344 replies to this topic

[thesilentkil]

Isn't this becoming a discussion on story vs gameplay?


From as far as i have read on this forum,the ones that are siding with making mechwarrior online adhere more to tabletop games and to the battletech universe would like to do so at the expense of gameplay,take for example the warhammer(as said from shiloh bane),do you ever use the machine guns on the warhammer? Not really(unless it is packed in the same weapon group),if you had a mechlab you would switch it out for something better because the machine guns were meant to deter infantry,but so far there are no infantry in mechwarrior online,so you would rather switch it out for something more practical.


To those who sided for a mechlab in mechwarrior online for better gameplay ,sure it is fun if you balance out the customization so you don't get OP builds(as pointed out by SuperClone),but how about the story? If you ever created a mech variant inside the battletech universe you have to test it time and time again to work out the flaws and spend lots of C-bills to have that variant of the mech designed(as said from Hax DB Header)

I'm not sure how the players would think about this, but there needs to be a balance between story and gameplay.In a game like this,you have to realise that there is a boundary to making a game adhere too much on story or gameplay before it gets absurd.

Edited by thesilentkil, 11 July 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Shiloh Bane, on 09 July 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

And let me ask you this. Has no one here ever looked at a stock mech from the TRO and scratched your head wondering why they did what they did. Why does the Warhammer overheat when you fire its primary weapons, but it carries machine guns, srms and other small scale weapons? Yes the excuse was Anti-Infantry, but a PPC round, or even the SRM-6 would be enough to stop infantry..... RP the MG and Ammo and you had 2 more heatsinks alone......

You seem to be mistaken. Neither the PPC nor the SRM-6 kills infantry nearly as effectively as the MG. In fact, I think the MG has the capability to kill more than the PPC and SRM-6 combined.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Mechlab is here to stay. I may not like that, being one of those much maligned people who apparently cannot see the creativity and skill inherent in creating a GNR-1M Genericmech with whatever the min/maxers all agree is the optimal loadout for any particular iteration of the game, but the fact is it is here to stay and I'll have to live with that. That's okay. I've gotten used to the fact that my preferred gametype is usually not the one primarily catered to and I realize that doing so would probably limit PGI's customerbase more than allowing customization would drive away those who like me prefer stock mechs and variants as presented in the canon universe.

That said I believe there is a way to cater to both sides of the issue. The answer is, in my opinion, to add a "Stock Mechs Only" game mode so that those of us who like that sort of thing can play the game using the canon mechs and variants, flaws and all, without always getting reamed by far more optimized custom designs while those who prefer being able to customize continue playing the standard game mode.

I don't expect fans of customization to bend over backwards to accomodate my tastes, but I do expect them to understand that _their_ preferred type of game is _not_ my preferred type of game and calls for me and mine to "go play Mechwarrior Tactics" are juvenile and worth no consideration whatsoever.

[Thomas Hogarth]

SuperClone, on 10 July 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

For starters, let me say, that Variants never made a good transition into the Mech Game Simulatior space. There was always a variant which had at least one weapon which had little or no practical use in a PvP game. On the table top or in the novel it worked out great because (at least in the novels) One Missle salvo or AC chain could cripple a mech. When designing a PC game balance has to be considered, and so as a result things don't always translate the way you might expect. So, ultimately, you would chose a variant, and that variant would contain a sub par weapon and is now wasted space.

Units in this universe are notable for their flaws. Just about every chassis has a flaw in some way, shape, or form. It's part of the charm. Customs allow people to design away the flaws, and thus remove some of the character of the universe. This doesn't make the player clever or particularly intelligent - the flaws are obvious and easily remedied.

Also, a Mechwarrior game that sees far fewer stock variants than custom rides might as well be a different game set in a different universe. When a dual-PPC Hunchback comes around, my eyes will narrow. I know that thing should not exist outside of a _really_ one-off custom job that costs in the 'hood of 30-40m C-Bills, and there certainly shouldn't be three of them rolling around together.

You say that if you don't see customization, you won't play? Well if I end up not being able to recognize any 'Mech on the field from it's performance and loadout, I'll get bored and possibly end up playing. We've tried that with MW2. We've tried that with MW3. We've tried that with MW4. The result is always min-maxing and near total disconnect of parent universe from product.

[donkeybas]

Winters Flight, on 09 July 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

Actually, a PPC on a light mech is cannon.

Yes, the "C" in PPC means cannon. But I think you actually were trying to say canon.

[donkeybas]

SuperClone, on 10 July 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

I think wolvey is afraid that you'll either end up with Energy Boats or Missle boats, if you don't force the players to chose from variants.

I think it is interesting people complain about these missile and laser boats, even though there are mechs specifically designed to be boats, such as the catapult and nova cat, which both have serious drawbacks. The gun boats are the ones that 2 shot assault mechs in MW4 campaign...and what many of the top online pvp players used to use as well, from what I heard.

[VonFranz]

Skadi, on 09 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

oh god not sure if serious, customization is good, but build your own mech from the ground up...

Dear god no.

I spend too much time in the mechlab and made this beast:

Mutant Mech

Mass: 100 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Experimental Tech
Era: Dark Ages
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-E
Production Year: 3132
Cost: 12,132,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,997

Chassis: Unknown Endo-Steel
Power Plant: Unknown 300 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 32.4 km/h
Maximum Speed: 54.0 km/h
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor
Armament:
2 LRM-15s
1 Autocannon/10
2 LRM-10s
1 SRM-6
6 Medium Lasers
4 Small Lasers
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Endo-Steel 152 points 5.00
Internal Locations: 1 HD, 7 LA, 6 RA
Engine: Fusion Engine 300 19.00
Walking MP: 3
Running MP: 5
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Double Heat Sink 10(20) 0.00
Gyro: Compact 4.50
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
Armor: Standard Armor AV - 264 16.50

Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 31 41
Center Torso (rear) 10
L/R Torso 21 34
L/R Torso (rear) 8
L/R Arm 17 26
L/R Leg 21 34

================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium Laser RA 3 1 1.00
Medium Laser LA 3 1 1.00
LRM-15 RT 5 3 7.00
LRM-10 RT 4 2 5.00
SRM-6 RT 4 2 3.00
4 Medium Lasers RT 12 4 4.00
LRM-15 LT 5 3 7.00
LRM-10 LT 4 2 5.00
Autocannon/10 LT 3 7 12.00
4 Small Lasers CT 4 4 2.00
@AC/10 (10) RT - 1 1.00
@LRM-10 (12) RL - 1 1.00
@LRM-15 (8) RL - 1 1.00
@LRM-10 (12) LL - 1 1.00
@LRM-15 (8) LL - 1 1.00
Free Critical Slots: 1

BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 9 Points: 20
3 3 3 0 0 4 0 Structure: 8
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, LRM 1/1/1, IF 1

[Terror Teddy]

Trust the devs is what I'd say.

Even if you get Omnimechs that can mount virtually ANY weapon on the hull the mounts would still take up space/heat/structure.

WARNING - IM JUST BRAINSTORMNING
Say that you would get 'Mounting Points' for Omnimechs to represent that they could mount virtually anything on a specific mount.

1.The mount must be able to take the weight
2.The mount must be configured to handle heat/ammunition/etc

One way to 'balance' (how i hate that word...) the Omni's apart from more C-Bill expenses and other things could be how they function in the mech lab.

Sure, you can take a stock MadCat for example that USUALLY have 2 LRM launchers on its shoulders and replace them with something else because it IS an omnimech.

But I bet even the clans have their 'stock' models and their 'standard' mountings for them - thats why the MadCat is so very iconic - it was a standard Omnimech with stock model mounts with LRM's and large lasers

Any 'nonstandard' mounting could have other drawbacks.

Nonstandard shoulder mounts take up 1 point extra internal space (but not weight).
So replacing a missile launcher that weights 10 tons to an AC10 that weights 10 tonnes might take up more internal space but not weight since you CAN mount anything but other extra things had to be added (Ammo connections to Torso and Arms).

After all, when you buy a mech you get it with weapons and they have a standard configuration.

If you have a madcat with twin shoulder PPC's then that would be the standard model and mounting missile launchers would take up a little more internal space (but not weight).

Still, the game should be as close to the original game and give players as complete freedom as their minds can create without being whacky.

Besides, who doesn't love a 4X ERPPC mech...

[Rayspace]

Wolv e, on 09 July 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

Let me ask you this, WHY did we all, for lack of a better phrase, fall in love wiht Battletech tabletop game? We had pre-made mech sheets with their variaints to choose from and played them. It was FUN. It was challenging!! And if you used the right tactics, you won....

What I would like to see prevented is a "all purpose build" similiar to other games where you take a class and create a build and it beats all. This game is about strategy, using your surroundings, playing cat and ouse and above all have fun..........I do not think by allowing the "if it fits and you have the tonnage" it can be used scenario, because then why bother having various types of 55 ton mechs or even 100 tonners....why not just give the players 1 chasis from each tonnage and make their own mechs......I understand most arguements, but this is Battletech, We have mechs already made with variants and given Battletech HISTORY/LORE the reason WHY that specific mech does not have a ppc or an AC10 or whatever you wanted to stick on it.....

If the Devs decide to allow "if it fits and you have the tonnage" rule then I say just remove all mechs from the game and give us basic empty chassis and design your own mech.....................

Actually I never had premade mech sheets. I had the build information but the sheets were all blanks. Keep in mind I played my first TT game before a lot of current forum members took their first breath of life. I fell in love with this game because I could spend as much time designing the mechs as I did blasting away others with them. Each mech design IS basically an empty shell with a certain weight class limit. The developers have put restrictions in place that TT did not have. They have also had to come up with mechanics for the live action version of the game. Can you imagine what we would do with TT rules in place? I would have an 80 ton boxer with a 400 XL engine, and I would be covered in small lasers and machine guns. I would have a fist made for punching and a body built for charging and yes, DFA with an 80 ton mech with 5 jump jets. I would be death incarnate, and people would fear my approach. unfortunately, or fortunately, the devs have put an absolute limit on the number of weapons hardpoints available. Protecting your game from excessive contamination.

[Terror Teddy]

donkeybas, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I think it is interesting people complain about these missile and laser boats, even though there are mechs specifically designed to be boats, such as the catapult and nova cat, which both have serious drawbacks. The gun boats are the ones that 2 shot assault mechs in MW4 campaign...and what many of the top online pvp players used to use as well, from what I heard.

Yea, look through all the mechs and you would almost always find 'your' kind of mech - perhaps not in your favorite hull but very much in capability.

[IcePho3nix]

Skadi, on 09 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

oh god not sure if serious, customization is good, but build your own mech from the ground up...

Dear god no.

Oh my god, I want this, just for the sheer absurdity of it. Seriously, look at it! It's cool as hell!

[SuperClone]

Steinar Bergstol, on 11 July 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

I don't expect fans of customization to bend over backwards to accomodate my tastes, but I do expect them to understand that _their_ preferred type of game is _not_ my preferred type of game and calls for me and mine to "go play Mechwarrior Tactics" are juvenile and worth no consideration whatsoever.

I absolutely understand that for some players the fun is found in using the weps on a variant as they appear in battletech source books. I, for one, would be all for a game mode where players may only select stock variants. Hell, it might even be fun for a Friday night with the lance mates. But when a win or loss is on the line, I would rather take my "go-to" custom load out.

donkeybas, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I think it is interesting people complain about these missile and laser boats, even though there are mechs specifically designed to be boats, such as the catapult and nova cat, which both have serious drawbacks. The gun boats are the ones that 2 shot assault mechs in MW4 campaign...and what many of the top online pvp players used to use as well, from what I heard.

Let us look a bit closer at boats... AC boats have a weakness: Range. Effective range is, what, 400m? Missile boats as well have a weakness: Range. They are all but ineffective at close range (LRM's of course). It is those pesky Laser boats that really have everyone worried. Once the developers strike a good balance between lasers, heat, and heat sinks it should all work itself out.... slightly off topic, but, does anyone know if there are plans for Pulse lasers? Was that a Clan development? Yes, I could look it up, but I'm not going to.

Someone brought up top players relying on boats "back-in-the-day" and I really don't recall this. Most top players used more practical array of armament to be effective across multiple ranges and situations, however, it was not uncommon in 5v5 fights for example to see one heavy sitting back launching salvo after salvo of LRM20's -- but that left his team to go 4v5 in close quarters ... more risk vs reward here.

If I recall, a typical Mk2 loadout in MW4 for me might have been:

LRM20 x2
light gauss rifle
gauss rifle
C ER Med Laser x2
C Med Pulse Laser
C Small Pulse Laser x2

geez I don't know if that looks right, but it's been years - but SOMETHING like this was typical of top players.

And one more thing on the tactics of multiplayer and customization: Armor Types. Reactive vs Reflective. One was more effective vs projectile/explosive munitions and one was more effective vs energy weapons. Do you risk it all and take a configuration with all energy weps, banking on the gamble that your opponent will have a energy heavy build? do you go with something more even?

Thesilentkil pointed out that what's really being discussed is Gameplay vs Story. I think this is very accurate and astute. But, to this I would say: There is no "Story Mode" in Mechwarrior Online. Past games had single player story modes, and, right or wrong, this one does not. I would love a story mode, it would be awesome to create a "Pilot" chose a mech that is "mine" and play through some epic story driven battles single player. When that was done, I'd think to myself "That was fun! The story was great and I really felt like I was there." Then I would proceed to never play it again as I dove into competitive muliplayer. This is what this game is going to be centered on, I think. I am sure we all know what happens when you cannot optimize, adapt, and overcome in competitive multiplayer. My goal will be to be the best (even though I probably never will be) and I look forward to developing skill not only in combat, but in sound mech design.

Edited by SuperClone, 11 July 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[Nikolai Nabokov]

Pardon me for bringing this up, but aren't all these arguements based on single player tactics? If a lance works together, gathers scout info on a laser boat (example), wouldn't they gang up on that mech first? Then the next dangerous mech, etc...

I enjoy making some mods to my mechs, so wouldn't want just stock or variants (unless some special game mode was selected), but also understand the fear of min/max gameplay.

[Draevyn]

SuperClone, on 11 July 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Someone brought up top players relying on boats "back-in-the-day" and I really don't recall this. Most top players used more practical array of armament to be effective across multiple ranges and situations, however, it was not uncommon in 5v5 fights for example to see one heavy sitting back launching salvo after salvo of LRM20's -- but that left his team to go 4v5 in close quarters ... more risk vs reward here.

If I recall, a typical Mk2 loadout in MW4 for me might have been:

LRM20 x2
light gauss rifle
gauss rifle
C ER Med Laser x2
C Med Pulse Laser
C Small Pulse Laser x2

It was actually very common outside of the NBT Puretech servers that existed in the day for boating to occur. Only certain mechs were viable.

If you were Madcatting Mk2ing, you had a very specific loadout. You either equipped yourself with 2ltgauss/2Clan Gauss, or you loaded up all LRM20s and LRM10s onto it, or you equipped it for brawling with 2 Clan LBX10s and 2 Clan LBX20s.

donkeybas, on 11 July 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

I think it is interesting people complain about these missile and laser boats, even though there are mechs specifically designed to be boats, such as the catapult and nova cat, which both have serious drawbacks. The gun boats are the ones that 2 shot assault mechs in MW4 campaign...and what many of the top online pvp players used to use as well, from what I heard.

The problem is that those mechs did not have drawbacks in the games that people were used to playing back in MechWarrior 4, BK, and MW4: Mercs. In fact, the whole way the game system was designed, and the crappy implementation of artillery and indirect fire weaponry, made it literally built around those kind of tactics. Multiplayer games became nothing more than taking up position on the closest hill, and hitting J every now and then when something popped up on the radar.

Yeah, there was a great amount of variation and choice in the mechs you could take. Unfortunately, unless you picked certain mechs, and certain loadouts built around either rapid fire, low damage and low heat weapons which took advantage of rattle and motion effects, or high damage, low RoF weapons which could two shot mechs, you were almost certain to not even be viable.

The sad thing is that the major players in the community, outside of the NBT4 servers where loadouts were restricted, supported this style of play, and caused endless drama with anyone who didn't. The imbalance and boating abilities were semi-addressed around the release of Pack 2 and 3, but by then the damage - along with the overheat and trainer scandals - had already been done, and the community was a shadow of it's former self.

The whole reason I chose to support this game was the promise of fluid, moving battles, unlike the static PVP elements of boating and poptarting with a select number of mechs that were actually viable, which defined the MW4 years.

[Doublefrost]

If I see a light mech running around with PPCs or an AC20 in one arm, I'm just blowing that limb off. Bam, done, end of story. Unlike PvE BT, taking a light mech with oversized weapons is a good way to get a lot of attention and focus fire. It's not going to be that much of a problem in practice. Don't sweat it. Nobody wants to let a soft target that can hurt them live for long. Practical reality will crash down on players that don't design intelligently.

[Virgil Caine]

Limitations on mechlab doesn't "Punish the creative." It emphasizes balance and the original intent of the design.

The "Open Mechlab" doesn't promote creativity. It promotes hyperspecializiation. "Boating" is the term. Focusing on one weapon system to the exclusion of every other one. This doesn't promote creativity, it promotes homogenity. The 'best' designs will be figured out in beta, and then if you don't use those, you will be considered fail. "How dare you be creative and use a non-boat... you're ruining my game by being a noob!"

True creativity does not come from having an entirely blank canvas. It comes from placing limitations on the self and working within the structure to generate something special.

[SuperClone]

Draevyn, on 11 July 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

The whole reason I chose to support this game was the promise of fluid, moving battles, unlike the static PVP elements of boating and poptarting with a select number of mechs that were actually viable, which defined the MW4 years.

I like fluid, moving battles as much as the next guy. But what I also enjoyed from MW4 was the use of terrain, positioning, baiting, ambushing, spending the first 5 min of a fight unsure of where your opponent is and hoping to catch them out of position before they catch you. To me, these were "real life" tactics that were being deployed on a virtual battlefield. That is not to say that there was not a place for a charge, tussle, a push, or a retreat. Yes many battles ended up in "poptarting" (which, for those unaware, was both teams hunkered behind opposing ridge lines, jump jetting up, firing and then falling back down to safety) But a good team leader would send some faster mechs to flank and flush out the opponent. I get excited when games allow the use of tactics. I don't mean exclusive tactics, ie, "The mechanics of X game allow the Y tactic that is super effective" ... when I say tactics I mean tactics in the traditional military "The Art of War" type universal tactics. For me, MW4 was the closest to that I have seen in a video game.

I found a number of mechs in MW4 to be viable. Granted, many were also not viable, and I hope this game changes that. My hope for MWO is that the different mechs have different available hardpoints on different portions of the mech. For example, if you want 2 LRM20's on a light mech, there may only be 1 chassis which that will physically fit and knowledge of that can give a pilot an advantage. (this was just an example) This would give players reason to chose one chassis over another for certain situations.

[SuperClone]

Virgil Caine, on 11 July 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Limitations on mechlab doesn't "Punish the creative." It emphasizes balance and the original intent of the design.

The "Open Mechlab" doesn't promote creativity. It promotes hyperspecializiation. "Boating" is the term. Focusing on one weapon system to the exclusion of every other one. This doesn't promote creativity, it promotes homogenity. The 'best' designs will be figured out in beta, and then if you don't use those, you will be considered fail. "How dare you be creative and use a non-boat... you're ruining my game by being a noob!"

True creativity does not come from having an entirely blank canvas. It comes from placing limitations on the self and working within the structure to generate something special.

Well put. I would also like to add that I look forward to playing with a community that seems to have a higher average IQ then a potted plant.

I agree that limitations, with respect to this game and the meklab, will create a greater diversity in mech design. I want those moments of "wow, I never thought to configure those weapons that way. I'll have to try that."

I would prefer that game mechanics discouraged hyper-specialization in terms of major weaknesses, rather then the nuts and bolts of the meklab. Heat, ammo, range and such like this can all be major contributing factors in opening up huge weaknesses in hyper-specialized load outs. I think that, ideally, the meklab should let you do it anyway, the pilot should think "I am not doing that, that is just silly" and the crazy strategist should think "there IS one, crazy, all-the-cards-on-the-table scenario where this build might be a tipping point, and if they see it coming or expect it in any way, we're screwed, but other then that, it is just silly."

I feel I could argue your statement regarding true creativity, just for kicks, but I'm afraid that's neither here nor there.

[Bill Andrex]

The whole point about mech customisation is that you can change a mech to the way one want to pilot it, but you have to be limited by tonnage and heat and hardpoints, same as the battletech universe. That stops stupid stuff like PPC's on jenners, as they simiply won't work due to tonnage and overheating issues resulting in a meltdown.

Light mechs are typically great at ECM warfare and the like and rely on their speed and electronics to stay out of trouble. To restrict customisation is to kill off the large appeal of the battletech universe and ultimately this MMO. Of course it i will be a process of continious balancing to keep everything in check.

Looking forward to the release.

[Allied]

thontor, on 09 July 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

I agree, completely open customization actually reduces mech build variety for anyone that want's to stay competitive. Everyone will bring a boat of some kind, just like in previous games that followed the TT customization, like MW2 and MW3, those were full of laser boats, missile boats, whatever. If you wanted to be competitive, you built a boat of some kind.

This actually reduced the customization really, sure you could do anything you wanted, but if you didnt boat up on some kind of weapon, you were putting yourself at a disadvantage.

I think limiting the number of each type of weapon you can put in each part of the mech will open up more interesting combinations, in my opinion, and you'll see less of everyone using the same config

Yah. The idea of building a boat is to make a variant that has a very specific role in mind. You know what your target range is going to be, and what your ideal targets will look like. Stock variants generally had this idea in mind, but not to the specifics that an individual pilot would want.

For example, if you want to be a long range 'sniper' mech you may only want ER Lasers and LRMs, or maybe you want to skimp on heatsinks and go all LRMs and projectiles. Building a mech to a role that suits you I always found important in the mechwarrior series. MW:LL kind of pissed me off; being forced to use a stock variant.

Hardpoint limitations I could deal with... but I'm not sure even that is necessary. If someone loads up a missile boat, get some AMS. If someone loads up a laser boat, flame em and watch them overheat. There is a counter to every loadout.

-Allied