281 replies to this topic

[Haeso]

I consider a boat anything that uses one weapon type, be it three PPC awesome or 6 ERLL SuperNova or whatever the little ******* with a ton of Med Lasers by default is.

[Holmes]

CaveMan, on 09 December 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

Why not?

Because this is a video game, not a table top game. To be clear, I don't mind being limited by the "canon" of table top, but we shouldn't be limited by... what happens when you're playing something on a table, rather than interactive software. Modern RPGs allow instant stat changes instead of doing everything by calculator/head on a piece of paper. My point is video games are a different media, we aren't playing a dice game.

If you're talking about table top canon though, then I eat my words about limitation. Still, my vote stands about MechLab in game.

I'm a big boy now, I can pick what weapon groups I want to assign everything without my hand being held by the game developer. Granted you could do that in MW:LL without the MechLab, but it was a pain in the ***.

Edited by Holmes, 09 December 2011 - 09:37 PM.

[Haeso]

And for the record, not all of the canon boats suck, Catapult without the horrible hit placement of TT is awesome. The awesome, is awesome. The supernova is beast right out the gate, if they add the longbow with Artemis, it's pretty scary. Many of the canon designs for boats don't include enough heat sinks compared to weaponry, but not all of them. Some of them are exceedingly lethal.

[CaveMan]

Haeso, on 09 December 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

And for the record, not all of the canon boats suck, Catapult without the horrible hit placement of TT is awesome. The awesome, is awesome. The supernova is beast right out the gate, if they add the longbow with Artemis, it's pretty scary. Many of the canon designs for boats don't include enough heat sinks compared to weaponry, but not all of them. Some of them are exceedingly lethal.

I think your definition of "boat" is too liberal, personally. The Catapult would never qualify as a boat by my standards. Do you consider the OstScout a medium laser boat because it's armed exclusively with medium lasers (one of them)?

A boat to me is a 'Mech that goes out of its way to pack in absurd numbers of weapons with little regard for anything else. Supernova is a great example. Yes, you CAN put 6 ERLL on a 'Mech, but should you? Eh, probably not.

[Haeso]

The catapult has 4 Med Laser and all LRMs, one variant of the time period drops everything but the LRMs.

And I'm using boat not as derogatory but as a specialized 'Mech. And as I've said - specialization beats generalization. Being able to fight at any range means against something designed purely around one range will beat you at it's given range. Using teamwork this generally devolves into sniping matches at near maximum range. If the map had enough cover it instead turned into slugfests dominated by LX20/AC20s or Med Laser boats.

Specialized 'Mechs especially when paired with other 'Mechs of the same type for long range - this group plays zone defense basically, it doesn't let anything get close by virtue of focus fire. Any mixed weapon group that goes against it is going to find itself down two 'mechs before getting in range, and by that point they simply split up and you're done, you can't be on two 'mechs at a time. And the reverse is true if they get the drop. Same thing with mixed specialization as well, Two short range only and two long range only is going to beat four mixed under most circumstances. It's just more effective. I don't think it's wrong, I think it's accurate. Which is why BV should sort it out.

[CaveMan]

Generalist 'Mechs would actually be dominant if customization were out--assuming the game has a persistent world where you don't have the ability to pick any chassis your whims dictate. If your character drives a Longbow and you end up in a city fight, well, hahahaahahahahahahahahaha....

[Haeso]

Random maps would be horrendous. Now on the other hand, I am for multi-map campaigns where you can't switch 'Mech(s) between matches. But that only works if 'Mechs are invincible and teleport to your hanger after each map otherwise you'd have people crying by the end of the campaign they can't fight anymore. I think that would be awesome, personally. A four mission campaign with two teams, you can bring two 'Mechs, the one you use for the first mission and a backup you can swap between, only armor repairs no weapon replacements/limb replacements. That would be awesome.

I'm going to stress again, random maps would be awful. The enemy turn goes pure close combat fighters, annihilators and hunchbacks galore, you have a mixed team. Unless you massively outplay them, they win. Sure if you get an open map they lose... But one sided fights even if it's 50/50 are utterly lame and just no fun.

Edited by Haeso, 09 December 2011 - 10:07 PM.

[VanillaG]

I really don't like the idea of being able to drastically but if the devs put it in the farther you modify the mech from the original design the more it should cost. If you want change out some of the same types of weapons, there would a low cost. If you want to wholesale gut everything and put in totally different it should cost you half or three quarter of the cost of the base chassis. When omnimechs come around their advantage is it would cost nothing to modify the loadouts because they are designed for rapid change.

[CaveMan]

Haeso, on 09 December 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Random maps would be horrendous. Now on the other hand, I am for multi-map campaigns where you can't switch 'Mech(s) between matches. But that only works if 'Mechs are invincible and teleport to your hanger after each map otherwise you'd have people crying by the end of the campaign they can't fight anymore. I think that would be awesome, personally. A four mission campaign with two teams, you can bring two 'Mechs, the one you use for the first mission and a backup you can swap between, only armor repairs no weapon replacements/limb replacements. That would be awesome.

I could get behind something like the MW3 mobile field base system. You can carry around X tonnage of 'Mechs and parts for a mini-campaign, replenishing losses from salvage if you win the mission.

[Haeso]

The MW3 System was pretty awesome - though I'd prefer they be kept off map and it change maps between. Too many memories of the MFB camping.

[CaveMan]

Definitely off-map. We don't need griefers wrecking people's salvage just to be mean, or camping repair points.

Although a capture-the-MFB mission type could be cool. Say, have that mission type pop up as a "bonus round" if one side gets totally whomped in the preceding missions, the victors get a chance to capture their spare parts before the defenders can flee off-planet.

[Haeso]

Sure, if it's an overwhelming victory, you push past their battle line - and into their supply line.

Though I wasn't personally worried about it being 'griefed' moreso people babysitting and repairing at it all day long rather than fighting lol.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I think, as usual at the moment, that until we have more details about what is going to be in, we are in the situation of appearing negative by saying what we don't want. I definately don't want random maps or no chance to decide what mech until (if in PUB) I see what my lancemates are going to use.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 10 December 2011 - 12:05 PM.

[Tierloc]

VanillaG, on 09 December 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

The individual mechs become the tools, not the various configuration you can think up. Allowing any mech to become an omnimech gives you no incentive to ever buy an omnimech chassis when they become available.

When I think of omnimech I think of a slot that can have either energy, ballistic or missle. While there should be some of those slots, I like the ballistic only (single type) or energy/missle (double type) only slots. If you're saying a 2 slot energy weapon shouldn't go anywhere a 2 slot energy weapon would fit (assuming you have the tonnage) on any mech, then I disagree. It's a mount point. There may be limitations in the design or visual graphics when you change the guns on the right arm of a Masakari from PPC to Laser to Guass Rifle that it doesn't change the representation of the barrel, but that kind of alternate build is desired (by me and probably many others).

[Silent]

Drop Mechlab and only allow canon variants.

These variants could then be field modified in various ways as players rank up, with the higher ranks being able to switch out armaments (within reason).

[Sug]

I'm against making the mech lab too accessible to people.

I always got the impression from the books that most mechs fielded were factory stock. I would like to see some cost/benefit to joining a house army vs. being a ''lone wolf''

Pledging Allegiance to a Faction: Only stock mechs or established variants are available. As part of the regular army the mech really isn't yours, so no customizing but you don't have to worry about repair/replacement. Any upgrades are controlled by the devs and affect all mechs of that type in that faction.

Joining a Mercenary Corporation: Allows for some customization, partially utilizing the MW4 weapon hard point system i.e. energy/ballistic/missile slots. You can upgrade your AC10 to an Ultra/LBX10 or update your standard lasers to pulse/er/clan. Mech repair/replacement is the responsibly of the (possibly) player-run corp

Remaining Neutral: This would allow you the most freedom with your mech but come with the highest cost/risk. The MW4 hard point system fully applies. Exchange your PPC for medium lasers or replace that AC10 with an AC20/Gauss a la Yen-Lo-Wang. Mech repair/replacement is completely the player's responsibility. Losing the mech would mean you would have to sign up with a faction/house/merccorp until you built up the LP to go off on your own again.

While there are some really nonstandard variants in the canon I always felt that they were the exception not the rule. I've seen some posts where people say we should have unlimited mechs and unrestricted customization. Go play MW4 multiplayer. I'm looking for something a bit deeper.

[alVolVloLy]

Gotta have a mechlab, canon configs don't make sense in a non-combined arms setting. Why would you bring an anti-infantry weapon to a mech vs mech engagement.

Also, stock and canon configs only will quickly lead to the same thing as min/maxing that some people are worried about. The mechs with the best loadouts for facing other mechs will quickly become the most popular and most used mechs. The lab will allow for the element of surprise in engagements and let pilots set up the configs to suit their own play-style.

Edited by alVolVloLy, 11 December 2011 - 08:47 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

alVolVloLy, on 11 December 2011 - 08:35 AM, said:

Gotta have a mechlab, canon configs don't make sense in a non-combined arms setting. Why would you bring an anti-infantry weapon to a mech vs mech engagement.

Also, stock and canon configs only will quickly lead to the same thing as min/maxing that some people are worried about. The mechs with the best loadouts for facing other mechs will quickly become the most popular and most used mechs. The lab will allow for the element of surprise in engagements and let pilots set up the configs to suit their own play-style.

Which leads to the same balancing problems - the dev's can't balance all possible permutations. I would prefer them to perhaps "tweak" some of the canon designs to make them more useable and have refit packs for the variants. This will still gove some element of surprise - I wouldn't expect to know what the opposition was driving on going in to a match. I would only expect that we had been matched as approximately equal on BV/C-bill cost etc. Now if that meant we had 3 medium lances against 1 lance of assaults - that's fine.

[Dredger]

I enjoyed the Mechlab of MW4 and could spend hours tweaking a particular variant to perfection. It worked brilliantly for the SP Campaign.

Unfortunately, that system fell apart in multiplayer. Look at the free release of MW4 on MekTek.net and try a few matches if you haven't yet. Almost every match is Assault class bruisers loaded up with nothing but Gauss cannons, RACs, LBACs, PPCs, or Insta-lock Rockets. Putting detailed weapon loadout options directly into the hands of players will result in something similar once players figure out the physics.

Since this is going to be a MMO, I'd be much more in favor of an option that limits players to an 'A', 'B', or 'C' variant loadout for each mech. (e.g. 'A' = close-range, 'C' = long-range, and 'B' = mix or special operations package.) That way there is still variety to be had, but it would be harder to throw off the balance.

2 c-bill's worth,

[CaveMan]

Quote

Since this is going to be a MMO, I'd be much more in favor of an option that limits players to an 'A', 'B', or 'C' variant loadout for each mech. (e.g. 'A' = close-range, 'C' = long-range, and 'B' = mix or special operations package.) That way there is still variety to be had, but it would be harder to throw off the balance.

As icky as it is to say this, maybe MechCommander 1 didn't have such a bad idea with the armor/weapons/jumpjets variants of each chassis. Fixed weapon loads, but a few different "trim packages" you can order a 'Mech with.

Would allow Omnis to stand out in their own way as well. With those, you get a fixed base chassis, no options, but it's the Wild West as far as your weapons load goes.