413 replies to this topic

[Stormwolf]

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

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 so far have been stock, and they behave like stock.

I agree, there should be a lot of time and money involved. Some refits could take weeks in the canon IIRC.

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

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.

I won't be expecting any franken mechs, it is not so much the arm, rather the goodies inside of it. Missile weapons can be mounted on any arm without creating a massive 4x5 block. The early art for the Atlas for instance only showed a few tubes where the LRM20 should be, the in-universe explanation was that the missiles pop up after each other out of the tubes. Such a system would look like the arm mounted launcher on the Bombardier if you would attach it to the Dragon.

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

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

Those things stay in there because it is too much trouble to get them out. Besides, Jade Falcon combat styles seem to favor manoeuvrability over speed (like the Ice Hellions). But I agree, everything outside of the podspace should be locked out.

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

What I don't want is "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).

It appears that we have found some common ground here (don't agree on the jumpjets though). You should also consider that it shouldn't be possible to convert a mech from single to double heatsinks or add endo to a existing design.

Also, no frankenmechs.

[Uziell]

At First I thought oh that would be fun to put any weapon you wanted on a mech, but that leaves to many variables that could make gameplay unfair, and it does not really mean anything if you can get the same load out as a madcat or a Warhawk when you are piloting a thanatos.I mean, whats the point of having a pricy mech when you can get the same load out on a way cheaper mech.

Steiner FOR THE WIN!

[Mason Grimm]

I understand you all have different points of view and it's great to see a lot of you are impassioned by your beliefs HOWEVER the poll/topic is more along the lines of "what are your thoughts" and not so much about "why do you disagree with other peoples thoughts over and over and over again".

Friendly and constructive discussion = good
Attempting to challenge another persons viewpoint, because it disagrees with yours = not so good

No, I'm not directing this at anyone just a friendly reminder because I lub you guys!

[Alex Wolfe]

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

It appears that we have found some common ground here (don't agree on the jumpjets though). You should also consider that it shouldn't be possible to convert a mech from single to double heatsinks or add endo to a existing design.

Indeed it does, and I agree. I would argue that it should be possible to mount some newer technology in existing chassis for a price (similar to the way - dare I say it - the modern fighter jets are being refit to extend their service period). Things such as zombie-slow Centurion for example, while fine for the tabletop, would just result in the design immediately going obsolete in a real-time combat environment (the reason why even MW3 decided to speed it up).

It makes sense in-universe, that military commanders would try and bring older chassis up to speed, rather than commission an entirely new mech for infinitely greater cost (while for the TT it just means "don't like the speed, buy our new line of better mech minis!").

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

I won't be expecting any franken mechs, it is not so much the arm, rather the goodies inside of it. Missile weapons can be mounted on any arm without creating a massive 4x5 block. The early art for the Atlas for instance only showed a few tubes where the LRM20 should be, the in-universe explanation was that the missiles pop up after each other out of the tubes. Such a system would look like the arm mounted launcher on the Bombardier if you would attach it to the Dragon.

I don't think reattaching a factory-made arm to a factory-made chassis of the same type (and some gyro/reactor output tweaks to compensate for a change, for which there must be data ready as well) would mean a frankenmech, since the two are obviously meant to fit together, with the only difference being it's your technicians doing the job rather than Luthien Armor Works (cost: an arm and a leg). I'm strongly against attaching parts from one mechs to another, with the exception of Clan pods. However, I don't like the idea of refitting every single weapon on the whole chassis, for aforementioned reasons. There must be a reason why variants exist in the first place, other than "when someone thinks of something we give it a name", and factory-made, X-Y-Z weapon-ready arms/torso fits seem to be it.

Also, in the "early art", the world "early" is the key. The current art seems to be very clear on what the mech is packing, and I must say I really like it that way. I hope that's indeed the course they are going.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 06 December 2011 - 05:37 AM.

[Barsov]

I disagree with all variants of this poll.

The customization must be limited to keep mechs variety. Battlemech’s configuration must be fixed and depended from current model and chasse. For example CN9-A Centurion can carry only AC/10, LRM 10 and 2 med lasers. Weapon can be replaced only with same weapon type (damaged AC/10 -> another new AC/10, but not on PPC, Gauss or SRM, or even AC/5 or AC/20). If I want more lasers on my mech I have to buy CN9-AL.

Otherwords:
- no mixed tech (IS technology cannot be mixed with ClanTech);
- Battlemech's customisation must be limited or expensive like in CBT field refits rules;
- allow Omnimech's customisation by using standart and/or creating custom omnipods (after the Clan technology will appear in the game).

Edited by Barsov, 06 December 2011 - 05:36 AM.

[Korbyn McColl]

I'd vote none of the above.

I'm ok with MW2 style customization so long as the mech's appearance changes with said modifications. Even then, customizing a mech should cost serious credits and should not be something you can do on the fly (as in, just before each drop).

[Yeach]

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.

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 01:50 AM, said:

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.

Yes it might... I'm still weighing the PPC mech config if it should be made possible. I specifically avoided saying PPC toting Catapult just because I knew you would give that example for the Catapult.
What the Catapult should not be is an AC mech like Hunchback ie Catapult mount twin AC10s/AC20s.

Yeach, on 05 December 2011 - 11:47 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.

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 01:50 AM, said:

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?

That's pretty funny. I'll ask you the same thing have you ever played MW2 / MW3 multiplayer?
If you did then you'll know that all custom configs used weapons in the torso as they were the last things to picked off.

How do people build custom mechs in MW2/MW3? load up the torso / legs with weapons and heatsink, ferro/endo the rest of the arms.

Looking at battletech mech weapons sheets I would say that 90% of the mechs have at least 1 weapon in the arms and usually a large weapons like a PPC or AC10. In MW2/MW3 multiplayer custom you would be lucky to find someone to do that at all.

You misunderstand me Stormwolf if you believe I want MWO to be exactly like MW4.

Background. MW2 introduced me to the BattleTech universe.
From MW2 31 Century combat, I learned that you had to mount weapons in the torso and jumpjets to skate around PPC shots.
From MW2 GBL, I learned that carry a flamer and you could shut down any enemy mech and blast them to smithereens when they were shut-down
From MW3, I learned to carry ERLL and snipe mechs at range; almost beat the campaign using just a firefly
Played Mechcommander and MC2 as well (was in the beta for MC2; still have my coloured CD).

MW4 based solely on the placement of weapons (ie in the arms) gave me the best BattleTech feel.
Skating mechs in MW2 and having placing weapons in torso to survive just didn't do it for me to having a Battletech feel.

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

[Yeach]

Stormwolf, on 06 December 2011 - 04:56 AM, said:

It appears that we have found some common ground here (don't agree on the jumpjets though). You should also consider that it shouldn't be possible to convert a mech from single to double heatsinks or add endo to a existing design.

Also, no frankenmechs.

Can you take off the jumpjets on a Thor or is it standard equipment like the flamer on the Puma?

[Yeach]

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.

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

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

Is the Flea supposed to be that viable a mech?
It would make a good scout mech but most games in MW4 Mercs (which took out CTF gameplay) made having a small fast useful.

Anyways they are better in TT construction rules because of being of the medium lasers devalued in MW4. They went the complete opposite end of the spectrum and made medium lasers less than useful due to faster recycle time and lower damage.

I did not like how MW4 Mercs "reassign" the slots on Uller and Cougar. The 3 ERLL were a viable mech config to use.
(Mind you I did not play much MW4 Merc multiplayer).

Edited by Yeach, 06 December 2011 - 06:28 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Yeach, on 06 December 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

I did not like how MW4 Mercs "reassign" the slots on Uller and Cougar. The 3 ERLL were a viable mech config to use.

From what I understand, it was a tad too viable for their small mass (that's a medium mech's worth of sniping potential, vide Shadowcat). A big part of what made other lights obsolete.

[Yeach]

Alex Wolfe, on 06 December 2011 - 06:25 AM, said:

From what I understand, it was a tad too viable for their small mass (that's a medium mech's worth of sniping potential, vide Shadowcat). A big part of what made other lights obsolete.

I thought they overcompensated the other way.
MW4 BlackKnight / Mercs allowed having mechs that could carry more than 3 ERLL to jumpsnipe. In MW4 Vengeance the most 3 ERLL jumpcapable mechs were the 3 ERLL Cougar, Shadowcat, Thanatos, MadCat2. No mech could mount 2 PPCs and jumpsnipe.
In MW4 BK/Mercs, they allowed the BlackKnight, Gladiator, etc to mount 4 or more.

Edited by Yeach, 06 December 2011 - 06:56 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Yeach, on 06 December 2011 - 06:34 AM, said:

I thought they overcompensated the other way.
MW4 BlackKnight / Mercs allowed having mechs that could carry more than 3 ERLL to jumpsnipe. In MW4 Vengeance the most 3 ERLL jumpcapable mechs were the 3 ERLL Cougar, Shadowcat, Thanatos, MadCat2.
In MW4 BK/Mercs, they allowed the BlackKnight, Gladiator, etc to mount 4 or more.

Perhaps, but BK and MC2 still had their gigantic bullseye CTs, and Gladiator couldn't mount AMS (in MT balance patch at least, can't remember the basic one since it was ages ago that I last played it) and they're over 90 tons in the first place - you'd expect a lot of firepower from an assault frame. Cougar's bite was apparently a tad too much for its size and speed. I'm not judging, but it seemed decent (light - 2 LL's, medium 3, heavy/assault 4 or more).

Either way, I'm kind of hoping that CT sniping won't be a viable tactics for MWO, somehow (that the important "core" part will be way smaller, for example).

[Brakkyn]

The conversation may be a bit off track, but this discussion seems to be pretty good.

I'd like to say I don't think ANYBODY is saying (and this has been said before) that MechWarrior computer games should be BattleTech tabletop games, but on the computer, for quite obvious reasons.

Number one being that the MechLab in MW2/MW3 allows TOO MUCH customization. MW4 allowed too little. Both systems promoted either boating or min/maxing. While this may have been possible, even effective, in the tabletop games or the computer games, it eventually/quickly becomes ridiculous.

The only solution is to allow ZERO customization of weapons and equipment. Give the player a choice of 'Mech A, 'Mech B, or 'Mech C. Each has a different loadout. Maybe A is for long range, B for short. Maybe B has ECM but less armor. Maybe C has a Targeting Computer, but is made for short range. You're forced to make a decision. It may be the wrong one. You'll have to deal with that.

'Mech B gets destroyed; now you're stuck with either A or C. You're dropping on a city map and only have long-range 'Mechs to use. You'll have to deal with that.

The more you have to contend with, and the more you overcome, the better you are. If you fail, you know what you have to work on.

[guardiandashi]

personally I would prefer something closer to the current strategic ops customization rules, along the line of:

field refits
can be done "anywhere" between missions typically takes the equivalant of a few hours (mostly) limited to weapons/electronics swaps and the way you know if it "worked" is by "testing it on the battlefield" examples of "failures" would be weapons that are intermittant, or don't work at all, badly "misaligned" (IE does NOT aim where its crosshairs indicate it should) etc

Maintenance level refits
can be done on a dropship or permanant base facility, Additional refit options become available, but they cost more, and they take more time, if you consider "time is money" then you can spend extra money to reduce the required "refit time"
acceptable refits... pretty much any weapon changes you want changing heat sinks (singles to doubles) the size of engines (standard units only) but not the type of engine

factory level refits, you need access to a factory that can build the type of unit (battlemech tank power armor aerospace etc) at a factory just about anything goes but you need the materials or access to them and it can take a lot of time to refit

IF they use a mw4isk "slot type" system I could get behind aspects of it as long as it interacts or works from a variation of a tt crit table system. bear with me while I explain my thought

in the table top slot types are not restricted, however it is (somewhat) reasonable to say, that the standard hunchback for instance has a (large block) of ballistic slots that the ac20 is fitted into, and some small blocks (1 crit ea) of energy slots if you wish to change it to a swayback varient (laser boat) you need to:
1 remove ac and ammo
2 add additional "energy slots" and /or change some "ballistic" slots to energy ones
3 mount additional energy weapons
4 mount additional heat sinks

if you want to say that each slot type has a "cost" associated with it, EG ballistic 1000 cbills per crit, missile 1500 cbills per crit, energy 2000 cbills per crit "support" 500 cbills per crit, then unused crits are "free" if I need to add a "support" item which at the moment I am thinking constitutes things like electronics (including targeting computers) heat sinks, armor crits (used with advanced armor types like FF armor) modular armor (when it comes out) componant armor, endosteel etc then I need to pay the "slot upgrade/install" costbefore the componant may be mounted, this means for example that a DHS (that appears on the crit table) might cost an additional 1500 cbills to mount (in addition to the cost of the actual equipment, and labor)

changing slots IE from ballistic to energy for instance should take some "time" and at minimum cost the difference between the slot types
(it might be more realistic to have to "sell" the old slot, and buy the new slot type)

"Omni" slots are effectively a missile/ballistic/energy/support slot by definition when installed and so cost more

[AlanEsh]

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

... 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.

I understand this desire, but it won't work for a game like MWO. In a matter of weeks, if not days, the "best weapon" for any given situation, and "best setup" for any given mech will be sniffed out by rabid min/maxers, and the holy grail that is "TRUE customization" will become the feature that kills the game.
With great power comes great responsibility ( ), and that's something the gaming community has no concept of.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I love designing mechs and regularly play "what if" in Skunkworks. I said that I want only stock and approved variants because the mechlab causes so many problems in multiplayer with balance. With regard to "I won't play if we don't have full customisation" - tough. For this game to succeed the majority of players will come from outside out closed little world. They won't have heard of the mechlab and won't miss what they never had. There is no reason why PGI couldn't run "design a mech" competitions and introduce new or variant mechs that don't unbalance the game. I'm sure once we know what the gameplay is we could all find unfilled niches, especially with regard to EW etc. If balanced then there is no reason why you couldn't have say a week free to try before you buy as has been suggested elsewhere.

[Hitman xXx qp]

Can I make a good post or can I make a good post.

I Like what being said here and I hope what we all say will help the DEV make this game a very good one from the start.

That being said plz keep it coming.

[Haeso]

Brakkyn, on 06 December 2011 - 07:03 AM, said:

The conversation may be a bit off track, but this discussion seems to be pretty good.

I'd like to say I don't think ANYBODY is saying (and this has been said before) that MechWarrior computer games should be BattleTech tabletop games, but on the computer, for quite obvious reasons.

Number one being that the MechLab in MW2/MW3 allows TOO MUCH customization. MW4 allowed too little. Both systems promoted either boating or min/maxing. While this may have been possible, even effective, in the tabletop games or the computer games, it eventually/quickly becomes ridiculous.

The only solution is to allow ZERO customization of weapons and equipment. Give the player a choice of 'Mech A, 'Mech B, or 'Mech C. Each has a different loadout. Maybe A is for long range, B for short. Maybe B has ECM but less armor. Maybe C has a Targeting Computer, but is made for short range. You're forced to make a decision. It may be the wrong one. You'll have to deal with that.

'Mech B gets destroyed; now you're stuck with either A or C. You're dropping on a city map and only have long-range 'Mechs to use. You'll have to deal with that.

The more you have to contend with, and the more you overcome, the better you are. If you fail, you know what you have to work on.

The only thing not allowing customization does is make the variants that are already boats significantly better than everything else.

2 ERPPC puma, 100~ LRM Longbow, 3 PPC Awesome, 4 LBX10 Annihilator, etc.

Some 'Mechs will always be better than others, no customization doesn't fix that.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Puma won't be in to start with. Longbow at this time is only 50? Awesome is slow and has problems at short range if they keep the range limit on PPC's. The Anni is a Wolf's Dragoon specific mech is it not and therefore possibly not included, at least at the start, it is also vulnerable to long range fire and doesn't have the speed to close the range on anything.

[Evgeny Bear]

Hello and Welcome to my first Post.

I was thinking about the customization feature about some hours now
and want to write down my Idea.

Well to start shortly I want to make customization depended on the Parts selected on your Mech. Which means you will Purchase a fresh out of stock Mech XX, with a pre set loadout and mouted energygrid, actuators and sensors.
So while you invest some hours of playtime into this model you can unlock new parts with earned exp in this mech, which offers you a broad possibillity
to combine Parts you like, on a chassis you prefer and stockpile older parts/weapons/sensors & so on. Those Parts will have preset amount of socket space, spocket kind, energy usage and armor planting. But are also able to be refitted by the player in a narrow way.

as example:
mech XX prime type left arm mod 0: has 4 sockets of beamtype,
one socket of ammo type and 5t of armor type XX plantings,
internal structure 100/100 and actuator power of 60/60.

the Stealthmod type has: only 2 beam type sockets, 2 sensor antenna sockets, 4t of special non reflective armor, internal structure of 90/100 and actuator power 80/60.
Which means he has lesser firingpower, but has additional space to fit sensor equipment or electronical warfare stuff (jammers, ECM, Lock on inhibitors...), an reduced internal structure (lesser mass--> more speed), but more actuator power for quick arm movement and improved weapon accuracy.

Further on it could maybe possible to change your torso twist and all those kind of things which Improves lesser dangerous mechs in the hands of a pro.

so I think you get what I mean, you can choose parts you want, and max out your wanted combat performance of your Mech. This will offer you some kind of individual look without spending real money, approvment from your fellow combatants, and a nasty surprise for your enemies. This also means players can spend money to buy bigger and bigger mechs, or for skilled players: max out the performance of your old mech.
So there is no "low tech" or "outdated, too small, too weak" mech.
So you can spend time on skilling your avatar and customize your mech at the same time.

this also means you wont see a mech, with a railgun or AC20 which was never build to use it... but you can equip it, with the shortcommings of reduced allout performance.

This is my Idea.
Feel free to use your grammar and spelling skills to correct me for yourself
And sorry if this idea was already brought to this thread.
kk thx

thank you for the taken time to read it ^^

Edited by Andar89, 06 December 2011 - 08:08 AM.