344 replies to this topic

[Imagine Dragons]

MWHawke, on 26 November 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Customization leads to players designing their mechs to suit their play style. How is that bad?

Because playing Gundam is boring...

Wait...

[GioAvanti]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

One of the biggest problems with previous Battle tech games was the "universal customization" allowance. Meaing everyone thought just because they salvaged or puchased it, it was going to fit on their mech, even tho common sense said no. Like a PPC on Jenner.........not gonna happen, or at least should not. However if you have the tonnage or willing to sacrifice things, you could make it happen, and this brought on the light - medium mechs with 12-18 small pulse lasers circle straffing ppl (which has been addressed in this game).

However playing the IS WAS supposed to be hard, they were no Omni mechs like the clans, thus the IS had Variants of their mechs and this is what we need to stick to also...the variant models. Or at the least limit the amount of a specific type of weapon can be put on an IS mech.

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the Atlas role if close and personal with beefy armor, or would you put 3 ER PPC on an Atlas, when the Awesome already has that config?

To be true to the table top game you also have to be true to the varaints and each mechs limitations, as each mech was built to fit a role with certain needs in mind.

The Omi mech (clan mechs and later the IS introduced their versions) Is the only mech capable of taking and swapping various weapson and heatsinks without penalty...........we should keep it like that. My 2 cents...FLAME ON!

You had a good point, but your back up is fairly all over the place.

In canon there are plenty of unique variants (they were just expensive or semi rare.. seemed like a lot of the characters had them though so not that rare). So that reasoning is a bit lame.

The real reason they should stick to hard points or maybe "sized" hard points is to limit FOTM builds (ie Atlas sporting 20 SSRM2s) and to give us some flavor during a fight... some unique things to run into.

The beauty of battletech has always been the sheer depth of mechs and different load outs.



The people that want full customization can suck a fat.... egg... yes an egg. (looks around)

[Omar Thirds]

Mech customization is the saving grace of this game, even with it's totally awful interface. To wreck it would be to kill this game. PGI, don't listen to these people, they know not what they do.

[MayGay]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

One of the biggest problems with previous Battle tech games was the "universal customization" allowance. Meaing everyone thought just because they salvaged or puchased it, it was going to fit on their mech, even tho common sense said no. Like a PPC on Jenner.........not gonna happen, or at least should not. However if you have the tonnage or willing to sacrifice things, you could make it happen, and this brought on the light - medium mechs with 12-18 small pulse lasers circle straffing ppl (which has been addressed in this game).

However playing the IS WAS supposed to be hard, they were no Omni mechs like the clans, thus the IS had Variants of their mechs and this is what we need to stick to also...the variant models. Or at the least limit the amount of a specific type of weapon can be put on an IS mech.

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the Atlas role if close and personal with beefy armor, or would you put 3 ER PPC on an Atlas, when the Awesome already has that config?

To be true to the table top game you also have to be true to the varaints and each mechs limitations, as each mech was built to fit a role with certain needs in mind.

The Omi mech (clan mechs and later the IS introduced their versions) Is the only mech capable of taking and swapping various weapson and heatsinks without penalty...........we should keep it like that. My 2 cents...FLAME ON!

this is one of the staples of mechwarrior and battletech, without full 'mech customization it's just COD in 'mechs with heat and the variety of 'mechs drops even further, and while I curse every streakcat I see, I don't want to see only stock variants of the same 'mech over and over, nor do I want to use the same loadout over and over, even if some people do take advantage and make ***** like the streakcat (no problem with gaussboats though, as there are many many canonical gaussboats, just please no gausszillas)

as to your deal about putting a PPC on a Jenner as an example, there is a variant with a pair of light PPCs and the first model jenner had a large laser, which in size, weight, and heat is not far off from a PPC

actually I find the customization in this game rather lacking, for example when I bought a dragon 1-N, the AC/5 was not really doing much for me and I wanted nothing but to swap it for a PPC, which is a VERY common canonical upgrade I know the Zeus started with a PPC, went to an AC/5, then went back to a PPC when double heat sinks came back, the Grand Dragon went from an AC/5 on the Dragon to a PPC est.

and lastly for the omnimechs, they have field changeable weapon pods, but non-omnomechs can be customized more heavily, it just takes more time and money to do so

[SpiralRazor]

Yeah, Dragon to Grand Dragon...cant be done.

[TruePoindexter]

Given that 60% of the game to me is tinkering in the lab... I'm going to go with no.

[Joseph Mallan]

Churzy, on 25 November 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

Well, this could make sense IF the Gauss were placed in the "ears" which are the ones with room for a massive cannon. I know the "rules" allow it, but it doesn't change the fact that you're fitting 30 tons of equipment in a spot meant to hold a little over a ton. The chassis simply wouldn't be able to hold, and the whole customization process would be so costly that you'd end up with a completely different Mech. I would say it'd rank as a new Variant at the very least,

It's not as simple as replacing a LRM15 with a SRM6, or a AC5 with an AC10; you're replacing the smallest weapon with the heaviest one. Gausscats are probably the most "obscene" example of over-customization. Compared to the amount of work and money you'd need, the Yen-Lo-Wang is almost an amateur's piece

So yes, I agree with the OP, there has to be a sensible limit. Just sensible, not overly strict. Plus, by putting in certain limits, Mechs would be easier to balance against each other, and there would be a point in Variants with similar hardpoint layout.

The only reason they are on the torsos is because PGI followed the TT TRO layout. So the players are doing what they can with what thet got. Also look at a Thunder Hawk and tell me how they got those "Massive Cannons" into those narrow torsos please. The Gauss makes sense in a Pult torso more so than the T Hawk.

As for over customization, You haven't seen what I can do using Heavy Metal Pro!!!!

[justin xiang]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

One of the biggest problems with previous Battle tech games was the "universal customization" allowance. Meaing everyone thought just because they salvaged or puchased it, it was going to fit on their mech, even tho common sense said no. Like a PPC on Jenner.........not gonna happen, or at least should not. However if you have the tonnage or willing to sacrifice things, you could make it happen, and this brought on the light - medium mechs with 12-18 small pulse lasers circle straffing ppl (which has been addressed in this game).

However playing the IS WAS supposed to be hard, they were no Omni mechs like the clans, thus the IS had Variants of their mechs and this is what we need to stick to also...the variant models. Or at the least limit the amount of a specific type of weapon can be put on an IS mech.

An Atlas with 4 large pulse lasers would make no sense, as there is already a mech that has that config (Rifleman IIC) and the Atlas role if close and personal with beefy armor, or would you put 3 ER PPC on an Atlas, when the Awesome already has that config?

To be true to the table top game you also have to be true to the varaints and each mechs limitations, as each mech was built to fit a role with certain needs in mind.

The Omi mech (clan mechs and later the IS introduced their versions) Is the only mech capable of taking and swapping various weapson and heatsinks without penalty...........we should keep it like that. My 2 cents...FLAME ON!

This game's main audience is nerds. The nerds who play this have no idea how the actual boardgame works and only have experience with such titles as MechWarrior 4 and MW3.

[PhantomPisser]

This is my first post ever and I love the game. I couldn't give a **** about TT, but TT is the root of this and mw2 (two of my favorite games), so there must be something there. 'Mech customization has always been a hallmark of the MW pc games, and you can't remove it without losing a lot of players. There is no aim or glitching or any of the subtleties of almost-fps combat in the TT, where essentially the ONLY part of the BT universe that we have in MWO right now (micro combat) is abstracted into numbers and dice (or whatever the f).
*TLDR: TT is too abstract, personal skills/playstyle is not accounted for and doesn't need to be there, but does here = customization is good/necessary.

When it comes to complaints about heavy customization in the MWO game related to balance/op/ftm... Streak cats aren't that hard to counter. You can tell what they are even without the full-lock weapon list because it's a fing cat coming straight at you trying to close 270m. Gauss cats aren't a real threat either unless you're already losing, and then they're good for a few dozen damage during your fast death, or they can ruin your day if they're really good/lucky and you're a stupid scout in a light, and then you deserve it, and so do they. I fly these two and Jenners, and the Jenner is the only thing I think needs adjustment, and that's mainly a warp/lag issue and not a balance one. I think the fact that people are effective in every 'mech and keep bringing variety is proof that customization doesn't breed FTM/OP builds.
*TLDR: look at the game, actually TRY a little to come up with a strategy to counter these builds you might not agree with and fly on.

Anecdotal:
I'm passionate about this, because if customizability is reduced, it would make the 'mech that I prefer to fly (secret so I'm not putting it here) impossible LONG before it addressed streak cats (because a: they actually make sense, and b: people would still fly streak cats even with fewer ssrm), and then I, and all the other folks who were disenfranchised by the change would be in fing jenners. And who wants that?

WTLDR:
TT Evangelicals are missing the fact that TT game got to heavily abstract actual mech/mech battles and the personalities/skills/preferences of the individual pilots. Considering WE'RE the pilots, do you really want that in a PC sim?

[TruePoindexter]

justin xiang, on 26 November 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

This game's main audience is nerds. The nerds who play this have no idea how the actual boardgame works and only have experience with such titles as MechWarrior 4 and MW3.

Ummm.... what? I've done them all and would consider myself fairly nerdy...

[Imagine Dragons]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 November 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

The only reason they are on the torsos is because PGI followed the TT TRO layout. So the players are doing what they can with what thet got. Also look at a Thunder Hawk and tell me how they got those "Massive Cannons" into those narrow torsos please. The Gauss makes sense in a Pult torso more so than the T Hawk.

As for over customization, You haven't seen what I can do using Heavy Metal Pro!!!!

XenomorphZZ, on 25 November 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

Well, for starters its a 100 ton assault mech, and sense of scale is kinda skewed...

[Melcyna]

MWHawke, on 26 November 2012 - 07:40 AM, said:

That is coz you dont aim for the arm whereas the other team does. So, how is that a chassis problem?

It's not the arm... it's the side torso... where Catapult or rather the Catapult K2 is storing 100% of it's firepower on the Gauss cat or AC-20 cat or any other AC Catapult...

a side torso sizing a total of about 15% of the hit box from the front arc...

on a Centurion, the arm itself carries the only projectile slot while the side torso carries the missile slot
on a Dragon, the arm itself again carries the only projectile slot while the mid torso carries the missile slot and the side and arm carries the energy weapon slot.
on a Hunch the projectile slot is also on a side torso but unlike a Catapult the side torso on a hunch that houses the projectile slot has a massive hitbox from the front.
on an Atlas the projectile slot is on a side torso and it's not quite as ostensible as Hunchback, but the Atlas itself has a massive hitbox and move like a snail.

See the problem there?

On a Cat K2, the projectile slot is located on a position where it is quite difficult to hit from the front, shielded partly from the side direction by the arm (that usually carry nothing) which is the direction from which is the easiest to hit the side torso.

On the other mech Cent, Dragon has it on an easily dismembered arm, Hunch and Atlas has it on a side torso but it has a massive hitbox from the front or side (the Atlas has it better in that the arm hitbox is quite large and will block quite well from the side until it's destroyed).

note:
as others have already mentioned if the Catapult K2 store it's projectile slot on the ARM then Gauss cat would be a LOT more vulnerable as the arm is much easier to hit and destroy than the side torso of the cat (personally i'd rather just restrict the projectile slot crit space rather than move it to the arm)

the same reason is also why Catapult is one of the best mech to use XL engine (since the side torso is quite hard to hit overall and the CT or the arm will receive most of the hit)

personally? the Gauss is already an unbalanced weapon, Gauss cat simply MAGNIFIES the effect bigger by mating the weapon with a hard to hit location.

To help illustrate, i marked the rough area where damage or loss of the section can cause loss of projectile slot (on Catapult K2 loss of one on each side correspond to loss of one gauss rifle, if they are destroyed then the Catapult is normally lost as well as Gauss cat uses XL engine)

ed: they are not to scale and Atlas is much bigger naturally...

Edited by Melcyna, 26 November 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

Melcyna, on 26 November 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

note: as others have already mentioned if the Catapult K2 store it's projectile slot on the ARM then Gauss cat would be a LOT more vulnerable as the arm is much easier to hit and destroy than the side torso of the cat

I've heard that logic several times and I agree - but I don't agree to that solution. Neither do I like the prospect of limiting the available amount of criticals.

If the PPC's were more efficient or closer to how obnoxiously efficient the Gauss is then we would see far more players with their PPC's in the K2 and have very vulnerable 'arms'.

One solution COULD be to put the ballistic points into the center torso - something I do not like either because it stifles build options that are a fundamental part of the game.

What I WOULD like to see is to have more modular hulls so that the center torso on the K2 would be come narrower towards the bottom and the side torsos taking up more place towards the lower front due to having larger guns.

Modular hulls require more 3D modellers so hopefully that is something we will see in the future when the more important issues are ironed out and tehy have more cash to hire people for such things.

Antonio, on 25 November 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

I think the current weapon customization system is fine but I think the engine, internal structure ,and special equipment should not be configurable. It would give more value to variants having a particular engine or endo-steel. Right now the only value between different variants is the hardpoints which do not differentiate them as much as I would like.

No, because this is the main difference between the Clans and the IS.

Clans CANNOT change their internal values like Endo Steel / Engine Rating / Armor Ratings but they have more weapon flexibility due to omnipods.

To limit the IS more would not be a good thing as PGI have already toned down flexibility to a reasonable level.

[MorbidGamer]

Just a stupid Idea to limit mechs even more. There is no way I'm going to buy 50+ bay slots just so I can play a mech how I want to or swap out a build for another.

It's already bad enough you get 4 slots and thats just enough to cover the classes. 1 from each.

It's fine the way it is. If anything mechs should be able to move extra armor into there LT CT RT that they remove from other parts like legs and arms.

Find it silly that a mech legs is as strong or stronger then torso. Then again if you had the 1 leg rule then I would undrestand but it's a 2 leg rule.

[Terror Teddy]

MorbidGamer, on 27 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

Find it silly that a mech legs is as strong or stronger then torso.

I'm not so sure, think about what the legs are supposed to carry.
-Torso Structure
-Arms
-A fusion reactor
-Heavy gyros for turning
-Additional gear

The legs NEEDS to be strong and compact to carry all that weight.

[MorbidGamer]

Terror Teddy, on 27 November 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

I'm not so sure, think about what the legs are supposed to carry.
-Torso Structure
-Arms
-A fusion reactor
-Heavy gyros for turning
-Additional gear

The legs NEEDS to be strong and compact to carry all that weight.

Armor isn't structure. That's the base wieght of the mech with everthing striped. You can go into a battle with no armor on and not fall apart. You can lose your leg armor and still walk around.

[Melcyna]

While having a fully adaptable chassis model that can adjust itself based on the volume taken by the weapon would be impressive, realistically... implementing one that is actually feasible with the game engines we have is not likely to be a simple task.

the 3D model used for the assets is just one obstacle (and the simplest obstacle in fact), the bigger problem is how to code the engine to handle the variable model size properly and ensure that they are connected properly with one another... and behave as expected during the full range of animation and movement they can do.

Under our current MWO system, the model may alter itself with the addition and removal of certain guns and weapons for example, but this is much easier to do than altering the chassis itself... since the chassis itself has other things connected to it, unlike the arms or guns attached to the arms etc where removal of it does not affect other things.

remember as well that the hitbox will have to be adjusted accordingly, that then have to be worked out as well...

It's doable (we already had games that can do so) but it requires each of the parts that can alter the look, hitbox, and animation of the mech to be specifically designed for the purpose and tested to make sure they don't create a problem when put together with other parts (for example if certain parts weren't properly designed in dimension, when put together you may end up with it floating detached off the other part or it may well end up overlapping with other parts) and that's not counting what effect it may give rise with the hitbox).

[Terror Teddy]

MorbidGamer, on 27 November 2012 - 01:07 AM, said:

Armor isn't structure. That's the base wieght of the mech with everthing striped. You can go into a battle with no armor on and not fall apart. You can lose your leg armor and still walk around.

True, but the old 'legging' would make it somewhat 'easy mode' if everyone starts ignoring the rest of a mechs hull to JUST blow off legs to save the salvage.

This is better from a gaming perspective.

Melcyna, on 27 November 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

While having a fully adaptable chassis model that can adjust itself based on the volume taken by the weapon would be impressive, realistically... implementing one that is actually feasible with the game engines we have is not likely to be a simple task.

Not to mention how silly the Raven would be with about 40% of it's hitboxes to be it's ballistic point of the Gauss Rifle.
Or how the model would look with said gun mounted and a proper 3D model of the Gauss added instead of the X2 MG's

[Corvus Antaka]

the core issue is something I read on penny arcade recently and goes right to the heart of the problem.

Take the dual guass catapult. now, PGI is bringing in a gauss rifle "nurf" that will make the gauss very prone to destruction once all your armour has been stripped. So, until your armour is stripped, you are massively OP, but if someone can strip your RT/LT armour, then you'll be likely to lose the gauss rifles.

the atlas, the hunchback, all will suffer horribly from this gauss rifle "nurf" because the ballistic hardpoint is already a prime target and easily hit.

the K2? haha...smallest RT/LT in the game....it will suffer the LEAST and in fact become an even MORE IDEAL choice for the dual gauss rifles - if not the only choice, as the RT/LT are so tiny and hard to hit.

Hardpoints /weapons MUST be fixed. hardpoints should go Mech4 style - small, medium large. we already HAVE the guns with these slot requirements, we just need hardpoints with the same slot requirements.

I dont know if PGI can handle a switch like this at this point.

however, the core issue and probably the biggest offender is the K2, and moving the machinge gun ports to the CT would be a simple enough solution.

the cataphract 4X with 4 ac2's is an odd one as well. no need for a jaggermech now. why odd? because the 4X only has 1 ballistic slot in each arm visually.

[Terror Teddy]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 27 November 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

however, the core issue and probably the biggest offender is the K2, and moving the machinge gun ports to the CT would be a simple enough solution.

Unfortunately it IS the better solution. Initial design (IMHO) is that the well protected side torsos is ample space for heatsinks to vent either arm PPC's or lasers.