281 replies to this topic

[Tahawas Pitts]

One thing that is needed unless each individual battle will have no bearing on the rest of the game is that it needs to take time and expense to modify a Mech away from its current configuration. The advantage of the omni pod system goes away when you allow a Mech to be changed in 3 seconds in a program. This was reflected in the board game using various rules over the years but never seemed to be reflected in any of the previous MechWarrior games.

[Zarax]

I don't know if it is canon, however MechCommander 2 kept mech specialization quite nicely by having a "base" number of heat sinks available on a mech along with limited hardpoints.

This allowed you a pretty good degree of customization and it meant that turning a "ballistic focused" mech into a laser boat was limited by the fact you had to add a lot more heat sinks.

What do you think?

[Felicitatem Parco]

I feel that all the "canon" Mechs available to players in the past MW video games have been woefully low on heat syncs. I don't understand why Mechs would bring far more lasers into combat than they are able to fire over prolonged periods of time, it's like cooking a bowl of chili that's too hot and spicy to eat in one sitting - why make a full bowl if you can't eat it? Customization is the MAIN driving point that brings me to Battletech video games as opposed to others. I like customization, I like tactics, and I like strategy. If MWO is limited to canon-designs only (including the canon variants), then I won't even bother to play it.

I think game currency should be needed to purchase both parts and to purchase the labor to install/uninstall parts. Omnimechs should have lower install/uninstall costs for parts, but those parts [themselves] should be more expensive due to the unique manufacturing processes involved (canon dictates the fabrication of custom Omni parts is more expensive than standard parts because you have to deal separate pieces of manufacturing equipment and stuff). Also, Omni-parts ARE NOT compatible with standard Mechs, and vice/versa (as stated in canon).

EDIT: Players who constantly like to swap configurations would have to choose between spending excessive cash on the labor to install and uninstall parts constantly, or spending big capital on purchasing OmniMechs and Omni-parts so they can reconfig all day long on the cheap. Players who like to keep a standard suite of weapons could save money by not swapping their stuff all them time.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 November 2011 - 08:44 AM.

[Haeso]

Just a side note, I was under the impression omni tech was far more expensive to upkeep in exchange for how easy it was to swap parts around/replace them. Which is why most second-line clan mechs were BattleMechs not OmniMechs.

Edited by Haeso, 29 November 2011 - 08:54 AM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Yeah, I think that initial purchase costs and per-mission fielding/repair costs should be the way expensive Omnitech is paid for because I don't want to take a week-long camping trip in the mountains and then come back to MWO to find that I owe the garage $12,575,702,461 in maintenance costs.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 29 November 2011 - 09:16 AM.

[Pht]

Mmmm rehash of leftovers from the first days of the forums...

To quote myself from than:











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

"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.

Should be pretty straight forwards.

Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).

Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.

This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.

Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.

One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).

[Black Sunder]

Pht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:51 PM, said:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed...

Why not? Upgraded mechs with Endo and XL engines started appearing in the IS after the tech was understood more. Why shouldn't player be allowed to upgrade?

[Rhinehart]

One thing I think you will never see in a Mechwarrior Game.

There will NEVER be one design/config that is the ultimate mech. Min/Maxing players can work to their hearts content and I've LAN gamed in person with some of the worst, the guys who spend hours in the mechlab tweaking that design for every session of gameplay. But there are factors the will simply prevent that from happeining.

First and foremost there will be different environments for each session. These will necessitate different mechs and/or loadoouts. That high heat low ammo energy boat that works great on the frozen tundra will not work optimally on desert sands no matter how many heat sinks you think you can cram on. The devastating short range autocannons might work well in the canyons of a city, but in open territory you will be outranged and blown to bits before you can close with your target. Oh and fans who remember MW 2 Ghost Bear's Legacy might remind you standard missiles and autocannons don't seem to work well underwater. Simple simulated geography will prevent anyone from designing a single, always monstrously powerful design.

The next factor will involve unit cohesion. Simply put, if you build a monster solo assault Mech you still might be at a disadvatage to a two man team with a light Mech TAG scout and a heavy with Arrow IV artillery missiles. Likewise a pair of pilots that coordinate their loadouts (Say one configured for infighting with a backup loaded for fire-support) might very well have the advantage over an otherwise very capable single design. Once teamwork is taken into account the value of any single design becomes less important than how effectively it is used.

Finally the most nebulous of parameters will be personal skill and preference. For myself I have always preferred direct fire weaponry, preferably PPCs or Large lasers mixed with autocannon or gauss rifles. For this reason I tend to prefer heavy chassis since they can mount these weapons and still move faster than a snail.(Though only with effort). This is because I tend to have two distinct weapons groupings in combat. Group One:High Heat, long range Group Two:Low Heat, Mid to short range. These are the options than generally suit my play style. I have never had a natural gift or prediliection for missiles, artillery, or even jump jets. I have however spent a large amount of time learning and practicing with these weapons because it is the best way to learn how to defend against them. I have also known very good simulated Mech pilots who swear by their missile boats. I have never been a better than average scout mech pilot. However I have teamed with and against very good lances that included outstanding scout pilots with Narc and/or TAG equipment for missile and artillery spotting. These flexible options mean that there will be many more roles on the battlefield than simpy being the guy that fields the biggest baddest mech.

When it comes to customization I want the most flexibility and options possible. That's because I like to try everything at least once even though I have my areas where I excel better than others. But believe me, no matter how much or what type of customization you have, there will be no maxing or minning in a Mechwarrior Sim that will garruntee victory.

[CG Anastasius Focht]

A mechlab has always been a part of the game, Its both the cause and solution to min/max, boats etcs.
For every varient there is a counter, sometimes thats not always weaps loadouts.
It can be increased speed, or increased armour/durability or combinations of those and other factors.
In Mw4 i balanced my mech to expire at just about the same time as my ammo ran out.
There was nothing worse than running around in a mech with no ammo. That tonnage which gave me useless durability long after the guns ran out of ammo, was better used elsewhere.

[Mikhal Rain Longcut]

Okay let take the "Mech Lab" one step farther what about repairing a mech in the field not being able to replace a destroyed weapon or system but replacing the ammo, and armor which in the field it should be able to do. I don't believe is should be like Mech 3 which it was almost instantanious and if you wanted to you could ***** up the assault of an area and go back to the MFB's to re-arm and re-armor till you ran out or your heart was content. The largest how do they do it is the time frame, wair till the skirmish is over or could you do it whenever then the time frame comes into play. I don't think it would be fair for a lance of light's to almost destroy an atlas then pull off to a different target and the Atlas repair at the MFB's then get into the fight and ravage the light lance if the piolot was that good.
Just like always more questions then answers.

[Rhinehart]

I like the idea of MFBS, there's a thread about them I haven't had the chance to look at yet that probably has a lot of stuff in it. It would depend on how they were implemented.

But did you ever Blow an MFB up while someone was inside it during MW3 multiplayer? Hehe that was fun. I also used to camp the MFBs from range and zap the repair-needy incomers with 2 ppcs and a gauss rifle from a klick away.

Ah, I miss those days.

[Gaius Cavadus]

Eh, MFBs would be alright if they only reloaded ammo and the reload took a solid 60s (at least). I really don't want to see instant field repairs. Junk like that is for Mario-Kart or Mech Assault.

[Raeven]

As long as they stick to the rules for customization, I don't care.

Say no to MW4 hardpoints!!

[Eegxeta]

Does anyone actually read the whole topic before posting?

[Rhinehart]

Define "read"?

heh seriously some of these threads are so long before I get to them it's all I can do to just scan through.

[Corsair101]

Not a fan of customization in Mechwarrior games to date - love the idea, hate the implementation.
Being able to completely alter the performance profile of a 'mech so it becomes something else feels wrong - why pilot an Awesome if you're going to turn it into a Longbow?

Being able to switch a 'mech's skeleton? That seems like a very involved process beyond what an average mercenary command is capable of - or at least it doesn't seem like it should be a financially viable way to proceed. Think of it - actually removing every piece of a 'mech and rebuilding it around a new skeleton? Does not seem plausible.

The IS totally revamped and retrofitted 'mechs as new technology sprung up over the years - but it took design teams and major manufacturers' years to do so (as stated in the various TROs).

However - switching armour, weapons, heat sinks and other active equipment seems very plausible. The various fiction and TT sources have many precedents for this scale of customization. The key is not mistaking the TT CONSTRUCTION rules for CUSTOMIZATION rules. The various Mercenary handbooks that were released all spoke of customization and how it could potentially effect a 'mech. An inrproperly installed weapon could jam or even explode - thus the various manufacturer's released upgrade kits to help retrofit older models to take advantage of newer equipment while limiting risk of installation.

When it comes down to it, Omni-'mechs are really the only 'mechs which should allow free-form customization consequence free. And even then switching out actuators, engine(type)s and skeletons should be avoided. Maintaining the flavour of each 'mech should be made a priority as to make piloting a design more than an aesthetically driven decision.

My 2 cents.

[Havoc2]

verybad, on 27 November 2011 - 05:51 PM, said:

The weapons are unbalanced in Battletech to begin with. Certain weapons are simply more effective due to range, damage, or efficiency. You can still make viable mechs on the 3085 battlefield using just 3025 Medium Lasers for instance.

Eventually it is inevitable that some weapons and configs will be more effective than others.

The weapons being unbalanced according to TT rules or previous versions of MW does not mean that MWO's weapons will be unbalanced.

An AC20 vs. a PPC is not unbalanced just because the PPC has a longer range

Yes, you are correct that certain loadouts will be more effective than others. The balance issue is that these loadouts should be dependent on terrain. AC10 or 20 "boats" will (and should) be more effective in urban combat compared to a PPC boat. The range of the PPC is negated by terrain, and any half decent pilot should know that using terrain to their advantage can turn the tide in a battle.

[Gaius Cavadus]

}{avoc, on 02 December 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

An AC20 vs. a PPC is not unbalanced just because the PPC has a longer range.

No, but on top of longer range the PPC has the following advantages:

-Weighs half as much;
-Unlimited shots;
-Weight saved due to no ammo;
-No ammo explosions due to no ammo;
-Cannot jam;
-Only does 3 more heat.

The AC-20s lone advantage:
-Does twice as much damage (at half the range).

ACs have always been boned in the TT.

[Kudzu]

Cavadus, on 02 December 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

No, but on top of longer range the PPC has the following advantages:

-Weighs half as much;
-Unlimited shots;
-Weight saved due to no ammo;
-No ammo explosions due to no ammo;
-Cannot jam;
-Only does 3 more heat.

The AC-20s lone advantage:
-Does twice as much damage (at half the range).

ACs have always been boned in the TT.

For the AC/20 you left out that they can headcap in one shot and that concentrated damage means a lot more in TT.

Edit: Forgot to mention specialty ammo, no minimum range, and that unless you're using ultra mode or optional rules they don't jam either.

Edited by Kudzu, 02 December 2011 - 12:01 PM.

[wolf74]

I am a TT player, Proof (http://home.grandeco...es/CBTbooks.JPG)

I had two basic thoughts on this

1^st Thought

In the Max-Tech book FASA #1700 Revised Edition) Page 63 there was a Side Rule that lowered the Internals space based on the mechs class. The Default for TT is 47+4 open slot on a mech (the +4 is the removal of the Lower Arm actuator and Hand actuator) the 47 slot was divided like so

H / CT / Side Torso / Arms / Legs
1 / 2 / 12ea / 8ea / 2ea

Now the Mex-Tech Version is the lighter mechs get less open slots

Assaults = 47+4
1 / 2 / 12ea / 8ea / 2ea

Heavies = 45+4
1 / 2 / 12ea / 7ea / 2ea

Mediums = 43+4
1 / 2 / 11ea / 7ea / 2ea

Lights = 39 + 4
1 / 2 / 10ea / 6ea / 2ea

Very Light = 33 +4
1 / 2 / 9ea / 5ea / 1ea

Quad Mechs = Replace arm slots with legs slots

Yes the above with make it where you would have to move some minor thing around on the lighter mechs to make them fit but the flavor of the mech can still be the same.

　

2^nd Thought

We are moving out of the Pen& paper so the Math does Not have to be whole numbers.
If and when they come out with a crafting option gear can have “Grades” A-F the higher the grade the better something is in that area. CBT gear would be a C grade for most Armies. Where F & D would be the stuff commonly found on the NPC Market.

AKA Small Laser Grade
Size = F, Range = B, Weight = D, Damage = C, Heat = D, Rof = B
This fires faster than the normal small laser, does the same damage at longer range, but is Much Larger, a bit Heavier & a bit hotter per shot than a normal small laser.

Pernals I see the grades something list this
A = 15% Better
B = 10% Better
C = CBT base stat (or game version of it)
D = 8% Worse
E= 16% Worse
F = 25% Worse

But for this system to work we also need to change Critical Slot to Metric Volume. So it not 1 Critical Slot equal 100cm³ (Pulling Metric number out of the air there) This way weapons and & can take a bit more or less space.

　
On a MUCH smaller side note: A small part of the problem weapon like M.G., Flamers, A-Pod & B-Pod which were mainly use for anti-infantry don’t do much VS bar 10 armor. Where they shine is VS infantry & unarmored units (aka Militia unit with SRM on a Jeep type things)

Auto-Cannon are use a LOT more on Tanks do to the fact Tank do NOT get heat from Ammo base weapons so they don't need Heatsink for them. But Unlike Mech that can get Double Heat Sinks (which should be in limited supplie) Tanks can't use DHS. So to put a PPC on a Tank it 7tons for the weapon and 10tons of Heat Sinks (15tons of Heat Sinks if an ER PPC).

Edited by wolf74, 02 December 2011 - 01:10 PM.