413 replies to this topic

[Brenden]

Eh, I say I agree with the one that claimed that in a sense you COULD have a 'mech use any weapon at the pilot's disposal...it would just take a very, VERY long time and cost ALOT of money. In terms of Gameplay, you could I.E. Take the PPCs out a Warhammer and add AC-10s or even LB-X AC/10s, but it would take maybe a day or two real time in order to put it on, opposed to the hour time it would take to install maybe two Large Lasers or Snub-Nose PPCs.

I don't know, that's just my suggestion.

[Huntsman]

As much as folks like to bash MW4 for its arcadiness compared to the older games, ya gotta admit, the hardpoint system was a hell of alot more realistic than a mech being nothing more than an open vessel into which you could pile in anything anywhere.

To date the mechlab concept for MWLL is the best I've seen (and it was no where near ready for release when I first saw it on youtube years ago, and still isn't) with their pod system which can significantly alter the appearance of the mech based on what is being mounted where.

Whatever the case, a hardpoint system, while it doesn't eliminate boating (particularly with omni hardpoints), does help to mitigate it.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

Angelicon, on 05 December 2011 - 08:08 AM, said:

Your topc title says "or not" but you don't have an "or not" option.
While I like the idea of a little customization, I think both of the options provided will be too prone to munchkin-itis
I really hope the devs go with providing several semi-canon variants, then letting players make very minor tuning tweaks rather than wholesale replacement of weapon systems (which -will be- abused in every way possible).

the title reads "TRUE customization or not" Mechwarrior 2 and 3 being true cutomization to the TT rule set. where as MW4 is simplified and not true to TT rules. personaly the way i see it, the customization system was created to build unique mechs, that unqueness was eliminated with the Mw4 lab most players would just copy another persons configuration.because the MW4 system made it too easy.

MW4 was really annoying in customization everything was soo limited. i WANT TO choose where my heat sinks are placed, i WANT to choose whee my electronics go. i want to choose my armour/structure for battlemechs. again MW4 eleiminated all of these options which imo killed the game for me. not saying they should all be omni.

anyone who hasnt should go check out AT1-BT there customization system is the best of both worlds (refer to my previous post)

[Nik Van Rhijn]

No customisation, dev produced variant kits only.

[wolf74]

Of the two choices I have here I would have to pick MW2/3 but I would have some limits on them


1st You have to the Internals of the mech to start. So you have a Normal internal Chassis or Endo-Steel internals Or Composite Internals. No on the fly swapping this.
Omni-Mechs: when they come in to the game, Lock down Armor, Engine, & Locked Gear in the unit. AKA your Puma/Adder will always have that Flamer.

Battlemechs: You have the Basic CBT Critical system, but you could do a MW4 Overlay on the mech Limiting the areas where you can put weapon system. This system you would have to look at the Mech-Stock Configuration so you can make the basic Version of them.

The Battlemech would look Something like this in AT1
http://home.grandeco...h%20Layouts.pdf

[Brakkyn]

Neither option is satisfactory. "True customization" is alot like freedom: it's great, to a point, but when given too much, bad things happen.

Many weapons would be shelved, jump jets would be far too prevalent, certain chassis would be completely overlooked, and (in the case of a criticals system) every 'Mech is essentially an OmniMech--no different except bigger or smaller.

A hardpoint system isn't perfect, either. This is why I continue to advocate a system that allows only canon variants with no "true" ability to customize a 'Mech. I know it isn't favored, but I think it's the best option.

[Black Sunder]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 December 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

No customisation, dev produced variant kits only.

I don't like thinking either. It makes my head hurt.

[ice trey]

I want to see true customizations, but with limitations.

In Battletech, you get true customization, but using any sort of campaign rules, the more dramatic your customization is, the harder and more expensive it is to do. I'm not talking about 70-90% success rate, I'm talking VERY SLIM numbers. Unless you've got the most elite technician team out there, chances are the customization screws up and you'll end up with a severely gimped machine, if not broken, outright. What is more, but the maintenance costs are astronomical. Granted that the maintenance costs in the game are enough that pilots can just barely keep their 'mechs repaired from mission to mission, and a 'dead mech means taking some big steps backwards, then this will work. Players will still have the option of making dramatically different customizations, but with even the most basic of customizations being risky, and the difficulty of customization increasing the more the customization deviates from the original, we should still see a lot more stock-'mechs and minor field refits than one-shot-killers and auto-winners.

The other reason why I want to see true customization - that is to say, true to the Battletech style - is because no matter what customization system you put in the game, people will quickly and easily get used to it, and accept it as the norm. If people are used to what the Battletech system looks like (Unlike the strange system Mechwarrior 4 uses) then it's easier for them to pick up the tabletop game. If they are unfamiliar with the system, then they get alienated, start calling the tabletop game "Too Complex" because they came to the table expecting a tabletop version of the video game they just played (So if it's not the other way around, you see the problem) and give up immediately when they discover it's not the case.

Long story short, Full customization because there has not been a Battletech-universe game in nearly a decade, and there hasn't been a true-to-the-original battletech game in a dozen years. Computer games are the best marketing tool for tabletop games, as there's no real way to market a tabletop game to a layman. If this game succeeds in increasing the number of players of the tabletop game over the next five years or so (At a significantly better rate than MW4 did, which should not be a tough task), then I'll consider it a success.

Edited by ice trey, 05 December 2011 - 09:41 AM.

[Huntsman]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 05 December 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

No customisation, dev produced variant kits only.

I wouldn't want this, and I think mechlab is a huge part of the fun of mechwarrior genre for most of the community. I've spend hours "playing" the game and by playing I mean sitting in mechlab tweaking my mech. I'd be driving in my car and suddenly inspiration would hit and as soon as I got home I'd be in mechlab seeing how viable a new concept was.

There are surely the hardcore no lab guys, but just dev produced variants will be a huge disappointment in the minds of easily 70% of people playing the game.

Now, while I would normally say that there is no way a MW dev team wouldn't include a mechlab, I give it a fair shot that the MWO team will do just that simply because this is a P4F game. New and snazzy variants will be incentive #1 for folks to spend money.

Edited by Huntsman, 05 December 2011 - 09:53 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Given that the IS didn't get Omni Tech until 3058 (reverse engineered it) using lesser materials to boot, the Dev seem to want to use the Time line so Heavy Mech modifications will have to be restricted somewhat.

I do not think they will make us wait 10 years to get to Omni's and their mod-ability levels, it does seem prudent to believe at the outset, they will design chassis and variants and allow some salvaged parts + cost + swap out based customization rules.

Then they can speed up the Omni time line to suit as more and more folks whine about not having their all-one weapon Alpha Boats available.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 05 December 2011 - 09:42 AM.

[Haeso]

A carefully monitored and revised system like MW4's hardpoints, is what I'd like to see. Not based on weapon type, but based on equipment/weapon size. Weapon type was a silly as hell restriction, it was so funny seeing how many TT variants simply couldn't exist in MW4.

[Alex Wolfe]

Kodiak Jorgensson, on 05 December 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

the title reads "TRUE customization or not" Mechwarrior 2 and 3 being true cutomization to the TT rule set. where as MW4 is simplified and not true to TT rules. personaly the way i see it, the customization system was created to build unique mechs, that unqueness was eliminated with the Mw4 lab most players would just copy another persons configuration.because the MW4 system made it too easy.

It's not about preventing people from building "unique mechs", it's about keeping mechs' identity and prevent them being merely amorphous "gun blobs". It's not the MW4 system that enabled people to copy another person's configuration - copying cookie cutter builds and strategies has existed since games were made. It's not like MW3, with its "freedom", wasn't full of light AC/laser boats shooting at legs to trip. What exactly did MW3's mechlab help to prevent?

ice trey, on 05 December 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

The other reason why I want to see true customization - that is to say, true to the Battletech style - is because no matter what customization system you put in the game, people will quickly and easily get used to it, and accept it as the norm. If people are used to what the Battletech system looks like (Unlike the strange system Mechwarrior 4 uses) then it's easier for them to pick up the tabletop game. If they are unfamiliar with the system, then they get alienated, start calling the tabletop game "Too Complex" because they came to the table expecting a tabletop version of the video game they just played (So if it's not the other way around, you see the problem) and give up immediately when they discover it's not the case.

I kind of understand your sentiment (not share it, but understand), however bear in mind that this game is called "Mechwarrior Online", not "Battletech Online".

TT rules isn't some kind of enlightened truth from a higher being - they're made for a purpose, that is, to simulate a skirmish of giant machines for... a tabletop environment. Some of those things just don't translate too well, and as such a different type game may be better off without them (RNG being one of them). There is no arbitrary need for "complexity" you seem to be craving. There's no need for people to be "used to" tabletop Battletech to grasp a computer game. That's just feelgood elitism for the sake of elitism.

There is no need for literal copying rules for a turn-based strategy and apply it to a simulation, it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The game needs rules, sure. But holding onto the BT rulebooks like they're the Holy Bible will just create a clunky, unplayable mess, because those rules are for a different kind of game (and MW3's gameplay, while beautiful and atmospheric, was exactly that - a clunky mess. I know it felt different 12 years ago, but try and play it now, or watch someone play and see how static, random and "potshotty" the fighting is, how low the ammo reserves are, how exploitative the heat sink system is, how much of a crutch the MFB really is, and how all this customization gave multiplayer were easy boats).

Lastly, I'm really curious what's so "strange" about MW4 mech lab in your opinion. When one sees a gun barrel on a mech, it stands to reason that it's a slot for a gun. A missile rack would mean missiles. It's hard to imagine a system more intuitive and making more sense. I'm all for allowing to customize within reason - replace a missile arm to a direct fire one, for a cost - but it's the foot lasers with unused arms that MW3 allowed that made little sense, not weapon slots. Mechs have arms. They're supposed to use them.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 05 December 2011 - 10:11 AM.

[Brenden]

Look, can't we just wait until the game comes out and then begin to talk about this?
Really, once we have more information we will be able to discuss about this freely without looking like Morons about something this game hasn't shown us yet.

[Alex Wolfe]

Brenden, on 05 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Look, can't we just wait until the game comes out and then begin to talk about this?
Really, once we have more information we will be able to discuss about this freely without looking like Morons about something this game hasn't shown us yet.

The thread is asking about which system is the favorite out of three games that are out for, on average, more than a decade. It doesn't even make a direct reference to MWO, it's just a wishlist. What's your point?

[Agasutin]

Brenden, on 05 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

Look, can't we just wait until the game comes out and then begin to talk about this?
Really, once we have more information we will be able to discuss about this freely without looking like Morons about something this game hasn't shown us yet.

This is a discussion board, and people will stipulate and assume until further notice, where they will modify their views accordingly(or not).

[Wolf Hreda]

I actually like the MWLL-esque idea. Too much crazy crap happens with the full MW3 style system. And the MW4 system was just a little oppressive. This sounds like a decent compromise.

[Cyttorak]

Didn't read other posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned before:

1) MW2&3 had customization according to canon build rules up to a point. Those games left out the fact that (according to Strategic Operations, page 188) there are different levels of refit. For example, changing the engine type from normal fusion to XL fusion, is a process that can only be done at a factory capable of producing that specific mech variant...it cannot be done in the field. I doubt that your unit is "hanging out at the factory" in-game. It also left out the fact that modification is a risky business, and there is a chance that your tech will end up ******** up your mech by trying. Then, there's the cost of even trying, etc...
2) (probably mentioned somewhere) In 3048, unlimited customization is simply not done due to the degraded understanding of the tech involved. Most techs are like tinkerer mechanics; they can't build a Ferrari engine from scratch.
3) Canon build rules favored the highest tonnage mech in any class, mainly because you got the max amount of left-over tonnage after installing a given size engine. So, taking a 65 ton mech would always be worse than taking a 75 ton mech...if you didn't include cost. With unlimited customization, you automatically devalued any other chassis that wasn't at the top of its weight class because the biggest mech always gave you more heat sinks, weapons, armor, etc.
4) Depending on the combat mechanics, certain weapons were generally better than others. This leads to min/maxing behavior like missile-boats and laser-boats.

For all these reasons, unlimited customization is a bad idea. It's been done before and we all saw what that led to. The most liberal use of the Mechlab that avoids these old issues, IMO, would be the MW 2&3 system with economics/refit level/refit risk thrown in.

[Cyttorak]

Sorry for responding to my own post, but I want to illustrate the example:

Say you have a DRG-1N Dragon, which has a stock fusion engine, and you want to modify it to include more weapons/armor/etc.
You want to do this by freeing up tonnage by changing the engine to an XL model. Since this is a factory-level refit, in my system, it cannot be done.
You would need to purchase the DRG-5K or DRG-C, because these are the only stock versions that include the XL engine.

[Wolvers]

If they truely want to keep it as close as they can to the TT, then you should be able to do whatever as long as you have the money and time to do the modifications.

[Cyttorak]

Wolvers, on 05 December 2011 - 11:32 AM, said:

If they truely want to keep it as close as they can to the TT, then you should be able to do whatever as long as you have the money and time to do the modifications.

As I said, according to the canon rulebooks not all modifications are possible...unless you happen to live in a factory that can do those specific mods. Other than that (which admittedly is a big point), I agree with your view.