54 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

Here is a quote from the Harebrained Schemes Q & A for the game that was available during the Kickstarter.





This was interesting for a couple of reasons. First, they wanted the Mechs to retain their character and second, they acknowledge that customization is fun... but only to a point. That point would be what they were not interested in seeing... "laser boats" and such.

Here in MechWarrior: Online we see a ton of laser boats, missile boats... you name it. As with the Loki, we'll probably see Warhammers with empty arms, their energy weapons tucked into the torso instead. It is as though Harebrained Schemes have taken note of what is happening in MechWarrior: Online and have drawn a line in the sand.

This has me more convinced than ever that we perhaps have too much of a good thing in the Mech Lab, that being the flexibility that we enjoy. We have seen PGI struggle with weapon and Mech balance for years now, and I think we can trace it right back to the Mech Lab. For sure, the core game mechanics play a role in this, but the Mech Lab is a playground for all of us.

Harebrained Schemes managed to rake in just under 3 million dollars for their Kickstarter project with the players knowing full well, had they read the Q & A, that they will not be able to kit-bash FrankenMechs. I'm wondering... would PGI have raked in the 5 million they did if they said the same thing?

Am I right... does the Mech Lab have so much freedom as to make weapon balance impossible for PGI? Were Harebrained gutsy in saying that they will avoid uncharacteristic Mech builds and by extension, allow less freedom in their Mech Lab?

Edited by StaggerCheck, 17 December 2015 - 03:40 PM.

[NextGame]

what are they going to put on the hunchback 4p? 3 medium lasers and a smiley face?

[FupDup]

I remember when HBS first announced the game, they would allow for a crapload of customization including actuators and gyros. But for some reason, they backpedaled on that one.

Their description is pretty vague so it's hard to evaluate it until real details are revealed.

Edited by FupDup, 17 December 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Johny Rocket]

Boating is common sense and no matter what set of variables you give people they are going to boil them down to the nitty gritty of what works most efficiently. There are some fancy terms for it but that's it right there.

[cSand]

I think, well PGI inflated hardpoints.. so you see some mechs that would in previous titles have had 1 "large size" hardpoint now have 3 of those hard points.

I think cutting down on the # of hard points would have helped a lot

[Cat-in-Exile]

If only it was possible to quirk components so they only applied to the weapons in those components

[Felbombling]

NextGame, on 17 December 2015 - 03:40 PM, said:

what are they going to put on the hunchback 4p? 3 medium lasers and a smiley face?

My guess would be that the 4P would have the stock load out of 8 Medium Lasers and 1 Small Laser anyway, because that would be retaining the 'character' of the build. I'm thinking they don't want a 4H to turn into a 4P because 'lasers are better', or see an Atlas running around at 64km/h... that kind of thing.

[Joseph Mallan]

So They are against Mech designs they themselves created for the TT game? Im confused

[Felbombling]

Blitz mentions something I've thought of... have the hard points of a Mech give bonus to the weapon originally there in the first place, in the form of quirks or a stock bonus. That would deter players from drastically changing Mech load outs, perhaps. Say the Warhammer, for example. The PPC quirks would be associated with the arm mounts, so moving PPCs into the torso because they were higher mounts wouldn't make as much sense.

Joseph Mallan, on 17 December 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

So They are against Mech designs they themselves created for the TT game? Im confused

First sentence in the answer... they want Mechs to retain their 'character'. I read that as Mechs as standard are great, but they really don't want them Kit-bashed into an unrecognizable state. Say, Gauss Rifles in a Catapult that had machine guns in the hard points, for instance.

[TLBFestus]

Careful, you know that that is probably just "their opinion at the time".

It's not like they were calling it a PILLAR of the game or anything.

Oops.....hold it.....forget I said that.

It's pretty easy to see that with so much flexibility in the loadouts that that has a huge effect on the degreee of difficulty of balance.

However if you restrict the mechlab, there are going to be even more deadbeat mechs in the game that can't compete with the better ones.

It ain't ever gonna happen but I'd like to see hard points with size limitations on them and then having a small stable of mechs you select prior to dropping in a series of maps. From those mechs you pick your best match to a map, then your next best on the next map, then the next until you run thru them all.

That would limit the times you get your optimum mech for a map and keep the diversity manageable and entertaining.

Edited by TLBFestus, 17 December 2015 - 04:29 PM.

[Alex Morgaine]

It would have hurt min maxing, but if they kept engine sizes as stock +/- one or two full steps (50 units for a 50 ton mech for example) I think it would have made the game more difficult to gun bag, while keeping the idea of customization alive.

Honestly I think that's the problem every full customization mech warrior game has had. Down to the x5 unit engine adjustment, even if it's for .8 kph.
How many builds use a stock engine in their design? Stop right at an odd number because of x/tonnage = tt mech hex speed? Aside from maybe the 9 sl party back (long, long ago, 4p hunchbacks with 400xls, oh I remember...) what could be min maxed as easily when you have to use a full engine scale instead of just rounding at 300 for anything that doesn't need a maxed engine for teh speedz, I mean I do that with my thunderbolt, it works, but is it really in the spirit of the game to min max the engine that much? Id like to see it able to fit a 325, but also see mechs viable with 64kph. Tbf id trade mech skills and by the unit engine progression min/max to fit by the hex speed +/- oh... 1 would do for me, 2 might be pushing but I'm sure people would have their need for speedz. Just full value refund all engines and let people re sort thier mechs if you do that.

[Hit the Deck]

I want my leg missiles

[OznerpaG]

having played a fair amount of tabletop and MegaMek, you can't compare MWO with the hex game - if you boat anything on hex you will get hurt badly by mechs that have a good mix of different ranged weapons

same universe, different worlds

Edited by JagdFlanker, 17 December 2015 - 05:05 PM.

[Nostromodamus]

Hit the Deck, on 17 December 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

I want my leg missiles

And rear-facing lasers.

[Madcap72]

cSand, on 17 December 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

I think, well PGI inflated hardpoints.. so you see some mechs that would in previous titles have had 1 "large size" hardpoint now have 3 of those hard points.

I think cutting down on the # of hard points would have helped a lot

Some are inflated a bit, some are just shifted I.E. mechs that had rear facing hardpoints got moved to the front.

A TON of stuff sticks close to Sarna, just adapted to this game.

[Joseph Mallan]

StaggerCheck, on 17 December 2015 - 04:22 PM, said:

First sentence in the answer... they want Mechs to retain their 'character'. I read that as Mechs as standard are great, but they really don't want them Kit-bashed into an unrecognizable state. Say, Gauss Rifles in a Catapult that had machine guns in the hard points, for instance.

Probably. Still, I can say that as a long time TT player/GM, we had Catapults with Gauss in our game.

Also as a closing point, its the they don't want Laser boats... Even though many of the standard builds ARE laser boats.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 17 December 2015 - 05:19 PM.

[Hexenhammer]

Competitive players are going to meta. You could make it so mech load outs can not be changed and the first thing the meta crowd will do is find the best in class for light, medium, heavy, assault and that's the only mechs you'll see.

It is what is. You can't change it. I can't change it, no one can prevent it unless the game takes the freedom to pick mechs away from us as well.

Edited by Hexenhammer, 17 December 2015 - 05:25 PM.

[Malleus011]

I'd very much like to see a mode of the game that either deals in Tech 1 stock play or no customization play. If CW is 'hard mode' then maybe it should remove customization as well. To compensate, we need an unlimited Solaris mode, for those who enjoy customizing everything.

[Ultimax]

StaggerCheck, on 17 December 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:

Am I right... does the Mech Lab have so much freedom as to make weapon balance impossible for PGI? Were Harebrained gutsy in saying that they will avoid uncharacteristic Mech builds and by extension, allow less freedom in their Mech Lab?

You're erroneously comparing a single player game where you control a lance of mechs in a PvE campaign vs. a First person shooter where you only control one mech.


The only thing restricting loadouts heavily here would have done, would see the lottery winners with optimal or near-optimal builds for a FPS dominate and form a meta, and the mechs with bad loadouts from table top be left behind.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 17 December 2015 - 05:30 PM.

[topgun505]

Allow customization but restrict it?

Bout the only way I see that happening are some or all of:

- Restrict hardpoints to both type and slot size.
- Restrict what engine sizes can be installed (and type)
- Lock down tech types (single/double heat sinks, endo, Ferro, etc).