281 replies to this topic

[CaveMan]

alVolVloLy, on 20 December 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm failing to see the logic here. The lab doesn't limit variation, it increases it. Stock configs are more limiting to the use of a variety of chassis than on open lab. With stock configs people are going to lean toward the mech with the best stock config. With the lab at least you can put a similar weapon load on a different mech, if you are inclined to.

That's exactly the problem! Every 'Mech in the game will end up with "similar" weapon loads. Instead of a Catapult, a Thunderbolt, and a Crusader, you'll have 3 65-ton gunbags with the same weapons that change a little from patch to patch depending on what's overpowered at the moment. Or worse, if they use the MW4 system, the Thunderbolt will just disappear from play because its slots aren't oriented toward min/maxing.
Stock configs can be tweaked by the devs so that they're all roughly even in quality, but still different.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Yup custom= same load in every mech of similar tonnage. And more than likely a chassis that gets pick for a hitbox advantage and then min/maxed on loadout. It take away a reason to own a variety of chassis. It also speeds the min/max cycle as you just have to change the loadout every patch based on the new OP weapon. Limited mods you'd have to figure out which chassis will fit the new OP weapon, grind the chassis, and test to see if the hitbox and other stats it has work for you as well. That's without touching canon or flavor reasons.

[Havoc2]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Yup custom= same load in every mech of similar tonnage. And more than likely a chassis that gets pick for a hitbox advantage and then min/maxed on loadout. It take away a reason to own a variety of chassis. It also speeds the min/max cycle as you just have to change the loadout every patch based on the new OP weapon. Limited mods you'd have to figure out which chassis will fit the new OP weapon, grind the chassis, and test to see if the hitbox and other stats it has work for you as well. That's without touching canon or flavor reasons.

Disagree.

Min/maxing notwithstanding, Devs have stated that they want the game to have Electronic Warfare as an element, which means that different chassis will have different electronic suites and different roles to play on the battlefield.

What's the difference of having 3 different chassis with similar weapons loadouts or having 3 of the exact same chassis with the exact same loadouts?

Without a MechLab all we get are the same 5-6 chassis running around because they are "the best". At least with weapon loadout customization we get different chassis and mixed weapons loadouts.

If people think that allowing weapons customization will simply mean everyone will cram on as many lasers as they can, they did it way wrong in previous MW incarnations.

[TheRulesLawyer]

}{avoc, on 20 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

What's the difference of having 3 different chassis with similar weapons loadouts or having 3 of the exact same chassis with the exact same loadouts?

Without a MechLab all we get are the same 5-6 chassis running around because they are "the best". At least with weapon loadout customization we get different chassis and mixed weapons loadouts.

3 different chassis would mean more variety on the battlefield even with the same loadout. Hopefully they won't perform identically (different twists, twist rated, hit boxes, etc, etc) Anyhow I don't really want to see identical loadouts.

True if you never patched the game there would be a couple identified as the best. The goal is more to slow it down and have people modify what they have instead of jump mechs all the time. Again, this is with limited refit rules. Full custom throws that idea out anyways. If you can slow the min/max cycle down to about what the patch cycle is you'll see more variety out there. Nobody will have had the time to settle on using the same loadout.

[alVolVloLy]

}{avoc, on 20 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

Disagree.

Min/maxing notwithstanding, Devs have stated that they want the game to have Electronic Warfare as an element, which means that different chassis will have different electronic suites and different roles to play on the battlefield.

What's the difference of having 3 different chassis with similar weapons loadouts or having 3 of the exact same chassis with the exact same loadouts?

Without a MechLab all we get are the same 5-6 chassis running around because they are "the best". At least with weapon loadout customization we get different chassis and mixed weapons loadouts.

If people think that allowing weapons customization will simply mean everyone will cram on as many lasers as they can, they did it way wrong in previous MW incarnations.

I agree, I believe customization leads to more chassis getting used, not less.

For instance, an MW4 stock drop. Given enough tonnage, Behemoth (maybe the IIC, I forget), Highlander, Victor. Why? All three carry large lasers and gauss rifles without extraneous weapons, and not completely ammo dependent or overly hot (like the Supernova)

Let the elements of the chassis (mountable electronics, turn radius, torso twist speed and degrees of twist, base speed, jjs, electronics, etc) play the part of chassis selection.

I do like the MW4 slot system, except I would like to see a way for the people that do want to use the TRO configs to have access to them. It would be cool if both were allowable on a chassis (if we could suspend disbelief a bit). Use the slot system, but also allow the TRO mechs to be picked, regardless of the slots.

[Omigir]

There are some mechs who difrent variants dont exactly work on a MW4 slot system, like the cougar could not mount the (i forget the variant, i think D? or B?) with 1x Guass and 4x SLasers or something.
^This is a good argument I think for weapon swaping only, that way if i get a couvar C (dual ppc's i think) I might be able to swap those out for 2 LL's and 2 M's and squeek on something else maybe like Heat sinks or bap or a little extra armor.


<Cougar is just an example as i dont remember any variants for any other mechs <__< im a terible fan, huh?>

Edited by Omigir, 20 December 2011 - 01:18 PM.

[alVolVloLy]

Right, so have the slot system for customization, but allow TRO config (suspend disbelief that the slots and weapons don't match when using a TRO variant)

For example, you click a button to modify a mech, you are presented with a drop down menu. The options are all the TRO configs, or a customize option. The customize option does not necessarily allow you do build the TRO configs listed, due to the slots. However, it doesn't need to, you can just select the variant from the drop down. It's not "realistic" per say, but it allows slots (which limits gunbags) but still allows TRO configs (which appeals to the TT faction)

Granted, it would be more work, but it seems like it would be doable.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Omigir, on 20 December 2011 - 01:17 PM, said:

There are some mechs who difrent variants dont exactly work on a MW4 slot system, like the cougar could not mount the (i forget the variant, i think D? or B?) with 1x Guass and 4x SLasers or something.
^This is a good argument I think for weapon swaping only, that way if i get a couvar C (dual ppc's i think) I might be able to swap those out for 2 LL's and 2 M's and squeek on something else maybe like Heat sinks or bap or a little extra armor.


<Cougar is just an example as i dont remember any variants for any other mechs <__< im a terible fan, huh?>

Well that's an omnimech so it wouldn't follow the normal customization rules. You'd basically get X tons and Y crits that would by typeless.

Normal mechs I'd see the variants as different starting points for the limited refit. For instance you might buy a hunchback 4p instead of the normal hbk-2 if you wanted to do a version with energy weapons instead of projectiles.

[Omigir]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 December 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well that's an omnimech so it wouldn't follow the normal customization rules. You'd basically get X tons and Y crits that would by typeless.

Normal mechs I'd see the variants as different starting points for the limited refit. For instance you might buy a hunchback 4p instead of the normal hbk-2 if you wanted to do a version with energy weapons instead of projectiles.

You may have not realised it, but we just agreed on something!
The cougar was a bad example i just have limited knowledge on variants for .. well.. any other mech.

but yes, variants would be great start points for limited Customization, that also means, when a player gets a new variant, they probably will give it a try before they tweek it just a little bit. (I like to have ballanced mechs based off cemety. like a med laser on each side vise a med laser on left and 3 small lasers on the right.. i would probably just make it 2 med lasers for cemetries sake. >__> Im weird like that.)

[Black Sunder]

Everyone that is against the full factory level customization, which many people want, is still stuck in the 1v1 mindset instead of thinking of it as a team game. The idea that all the mechs of a certain tonnage become shells for the same weapons is ridiculous. People are not sheep but it seems like alot of people think they are. There are no super loadouts for any mech. There are mechs and counters to those mechs no matter what they are carrying.

Eventually someone will figure out a counter for that flavor of the week and other people will use it too. the first group of people will have to adjust their fittings based on that counter. You have Lasers, Someone has LRMs. Someone has LRMs and someone else has TAG. Someone has TAG. Someone else has a fast mech to outrun the artillery. Its a circle of counters. The cycle will continue on and on until what comes out of it is a balanced weapon mix so that members can support each other with very few mechs being truly specialized and meant to fill specific roles in the company.

Seems everyone here is also forgetting about BV and how it is used to measure 'how good' a mech is. Someone who has tweaked their mech will have a higher BV based on the equipment used. That means that the other side may get to deploy additional mechs compared to the side that has alot of high BV mechs.

You fear customs so much then push for game modes that only let you use stocks or stock variants. At least with full customs then maybe the OST series will finally be useful and not just there for target practice.

[Anton Shadd]

Simple Point for the customization discussion: Use money!
If weapons cost money, ammo and heatsinks too and additionally techs cost per hour of work i think it would even out most of the problems.
I also think that the mechlab in MW4 was crap, because it was designed for kids and I think the community of BT consists largely out of die-hard fans that are too old to be called this way and had some insight into the whole storyline and are therefor able to understand what makes this universe "tick".
Anyway I am exicted to see the game and what the techs make out of the licenses and the community.
Peace

[Threat Doc]

No, because that's Play-2-Win, and our hosts are working to not have the MWO model be P2W. I think I would rather stick with full customization, per TT game rules, as long as heat is dealt with properly, ammo is dealt with properly, ranges, 'Mech speeds, and Internal Structure/Armor values are correct. In fact, if everything in the game were correct, I think balance issues would all but completely go out the window. I'm for full customization, as long as all aspects of the game fit correctly.

[Tannhauser Gate]

It's not like ordering a pizza. Mechs are, infact, designed starting at the bones to support certain components in certain locations. Bone structures must have spars and supports as part of their casting that support the armor sections, the myomer connections, systems, and weapons of certain and often specific types. Factory Level Customization would be deeply expensive and extravagant. Even MW4 level of customization is beyond even omni mech capabilities much less MW3's candy store mechlab.

But I think some people care only about canon or lore as long as it doesnt interfere with their unrealistic gunbaginess.

Edited by lakedaemon, 20 December 2011 - 05:16 PM.

[Red Beard]

Kay Wolf, on 20 December 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

No, because that's Play-2-Win, and our hosts are working to not have the MWO model be P2W. I think I would rather stick with full customization, per TT game rules, as long as heat is dealt with properly, ammo is dealt with properly, ranges, 'Mech speeds, and Internal Structure/Armor values are correct. In fact, if everything in the game were correct, I think balance issues would all but completely go out the window. I'm for full customization, as long as all aspects of the game fit correctly.

Problem is, you can't have balance in a video game that is based on TT rules. It isn't even a matter of debate. It just isn't possible.

[Kudzu]

Red Beard, on 20 December 2011 - 10:23 PM, said:

Problem is, you can't have balance in a video game that is based on TT rules. It isn't even a matter of debate. It just isn't possible.

And you know this, how, exactly? And this statement is even more wrong since you don't even know what the TT rules are to begin with.

[Phades]

TheRulesLawyer, on 20 December 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Yup custom= same load in every mech of similar tonnage. And more than likely a chassis that gets pick for a hitbox advantage and then min/maxed on loadout. It take away a reason to own a variety of chassis. It also speeds the min/max cycle as you just have to change the loadout every patch based on the new OP weapon. Limited mods you'd have to figure out which chassis will fit the new OP weapon, grind the chassis, and test to see if the hitbox and other stats it has work for you as well. That's without touching canon or flavor reasons.

It would be really important in any customization method to make the mech model reflect the changes, thus changing the hit boxes. If you mount a big gun, you are going to have a different profile on the mech due to the mounting. Lots of other factors to consider as well, including those not really mentioned in the original works, such as actuators with different performance styles and leg types "meant" for jumping etc. So many, many options to be honest and many more could be introduced, yet are simply unwritten or just implied through fluff text in the "core" paper texts.

This is a side reason as to why breaking the mechs down into smaller hit units areas (armor sections) makes sense on many different levels. It makes the system inherently more complex, but addresses many issues at the same time.

Black Sunder, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

Everyone that is against the full factory level customization, which many people want, is still stuck in the 1v1 mindset instead of thinking of it as a team game. The idea that all the mechs of a certain tonnage become shells for the same weapons is ridiculous. People are not sheep but it seems like alot of people think they are. There are no super loadouts for any mech. There are mechs and counters to those mechs no matter what they are carrying.

Super mechs? No. Plenty of "bad" mechs, well yeah especially on pre-invasion inner sphere designs. Some builds your smartest move early game is to jettison your ammo, which is very dumb at the design level (oh goody, the core design wasted 1.5 tons on a machine gun and ammo, hope the game lasts 200 turns to use it all up hurr durr...). There are many other examples of this in the early designs typically involving small end munition based systems with the only potential exception being the LRM-5.

I think the larger issue will end up being trying to explain why a player can't custom job a machine to their play preference instead of forcing them into a specific machine and variant instead and producing the same end result.

Black Sunder, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

Seems everyone here is also forgetting about BV and how it is used to measure 'how good' a mech is. Someone who has tweaked their mech will have a higher BV based on the equipment used. That means that the other side may get to deploy additional mechs compared to the side that has alot of high BV mechs.

BV isn't the end all measure of how effective a system platform is. It is a biased system at its core and makes many assumptions, such as wide open killing fields and assumes certain pilot skill ratings which do not translate at all into a real time player piloted system. Is a guass rifle really worth that value in a dense environment where you have blind corners and short lanes of fire? Nope. The higher end ACs on the other hand... The closest thing you could hope for is a rank based matching system carrying player stats and have different control mechanisms in place for the machine factors.

Black Sunder, on 20 December 2011 - 03:23 PM, said:

You fear customs so much then push for game modes that only let you use stocks or stock variants. At least with full customs then maybe the OST series will finally be useful and not just there for target practice.

I think the greater realization failing is the deliberate omission that folks will gravitate to certain "stock" variants automatically due to how they will just perform better than the others for its given role or player preference.

Edited by Phades, 21 December 2011 - 01:17 AM.

[Brakkyn]

There are hundreds of BattleMech designs and among them, hundreds more variants of the same chassis. What is the point of having canonical stock and alternative designs if all people are going to do is remove everything and make something they want?

Boating happens. Min-maxing happens. You'll end up with chassis boating singular weapon systems or types. Gauss rifles, large lasers, massed Streaks or LRMs, 'Mechs blown in half by LBX-toting gunbags--you'll never see anything else, and it will get boring, and it will get old.

Unless you force people to use what they're given, chassis, weapons, and the like will likely go unused and/or ignored. It's happened in every game made for MechWarrior that has a MechLab, and it will happen in this one.

Say you pilot an STN-3K Sentinel, whether by choice or bad luck. You have 3 weapns systems: AC5, Small Laser, and an SRM2. Now, no one in this day and age of MW4's influence would be caught dead thusly armed. Now imagine this model of Sentinel is actually useful. You're on a map with alot of open area. Your lasers and SRMs are useless at that range--you'd best be a good shot with your autocannon.

But, no! Let's strip everything off and add two PPCs! Problem solved! Yay, criticals system! Wait, it has hardpoints? No problem! Smack on the biggest, baddest weapon you can find and be a single weapon boat! I make it sound ridiculous because I think it is. If you had to actually use a stock 'Mech and had to actually learn its ins and outs, its strengths and weaknesses, you're a better player because of it.

And some day you just might salvage your Blake-forsaken Mad Cat and be happy.

[Red Beard]

Kudzu, on 21 December 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

And you know this, how, exactly? And this statement is even more wrong since you don't even know what the TT rules are to begin with.

I don't need to know jack about the TT rules to know that they are not right for a video game. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the board game functions differently, and therefore has a rule set tailored specifically for a boardgame. Stop crying.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Red Beard, on 21 December 2011 - 03:06 AM, said:

I don't need to know jack about the TT rules to know that they are not right for a video game. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the board game functions differently, and therefore has a rule set tailored specifically for a boardgame. Stop crying.

I see, so what we are talking about is your uninformed opinion? This is supposed to influence us how? Given that PGI has already said that it will be based on the TT modified suitably. If you don't know (and obviously don't want to know) what the base is how do you base your arguements on anything other than "i like this therefore thats what it should be"? Red Beard many of your posts have been insightful and thought provoking. Then you come out with the VIDEO GAME thing as if your the only one who knows what is right. Strictly speaking this is a PC sim isn't it? By the way 30 years ago (when I was playing green screen text only games) my beard was red as well. Now I get to play St Nik

[Havoc2]

Kay Wolf, on 20 December 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

No, because that's Play-2-Win, and our hosts are working to not have the MWO model be P2W. I think I would rather stick with full customization, per TT game rules, as long as heat is dealt with properly, ammo is dealt with properly, ranges, 'Mech speeds, and Internal Structure/Armor values are correct. In fact, if everything in the game were correct, I think balance issues would all but completely go out the window. I'm for full customization, as long as all aspects of the game fit correctly.

Kay and I are finally in agreement on something (calendar has been marked).

Heat should be enough of an issue that energy heavy configs need to manage it. Not just alpha, flush coolant, alpha, shutdown, startup, repeat.
Ammo explosions should cause some damage to the host.

Each weapons needs to have its place and situation, which is another reason I REALLY want to see planets with differing environments.

Hot planet? Bring some configs that are heavier on ballistic/missile weapons to run a little cooler. Low visibility or atmosphere makes missile locks really difficult? Bring some direct fire weapons like energy or ballistics.

Properly balanced WEAPONS makes the MechLab "balance" concerns moot. Everyone has access to the same weapons, same chassis, and same designs.

There is NO "balance" issue when everyone has access to the same equipment.