268 replies to this topic

[FolkenWintercraft]

I agree with the OP.

Sort of.

As I recall, in the TT version, you could freely strip away any equipment from a stock mech and whatever you wanted, but at a cost of decreased stability, weight distribution, etc. If the devs implemented that in MWT, I'd be 100% okay with how the mechlab works. As it is now, though, I don't see what the difference between a stock Atlas is and any given Clan omni if I can gut the former and build it back up however I want with no negative consequences.

Additionally, and more important from a gaming perspective, if you can gut the Atlas and add whatever you want, there is no way of knowing what your enemy is actually carrying. The only things you can tell is that it A) is an Atlas, and as such, it probably has a lot of big guns. Part of the appeal of the TT (for me, at least) was looking at the opposition and being able to tell exactly what I was up against (making exceptions for cannonical variants).

[Phasics]

devs prob skimmed this thread thinking "silly humans, have NFI what they want "

they pressent us with what they think is a good idea, judge it after you've played it

[Shimmer]

Red is for energy. Yellow is for ballistic. Green is for missiles.
Yay.

[xNightAngelx]

Idk about most of you but one of my favorit parts of mechwarrior and battletech is the customization of mechs. Strip that away from me and you might as well throw me back into mech assault.

[Landeraxe]

Caspanova, on 23 June 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

Thanks but no.

If I have have limited mechbay space it seem to be the case then it is hard enough keeping it stocked with a K2 as well as a regular Catapult before having to limit your self to every single possible varient.

I think you should be able to chose to vary it within the weapon type "Oh I like the ***-4F but I think it runs hot with those 2 PPCs, I want to take one out and put in a Med Laser" rather than being strictly held to exact type.

As always, if you don't like it to be played like that, you have the option to only exchange lasers for laser etc. But please don't try to remove my ability to up or downgrade my mech's weapons.

Yeah, totally this. I only get four mechs in my bay (a fortune that most real mech-pilots never amass, I know). I will want to be able to customize them to my pleasure depending on what I am doing with them. I see your point about how nobody is going to play with the mechs as is; but there's a reason for that; default loadouts might be "balanced" and well rounded, but people want to specialize in one form of combat. The batlefield will prove which configurations work for which maps; and we're going to want to adjust to the situation.

I do see your point; I just don't think it's feasable. Rather than seeing people with strange loadouts, you're going to start seeing everybody running the same mech instead (the one with the loadout that everyone thinks is best). I'd rather see a variety of mech chassis out there than everyone picking the same "favorite" chassis.

[Game_Overture]

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!

That rules, where did you hear that from? What other non-combat items are available in the Mechlab? Does anyone know if MASC going to be in the game?

[HiredGun]

I think a lot of people are missing the boat when they compare IS mech customizing and Omni-Mechs. This is like comparing apples and oranges.

IS mech customization is something that they did with a significant expenditure of time and money. Switching out Omni-mech packages was done in the field, was quick and had no applicable cost.

I agree with previous comments that if it cost significant cash to customize a mech, then people will start with the closest stock mech to what they wish to achieve. This would still leave plenty of variety to what mechs you will see on the battlefield. This would also likely stop people from doing to many changes between matches.

When Omni-Mechs eventually show up, you could create custom preset packages (again at a cost), that you could switch out willy-nilly and that would be free.

Edited by HiredGun, 26 June 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Graphite]

Landeraxe, on 25 June 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

I do see your point; I just don't think it's feasable. Rather than seeing people with strange loadouts, you're going to start seeing everybody running the same mech instead (the one with the loadout that everyone thinks is best). I'd rather see a variety of mech chassis out there than everyone picking the same "favorite" chassis.

Yeah it's a case of the devs being between a rock and a hard place.

If they allowed proper TT customisation (which would be my choice) they'd have to balance weapons and objectives extremely well to avoid seeing only a limited number of weapon loadouts. Very difficult, if not impossible. A higher rate of fire for ballistic weapons would help though.

On the other hand, the current hardpoints and restrictions for them means for any given weight class some chassis are going to be superior. E.g. of the two 50 ton chassis, Centurion and Hunchback, players are going to find that the hardpoint restrictions of one are better than the hardpoint restrictions of the other, and so eventually one will be played much more than the other.

Edited by Graphite, 14 July 2012 - 08:50 PM.

[Endless Ike]

*Complains about a game he has never played*

*complaint is discussed seriously for 12 pages*

[Khorloch]

Endless Ike, on 14 July 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

*Complains about a game he has never played*

*complaint is discussed seriously for 12 pages*

Sounds like a few other threads that have been floating around.

[GoriKarafong]

This discussion is important, but from what I have read in this forum it seems that there are different views on MWO which seems not to match. Now PGI has the hard job to make it fun for both parties.

First there are players who like to have as much power to themself as possible. Which I understand but which could break the gameplay in mid to long terms. So please think about this: Do you want this? Really? Even if it could kill the game?
Second there are players who like to have a mostly pure Battletech feeling. Which I understand as well, as I loved Battletech back the days very much. But please understand that it is not possible to transfer BT 1:1 in this kind of game. MWO needs adjustments for gameplay and fun and to adress a large number of players. If not the game will die as well if "only" hardcore BT/MW will be playing it.
And third there are many people right between those extreems.

Personally I trust PGI they will find a way to make most people happy. This said I feel it self that some more Mechlab limitations would be in place. I tell you why:
1) I fear that some mechs or mechvariants are just not needed if you can achieve mostly the same kind of effect with other mech(variants). So please make them count!
2) Some possible changes: MG -> AC20 for example just feel wrong. And if I see a kind of mech which should know and it works completly different. Yes it is intersseting and surprising at first. But after a while it gets stupid as every accounter feels totally random and you can not play tactical unless you found out the layout of the individual mech.

There are some interssting ideas floating around in the forum how this could be achieved. I hope PGI is reading this and is makeing there own head about it.

I hope for the best

Cheers
Gori

[Dataman]

if you suggest that, then what's the point of mech lab?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Another point is when can you use the Mechlab. Many people want to be able to "tweak" ie completely change their mech after they know the map they will be dropping on so that the mech is perfectly optimised for that match. Canonically such changes were only available to Clan omnimechs not IS mechs. My preference would be run what you brung, if you want a mech that runs hot and get a desert map - tough.
Their arguement is that it is not fun unless you can perfect your mech for each map. There seems to be a number of people however who don't think its "fun" to come up against the same few perfectly optimised mechs on each map.
We'll have to see what the game is like.

[Alex Novian]

William Petersen, on 23 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Yup. I know this. You know this. PPC-freaks do not know this. A lot of it comes from those "Free" heat sinks in the engine itself (which shouldn't be doubled. Ever. This is one big deviation from "canon" I hope PGI has the courage to do).

If I remember correctly Each Engine came with 10 free HS <Double or otherwise, you couldn't mix them>. the Space restrictions on them were for every 25 rating of the Engine it fit one HS inside and you didn't need to find space for it in the Main body of the Mech chassie.

400 rating could hold 16 HS <6 you'd have to purchase with tonnage>,that didn't need to be placed in the crit slots provided.
where as a 200 rating engine could hold 8 and the other 2 you'd have to find space for<if they were double you'd have to find the room for them as doubles.
250 rating engine being the break point for the free HS int he engine.

Thus if you made a ballanced Lasser/ Munitions build you wouldn't have to ever worry about overheating or having your HS shot out once your armour is breached.




Alex 'Crenshaw' Novian

[abetterpilot]

this thread just hasn't delivered

[Sarouter]

My opinion is leave the current system as is. Because the whole purpose is to build the best Mech possible. If you want to fight stock or close to it thats fine by me. I have no issue equipping my Mech with the best possible weapons to blow you up.

I am sure as the game moves along, load outs for weapons and add-ons will get posted so people will adjust to a near perfect mixture right out of the gate.

Mechlab adjusting was one of my favorite activities. Playing with the weapons and then testing them. If you don't want to put in the time to do that then don't play the game.

[Stable Manager William]

I am of the mindset that full customization following BattleTech rules is awesome. Though that combined with limitations on weapon type by location is fine with me... so my Hunchback isn't shooting missiles out of his AC Hole.

[Angel Dust]

Personally, Having tinkered with mechs for ages in the board game, i would like to have total freedom in creating a mech. However, i know it is hell to sort the graphics out when you allow that, so i can live with the hardpoint system. Tinkering with the mech is a big part of the game for me.
Those fearing outragous designs can be assured: if they have followed the basic rules of the board game then NO mech design will unbalance the game (at least not with IS tech. Clan tech f**cked everything up)

[WarDog420]

as far as i remember all the PC MW games had the same weapon loadout system in place and it worked fine.

[Red squirrel]

I think your options are already limited if you have energy, balistics, or rocket only hardpoints.
Simply because of the fact that on many mechs there will just not be enough hardpoints in one place for a PPC instead of a laser or for a gauss cannon instead of whatever. Of course you can always exchange a AC/20 for a gauss cannon (I think they need the same amount of space)

Further, it is not only the top speed but also the acceleration and turning speed which decide how agile your mech is. This should always differ depending on size. But feel free to put that giant XXXL enigine into your heavy mech and you will be more vulnerable (left/right torso).