413 replies to this topic

[Phades]

MW3 style conditionally that the physical model actually represented the weapons accurately. MW4 had a lot of failings and made the mechs feel more like omni mechs swapping out parts of a similar type in each location and severely limiting design variation in addition to wholly failing other aspects such as total critical slot allocations.

Cavadus, on 05 December 2011 - 03:02 PM, said:

Gameplay tested variants based on canon variants or an improved hardpoint system.

The critical slot system was a mech creation tool, not a mech customization tool.

In rebooting the system, who says that only mechs previously shown must be the only ones in the game?

If they had a working, fully blown mech editor for designs from scratch, that would be rather awesome. Yeah it would be merc group X commissioning mech foundry Y for (insert name here) design production to be released on X date. Yeah there would have to be a metric boat load of coding and testing behind it to make that reality, but it would be fantastic none the less. It would be similar to hot swapping features between similar chassis, but on a more detailed level.

Although this is mostly my disgust talking for many of the stock mech designs being utter trash...

Edited by Phades, 05 December 2011 - 05:42 PM.

[Yeach]

Stormwolf, on 05 December 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

The Timber Wolf S is a common design, it also mounts jump jets.

How common is the Timberwolf S in 3049? Most (other than the Pryde variant) were non-jumpjet versions.
Did it even exist in that time period?

When people mention jump-capable Clan omnimechs, the MadCat is not the one that one thinks of.
The Thor, Dragonfly, Blackhawk, Gladiator are the omnimechs that are thought of because they ALL have jumpjets as STANDARD equipment.

Anyone think of it strange if a Thor did not have jumpjets.

Edited by Yeach, 05 December 2011 - 07:06 PM.

[Damocles]

Canon variants only. Sorry I dont want to see 2xCERPPC+1xCGAUSS on every mech that can hold it, can jump and carries ECM.
Customization to visual appearance only (paint, cockpit interior)

[Xhaleon]

Stock mechs being gutter trash is the precise reason why they are fun to play, and play against. Not everybody can be as classy as Dudley.

[Holmes]

Visual changes would be fun, I like making something my "own."

The equipment should all be in canon and gameplay balance though. None of that "pay money to win" crap that ruined Combat Arms.

EDIT: Also, I agree it should be MW4 style. Don't forget, there were ... what was it called.. "omni" slots right?

Edited by Holmes, 05 December 2011 - 07:50 PM.

[Arcane Azmadi]

Jredbaron96, on 05 December 2011 - 05:21 AM, said:

MW2 style.

Keep 'em guessing.

That's a NEGATIVE point, not a positive one! When I see an enemy Atlas coming around the corner, I'd like to have at least a vague idea of what I'm facing beyond "it's really big and does tons of damage".

The Mech4 system was well balanced, it GUIDED a mech's loadout without straightjacketing it. A Mauler (one of my favourite assault mechs from that game) would have a fairly even spread of missiles, ballistics and energy weapons, but would it have packs of medium lasers, SRMs and LBX AC-20s, or would it be loaded with paired large lasers, a battery of AC-5s and a double rack of LRMs? Or would it even split the difference by loading all the large weapons, giving it massive punch at both short and long ranges but having trouble dealing with multiple small targets? But despite this flexibility, you couldn't for example turn it into a pure missile boat because it only had so many missile slots. It wasn't in the nature of the mech. I'm in the "too much customization=homogenisation" camp.

Edited by Arcane Azmadi, 05 December 2011 - 07:51 PM.

[ice trey]

Alex Wolfe, on 05 December 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

*snip*

While you make a good point at pointing out that It's called "Mechwarrior online" and not "Battletech online", I'd also like to point out that the game got it's title from Mechwarrior - which was the Pencil & paper roleplaying component to Battletech. For all intents and purposes, it was still Battletech. This nomenclature of the Roleplaying Component only stopped when Wizkids decided to shanghai the name for their clix game in 2002. The Mechwarrior series has always been about simulating combat from the viewpoint of a Mechwarrior in the Battletech universe, It's a peripheral product for telling the same story, in a universe with the same rules. Otherwise, there are a wealth of other games - Armored Core, Earth/Starsiege, Hawken - that could provide alternative "Giant stompy robot" universes that aren't constrained by the Battletech universe and may do their own thing. Still, I would think that when playing a game based on a franchise, it should stay true to the franchise. Star Wars should play like Star Wars, Star Trek like Star Trek, Dawn of War or Space Marine like 40K... Otherwise, it cheapens the feel of the game and feels like nothing more than a money-grab with an established franchise.

...But that's neither here nor there, and doesn't directly address the topic at hand.

If what I'm reading into in your statements are correct, your main fear is that the "Gunblobs" will be the result of using Battletech-style customization, and that the only way of resolving this problem without eliminating customization altogether is to use the more rigid Mechwarrior 4 system. If you take a look at the first paragraph in my first post, you will see how I refer back to the system of making customization unlimited, but with low probability of success, and the probability of success diminishing further depending on how dramatic the change is. If you manage to get your hands on the PDF of Strategic Operations, they go into further detail on this with die-rolling mechanics - all of which can be done by the game itself without referencing dice - or even using the exact same probability scale, but I think that something like that is the way to go. I mean - I'm a fan of single player and the established Battletech canon, and while I liked the idea of limiting customization (As online play taught me it could be heavily exploited), it also meant that the Weird Mechwarrior 4 variant of the Loki could not be made into the Canon Loki Prime, or Loki A. The Catapult could be made, but the Canon DCMS Variant of the Catapult that swaps out the LRM racks for PPCs required me to wait for Mektek to design an alternative. It's frustrating when the game prevents the game from being MORE immersive. As for having these customizations show up, I'm sure that if a fan project like MW:LL can make 'mechs with swappable parts, a fully funded corporate site can make a happy compromise. MW4 and it's predecessors were limited by available technologies of the time, of course.

Munchkinny min-maxed designs happen with the Mechwarrior 4 system as well; in fact, that's where I first encountered, and started to hate, that sort of thing. The only difference between MW3 and MW4's customization system being that with MW4 - it just means that everyone takes the same mech. I remember whole MW4 Vengeance games populated exclusively with Atlases, Daishis, and Nova Cats - nothing else. Later in Mercs, add Gladiator to that mix. In the end, you have the same problem, but in fewer packages. My solution will likely see a similar situation - where people pick the "Best" canon configurations, but canon configurations tend to be much more moderate than custom rigs, and with the high risks involved in customizing them, we'd be unlikely to see any more than minor tweaks on the originals.

As for your reaction to the rulebooks, I'm detecting some animosity towards it. You're right on a few points - There are some rules that just simply won't work well in this game due to being arbitrary reasons for a weapon to be more or less probable to hit targets, or to simplify die rolling. Still, the vast majority work just fine - and the arguement that some of the rules won't work in a computer game does not mean the devs should ignore the 25 year history of the Battletech franchise outright. If anything, Battletech is probably a better source to draw inspiration from than the prior Mechwarrior titles, as Battletech was always made to be PVP, while Mechwarrior PC games were made with single-player in mind as the modus operandi. Low Ammo stock on that Hunchback due to a big-bore weapon? You need to be sure that you don't waste your rounds, and don't try to lone-wolf that Atlas. You could stock extra rounds, but do you want to risk the increased probability of an ammo explosion?

As for the statement of "Feelgood Elitism", that's getting to be a real below-the-belt comment. This is not about elitism, this is about synergy. It seems a waste to have a computer game based on a tabletop game franchise, but is for the most part unrecognizable from said tabletop game franchise. I agree that there has to be exceptional care put into the game to make it playable, as well as appealing to fans of both multiplayer and single player, but that does not by any means that they should abandon everything that's been established up until now - especially when much of the established canon hinges on said tabletop rules. Battletech is what makes Mechwarrior "Mechwarrior"; stop paying attention to Battletech, and it's just some giant robot game.

Edited by ice trey, 05 December 2011 - 10:47 PM.

[Yeach]

ice trey, on 05 December 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

If what I'm reading into in your statements are correct, your main fear is that the "Gunblobs" will be the result of using Battletech-style customization, and that the only way of resolving this problem without eliminating customization altogether is to use the more rigid Mechwarrior 4 system. If you take a look at the first paragraph in my first post, you will see how I refer back to the system of making customization unlimited, but with low probability of success, and the probability of success diminishing further depending on how dramatic the change is. If you manage to get your hands on the PDF of Strategic Operations, they go into further detail on this with die-rolling mechanics - all of which can be done by the game itself without referencing dice - or even using the exact same probability scale, but I think that something like that is the way to go. I mean - I'm a fan of single player and the established Battletech canon, and while I liked the idea of limiting customization (As online play taught me it could be heavily exploited), it also meant that the Weird Mechwarrior 4 variant of the Loki could not be made into the Canon Loki Prime, or Loki A. The Catapult could be made, but the Canon DCMS Variant of the Catapult that swaps out the LRM racks for PPCs required me to wait for Mektek to design an alternative. It's frustrating when the game prevents the game from being MORE immersive. As for having these customizations show up, I'm sure that if a fan project like MW:LL can make 'mechs with swappable parts, a fully funded corporate site can make a happy compromise. MW4 and it's predecessors were limited by available technologies of the time, of course.

Although I agree that we should try to be able to create most of the alternate mech configs,

If some ALTERNATE (not primary) configurations have to be sacrificed then so be it.
That is the compromise you have to make to ensure that a Catapult is view as a stand-off "missile-toting" mech and not a close-range AC mech like a Hunchback.

ice trey, on 05 December 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Munchkinny min-maxed designs happen with the Mechwarrior 4 system as well; in fact, that's where I first encountered, and started to hate, that sort of thing. The only difference between MW3 and MW4's customization system being that with MW4 - it just means that everyone takes the same mech. I remember whole MW4 Vengeance games populated exclusively with Atlases, Daishis, and Nova Cats - nothing else. Later in Mercs, add Gladiator to that mix. In the end, you have the same problem, but in fewer packages. My solution will likely see a similar situation - where people pick the "Best" canon configurations, but canon configurations tend to be much more moderate than custom rigs, and with the high risks involved in customizing them, we'd be unlikely to see any more than minor tweaks on the originals.

I don't know what type of games you were in MW4 Vengeance, but with the bias tonnage attrition that lighter mechs got, I saw a variety of different mechs used in the games I played; especially in stock config play. I also got a whole lot of play of my MRM MadCat on the city maps.

Of course the use of Atlas and Daishis is a totally different problem being no limitations of taking the largest chassis combined with MW4 stress on the bigger is better philosophy (which IMO is the right way to go)

Ultimately the reason I do not like full customization is the perchance to place all weapons in the torso/legs as opposed where they should belong -> in the arms of the mechs.

[Stormwolf]

Yeach, on 05 December 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

How common is the Timberwolf S in 3049? Most (other than the Pryde variant) were non-jumpjet versions.
Did it even exist in that time period?

When people mention jump-capable Clan omnimechs, the MadCat is not the one that one thinks of.
The Thor, Dragonfly, Blackhawk, Gladiator are the omnimechs that are thought of because they ALL have jumpjets as STANDARD equipment.

Anyone think of it strange if a Thor did not have jumpjets.

That is not much of a argument, I think that you are totally missing the point of omni mechs here.

Yeach, on 05 December 2011 - 11:47 PM, said:

Although I agree that we should try to be able to create most of the alternate mech configs,

If some ALTERNATE (not primary) configurations have to be sacrificed then so be it.
That is the compromise you have to make to ensure that a Catapult is view as a stand-off "missile-toting" mech and not a close-range AC mech like a Hunchback.

Erm, what do you consider "alternate", a CPLT-K2 mounts two PPC's instead of LRM racks. It doesn't make it any less of a Catapult then the CPLT-C1. Throwing something like that out would be a slap to the face of many DC players for instance.

Yeach, on 05 December 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

I don't know what type of games you were in MW4 Vengeance, but with the bias tonnage attrition that lighter mechs got, I saw a variety of different mechs used in the games I played; especially in stock config play. I also got a whole lot of play of my MRM MadCat on the city maps.

Of course the use of Atlas and Daishis is a totally different problem being no limitations of taking the largest chassis combined with MW4 stress on the bigger is better philosophy (which IMO is the right way to go)

Ultimately the reason I do not like full customization is the perchance to place all weapons in the torso/legs as opposed where they should belong -> in the arms of the mechs.

There usually is not a lot of space in the legs, even less so when a mech has endo, ferro, A-pods or jumpjets. The torso has always been used to house weapons, just ook up any record sheets.

Has MW4 been your only exposure to the BT universe?

[Thorn Hallis]

Quote

True customization or not

Neither the one nor the other. Stock mechs all the way.

[Alex Wolfe]

ice trey, on 05 December 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Still, I would think that when playing a game based on a franchise, it should stay true to the franchise. Star Wars should play like Star Wars, Star Trek like Star Trek, Dawn of War or Space Marine like 40K... Otherwise, it cheapens the feel of the game and feels like nothing more than a money-grab with an established franchise.

Sorry for snipping this much, but I already clogged this thread, and this post has grown to be quite huge. The bolded line is where we agree, but our conclusions are different. I wouldn't say they should "play like them", more "feel like them". Star Wars and Star Trek are movies, so the games based on them don't "play" like them. It would mean that you pay and then watch. Warhammer 40K, however, is a game, one that I happen to be quite familiar with.

What rules DoW happens to have in common with WH40k? The answer: "barely any". No point values, totally revamped, wargear, absence of some wargear, no morale checks on firing, no breaking squad coherency, no instant death, no tank shock, no routing the fleeing squad, no threat of death while using psychic powers, no infiltration as we know it, no scouts as we know it, no assigning kills by the controlling player, no even point values, no points upon unit kills, no armor saves and armor penetration... the list goes on and on and on.

Space Marine? There's a guy ripping smaller guys to shreds. That's the extent of "rules".

Now, did those games fail in representing the universe by their total lack of adherence to the rules? The answer in my, and most reviewers' opinion is a resounding "NO". Is that a cheap money grab? No, they are excellent games standing on their own merits gameplay-wise. And that's because they respected the source material. Not the inner workings, not the dice, wargear or armor saves, but the story, the feel, the future where there's only war, instantly recognizable as WH40k. People don't usually go "you can take a Rhino as a non-dedicated transport, blashphemy!" or "I cannot recreate my all-melee orcs, this isn't canon!". Those games capture the feel of books, of artwork, of stories. They represent the universe splendidly. For all the rules of the TT, look no further than... the TT. It's not it - it is indubitably Warhammer 40K, but it's not TT.

That's what I'm expecting from a Battletech game. Not giant robots. Mechs that fight for the Houses, Mercenaries or the Clans, that look like mechs, move like mechs and sound like mechs. I don't expect there to always be critical slots and critical hits, and a random critical hit table because the tabletop has them. I expect there to be PPC's that are stronger than medium lasers. I expect the developers to make a working game out of the excellent source material, to give the player options without jeopardizing the immersion. DoW doesn't play like WH40K and it's fine, because even WH40K's rules themselves change from edition to edition, while the universe remains stable. That's what makes it the game that it is, not how easy or hard it is for a lascannon to knock out a vehicle in the current iteration.

Which brings me to my other point...

ice trey, on 05 December 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

As for the statement of "Feelgood Elitism", that's getting to be a real below-the-belt comment. This is not about elitism, this is about synergy. It seems a waste to have a computer game based on a tabletop game franchise, but is for the most part unrecognizable from said tabletop game franchise. I agree that there has to be exceptional care put into the game to make it playable, as well as appealing to fans of both multiplayer and single player, but that does not by any means that they should abandon everything that's been established up until now - especially when much of the established canon hinges on said tabletop rules. Battletech is what makes Mechwarrior "Mechwarrior"; stop paying attention to Battletech, and it's just some giant robot game.

I admit, it may have been a bit harsh, but hear me out. I'm not an enemy of tabletop games, I've played my fair share of all, tabletop, computer, tag and whatnot. I'm not advotacting abandoning everything. Still, a game is supposed to represent armed conflict in 31st century, using giant walking machines, in service of noble Houses. That's the long and short of it, just like DoW is supposed to represent armed conflict in age X, with participants Y, using weapons Z, and it passes with flying colors.

However, while in DoW's case it's about the feel and canon accuracy, in Battletech's case, for some reason, it seems to be all about the rules. "The rules allow for X, I want it to happen". "Don't forget critical slots, they have to be in the game" (even though some people already mentioned that crit slots was a tool for mech building, not outfitting, and has flaws when it comes to the latter). "What happens when something gets taken out by a critical hit? I want critical hits and random locations". Why does it matter so much? I understand people like the game, but they are just rules... they're subject to change, and it IS possible, as evidenced by pretty much every franchise out there, to do so while preserving the feel of the original. Yet there's so much asking for copy-pasting everything, giving it graphics and calling it a day.

Yes, sometimes it's genuine, but sometimes it does reek of elitism. "I was here first, I know the true Battletech, you shooter gamers stay with Microsoft's arcady MW4". Sad, a bit annoying, uncalled for in a relatively small community, but I guess unavoidable. I don't dislike the TT, I don't dislike its players on principle, I merely dislike that tendency.

Lastly, I've said it before, but MW3 was quite a bad game, gameplay wise (I did enjoy it a ton back when it was out, fresh and beautiful, but just looking from perspective) - part of the reason is because it tried to cram so many things from the tabletop and they just didn't work out. The scale of engagements was different, so small ammo values and armor didn't work out (these values aren't based on physics - they're based on average engagement length in the tabletop game, with multiple, somewhat expendable units per player, that's why they're so small. Gauss rounds aren't supposed to weigh 125 kg each because someone in FASA had a physics degree, they're 8/ton because of TT balance, just like there's unlimited ammo in WH40K but limited in Space Marine). They needed MFB to compensate. Easy tripping didn't work out. Gunboatblob mechlab didn't work out. Floating reticule didn't work out (anyone can point and click a mouse, potshots ahoy).

Mechs ended up fragile and weak... not like "fearsome war machines" they are described as in canon. Weak like minis on the table. Like Space Marines dying from a single, stray lasgun shot in TT Warhammer, yet shrugging it off in canon, in Dawn of War and Space Marine. That's what Space Marine (the game) did right: it made the feel of being one palpable.

I want MWO to follow canon (at least when it still has its plot together, before 3060's weirdness starting to happen... canon can be good and bad, just ask George Lucas). I want it to work out. I don't want a tabletop simulation, meaning I'm sitting in a glorified miniature, waiting for a dice roll to take me out. It doesn't feel like Mechwarrior. I want a giant, stompy war machine, that's what Battletech is about in the end. Not Long Tom Ullers.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 06 December 2011 - 02:35 AM.

[Ivan Ivanovitsh Zimmer]

Without MW4 Hardpoints it will be just a question of "how much tonnage i can squeeze inside" and the game will fall to few optimum chassis in each category

[verybad]

Complete freedom just leads to the most min maxed designs being devloped, and being the most effective in gameplay. To be competitive, you also end up having to use those most effective designs and techniques. Still remember medium laser Shadowcats using COD and Lag to kill targets in MW3...It was very boring after a while...

Visual changes when a mech changes it's layout would help, but the freedom an Omnimech has shouldn't be available for regular mechs.

Here's something I just thought up.

You buy templates for a mechs layout. Standardized layouts are much, much cheaper. Once you have a template for a layout you can set up a mech chassis you own to that layout so long as you have the necessary equipment in your supplies.

If you want a personalized layout you pay much more than a regular template would cost. Techs have to reprogram you mech's computers to deal with nonstandard weapons, gyro to deal with new mass layouts, etc.

Customized templates start with standard mech's template which cost more the more changes you make, and the more drastic they are.
For example, changing weapons costs more the more difference in tonnage, difference in type, and difference in technology level. The same goes for things like Heatsinks, Armor, Electronics, etc.

Base cost for a template has to be paid every time you save a new template PLUS the cost for the changes, whixh act as a multiplier.

Omni mechs wouldn't have more expensive custom layouts, but the basic chassis would be much more expensive. They would still cost something to develop new layouts, but not as much. Omnimechs woudl also come with a group of templates they already have available.

But then I can't really use the Mechlab you say? But there's one place you can test them out in the universe.
Everything is free to do on Solaris. You just can't take it with you to (But if you win matches in it.you can even buy it at a reduced price, the price being reduced by the number of consecutive fights you win, if you lose a match, then the template is no longer reduced in price. Fortune is fickle.

Clan Omnimech templates can't be reduced in cost by duels on Solaris."Zellbrigen Duels" might be an option however

Edited by verybad, 06 December 2011 - 02:20 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Ivan Ivanovitsh Zimmer, on 06 December 2011 - 02:09 AM, said:

Without MW4 Hardpoints it will be just a question of "how much tonnage i can squeeze inside" and the game will fall to few optimum chassis in each category

That is exactly what happened in MW4, you will barely see anybody in a Osiris or Flea for that matter.


At any rate, I think that mechlab shouldn't be available 24/7, it should be unlocked as a special reward for completing certain missions.

Not every mechwarrior in the BT universe has a custom ride, this sort of thing is usually exclusive for elite warriors, the Opacus Venatori come to mind here (all of them had custom rides while their mooks had standard designs). And even then they are usually only confined to one custom design.

Omni mechs would be a exception since they are so easy to reconfigure, but they would have to be rare on the IS side (again feeding into the availability I mentioned in my earlier post).

I wouldn't even mind if I could only pick from the canon variants of a omni mech, those things are iconic. A lot of people on this board aren't aware of this though and would potentially throw out a awesome design like a Summoner/Thor B. The MW4 mechlab fails completely here, I couldn't even build my trademark ride, the Timber Wolf A for instance.

Just stick with the canon, the TT configurations are used in the novels and are at some points important to the story.

[Alex Wolfe]

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 02:34 AM, said:

That is exactly what happened in MW4, you will barely see anybody in a Osiris or Flea for that matter.

They don't pick up Osiris of Flea because Osiris and Flea kind of suck in MW4, that's it. With proper balancing and giving light mechs some role besides "sniper if you can put enough LL there", like the devs are promising, mechs like those could find their own niche.

The game isn't in alpha yet and the balance, weapon strength etc is anyone's guess, who knows - maybe medium lasers and SRM will be a decent choice? So many vehicles and mechs pack normal SRMs in canon and it's described as sufficient, maybe they'll make it sufficient indeed, and default loadouts decent for the first time in the franchise's history? Otherwise, why would they be produced as such, it's not like weapon manufacturers make them to be ineffective, right?

Or they could just be cheap. I remember using Osiris a lot in the campaign at the start, when broke. Being broke keeps the players honest, and keep in mind that there will be no Cougars or Shadowcats to fill the "fast, annoying sniper" niche. "Decent" over "just cheap", though.

I'll still take "don't pick Osiris it sucks" over "pick whatever lol, they're all the same anyway".

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 06 December 2011 - 02:49 AM.

[SeDevri]

I like the idea of full customization, but i feel it would devalue the effects of an Omni mech. I feel that a mech should be able to switch out any weapon, for another weapon of that type unless its omni. This would make more sense from the level 1 refit perspective and make it a bit more challenging to boot.

[Stormwolf]

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 02:43 AM, said:

They don't pick up Osiris of Flea because Osiris and Flea kind of suck in MW4, that's it. With proper balancing in MWO and giving light mechs some role besides "sniper if you can put enough LL there", like the devs are promising, mechs like those could find their own niche.

Or they could just be cheap. I remember using Osiris a lot in the campaign at the start, when broke. Being broke keeps the players honest, and keep in mind that there will be no Cougars or Shadowcats to fill the "fast, annoying sniper" niche.

I'll still take "don't pick Osiris it sucks" over "pick whatever lol, they're all the same anyway".

But you have to admit that those two pan out way better under the TT construction rules.

Just lock the internal structure and engine and you will have unique mechs. Things like MASC would also be fixed.
This makes things even more interesting when XL engines, endo and ferro become mainstream, you would need to buy a new mech for this.

Edited by Stormwolf, 06 December 2011 - 02:54 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 02:53 AM, said:

But you have to admit that those two pan out way better under the TT construction rules.

Just lock the internal structure and engine and you will have unique mechs. Things like MASC would also be fixed.
This makes things even more interesting when XL engines, endo and ferro become mainstream, you would need to buy a new mech for this.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I like mechs that have a cerain "character" to them. Nova Cat and Awesome meaning energy weapons abound. Seeing a Catapult or Longbow and expecting missiles. Seeing a Mad Cat or Daishi and expecting anything and everything. A Hunchback rounding the corner most likely meaning heavy ballistic hurt from its shoulder. That's why the designs look like that, form follows function.

The "locked internal" was already done, in MechCommander (an excellent game by itself). The end result was that all that mattered was the speed and weight of your PPC/pulse laser boat, with an odd Ultra Heavy AC thrown here and there. The chassis ended up mattering so little that the game only had one Clan and IS mech per weight category, even changing weight of a few mechs to fill in the gaps. Clan mechs were faster, thus better, heavier mechs could fit more of the best weapon in the game. End customization. Hardly exciting.

[Stormwolf]

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I like mechs that have a cerain "character" to them. Nova Cat and Awesome meaning energy weapons abound. Seeing a Catapult or Longbow and expecting missiles. Seeing a Mad Cat or Daishi and expecting anything and everything. A Hunchback rounding the corner most likely meaning heavy ballistic hurt from its shoulder. That's why the designs look like that, form follows function.

There are a ton of canon variants of those mechs that don't conform to what you expect for instance:
- Nova Cat B is a missileboat for instance, other variants deviate from the all energy primary.
- Awesome AWS-8V has a LRM15 + Large laser
- Catapult, it has been mentioned before.
- Longbow, I'll give you this one, but there is a rare LGB-13NAIS with 6 Autocanon/5's
- Hunchback, oh boy, this mech has variants for nearly every weapon system available, check out the HBK-5P for a textbook laserboat.

The examples above might not be known to you, but there are tons of people who will enjoy seeing and playing these mechs. We aren't eternally stuck with the fluff designs from the TRO's, there's variants for everything.

A hardpoint system would potentially ***** any player over who for instance wants to convert their Axman AXM-1N into a AXM-2N instead of buying that variant, "no you can't put your LRM racks in there".

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 03:03 AM, said:

The "locked internal" was already done, in MechCommander (an excellent game by itself). The end result was that all that mattered was the speed and weight of your PPC/pulse laser boat, with an odd Ultra Heavy AC thrown here and there. The chassis ended up mattering so little that the game only had one Clan and IS mech per weight category, even changing weight of a few mechs to fill in the gaps. Clan mechs were faster, thus better, heavier mechs could fit more of the best weapon in the game. End customization. Hardly exciting.

Never really played that one, can't comment on it.

[Alex Wolfe]

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:

There are a ton of canon variants of those mechs that don't conform to what you expect for instance:
- Nova Cat B is a missileboat for instance, other variants deviate from the all energy primary.
- Awesome AWS-8V has a LRM15 + Large laser
- Catapult, it has been mentioned before.
- Longbow, I'll give you this one, but there is a rare LGB-13NAIS with 6 Autocanon/5's
- Hunchback, oh boy, this mech has variants for nearly every weapon system available, check out the HBK-5P for a textbook laserboat.

The examples above might not be known to you, but there are tons of people who will enjoy seeing and playing these mechs. We aren't eternally stuck with the fluff designs from the TRO's, there's variants for everything.

A hardpoint system would potentially ***** any player over who for instance wants to convert their Axman AXM-1N into a AXM-2N instead of buying that variant, "no you can't put your LRM racks in there".

Never really played that one, can't comment on it.

I'm not against those variants. I'm against switching them on the fly and too much freedom with the relatively arcane mech technology. Most of the in-game variants in MW4 are been stock, and they behave like stock, within the reasonable stock limits. I'm not saying I want them all stock for MWO. MW3 system is "all-variants-in-one and more, for no price". Every mech was effectively an omnimech better than actual omni's (all of the benefits, no limitations) which makes no sense whatsoever on top of being kind of broken. Mechs' loadout had no correspondence to the design. You've mentioned variants, but MW3's mechs aren't "variants". They're amorphous.

Here's what I'd like to see: if you have a DRG-1N, get a hold of a DRG-1G's capacitor-filled arm (which means energy hardpoints as opposed to ballistic, and a different look), happen to have a crack tech team, time and credits to burn, go ahead and graft it onto the chassis. Add some slight tweaks to the gyro to compensate for different balance than the stock 1N you got at the start. But you won't mount a Catapult arm there to make it spew missiles, no can do. You can't have a mech switch weapons and all systems as you please, sometimes corresponding to variants by pure luck, like an elegant lady switches hats.

If you get a Turkina (unlikely, but just for the sake of it), go ahead and switch its weapon pods to whatever. But the jump jets are hard-wired, and no non-jump jet mounted Turkina torsos exist. They are staying.

What I don't want is "pick anything, strip everything, pack whatever, switch engine, drop jump jets, ready for action" that MW3 and MC had. Cost, money, and factory parts (lest you change your mech into an unbalanced cripple, trying to add something that may not click with the rest of the chassis, which results - "frankenmechs" is pretty much random, and randomness is not usually welcome in a multiplayer game).

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 06 December 2011 - 04:57 AM.