281 replies to this topic

[Tweaks]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 17 December 2011 - 02:34 AM, said:

Canon/StratOps says otherwise.

StratOps as well, some canon examples include the Prometheus, the Wolfman and the Temax Cat Ninjabolt.
Or in other words, 'mechs made by literally welding together parts from different 'mechs.

No it doesn't say otherwise. The FrankenMech rules are actually Optional per the rulebook, and I think they should be left out. The Refit Kits and Customization rules are ok and are what I was referring to.

[Strum Wealh]

I'm curious as to peoples' thoughts on this:

--------------------

FACEman Peck, on 16 December 2011 - 10:52 PM, said:

What 'Mech would your main 'Mech be, and what would be its armament, armor, and equipment? I would personally go for:

• Thor Heavy 'Mech
  
• Dual Clan LBX-20's, one in each arm
  
• At least one ERLRM-20
  
• 2x ER Large Laser
  
• ER Medium Lasers to take up the remaining space
  
• Even out some armor around the 'Mechs
  
• Negative on the Jump Jets or IFF confuser

What do you people have?

Kudzu, on 17 December 2011 - 12:53 AM, said:

The Summoner (Thor) has 22.5 tons of pod space and 5 jump jets that cannot be removed. Omni's do not get to add or remove armor, or remove hard-mounted equipment.

Using your wishlist (in fact, only using your "must haves") you would be 14.5 tons over the limit and that's without loading ammo.

I've been wondering about the whole "fixed equipment on an OmniMech" argument that's been floating around...

Quote

Customizing is the practice of installing non-factory replacement parts in a ’Mech or vehicle to improve or modify the unit’s performance.

OmniMechs are designed to use interchangeable modular pods, so they are rarely customized.

However, even OmniMech chassis contain certain integral components, such as engines, armor, and fixed weapons. These items are not installed in modular pods, so they must be replaced with customizing procedures.

The above is from the CBT Master Rules, pgs. 92-93.

This seems to indicate that the engine, armor, and other fixed components of an OnmiMech can be changed or removed, but not with the ease of equipment loaded into Omni-tech pods - it is/should be just as difficult and expensive and time-intensive to switch out the engine of a Kingfisher as it would be for a Highlander (both are 90-tonners with standard engines; the former is an OmniMech while the latter is not), even though Omni-tech makes switching out the former's pod-based weapons and equipment faster and cheaper (which, in turn, is balanced by pod-based weapons and equipment being more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than the same or equivalent "standard" items).



Also:

Quote

Generally, players must follow BattleTech construction rules when customizing a unit. You cannot simply strap a couple of new medium lasers onto an existing design, as this would make the unit 2 tons too heavy. Other components must be removed or changed to make the appropriate space and weight available for new systems.

-----


When BattleMechs are designed, their components are placed in certain parts of the ’Mech’s body for good reason. The entire structure of the ’Mech must be balanced to support its weapons and other equipment. Changing this arrangement through customization can seriously upset the balance and hinder the performance of a ’Mech.


Therefore, the ideal customization replaces a component with another component that takes up the exact same tonnage and critical spaces in the same location of the ’Mech. For example, replacing an SRM-2 and a ton of ammunition with a medium laser and a single heat sink (each item weighs 2 tons and occupies 2 critical slots) is easy enough. The balance of the ’Mech and its internal-space allocation is maintained. Such customizations do not produce any additional modifiers or other problems.

That section then goes on to discuss how the Technicians' skill level affects their ability to perform the modification while maintaining the (structural) integrity and balance of the 'Mech as a whole.

Personally, it could be interesting to need to take balance into account while completing a loadout.

Player-influenced balancing was implemented in the 4th-generation Armored Core games (AC4 and AC4A being demonstrators of the fact that it can be done if the devs so wish); loading several heavy weapons on one side (or somewhat lighter components further from the center, to produce equal or greater moments) caused the mech to list to that side, while the addition of components (without exceeding the weight limits) and/or stabilizers could be used to create opposing moments and bring the balance point back to (or toward) the center.

Structural integrity could also be taken into account as well - a 'Mech built to have a heavy weapon on one side (say, the Hunchback with its AC-20) would reflect that in the way its internal structure - its skeleton - is set up; there would be additional mounting and reinforcement points on one side that simply wouldn't exist in the other side (as they weren't needed in the original design).

As such, one could take a standard Hunchback (HBK-4G) and replace the RT-mounted AC-20 (and perhaps other parts/systems to free up additional tonnage) with a RT-mounted AC-10, AC-5 (or two?), Gauss Rifle, PPC (or two?), pair of AC2s, cluster of Medium Lasers, and so on, but the AC-20 (or replacement weapon(s)) could not be mounted in said Hunchback's LT or arms in the same manner as the required mounting points and structural reinforcements simply don't exist in those locations.

In a somewhat roundabout way, from a player perspective it enforces a hardpoint system that places a reasonable limit on 'Mech customization - one can (given time and capital) create a personalized variant of a given 'Mech (see the Hunchback example above), but each chassis maintains it's individuality - a Hunchback and a Centurion may be of the same tonnage and be able to carry generally-similar loadouts (heavy AC, a few lasers, maybe a small-to-middling missile launcher), but the difference in hardpoint locations means that, despite their broad similarities, they can not and will not be "exactly-identical 50-ton amorphous gunblobs" even if the loadouts are made to be identical - the Centurion may be able to carry an AC-20, but only in its right arm (which, given the arm's actuation, would provide it with a better field of fire at the cost of its being further from the 'Mech's center, resulting in a greater moment and putting the 'Mech more off-balance) as opposed to the Hunchback carrying its AC-20 in its right-side torso (not actuated and fixed into the forward-facing line-of-fire, but closer to the 'Mech's CG, resulting in a smaller moment and a generally better-balanced design).

Actually, I can see how a (simplified? corrupted?) variation of this train-of thought could have led to MW4's slot/hardpoint system... but, what I'm proposing (TT-esque retrofitting by what is essentially the criticals system with fixed blocks of criticals locked as "hardpoints" and taking CG and moments into effect) would be a good bit more involved and would make players have to take several additional factors into account when customizing their 'Mechs.

[John Frye]

What I think the arcade MW3/4 folks are forgetting is that the TT customization rules were an attempt to balance for long term play rather than for a focus on instant action with no long term consequence. I am more than fine if the Devs want to add a "solaris" style DM option that allows full customization, but in that case the outcomes shouldn't impact the larger universe.

In regards to everyone wanting certain cannon design / variants, that's an easy solution. Just limit the number base design and available components (if you need a reason, say it's due to factory output limitations). To be honest, those types of limits make sense for a whole slew of reasons. It would also allow the ability to flavor the factions, since some factions wouldn't have easy access to other factions mechs (I.e. Valkyries might be common for Davion units, but Panthers would probably be fairly rare since it's a Kurita mech).

Last point is there is a group that has played this kind of persistent universe before, which is the folks that were on the old MUSE / MUSH games. They could probably give you some additional insight on what works and what doesn't in a persistent Battletech universe.

[Zureal]

Radar, on 22 November 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

At the very least, what ever and however you put the weapons on the mech, please allow the image to reflect the actual look of the mech with those weapons!
One of the very dissapointing things I have always found in the MechLabs is that no matter what you put on the mechs, they still looked the same!
I know its a cosmetic thing, but, that's half the fun. Seeing your final machine the way you want it to look.

I totally agree Full customization with your image changing depending on what you have on

[Felicitatem Parco]

I'm sure the modelers would love this one: changing the model for every weapons swap... it's probably not going to happen - too much work to design a function that would ensure the Mech configurations work without all the Mech's parts clipping on itself, generating proper hit boxes, etc.

I believe that you could only expect a new model for every weapons load-out if the Devs decided to only allow canon designs/variants, that way they could design all the models needed and loose them upon the battlefield without modeling issues.

[Strum Wealh]

Radar, on 22 November 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

At the very least, what ever and however you put the weapons on the mech, please allow the image to reflect the actual look of the mech with those weapons!
One of the very dissapointing things I have always found in the MechLabs is that no matter what you put on the mechs, they still looked the same!
I know its a cosmetic thing, but, that's half the fun. Seeing your final machine the way you want it to look.

Agreed!

Prosperity Park, on 17 December 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

I'm sure the modelers would love this one: changing the model for every weapons swap... it's probably not going to happen - too much work to design a function that would ensure the Mech configurations work without all the Mech's parts clipping on itself, generating proper hit boxes, etc.

I believe that you could only expect a new model for every weapons load-out if the Devs decided to only allow canon designs/variants, that way they could design all the models needed and loose them upon the battlefield without modeling issues.

Both Earthseige PC games managed it (in 1994).
Both Heavy Gear PC games managed it (in 1997 and 1999).
The Armored Core games (multiple platforms) have done it since the beginning (1997).
AC's sibling games Chromehounds (XBox 360, 2006) and Metal Wolf Chaos (XBox, 2004) managed it.
Phantom Crash (XBox, 2002) and its sequel S.L.A.I. (PS2, 2005) managed it.
The Front Mission series managed it since the beginning (1995).
It looks like Steel Battalion (XBox, 2002) allowed for customization of armaments, and I would not be surprised if such changes were reflected in the appearance of the mechs.

Mechwarrior seems to be the only major mecha game series that doesn't allow for loadout customization to alter the appearance of the mech; I, for one, would love to see that change and I'm hoping that the devs will implement it!

Edited by Strum Wealh, 17 December 2011 - 09:27 PM.

[Dredger]

Strum Wealh, on 17 December 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

Mechwarrior seems to be the only major mecha game series that doesn't allow for loadout customization to alter the appearance of the mech; I, for one, would love to see that change and I'm hoping that the devs will implement it!

First of all, this is not Chromehounds, Earthseige, Heavy Gear, Steel Battalion, or Gundam. This is MechWarrior.

Second, the reason appearances don't change with weapon loadouts is because they don't need to. Mech armaments are mounted internally as opposed to the external hexapod configuration of Chromehounds. This is also why it should be harder to swap out equipment, as most weapons are attached to the internal skeleton of the mech rather than bolted onto the outside.

Third, I've never had any problems with my Madcat shooting lasers out of its missile racks. I don't even think I would be able to mount lasers in my missile racks if I wanted to.

Fouth, this is not the current concern. The bigger picture involves the possibility of an open and unrestricted Mechlab spawning an unstoppable swarm of Frankenmechs with no regard to canon; see the Thor example quoted earlier.

_______________

John Frye, on 17 December 2011 - 11:53 AM, said:

What I think the arcade MW3/4 folks are forgetting is that the TT customization rules were an attempt to balance for long term play rather than for a focus on instant action with no long term consequence. I am more than fine if the Devs want to add a "solaris" style DM option that allows full customization, but in that case the outcomes shouldn't impact the larger universe.

Agreed.

Edited by Dredger, 17 December 2011 - 11:09 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

This seems to indicate that the engine, armor, and other fixed components of an OnmiMech can be changed or removed, but not with the ease of equipment loaded into Omni-tech pods - it is/should be just as difficult and expensive and time-intensive to switch out the engine of a Kingfisher as it would be for a Highlander (both are 90-tonners with standard engines; the former is an OmniMech while the latter is not), even though Omni-tech makes switching out the former's pod-based weapons and equipment faster and cheaper (which, in turn, is balanced by pod-based weapons and equipment being more difficult and/or expensive to acquire than the same or equivalent "standard" items).

Question would be:
Would an OmniMech thus modified still be an OmniMech?
Also, that Summoner you quoted is absolutely laughable.
I could do a Dire Wolf config with that, though.

Spoiler

Dire Wolf (Daishi) Silly 100t, 3/5/0, XLFE, Std; 19.0T/99% Armor; 15 DHS; 1 Flmr, 2 ERLL, 4 ERML, 1 LRM20, 2 LB20
3 tons of LRM ammo and 6 tons of LB-X ammo. Flamer to round off the remaining half-ton.

[Strum Wealh]

Dredger, on 17 December 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

First of all, this is not Chromehounds, Earthseige, Heavy Gear, Steel Battalion, or Gundam. This is MechWarrior.

Obviously.
That doesn't mean that we (or, more to the point, the devs) cannot look at what has been done before and elsewhere and give consideration as to whether there are characteristics that might be useful or interesting (and, most importantly, reasonable and justifiable) adapt (or even improve upon) and adopt.

The examples I listed were intended to demonstrate that there are likely relatively few technical reasons not to implement this, as older games built on older and less-capable engines have done so - said implementation would be, as all things regarding MWO are, subject to whether the devs 1.) are sufficiently interested and motivated to implement it and 2.) have the resources (mainly time and patience) to actually do so.

Dredger, on 17 December 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Second, the reason appearances don't change with weapon loadouts is because they don't need to. Mech armaments are mounted internally as opposed to the external hexapod configuration of Chromehounds. This is also why it should be harder to swap out equipment, as most weapons are attached to the internal skeleton of the mech rather than bolted onto the outside.

Indeed - in fact, the relative difficulty of putting any given weapon system(s) in any given location as a function of how the mounting points on a 'Mech's skeleton are set up and distributed is one of the major points I made in a prior post in this thread... one that I see you liked, no less!

Dredger, on 17 December 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Third, I've never had any problems with my Madcat shooting lasers out of its missile racks. I don't even think I would be able to mount lasers in my missile racks if I wanted to.

It wasn't so much of an issue with the slot system employed in the MW4 series - the MW2 and MW3, on the other hand, could and would allow for multiple ACs, or multiple lasers, and so on to be mounted in and fire out of the Timberwolf/Mad Cat's missile launchers... and have them still appear as missile launchers rather than changing to resemble the barrel(s) of the newly-fitted non-missile weapons.

This would be akin to building the Mad Dog/Vulture C variant (twin Gauss Rifles) or the Mad Dog/Vulture E variant (twin HAG-30s) and having either look exactly like the Mad Dog/Vulture primary variant (two large pulse lasers, two medium pulse lasers, and two LRM-20 racks).

Dredger, on 17 December 2011 - 11:06 PM, said:

Fourth, this is not the current concern. The bigger picture involves the possibility of an open and unrestricted Mechlab spawning an unstoppable swarm of Frankenmechs with no regard to canon; see the Thor example quoted earlier.

Simply because the appearance changing with the loadout is not the primary concern of the thread does not mean it is not a related (if only tangentially so) point-of-interest.

And I agree with you on the point about the "open and unrestricted Mechlab spawning an unstoppable swarm of Frankenmechs with no regard to canon" - I also believe there should be some reasonable restrictions placed on the retrofitting process, and that one element of that should be the distribution and type of mounting points on the 'Mech's body (as stated in my previously-linked post).
On this much, we agree, yes?

----------

Alizabeth Aijou, on 18 December 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:

Question would be:
Would an OmniMech thus modified still be an OmniMech?
Also, that Summoner you quoted is absolutely laughable.
I could do a Dire Wolf config with that, though.

Spoiler

Dire Wolf (Daishi) Silly 100t, 3/5/0, XLFE, Std; 19.0T/99% Armor; 15 DHS; 1 Flmr, 2 ERLL, 4 ERML, 1 LRM20, 2 LB20
3 tons of LRM ammo and 6 tons of LB-X ammo. Flamer to round off the remaining half-ton.

Yes, it is still an OmniMech.

The readout on the Kingfisher (a 90-ton humanoid Clan OmniMech) state that the base 'Mech has a cruising speed of 43 kph, a maximum speed of 64.5 kph, and 24.0 tons of pod space available for weapons and equipment.

The base 'Mech comes with a "Star League 360 Fusion Engine", a standard-type (that is, not XL) engine weighing 33.0 tons.
Let's say one changes out the standard-type 360-rated engine for, say, a standard-type 270-rated engine (which weighs 14.5 tons).

Assuming we changed nothing else about the 'Mech, our modified Kingfisher now has a cruising speed of ~32.4 kph, a maximum speed of ~54 kph, and 42.5 tons (the original 24 tons plus the 18.5 tons freed by the engine change) of pod space.
Neither the actual volume of the 'Mech (number of available critical spaces) nor the number or distribution of pod-slots on the chassis would have changed - only the available tonnage has increased.

By the TT rules, changing our Kingfisher's engine from a 360 to a 270 should be no more difficult or time-intensive (engine replacement, under normal/average conditions, takes ~6 hours by TT rules) than, say, changing the engine of a Highlander (a similarly-sized/shaped, 90-ton non-Omni IS BattleMech) from its standard-type 270-rated engine (which still weighs 14.5 tons) to a standard-type 360-rated engine (which still weighs 33.0 tons) - a process that would need 18.5 tons (the tonnage difference between a standard-type 270 engine and a standard-type 360 engine) to be freed before it could take place.

The difference is that the Highlander's weapons are attached directly to its frame (it's skeleton, the internal stricture) while Kingfisher's weapons are installed into omni-tech pods/bays, with the pods/bays (rather than the weapon itself) being what is attached to the 'Mech's frame.
It's the use of this pod/bay system that makes an OmniMech an OmniMech, and it's the ability to slide weapons and other equipment in and out of the pods/bays quickly and with relative ease that gives the OmniMechs their flexibility - which is their advantage over standard (that is, non-Omni) BattleMechs.
Though, the advantage is not without cost - OmniMechs and the Omni-tech components they use are rarer, much more expensive (1.25x normal price), and much more difficult to repair (double repair time) than the equivalent non-Omni 'Mechs and components.

Edited by Strum Wealh, 18 December 2011 - 10:44 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

Assuming we changed nothing else about the 'Mech, our modified Kingfisher now has a cruising speed of ~32.4 kph, a maximum speed of ~54 kph, and 42.5 tons (the original 24 tons plus the 18.5 tons freed by the engine change) of pod space.
Neither the actual volume of the 'Mech (number of available critical spaces) nor the number or distribution of pod-slots on the chassis would have changed - only the available tonnage has increased.

Wrong, it would end up having 43.5 tons of pod space.
You forgot that a 270-rated engine uses a smaller gyro.
Although it could technically work with a bigger-than-required gyro, there wouldn't be much point in it.

Quote

The difference is that the Highlander's weapons are attached directly to its frame (it's skeleton, the internal stricture) while Kingfisher's weapons are installed into omni-tech pods/bays, with the pods/bays (rather than the weapon itself) being what is attached to the 'Mech's frame.

And if you give it ES? Or FF?
What then?

[CaveMan]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 18 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Wrong, it would end up having 43.5 tons of pod space.

Does being off by a ton invalidate his argument? Because that's awfully nit-picky.

Adding Endo-Steel to an existing 'Mech is a ship of Theseus argument: To "install" ES you have to build an entirely new 'Mech structure out of Endo-Steel, from scratch, and then attach the components from the original chassis to it. In effect you've built a new 'Mech (and probably designed a whole new chassis since by its very nature ES is going to change the shape of the structural members).

But it'd still be an Omni, unless you got rid of the special Omni gyro, computers, weapon mounts, wiring, plumbing, etc., etc., etc. Every piece of an OmniMech has to be custom-tailored to being able to swap weapon loads on the fly. If you eliminate any of those components, at best you'll have an OmniMech that has fixed equipment in some bodypart, at worst you'll have a "modular BattleMech" like the Mercury.

[Strum Wealh]

Alizabeth Aijou, on 18 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

Wrong, it would end up having 43.5 tons of pod space.
You forgot that a 270-rated engine uses a smaller gyro.
Although it could technically work with a bigger-than-required gyro, there wouldn't be much point in it.

You're right - though, to be fair, it doesn't actually change the overall point I was making, or the validity thereof.
Also, I did say that we wouldn't be changing anything else about the 'Mech for the sake of simplifying this example...

Alizabeth Aijou, on 18 December 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

And if you give it ES? Or FF?
What then?

Use of Endo Steel (rediscovered by the IS in 3035) or Ferro-Fibrous (rediscovered by the IS in 3040) does not an OmniMech (IS versions developed in 3058) make.

There are plenty of non-Omni BattleMechs that use Endo Steel in their internal structure - the Devastator and the Spector being examples mentioned in recent ISN posts.
There are plenty of non-Omni BattleMechs that use Ferro-Fibrous armor - the Axman and the Mauler being prominent examples.
There are plenty of OmniMechs that use neither ES nor FF - the Owens and the Clan-built Nova (and the IS copy, the Black Hawk-KU) being the most prominent examples.

As I said, what makes an OmniMech an OmniMech is the use of the pod/bay system rather than having the majority of the armaments and non-major equipment fixed directly to the 'Mech's structure.

[CaveMan]

Quote

As I said, what makes an OmniMech an OmniMech is the use of the pod/bay system rather than having the majority of the armaments and non-major equipment fixed directly to the 'Mech's structure.

This may seem an odd thing to say, but I think a good comparison of Omni vs BattleMech would be smartphones vs desktop PCs.

BattleMechs and smartphones, everything is custom made for that one rig. Changing components isn't something the average user can do, if it can be done at all. If you want to go about modding them, you'd better have your electrical engineering skills up to date and you'll be custom-designing new parts.

With OmniMechs and desktops, you have pre-configured slots and everything is basically plug-and-play compliant. You can put any PCI card in any PCI slot, install the drivers, and go. The only constraints are heat load and power/space available. Changing fixed equipment on an Omni would be like trying to change the chipset on your motherboard. It might be possible, but it's not going to be easy.

[Phades]

CaveMan, on 18 December 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

With OmniMechs and desktops, you have pre-configured slots and everything is basically plug-and-play compliant. You can put any PCI card in any PCI slot, install the drivers, and go. The only constraints are heat load and power/space available. Changing fixed equipment on an Omni would be like trying to change the chipset on your motherboard. It might be possible, but it's not going to be easy.

Yeah, but you aren't making the consideration for compatibility as well. Either we just assume they are all compatible or we assume that they aren't and need accommodations for each type of weapon within a pod or standard construction mech. The vehicle construction rules dabble in this with the ICE vs fusion engines and energy weapons, but we never really see any of that applied to the mechs themselves in terms of total electrical output potential, among other things.

Honestly I don't even remember reading anything going in that general direction at all.

Edited by Phades, 19 December 2011 - 11:33 AM.

[Tweaks]

Guys, I keep seeing the word OmniMech in the last few posts... You know there won't be OmniMechs in MWO until after the clans invade, right? (Which won't be until 2013 in our timeline, or 3050 MWO's timeline)... Just sayin...

[Brakkyn]

No MechLab in any game to date has been anywhere near good enough for the game is was featured in.

Full customization is a bad thing. It always leads to bad things. It has never been a good idea, or led to good things.

But regardless of what I or anyone else feels or thinks, we do not know what MechWarrior Online is going to implement. The point is temporarily moot.

[Omigir]

I have seen allot of 'ALL OR NOTHING' in this thread, and on another thred by Gorith, I saw a pretty good ballanced sugestion. I think its deserves a look at least:

http://mwomercs.com/...chlab-wsalvage/

[Xhaleon]

Tweaks, on 18 December 2011 - 08:56 PM, said:

Guys, I keep seeing the word OmniMech in the last few posts... You know there won't be OmniMechs in MWO until after the clans invade, right? (Which won't be until 2013 in our timeline, or 3050 MWO's timeline)... Just sayin...

Game's launching next year, which synchronizes with 3050. We'll be seeing Omnis in the same year, if the Clans aren't NPCs or horribly restricted.

[Omigir]

Xhaleon, on 19 December 2011 - 06:01 AM, said:

Game's launching next year, which synchronizes with 3050. We'll be seeing Omnis in the same year, if the Clans aren't NPCs or horribly restricted.

I have debated myself over about this. Omni mechs are going to very hard to get (I assume). When a player does get an Omni mech, does that mean they will now not only have a large advantage over standard IS mechs, but now have a full mechlab at their disposal as well?

If you are so worried about there being ubermechs with mechlabs, why not be worried about those first firew units who get Clan mechs and then do the same thing as if they had ubermech.

Where is the ballance here? Or should players not only be disallowed mechlabs, but omni mechs too?

[Black Sunder]

Xhaleon, on 19 December 2011 - 06:01 AM, said:

Game's launching next year, which synchronizes with 3050. We'll be seeing Omnis in the same year, if the Clans aren't NPCs or horribly restricted.

Because next year is 3049 according to their timeline. Not 3050.