50 replies to this topic

[Halfinax]

I hope we can see different leagues with different levels of customization. A purist "league" or server where it's stock and variants only all the way to a "league" or server with no holds bar customization. Throw in BV and let The Rock sort em all out.

[Haeso]

I honestly don't care too much about how customization works, I'd be happy if the rest of the game is cool and all I get are stock+variants.

As far as balance goes, BV can be almost perfectly balanced.

As far as keeping 'Mechs iconic, well, I don't think it's possible with a full customization system. Worth the trade off? Subjective! I like the idea of someone walking around with an urbie, expecting something like an ac10, and eating an AC20 from the no-armor surprise! custom job and such. The idea that I don't know what a 'Mech is wielding is something I enjoy to some extent, but as a longtime fan of the franchise, it's also a bit silly I understand. I'll be happy with almost any system, be it full TT rules customization, revised MW4 hardpoints (*** omni? Omni isn't about being able to put anything there, it's about being able to hot-swap quickly and easily!), or even stock+variant only.

[MagnusEffect]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

Anything goes is part of the tabletop, actually...

On one hand, the hunchback is very iconic like that. On the other hand, wouldn't you be surprised if that hunchback cresting a hill at long range nails you with some LLs. I very much like the idea of full customization, though I don't pretend to know what to do about one trick ponies like the hunch and hollander. That said I also would support a MW4 system of hardpoints if it's done right. Rather than space for a type of weapon, it's space for anything, and hopefully the mech designs reflect what you equip. Again, no idea what to do about silly designs like the hollander/hunch based off of "Special" locations.

Except what you are describing is generally a rarity (historically speaking of course)... if players are allowed to go *****-nilly on customizing... what was once "surprising" would simply be... "ho hum.. another laser boat i guess". Admit it... how often did you round the corner of a building, instinctively taking one look at an iconic mech blocking your path and think "OHSHIT! That mech has a big gun! RUNAWAY!" I miss those moments

To fill you in, historically, a typical hunchback was the kind of mech YOU DID NOT WANT to face in a city at close range. Even one was a serious threat to ALL mechs. Two hunchbacks were capable of killing an Atlas (a very even fight anyway). To combat them, you usually hoped they ran out of ammunition (a common problem) or you engaged them from long range. If you could catch one in the open, they were usually cannon-fodder.

A revised MW4 system would be on the right track, but I think the game immersion would benefit if mechs were "locked in" a bit more according to their pre-existing characteristics. My original suggestion in this poll of "refit kits" is mostly just a simplified alternative to a more complex (and exploitable) revised MW4 system.

Bottom line: Mechwarrior should not be Armored Core. Mechs should have some customization, but they should retain their inherit roles (read: feel). Anything else is blasphemy.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 10:43 AM.

[Kargush]

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Balance shouldn't be done with making everything equal arbitrarily. It should come from it's BV amount and it's C-Bill pricetag, complete with an economy of risk/reward. Imo.

I'd rather not have even that.

If you drop into a city with a light lance and run into a company of assaults, it sucks to be you. Same if you take an Atlas to town and run into a lance of lights that subject you to a Death Of A Thousand Cuts.

If you look at history, both real life and BT, you'll see plenty of instances where the "balance" isn't even on the field. Thermoplyae. The Battle of Wizna. Dien Bien Phu. Ke Sahn. The Clan Invasion.

And I don't mind one bit, even if I am perpetually the underdog. Such is life. And so it should be in a sim game.

If the players can only muster lights, they have to be more careful about their battles. It's papers-rock-scissors, and the only balancer should be player skill.

Of course, I realise that my view isn't shared by everyone, but a man can dream.

[MagnusEffect]

the problem with your example kargush is that we still have to work within the confines of a "match" system. True, if this was EVE Online or some other "unlimited" PvP type game, this would not be an issue, but as it stands in this game, we are still going to see "teams" and "matches". I would however offer a partial solution:

Raids could have fixed BV AND weight limits (just one example):

Attackers have a smaller force (say 4 mechs), but a somewhat higher BV total limit (raiders usually had better gear than the defending opposition... otherwise, why attack at all?). Starting position could be variable. Objective could be smash and grab before reinforcements show up.
Defenders would have a larger force (say 8 mechs), but a lower BV (garrison forces usually kinda sucked). Defenders would be forced to be scattered across the map to simulate a garrison (maybe in pairs for this example). Objective would be to delay the attacking force until reinforcements could arrive.

Hell... that sounds pretty cool actually

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 10:55 AM.

[VEDRFOLNIR]

I'm all for customization within limits. Wanna swap out weapon loadouts? Shouldn't be much of a problem, though you'd have to do some trade-offs to make those weapons fit. More extensive custom-jobs would be a lot more difficult, if at all possible (swapping out a standard Fusion reactor for an XL motor should be very hard, or not even possible in a field refit kit).

Purchasing 'refit kits' would make a lot of sense - if the developers want to include such extensive upgrades like XL engines, those kits should be really expensive.

[vampire seraphin]

Customization is what has always separated MW from hordes of other fighting robot games. If you remove it you take a HUGE amount of the flavor of the game away.

You would be neutering the game. End of story.

[Haeso]

MagnusEffect, on 30 November 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:

Except what you are describing is generally a rarity (historically speaking of course)... if players are allowed to go *****-nilly on customizing... what was once "surprising" would simply be... "ho hum.. another laser boat i guess". Admit it... how often did you round the corner of a building, instinctively taking one look at an iconic mech blocking your path and think "OHSHIT! That mech has a big gun! RUNAWAY!" I miss those moments

To fill you in, historically, a typical hunchback was the kind of mech YOU DID NOT WANT to face in a city at close range. Even one was a serious threat to ALL mechs. Two hunchbacks were capable of killing an Atlas (a very even fight anyway). To combat them, you usually hoped they ran out of ammunition (a common problem) or you engaged them from long range. If you could catch one in the open, they were usually cannon-fodder.

A revised MW4 system would be on the right track, but I think the game immersion would benefit if mechs were "locked in" a bit more according to their pre-existing characteristics. My original suggestion in this poll of "refit kits" is mostly just a simplified alternative to a more complex (and exploitable) revised MW4 system.

Bottom line: Mechwarrior should not be Armored Core. Mechs should have some customization, but they should retain their inherit roles (read: feel). Anything else is blasphemy.

Refit kits are just variants from TT are they not. Perhaps more variants, but basically... yeah just variants. If there's any swapping of parts that's up the players, you're going to see boating. If there isn't, you're going to see the variants that already boat be significantly more popular. There's a reason for that, it's more effective. Unless you also remove variants (And even base chassis) that boat, there will be boating. I think embracing it and coming up with alternative solutions is better.

As for 'Mechs retaining their identity, even variants can drastically change a 'Mech. And short of no real customization, there's no good way to 'enforce' it. In MW4 that hunchback could have a bunch of CUAC2s instead of an AC20 if he wanted.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 11:16 AM.

[MagnusEffect]

vampire_seraphin, on 30 November 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Customization is what has always separated MW from hordes of other fighting robot games. If you remove it you take a HUGE amount of the flavor of the game away.

You would be neutering the game. End of story.

But what if the customization is so extensive as to take away all characteristics of the original mech? Do you regularly see Honda Civics converted into 4x4 jeep-like trucks? Sure I suppose it could be done (don't know anyone who would want to), but such cases are an EXTREME rarity. It makes no practical sense for a Hunchback to commonly be gutted and turned into a Missile or Laser boat. I agree that customization should always be a part of Battletech & Mechwarrior, but mechs need to retain their basic characteristics. Want a brawler? Take a Hunchback. Want a sniper, take a Rifleman... etc.

Haeso, on 30 November 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

Refit kits are just variants from TT are they not. Perhaps more variants, but basically... yeah just variants.

A semantics issue to be sure, but they should be considered different.

A variant is considered a relatively common (i.e. CANON) design. In most cases, the typical "variant" is either manufactured as-is from the factory, or released as a mass-produced refit for standing armies. The "refit kits" I'm suggesting are more "one-off" (rare) custom designs. Examples of canon (but pilot custom) designs:

Yen Lo Wang
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yen-Lo-Wang

The infamous Bounty Hunter's Marauder
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Marauder (see "custom variants")

Notice how in both cases, the original mech still retains its basic "feel".
Pretty much all the "famous" personalities of BT lore were known for making *slight* alterations to their favorite mechs.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 30 November 2011 - 11:42 AM.

[Haeso]

But again, you do not control what's in a refit kit, for gameplay purposes - they're just variants. Right? I'm not disparaging the idea, I would enjoy any system be it stock/variant or full custom or revised hardpoints. As far as I'm concerned I'm learning towards one of the latter two, but not really bothered either way.

Edited by Haeso, 30 November 2011 - 11:27 AM.

[Frantic Pryde]

The more I think about it, the more I think all out customs are ok as long as it's not an easy thing to do. It should be expensive and time consuming I think. You shouldn't be ableto just jump into the mechlab and refit your mech form the game your about to play just like that. Unless of course you have an omni-mech. Then you can change it a lot more but never things like armor or engine as a compromise...that is, when omnis make it in.

[Wolf Hreda]

MagnusEffect, on 30 November 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

A variant is considered a relatively common (i.e. CANON) design. In most cases, the typical "variant" is either manufactured as-is from the factory, or released as a mass-produced refit for standing armies. The "refit kits" I'm suggesting are more "one-off" (rare) custom designs. Examples of canon (but pilot custom) designs:

Yen Lo Wang
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Yen-Lo-Wang

The infamous Bounty Hunter's Marauder
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Marauder (see "custom variants")

Notice how in both cases, the original mech still retains its basic "feel".
Pretty much all the "famous" personalities of BT lore were known for making *slight* alterations to their favorite mechs.

Also, the Bounty Hunter had a custom Timber Wolf, same with Aidan Pryde: http://www.sarna.net...r_Wolf_(Mad_Cat). They were custom, but retained the character of the 'Mech.

[Darkmoose]

Make only cannon units available for sale or salvage, but as far as players customizing with bought or salvaged equipment, anything goes, I do believe that there should be a time period for refit, Say 4 hours to swap weapons, Heat Sinks, Active Probes, 1 Day for Armor, Triple strength Myomer , 2 Days Engines and Internal Structure. Meaning you cannot use that mech while refit or repairs are going on.

[guardian wolf]

I like this idea, using only one standard canon mech on the market, and then having the ability to switch out weapons, which are expensive, and time consuming to put them on. As for armor I will stick with this guy as well, but make it longer for Triple Strength Myomer, and the internal structure, and don't even get me started on engines. With Engines you to basically tear the old one out, and then install the new one, and then take through stress tests, which make sure the equipment can handle the power outage of the new engine, and to see that your mech doesn't require more sinks for the engine. Maybe even, *gasp* have an engine that made to be more heat efficient, while still putting out more or the same energy.

Had a typo on myself

Edited by guardian wolf, 30 November 2011 - 01:12 PM.

[Kargush]

MagnusEffect, on 30 November 2011 - 10:51 AM, said:

the problem with your example kargush is that we still have to work within the confines of a "match" system. True, if this was EVE Online or some other "unlimited" PvP type game, this would not be an issue, but as it stands in this game, we are still going to see "teams" and "matches". I would however offer a partial solution:

Raids could have fixed BV AND weight limits (just one example):

Attackers have a smaller force (say 4 mechs), but a somewhat higher BV total limit (raiders usually had better gear than the defending opposition... otherwise, why attack at all?). Starting position could be variable. Objective could be smash and grab before reinforcements show up.
Defenders would have a larger force (say 8 mechs), but a lower BV (garrison forces usually kinda sucked). Defenders would be forced to be scattered across the map to simulate a garrison (maybe in pairs for this example). Objective would be to delay the attacking force until reinforcements could arrive.

Hell... that sounds pretty cool actually

And how do we measure player skill in BV?

Besides, both examples are in agreement with me, though you impose greater limits than I would. Look at the Battle of Wizla. 42 000 Germans vs 720 Poles. And yet the Polish soldiers fought for days against odd of around 60 to 1. Hardly a fair fight, but it made it into history, and in a BT context such a fight is more or less what we should see during the Clan invasion: one side is massively outclassed. but has to hold on.

As a sort of sweetener, the underdogs are given very generous rewards, win or lose. Not only will that make it a bit more appealing, but will also ensure that a curb stomp battle won't see the losing side without anything to show for it.

EDIT: Furthermore, look at the mechs. Even with some balance, there will be some mechs that poorly suited to some tasks, and indeed some mechs are suboptimal period. Others are extremely good value for money and BV. Inexperienced players with lots of BV to spend might go for something nice and shiny that fills out their assigned BV, whereas someone with more experience might pick something cheaper, but with better value for the BV spent.

Edited by kargush, 30 November 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[CobraFive]

We've had this thread plenty of times and I'm sure we'll see it again plenty of times, until some real info comes.

Like I said in the previous thread my personal vote is for a MW4 style hardpoint system but a bit more expanded. Mektek Mekpaks had some nice idea with the "Direct Fire" and "Ammo only" hardpoints, and I'd like to see a bit of expansion on the electronics/equipment department as well (For example in MW4 every mech either could or couldn't have particular equipment. Maybe a bit of strategy there like, you have two electronics slots on this mech, only one on this mech, and get to pick between ECM, BAP, TAG, C3, or whatever...)

Having a hardpoint-styled system preserves the 'character' of the mech and still allows you to customize pretty thuroughly. If they want to go even more in-depth you can still have the cannon mech variants: For example the Hunchback 4H, its main cannon hardpoint is smaller and cant take an AC/20 but it has other extra hardpoints for more support weapons, and its default loadout is the AC/10 and the 4 medium lasers. The mech's model could look a bit different too, so you'd be able to tell at a quick glance "Oh its a hunchback" but, getting closer or if you're just good enough, "Oh its a 4H" (kinda like being able to tell which gun the tanks have on WoT).

Edited by cobrafive, 30 November 2011 - 02:56 PM.

[Bloody]

canon customized packages only with some balancing issues. I do not want Boats to be in MWO.

[Kargush]

Just for the record, I love MW4: Mercenaries. Only MW game I ever played, and I love it to death.

But that sort of customisation? No. Kerensky preserve me, no. It violated canon in a fashion that would make even a warcrimes tribunal pale.

[Kargush]

Bloody, on 30 November 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

canon customized packages only with some balancing issues. I do not want Boats to be in MWO.

"Boats"? You mean like the Awesome?

[Haeso]

kargush, on 30 November 2011 - 02:53 PM, said:

EDIT: Furthermore, look at the mechs. Even with some balance, there will be some mechs that poorly suited to some tasks, and indeed some mechs are suboptimal period. Others are extremely good value for money and BV. Inexperienced players with lots of BV to spend might go for something nice and shiny that fills out their assigned BV, whereas someone with more experience might pick something cheaper, but with better value for the BV spent.

Battle value is combat value, they are the same. If you fail to utilize your 'Mechs BV because it isn't say, a one weapon type boat, that's on you the pilot. If you cannot use a mixed arms 'mech, buy a boat 'Mech. The weapons/equipment are what determine BV effectively, since Chassis themselves using TT's system are essentially legos, just legos with distinct aesthetics.