281 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Black Sunder, on 29 November 2011 - 06:05 PM, said:

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?

In universe terms, the internal structure is the skeleton that holds the entire structure together - changing it is not customization; it's re-engineering the entire 'Mech structure/skeleton; and the engines are only nominally less hard to swap.

In gameplay terms, allowing those structures to be changed contributes significanly to the munchkin/min-max effect. It would also go a LONG way towards rendering the 'Mechs into nothing more than different looking gun-bags that are otherwise un-unique.

Raeven, on 29 November 2011 - 11:49 PM, said:

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

Say no to MW4 hardpoints!!

HP were a decent concept but they were poorly implemented in MW4 - they shouldn't have tried to mess with the weapons sizes and stuff all the while getting rid of all non-weapons areas. Just bad mojo!

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

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

Havoc, I think VB was just pointing out that weapons performance differs between the different weapons instead of all being "the same" when he used the word "balance."

[CaveMan]

Pht, on 04 December 2011 - 11:27 AM, said:

HP were a decent concept but they were poorly implemented in MW4 - they shouldn't have tried to mess with the weapons sizes and stuff all the while getting rid of all non-weapons areas. Just bad mojo!

Hmm. This gives me an idea: How about, keep the old 12-slot critical system, but group the criticals of standard BattleMechs into hardpoints? Ammo, heat sinks, and electronics equipment can be mounted in any slot, but weapons can only be mounted in hardpoints, and a weapon can't be split across two hardpoints.

As an example, say the Marauder is set up with 5 hardpoints: one in the right torso (6 slots), two in the left arm (3 slots each) and 2 in the right arm (3 slots each). You can replace the AC/5 with a PPC or an LRM-20 or an LB-10-X, but an AC/20 will never fit. You could remove one of the PPCs and replace it with two clusters of 3 medium lasers in that arm, but you couldn't mount a Gauss rifle in the arm because the two hardpoints are distinct.

[Pht]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

Hmm. This gives me an idea: How about, keep the old 12-slot critical system, but group the criticals of standard BattleMechs into hardpoints? Ammo, heat sinks, and electronics equipment can be mounted in any slot, but weapons can only be mounted in hardpoints, and a weapon can't be split across two hardpoints.

You mean, kind of like This? <--Link

[CaveMan]

Pht, on 04 December 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

You mean, kind of like This? &lt;--Link

Pretty much, but without the color-coded equipment slots. There are lots of canon conversions where they swapped a medium laser for an SRM-2 or a PPC for an AC/5. Some of the hardpoints should be oversized for their default loads too to make conversions more interesting.

[Pht]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

Pretty much, but without the color-coded equipment slots. There are lots of canon conversions where they swapped a medium laser for an SRM-2 or a PPC for an AC/5. Some of the hardpoints should be oversized for their default loads too to make conversions more interesting.

MW3 went, ostensibly, with what the canon conversions would allow - and it made for a bunch of gunbags instead of even remotely unique mechs (beyond weight and visuals).

Without a GM standing over our shoulders to slap us and say "NO" things get munchy very quickly, so some sorts of restrictions are needed. It seems that is just the nature of the beast...

Edited by Pht, 04 December 2011 - 01:55 PM.

[CaveMan]

Pht, on 04 December 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

MW3 went, ostensibly, with what the canon conversions would allow - and it made for a bunch of gunbags instead of even remotely unique mechs (beyond weight and visuals).

Without a GM standing over our shoulders to slap us and say &quot;NO&quot; things get munchy very quickly, so some sorts of restrictions are needed. It seems that is just the nature of the beast...

I didn't say take all restrictions away. But arbitrary type restrictions are dumb. It's a hole in the side of the 'Mech, it doesn't know what kind of weapon you're cramming into it.

Actually, I'd revise my earlier proposal to only permit one weapon per hardpoint instead of allowing clusters. Permitting a Marauder to be turned into a pile of medium lasers is just the sort of 'amorphous gunbag' problem you're talking about.

[zverofaust]

Open limitless mechlab is AN IDEA DIFFERENT FROM MINE and I THINK IT would be an incredibly bad design choice, BECAUSE It'd result in HAPPY FLOWER TIME with everyone essentially in the same Mech 24/7.

There are ways to make it more interesting, and even profitable for the devs.

1) Have two different systems of editing mech loadouts side-by-side; "Customizing" and "Refitting".
Customizing would be a minor affair involving only the most basic ability to swap out secondary weaponry and equipment and only with similar-sized and compatible weapons; such as being able to swap out a Light Laser for a Machinegun or Flamer, or a Medium Laser with a Pulse Laser. It would be cheap, only costing as much as the new weapon is worth.
Refitting would be a much larger and more involved process, requiring (real-time) months of work to disassemble entire portions of the chassis, retrofit them to handle new equipment and redesign systems to make them compatible with new hardware. It would be extremely expensive (compared to simply swapping like weapons) and should have a cooldown timer, such as a week between refittings (which can be overrided by spending real money).

This dual system provides all of the flexibility with mech fits while throwing a reign on min/max chaos and anarchy by making extensive fit customization expensive. Each Mech chassis would have a number of different designs to choose from when Refitting, with further minor customization possible after doing so.

Of course, above all of this is the ability of the developers to balance weapons in such a way that min/maxing isn't simply the only logical choice and that there isn't a "golden fit" that everyone will automatically use. Also, OmniMechs, when they arrive, should be much easier to refit by having a much more extensive range of simple Customization options (like being able to swap an AC/5 for an ERPPC without having to refit).

(Slight EDIT's made by CM.
PS. Let's check out the ToC and CoC to make sure we're following the rules, eh?)

[Felicitatem Parco]

Is WoT a type of cigarette?

*hint, hint - nudge, nudge*

[Black Sunder]

Prosperity Park, on 05 December 2011 - 12:05 AM, said:

Is WoT a type of cigarette?

*hint, hint - nudge, nudge*

No, its a type of medication.

[Xhaleon]

CaveMan, on 04 December 2011 - 02:00 PM, said:

I didn't say take all restrictions away. But arbitrary type restrictions are dumb. It's a hole in the side of the 'Mech, it doesn't know what kind of weapon you're cramming into it.

Actually, I'd revise my earlier proposal to only permit one weapon per hardpoint instead of allowing clusters. Permitting a Marauder to be turned into a pile of medium lasers is just the sort of 'amorphous gunbag' problem you're talking about.

There's the MekTek extra slot types if ya like. Everything is already there in their edition of the MW4 system. Like I said before, convert it to actual criticals, then represent them in the MW4 style. Bam, super easy implementation and errbody can still put all those medium lasers into their Hunchies if they want to. Since the other parts of the mech are usually non-exchangeable, they don't need to be displayed. Optional electronics and stuff that can be swapped should also be displayed with their criticals being exactly how much space you can stuff in other things. Up in the air if players are allowed to try fitting a ECM module in a cavernous AC/10 slot, because unlike an energy weapon, it would be reasonable to run a few wires through empty ammo feeds and some welding to keep the module in place.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Black Sunder, on 05 December 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

No, its a type of medication.

I thought it was an emetic?

[Markkus]

So, Just to make a realllly quick note here, the year is 3049, Modular Weapon systems, wont reallllllly be commonplace for IS Mechs yet, so full custom doesnt make sense just yet or Custom jobs should have a proper cost associated with them as it requires replacing an entire limb or multiple critical slots fo torso etc..

Also on the key note of "min maxing" All loadouts are subject to falling prey to situations that really are hard to prepare for, so unless your all going to HERPADERPA up and charge face first at eachother, while ignoring the ideas of speed, tactics and teamwork...well I guess I'll be having a good time atleast

[Dlardrageth]

Just say "NO!" to customization madness running wild. Or give those munchkins their own MechLab and game mode where they can toy around as long as they don't bother the rest of us? Would totally work for me if there was one game mode where you can field monstrous hybrid ******* Mechs from hell, and another one where all those non-canon (according to PGI)... things... are banned by default from entering.

[Rhinehart]

I absoultely believe that allowing total customization of Mechs will not result in pilots driving the exact same mech around, some sort of "Gunbag".

Those that do will get killed very quickly.

Why?

Because as soon as someone sees your design and what it will do they will build something that can counter it.

And what each person or persons builds will be different because they will play to using the tactis and weapons they are best at.

That's before you even include variables such as map terrain and ambient environmental temparature.

Trust me, will not happen.

[Yeach]

I'm more concern of everyone loading all weapons in the torsos maybe even in the legs and leaving arms for heatsinks.

[Holmes]

If there's no MechLab MW4 (or at least 2/3) style, I'm going to lose interest fast. The fact that there was no MechLab is the reason I flat out quit MW:LL. Such a huge disappointment.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Holmes, on 05 December 2011 - 08:12 PM, said:

If there's no MechLab MW4 (or at least 2/3) style, I'm going to lose interest fast. The fact that there was no MechLab is the reason I flat out quit MW:LL. Such a huge disappointment.

And maybe they have a very good reason for that?

[BerserX]

Eegxeta, on 21 November 2011 - 04:19 PM, said:

The Mach Lab is a big part of the game. Having to assemble a load out that works is half the fun and the most challenging part of the game because it dictates not only the power of your mech but your effectiveness in battle as you need to be good with the weapons in combat. People are also wanting a bit more flavor with the mechs I think this would work. It is based on the MW4 Mach Lab and makes it more interesting and places some necessary boundaries to and variety to each mech as well as making mechs more specialized so you don't end up with having two different mechs able to do exactly the same thing.

Weapon hard-points should have a limit to how much weapon tonnage it can carry based on where it is on the mech a torso would be able to carry more weapon tonnage than an arm or a pod. There should also be a limit to the number of weapons that can be installed onto a hard-point based on the mech design, example the large shoulder cannon on the Hunchback should only be able to carry one weapon because it was only designed to carry one weapon. Omi weapon hard-point shouldn't have a limit number of weapons you can fit into the space available. There are four Omi hard-point types Omi(takes any weapon type), heat(takes beam/missile), ammo(take ballistic/missile), and direct (takes beam/ballistic) these hard-point should be the only ones to carry any number of weapons so long as they fit onto the hard-point.

And if anyone wants to cop out of the hard part there could be a way for players to sell weapon load-out blueprints so that people who don't want the challenge don't have to take it.

}{avoc, on 22 November 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

There would be no balance issues unless the weapons themselves are imbalanced.
Someone who has a terrible weapons loadout losing to a person who has a specialized weapons loadout isn't imbalanced. Someone didn't use their weapons to the best of their ability, and/or didn't take tactical advantage over someone who is a 1-trick pony.

I agree that the MechLab is an integral part of the game. However, I do not agree that a "one-weapon" slot should only be allowed to hold one weapon. This would destroy some of the variability of the ML, and make everyone's playing field more even. Let's face it: if I want to stick three MGs on my Hunchback's shoulder; I should be able to do so. Likewise, if I want my Mad Cat MKII to hold an LRM20 and an LRM 10 in each missile rack; I should be able to do so.

The variation in weapons loadouts should not be restricted by anything, other than the weight and size that the respective section can support. A Puma should not be able to hold an Ultra AC 20: it's just not practical that a small 'Mech limb, designed to hold a 6 ton PPC, can hold a 20+ ton weapon.

I would like to see the same (or a very similar) MechLab as in MW4.

[KuruptU4Fun]

I think a good medium can be struck here, because we all don't want to be stuck with the same mech with the same weapons as everyone else. But at the same time, allowing for unlimited combinations of weaponry choosable by a player makes for absolutely no reason to label this a MechWarrior game.

I've been looking at the wikipedia for Battlemech for quite some time now, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Main_Page it would seem that medium would be best served by variations of mech weapons already posted on that site. Mind you there are several that came out years after the original mech was designed. But I think that if MWO is going to stick to cannon as best they can (and they should) release major updates that span decades in the game and minor ones spanning only years. Those alternate loadouts would be available once that expansion is released, and continue to add varying customization over time.

As an example, 1 year of RW gaming equals 30-50 (or more) years of cannon lore.

Mind you there are several mechs that came out with multiple variations from the beginning, but others that took time.

[Haeso]

They've already said one day real world equals one day in universe.