413 replies to this topic

[Felix Dracc]

I am for the hard point system.

[rollermint]

I'm content with what they have now. I would rather have only stock variants but this is alright. Besides, having only stock variants is unsustainable once the omnis start to flood the game.

This way, they still retain the characteristics and uniqueness of each mech and its variants while giving some sort of longevity and relevance to Battlemechs even when Omnimechs are introduced into the game (they are expectedly going to cost exorbitant amount of money to purchase and maintain, i'd think).

[Javelin156]

Ragotag, on 07 April 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:

I simply could not disagree more with you on this, but we are both voicing opinions based on what we believe to be factual information.

I've stated my opinion. Full customization has never really been a huge part of BattleTech TT. I still assert that past "MechWarrior" titles were not very BattleTech, they just took place in the BattleTech Universe.

However, you imply that the only fun dynamic in MW:O is 'Mech customization, something that I would heartily disagree with. My experience with past "MechWarrior" games is that full 'Mech customization reduces the number of viable configurations to only a handful -- those being the Uber configs that most players will be forced to gravitate to just to be competitive. Using a minimal customization system on stock variants forces variety on the battlefield, and turns a snap-shooting FPS-style simulator of past "MechWarror" titles into more of a real-time strategic and tactical 'Mech combat simulator. Again, opinions on the limits to mechlab customization comes down to preference... like me, many in this community seem to prefer a BattleTech-based game verses a "MechWarrior"-based game.

Well i hope its like a tactical simulation. MW 2 and 3 felt like this. MW 4 which was still pretty kewl felt like only an arcade shooter. I never felt like the weapons were doing the damage they were supposed to unless you had ppcs or gause rifles. Missles were always OP. I hope they stay this way. I guess its all left to the devs interpretation of what the game should be though.

As is right now people can still have OP uber specs as long as you have lasers. I know the first thing i am doing is swapping out whatever i have for 6 to 12 lasers. You even have existing mechs with these specs that done even have to be changed up.

You are right that full customization wasnt a big part of table top battletech. But with the compendium it could be done. I used to run games and we would change up the specs on mechs using the rules. It took forever. You gotta look at the great thing about having the pc though. It wont take any time to build and design since the computer is handling all the math. Thats why you rarely did this when playing table top.

I used to spend hours though figuring out what mechs i wanted to give people to use. It was fun pitting a star of clan mechs against a company of inner sphere ones. You gotta remember again the pc is going to simplify all this making what wasnt viable on table top viable on pc.

[Terick]

Javelin156, on 07 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

I used to spend hours though figuring out what mechs i wanted to give people to use. It was fun pitting a star of clan mechs against a company of inner sphere ones. You gotta remember again the pc is going to simplify all this making what wasnt viable on table top viable on pc.

Solaris Skunk Works. Build or modify mechs easily.

http://www.solarissk....com/downloads/

[Ragotag]

Javelin156, on 07 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

Well i hope its like a tactical simulation... MW 4... felt like only an arcade shooter. I never felt like the weapons were doing the damage they were supposed to unless you had ppcs or gause rifles.

I totally agree with you about MW4, however, the real reason that the weapons felt under-powered was because the armor points per ton were nearly twice that of BattleTech TT and most of the MW4 weapons systems had been reduced in damage by 10-20%. It made MW4 way out of balance compared to BattleTech TT.

Javelin156, on 07 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

As is right now people can still have OP uber specs as long as you have lasers. I know the first thing i am doing is swapping out whatever i have for 6 to 12 lasers. You even have existing mechs with these specs that done even have to be changed up.

There are relatively few 'Mech variants that have such a stock configuration, and of those that do, we may or may not see them in MW:O -- time will tell. But your comment regarding Uber laser boats does raise some concerns. According to the example provided in the recent Dev blog, a 'Mech variant having 3 Large Lasers and 5 Medium Lasers could easily be converted into an 11 Medium Laser boat. Although this has the potential to turn that 'Mech into a very one-dimensional Uber weapons platform, the real question is how much of a trade-off is there? Would heat management be an issue or not? If not, then I see a huge problem; but if so then that is perhaps a reasonable trade-off -- an Uber design with a severe weakness. Again, guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Javelin156, on 07 April 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

You are right that full customization wasnt a big part of table top battletech. But with the compendium it could be done.

True, but the BattleTech TT compendium also indicated extreme RP costs and times to effect such radical engineering changes. While it's plausible that we'll see a cost aspect for such customization, what about realistic engineering time requirements? Are the dev's going to utilize a real-time requirement such that you would have to wait weeks or months for such an engineering change to take effect? I doubt it, which means to me that such customization would be well outside the BattleTech TT rules.

Anyway, thanks for posting your point of view on this -- gives us all something to consider.

Edited by Ragotag, 07 April 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[Sporklift]

The big problem that I had with MW4's Mechlab is I couldn't biuld many of my favorite variants related to the actual BT universe. The slot settings were so restrictive that I could only modify the Mad Cat (an Omnimech) to reflect one of its many variants other than the prime (which I don't think even matched the canon prime configuration). This hardpoint system seems a bit less restrictive, if each mech has more slots than it uses normally, then it may be possible to work in all the variants. Maybe include a chassis for certain variants that move well beyond the standard configurations, like replacing an AC with a PPC, or a PPC with a missle launcher. So for a Centurion you would have a standard CN9-A chassis as well as a rarer CN9-AL chassis that replaces the AC/Ballistic slotted arm for a PPC/Energy slotted arm.

I kinda found the Devblog on the Mechlab a bit unclear. I know they had to do something to balance the game and let people customize while keeping each 'mech chassis unique. I figured they would have given each chassis a unique perk like 'harder to knock down' , 'faster acceleration', or 'increased moble accuracy with lasers'.

[Ragotag]

Sporklift, on 07 April 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

The big problem that I had with MW4's Mechlab is I couldn't biuld many of my favorite variants related to the actual BT universe...

That limitation was also because MW4 did not have variants (MekTek's version of MW4: Mercs does have a very limited few); effectively it tied the hard point system to a specific chassis which limited the number of possible BattleTech variants that you could make. This is why I am so pleased with the MW:O mechlab; its hardpoint system is tied to a specific chassis-variant instead. Assuming there are a sufficient number of variants available per chassis (say at least two or more), then the overall flexibility will be huge while adhering closely to BattleTech canon.

[Javelin156]

Terick, on 07 April 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Solaris Skunk Works. Build or modify mechs easily.

http://www.solarissk....com/downloads/

Well i didnt have access to this stuff over 15 years ago.

We sat around at the local game store and did everything by hand. Which was pretty kewl, just really time consuming.

[UncleKulikov]

I'm fine with the system they have shown, since it can prevent abuses and be tweaked as needed. I just hope the user interface is more clear in the actual game.

[ChickenBoss]

Alex Wolfe, on 05 December 2011 - 05:34 AM, said:

I'd like an option of MW4 MT Merc style slots (more than just ballistic/energy/missile), but with multiple variants per mech (preferably with visible differences, like MekTek's Argus/Argus XT).

Otherwise the mechs are just too homogenized. If every 50 tonner can be outfitted with identical stuff, then barring minimal differences in chassis performance, it makes every 50 tonner... the same. Centurion is a Hunchback is an Uziel. I want more difference between mechs than tonnage and cosmetics.

My thoughts exactly.

[Kenyon Burguess]

im fine with the system for 3 reasons.

1- i get some choice
2 - its easy for devs to balance for pvp
3 - less time balancing = more time adding new content.

this is an MMO folks. not tt, not a simulator. not a stand alone game. balance is more important that anything short of the lore.

[Illusion Tokomi]

I realize that I must be a purist but, I would rather have no customization, canonical variants only (Lore anyone?).
OmniMechs can be customized.

Unfortunately this basically deletes a huge game system and selling point, therefore irritates a large chunk of the customers.

Oh well...

Edited by Illusion Tokomi, 01 July 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[a rabid chihuahua]

The systems were designed by the scientists to be a "sweet spot " design for each mech,and all variations were created wiht trial and error by the cannon of the BT history. Mechs weren't supposed to be loaded any which way ,and even in the story's there are issues were a mech couldn't be completely re-equipped for a next battle due to lack of components for that design,couldn't just "oh hell out of missles ,hey mechanic can you just throw a couple of lasers there till we get more missles in?" That's why it was such a shock and scientific enigma when the clans came in with omni technology.If not that, everyone would have one mech design and would just load it up 500 different ways to yesterday.

[BerryChunks]

Mchawkeye, on 08 December 2011 - 03:10 AM, said:

What you are suggesting, as I read it, is to cripple the game because of the 'lore'. which is exactly what shouldn't happen. We know the game operates in real time, day for day, so to put your mech out of the battle for the two/three days you suggest is probably the quickest way to have people lose interest as quickly as possible. you spend your bucks on doing up your mech, camo scheme and all. hula girl in the cockpit (physics et al) and you only get to use it twice a week? That's not going to fly with anyone other then the super hard core.

I'm all for an immersive galaxy and game play/meta-game system. I want it be be complex and exciting. But I don;t want it to adhere so strongly that it destroys itself from within.

The line you think needs to be drawn? It gets drawn at the point where it's a good, enjoyable game.

Like football "cripples" the game by disallowing people to just blatently trip others?

Rules and regs exist to make games more interesting or fun. Or you can play checkers with guns.

Blane, on 01 July 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

The systems were designed by the scientists to be a "sweet spot " design for each mech,and all variations were created wiht trial and error by the cannon of the BT history. Mechs weren't supposed to be loaded any which way ,and even in the story's there are issues were a mech couldn't be completely re-equipped for a next battle due to lack of components for that design,couldn't just "oh hell out of missles ,hey mechanic can you just throw a couple of lasers there till we get more missles in?" That's why it was such a shock and scientific enigma when the clans came in with omni technology.If not that, everyone would have one mech design and would just load it up 500 different ways to yesterday.

actually, they'd load up X way, where X is the most tested and found most OP setup, because complete flexibility allows people to min/max until they find the most OP design, and then nothing else gets used because it's inferior. Same thign happened in chromehounds.