Jump to content

True customization or not



413 replies to this topic

#341 Sug

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 4,629 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:12 PM

I guess I was referring to boating in the sense that someone loads a mech with one type of weapon with the intention of one-shotting someone. Not boating as in just one type of weapon.

Yes there are canon "boats" with but in the canon 100% of the missiles don't hit the same location, or at all. And groups of lasers and cannons don't hit the exact same spot with pinpoint accuracy.

Boats vs. Boating. With the targeting/recoil/convergence additions to the game "boats" will be acceptable as they fill a certain role without being overpower. But "boating" will not be viable for the previous reasons.


I'm not saying to adjust the ammo/heat numbers beyond canon, i'm asking that they follow canon. Or at least be closer than MW4. You got so much ammo per ton it almost wasn't even a factor. And shutting down for 10 seconds after firing 8 large lasers is barely a consequence.

Edited by Sug, 19 February 2012 - 08:17 PM.


#342 Fluffinator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 132 posts
  • LocationKY

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:19 PM

View PostSug, on 19 February 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

And shutting down for 10 seconds after firing 8 large lasers is barely a consequence.

It is if you miss ...or if they have a friend..

Edited by Fluffinator, 19 February 2012 - 08:20 PM.


#343 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:40 PM

View PostSug, on 19 February 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:


I'm not saying to adjust the ammo/heat numbers beyond canon, i'm asking that they follow canon. Or at least be closer than MW4. You got so much ammo per ton it almost wasn't even a factor. And shutting down for 10 seconds after firing 8 large lasers is barely a consequence.


Did you account for the ammunition per 10 seconds (as each weapon recycle time is less than 10 secs) rather that the fixed static BattleTech number?

Ammunition was a factor is many fights in MW4.

#344 Yeach

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,080 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 08:51 PM

View PostStrum Wealh, on 19 February 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:


Solaris7 (especially when cross-referenced with Sarna) is pretty good for that in a fair number of cases. ;)

CN9-A Centurion (2801)
CN9-D Centurion (3052)
CN9-D5 Centurion (3062)
CN9-YLW Centurion (Yen-Lo-Wang, Justin Xiang-Allard version)

Each of the above variants has the main weapon (AC-10, LB-X AC-10, RAC-5, AC-20) in the right arm, a LRM-10 in the left-torso (except YLW), and two Medium Lasers (sometimes one is converted to a Medium Pulse Laser) in the center-torso.

Though, should the center-torso location count as a single hardpoint, or two?

Also, apparently the original record sheet for YLW ("Battletech Record Sheets 3025 & 3026 product # 1695", cited in the Solaris7 link) states that the left arm is equipped with a hatchet rather than a claw/nails...


Thanks for the confirmation Strum,

Not sure about the center-location; only that it holds 2 medium lasers or pulse lasers at most.
similarly how even the Avatar omnimech has 2 medium lasers for all its config.

#345 DRevD

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 09:17 PM

View PostSiphonaptera, on 19 February 2012 - 12:34 AM, said:


MWLL is FULL of boats already:
  • Vulture with 4 LRM 20's
  • Awesome and a Clan mech with 4+ large lasers/ppcs
  • Fafnir with 4 LBX20's
Are 3 quick examples...


Plus a ton of other boats that fit in fine and are balanced because of how they handled heat (I'd make the heat generation a little higher and cooldown faster than they have currently) which discourages most alpha strikes but allows many high heat weapons to be fired in a few seconds.

People picking the same thing in the mechlab isn't any different than everyone taking the same premade mech. The fix is to discourage alpha strikes by forcing players to alpha strike over a few seconds, just like how alpha strikes are firing all weapons in a turn (10 seconds IIRC).

Its their boats however, which they can directly balance..and those boats are already heavily favored. If they were to open the flood gate you better believe you will see nothing but boats (better boats than their stock boats) dominating matches. Those mixed loadouts you see now know will be dinosaurs.

#346 Fluffinator

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Grizzly
  • The Grizzly
  • 132 posts
  • LocationKY

Posted 19 February 2012 - 11:29 PM

I can think of a huge reason to be able to customize ...there will be no foot troops in this game so all those anti-person weapons on the default builds have got to go...

Edited by Fluffinator, 19 February 2012 - 11:29 PM.


#347 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:05 AM

Almost every one of the Boats on Sturms list show that BT/TT provided drawbacks to their designs, even when seen as a Boat.

The Clan gear we can ignore for now. The Missile and PPC boats have Min. ranges. Min. range is a bad thing if a Hunchie gets inside it with ammo left.

Flamer mechs have very short range, with the MG mechs having similar, plus added ammo concerns. Gauss has ammo (8 shots/T) issues if canon is followed.

And not surprisingly almost every design has more than 1 type of weapon on-board. Customization eliminates that if allowed.

I for one do not want to have to build like everyone else to compete. It killed MW before and will do so again. Yes, I may be over reacting but it has been along time. A long time indeed.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 February 2012 - 08:07 AM.


#348 Sug

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The People's Hero
  • The People
  • 4,629 posts
  • LocationChicago

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:24 AM

View PostFluffinator, on 19 February 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

I can think of a huge reason to be able to customize ...there will be no foot troops in this game so all those anti-person weapons on the default builds have got to go...


I don't think any of the released mechs have anti-personal weapons.

#349 Lances107

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Nova Commander
  • Nova Commander
  • 291 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 09:02 AM

I played MW 2 and I enjoyed it but the basic truth of it was, all you needed was a Mech with lots of Missiles for quick win. MW4 was a massive improvement but making sure that each mech had its on hard points they kept balance and they made the game better. Example of this is it prevented a player putting a heavy gouse on a light mech. Or if a player wanted a long range mech, but with a short range punch, they would got with a Mad cat. If a player wanted all beams, they more then likely would go the way of the Nova Cat. I liked and enjoyed that fact of Mechwarrior. The last thing i would want to see is some generic set up so all mechs can carry all weapons. It will create more issues then its worth. Not to mention take away from Mechwarrior. Call me crazy but I enjoy taking weapons out putting new ones in watching my tonage, and being restricted by hard points, and what weapons can fit in them. Its like putting together the ultimate weapon then riding it into battle.

#350 Strum Wealh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 5,025 posts
  • LocationPittsburgh, PA

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:00 AM

View PostYeach, on 19 February 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Not sure about the center-location; only that it holds 2 medium lasers or pulse lasers at most.
similarly how even the Avatar omnimech has 2 medium lasers for all its config.


OmniMechs can still have weapons and equipment that are hardwired into the 'Mech as "fixed equipment".
Such items are built into the frame and structure and, like the weapons of a normal (non-OmniTech) BattleMech, require significant time and expense to replace (relative to the switching-out of OmniTech pods) and are often considered unremovable.

Examples of such fixed equipment include the Medium Lasers on the Avatar and the Flamer on the Adder/Puma.

----------

View PostMaddMaxx, on 20 February 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

Almost every one of the Boats on Sturms list show that BT/TT provided drawbacks to their designs, even when seen as a Boat.


Agreed.

Also, the canon timeline includes technologies that further attempt to mitigate the use of boats/near-boats:
  • AMS (3040), LAMS (3054), Reactive Armor (3063), and iNarc launchers (and, most notably, their Nemesis Pods; 3062) are specifically intended to reduce the usefulness of missile weapons (and, thus, missile boats).
  • Reflective Armor (3058) is intended to reduce the damage inflicted by all energy weapons, while Laser-Inhibiting warheads (3053) further reduce the damage output of all laser weapons (for a time) and the Blue Shield Particle Field Damper (3053) further reduces the damage that can be inflicted by PPCs (for a time).
  • The various FF armor variants (allowing a 'Mech to carry more armor per ton, so it can be faster with the same degree of actual protection; 3040 onward) and Hardened Armor (each individual armor point is twice as durable, but twice as heavy, as a point of Standard Armor, allowing a 'Mech that carries the maximum number of armor points of hardened armor to have effectively double the normal maximum protection; 3047) are about as close as it gets to dedicated anti-ballistic measures.

View PostMaddMaxx, on 20 February 2012 - 08:05 AM, said:

And not surprisingly almost every design has more than 1 type of weapon on-board. Customization eliminates that if allowed.


I for one do not want to have to build like everyone else to compete. It killed MW before and will do so again. Yes, I may be over reacting but it has been along time. A long time indeed.


Partially agreed.

It's not just MW - it's affected other customizable mecha games as well:
  • "Dual rifle" builds are usually explicitly banned from Armored Core tournaments.
  • There was a time during the life of Chromehounds where one was effectively non-competitive if one wasn't using a "double-double" on Naqa legs with a covered 'pit. The subsequent nerfing of the double-doubles led to the creation of "gators", "a-wings", and "shino karts"/"mario karts" - more standardized "you must use this/there if you want to be competitive, much less win" builds.

The same idea plagued MW4 - short of being disallowed by the server settings, one either used one of the "proven builds" (2PPC/2Gauss on a Gladiator, Wildcat, Black Knight, Mad Cat Mk.II, Behemoth II, Marauder II, or Daishi, or 6-7 CERLL on a Supernova, Nova Cat, or Daishi, or a Gauss/(LB-X/Ultra)AC-10/(LB-X/Ultra)AC-20 boat on an Annihilator or Daishi) or accepted being relegated to effectively an non-competitive, second-rate player.

In fact, here is an article that makes that same point, with CH as an example...

Quote

The state of the game has players in two virtual leagues. Matches between low-ranking players typically involve Hounds of greatly varying design, many of which correspond to the six envisioned "role-types." High-ranking players, however, usually compete with a handful of designs — all of which are intended to gain every conceivable advantage in gameplay.
Now, it takes a little brilliance to arithmetically determine the shortest distance between game mechanics and assured victory. But when that éclat is imitated for purposes of winning at any cost, the game is reduced in variety and scope. There are terms for this, most of them pejorative. In Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, these opportunists are known as "Minmaxers," and in BattleTech, "Munchkins."

-----

What some members of Chromehounds' online community call "evolution" is a social example of emergence — a group of individuals coordinating complex behaviors that culminate in an unforeseen collective. In Chromehounds, a few months of design experimentation resulted in a combination superior to most others. It was witnessed by others, examined and copied, and improved. A power law arose. Players who selected one of several high-performing designs won more matches — and could easily attain top ranking — than those who stuck with one of thousands of other, less powerful builds. Winning was vital. Case in point: an early paramount, the ungainly Double-Double, quickly disappeared when a patch qualified its power. Why? Because hardly anybody ran it for fun.

-----

The Kingdom of Sal Kar, one of three contending belligerents in the alternate-reality Balkans, proffers expensive but lightweight and efficient military technology. Soon players discovered that its spindly, legged chassis were markedly more difficult to hit, yet weren't much less durable or sturdy than other, more massive parts. Naqas, inverse legs resembling snapped toothpicks, were judged as the most effective — and so highly competitive players started to use them, and only them. Since the Naqas are so elusive to fire, area-effect weapons were preferred as long as they were practical to equip and easy to use. What about bipedal, treaded, hover, wheeled and quad-legged chassis? Or the half-dozen other inverse sets? Rejected for Hounds that look like bomb-throwing fleas, ubiquitous in higher-ranking matches.


IMO, the tendency to hyper-optimize/min-max hasn't killed MW as a franchise and probably wouldn't outright kill MWO as a game, but it would make it more stagnant and less interesting than it might otherwise be.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 20 February 2012 - 11:20 AM.


#351 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 20 February 2012 - 10:55 AM

The problem described above is universal in any game where a large group of weapons and or Technology exist and are used over various ranges and have differing damage scales.

Company of Heroes was/is a great game. Balance has been found and lost with almost every major Patch as players found the best of the best and abused them to the point where using anything else, competitively, was the death knell on said ladders. Whole faction s became obsoleted(sp)

Avoidance of such player behavior is only curable (sort of) if everyone has a level playing field, the same choice in weapons (platforms) in our case here and if found to be Balanced, left that way. (see incoming Clans for Apple Cart upset rule)

The killing MW was probably my bias showing so I retract that bit. We need Balance, and not simply some loose version. Variants will suffice as long as everyone plays the same set. Numbers will be key but we can't assume 200 chassis at Launch (like some even care how many, if their Fav doesn't make the first cut) but that can be resolved with time.

How many players would quit playing MWO after 3-6 months if announced by the Dev they will not include (insert someones Fav Mech?) I would guess if the game is FUN and enjoyable, very few as in the end, a Fav is ultimate but can be dealt with emotionally (just do not gloat if you get yours) ;)

Just to be clear. I would love Full Custom but after the past events something that doesn't force me to build because I have to, or my Team has to, to maintain our enjoyment minus the FUN side, I'll pass thanks.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 February 2012 - 10:57 AM.


#352 Havoc2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 505 posts
  • LocationBarrie, ON

Posted 20 February 2012 - 12:59 PM

Min/maxing is not a new concept, nor is it one that will go away.

People are constantly changing their builds whether it's in WoW, DAOC, Rift, SWTOR, COD, MW or MWO (when it's released).

People will play with their configurations, find a role that they like, and tweak it to be more effective.
I must have respecced my Ranger in DAOC 2-3 times a month depending on patches and gear to become more effective.
I'm still respeccing my Sniper in SWTOR to figure what works best for the role I like to play.

In MW4, I ran configurations that I felt like taking, and tweaked them until I either loved them, felt they were as good as they were going to get, or scrapped them.
A few examples that I didn't really see anyone else running that I had at the time were Hellspawn loaded with Streak SRM4s and MLas.
Hellbringer with 5 or 6 LRM10s used for harassing enemy missile boats. Also had enough punch that an alpha strike could knock down an enemy scout/flag runner.

There are always favoured builds. Same as there will always be Flavour of the Month classes/specs/builds. People play what they enjoy, and I have yet to meet anyone who sucks on purpose because it's fun. Those people are usually griefers.

#353 Tannhauser Gate

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 1,302 posts
  • LocationAttack ship off the Shoulder of Orion

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:19 PM

Im all for upgrading and swapping out weapons and components to make a mech better for my play style .... which is part of minmaxing. I have no problem with players minmaxing within the limits the game imposes so its all equal and fair. I do have a problem with the devs leaving the mechlab so open that people can (and will) minmax to the point of boating.

In the last podcast, Mason mentioned that he expects (possibly) that mech canbe customized but it will be a hardpoint system with weapons changeable based on type.. missile for missile, energy for energy..etc. Im ok with that.

#354 verybad

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,229 posts

Posted 20 February 2012 - 01:32 PM

Same here. I think it will ve a hardpoint system, probably not identical to MW4's, but with some lessons taken from it. MW4 kept mechs closer to their original purpose. It wasnt' perfect for sure, but it did introduce some character to each mech.

I don't want to see a Catapult boating ACs for example.

I would like some customization, but not freedom so that a mech is only a tonnage based bag o' guns, and the original design means nothing.

#355 Trogusaur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 314 posts
  • LocationKrogan homeworld of Tuchanka. Wait, different universe.

Posted 20 February 2012 - 02:07 PM

MW4's hardpoint system was a good first attempt to level the playing field with all of the above: boating, balancing weapons and the like. Granted, it obviously didn't work the way the developers had initially intended, considering the rampant poptarting and 7ERL/5ERPPC JJ Atlas domination. However, the system did limit every mech to the type of weapons it could carry (ie: Wolfhounds can't carry missles or ballistics, Daishis could only carry 3PPCs), and it did give some distinction between omni and battlemech. Note that limbs never changed shape from the original look, and each omni port had a "one size fits all" appearance instead.

I think the best way to show omnimech superiority is by being able to entirely replace arms or other areas on the mech where the omni ports are clearly defined. For instance, a Shadow Cat B is known to carry 2x Artemis LRM 15s with 2x medium lasers. Implementing these weapons may go about in a variety of ways, such as missle pods could replace the arms (lasers on the left and right torso); or the lasers move to the arms and missles stay in the slanted torso area, as depicted in MW4. Some areas (such as the head and CT) should not be able to carry weapons at all, or at best a small laser. With battlemechs, just restrict the a weapon-type port to that weapon type, and leave it at that. Beam weapons stay with beam weapons, and missles stay with missles.

Edited by Lord Trogus, 20 February 2012 - 02:40 PM.


#356 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,612 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:09 PM

In many years of online MechWarrior, playing in about 10 different leagues, I think I was asked to use stock 'Mechs 3 or 4 times.

In MW3 Starlance (I think) they had random battle generation system and sometimes stock mechs was ordered, in which case everyone took the Madcat D, or the Madcat A, or whatever stock mech worked best for the weight class and the rest of the 'mechs were never used. And this was also the case in MW4. Think MW4 stock Thor, using the Thor stock would guarantee you a loss vs. other stock 'mechs, but the stock Thor was canon.

Anyway, if you want a popular online MechWarrior game, better include some type of Mechlab that allows you change the 'mechs weapon loadout, even in limited fashion like hardpoints. It wouldn't be something to really compete for, since to be balanced Mechlab would have to be easily available after training on a mech. It would be something to compete with. Something players would learn by experimentation, and this would add alot of depth to gameplay in an accessible way.

I just don't think stock 'mechs will hold the average MechWarrior player's attention for very long. Initially it will, but after everyone has taken the same loadout and 'mech out a few hundred times they will go looking for something new. Mechlab keeps MechWarrior fresh and ever-changing.

Some people worry about boats of one weapon type, even though their are canon boats like the Nova Cat, Supernova, etc., but honestly, boating is not very efficient due to weight, heat, range, balancing. My most successful configs in MW4 carried a spread of weapon types, usually Ballistics, Energy, and Missiles. Selection depending on the map and my team's tactical planning.

Tactical planning, by the way, is what Mechlab adds most too in MechWarrior. You just won't get it with stock mechs. With stock 'mechs you get endless repeats of the same battle. Player takes best mech, goes to best spot, repeat, repeat, repeat.

#357 Outlaw2

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts
  • LocationIn a van...

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:19 PM

View Postverybad, on 20 February 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Same here. I think it will ve a hardpoint system, probably not identical to MW4's, but with some lessons taken from it. MW4 kept mechs closer to their original purpose. It wasnt' perfect for sure, but it did introduce some character to each mech.

I don't want to see a Catapult boating ACs for example.

I would like some customization, but not freedom so that a mech is only a tonnage based bag o' guns, and the original design means nothing.


I agree. MW4 wasn't perfect...but it did go a long way to giving mechs character and diversifying gameplay a bit....even though boating was still rampant.

#358 Micheal Hessek

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 69 posts
  • LocationIn a Dropship ... Preparing for a Hot Drop.

Posted 20 February 2012 - 05:08 PM

Chihook said,

I am sad that I won't get to play in a custom mech I enjoy but because people are unable to resist the urge and ease of boating a mechlab just isn't a viable option if you want PGI to maintain balance. Also boating and range optimization are different I think. easy example would be the Ryoken -B
1x Ultra AC20
5x ER medium lasers

The mech specializes in short-medium range combat. There is no 1 button win solution as there was for many mechs in MW4.

Nasty Mech!!! If a Ryoken -B is available to pilot, I have decapped whole Companies/Stars in every tourney that I attended where there was a free-for-all or test-out senerio, where there is any raised or lowered terrain feature. Took out three Atlas's in just 30 seconds at one free-for all.

#359 ArchLurker Chad

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationSweden

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:16 AM

Customisation is all good as long it doesn't come in the way of balancing.
And what's the point of being able to fit everything everywhere? That'd be to reduce the difference of the mechs.
I'd like it to be something along the way of MW4 with different hardpoints for ballistic and erergy weapons, and missile systems, and combinations of those. That way mechs would be more than generic weapon platforms with different sizes, they'd be more unique.

#360 Kael Tropheus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 282 posts
  • LocationOrlando FL

Posted 21 February 2012 - 03:42 AM

Also an issue with those boats that were listed. I never played mechs past 3055 as I think they got silly and got away from the ragtag clunking mechs of the earlier time period so I cant comment on the Fafnir.
Vulture- generally considered a poor mech for anything but fire support(still my favorite mech in the game based on looks alone). It had a punch at range but had limited ammo and very poor armor, get in close and it died fairly quickly compared to more all-rounders. I preferred the primary config to the alternates and likely this will be my mech of choice once the clans arrive.

Awesome- its a tank, 3 ER PPCs in the 3050 version was good, but it still overheated extremely fast.Had nice armor though but if I remember, limited weaponry and slow as hell, get in close and it literally could not do anything.

I will add a Loki to the list as well, these were true glass cannons. They haver jack for armor but are loaded down with weapons and in most of the configs (from memory) could handle all ranges, which was a nice balance. If true customization happens, expect to never see a loki on the field.

Both of the first mechs may be boats of a sort but they required an escort, which is fine, they are very balanced mechs in their ifficial forms. I would hate to see how players will ruin and unbalance them with true customization.





3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users