect home many and what type of weapons can be placed on a particular mech. Everything is a tradeoff. Now I have lost some of the versatility provided and limited myself. I want to add jumpjets so I remove armor or downgrade the engine to make room for them.

Limiting the type and number of hardpoints will accomplish the balance.Lighter mechs will not have enough hardpoints to mount PPCs in place of their small/medium beam lasers. Or they will have to remove too many other weapons to become the one shot wonder. Differences in armor vs. engine vs. weapons will also affect the choice of mechs. All I am saying is that each player and playstyle will choose something different to suit their needs.

This is speculation and only represents what I believe will be present in the game.

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

[captn rentoshi]

shhhhh not while Im working in the lab.