54 replies to this topic

[Inveramsay]

While the mw4 mech lab didn't always make sense restricting the size of weapons you were able to put in to a mech want necessarily a bad thing

[Pjwned]

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

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?

Not comparable because MWO is a completely different game.

Inveramsay, on 17 December 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

While the mw4 mech lab didn't always make sense restricting the size of weapons you were able to put in to a mech want necessarily a bad thing

I actually agree with using sized hardpoints to solve some issues, but I would only want sized hardpoints that penalize oversized weapons and not sized hardpoints that restrict what you can and can't equip.

Edited by Pjwned, 17 December 2015 - 06:34 PM.

[vettie]

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?

Smiley Face Launcher would be cool.
Short range like Med Laser and it sticks Smiley Face Decals on enemy Windshields, blinding them until they turn on the the Module Activated Windshield Wiper to clear them away....

[Strum Wealh]

topgun505, on 17 December 2015 - 05:34 PM, said:

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).

That might work if they use the actual unit customization rules rather than the unit construction rules for their MechLab.

• Class A Refit (Field): Allows replacement of one weapon with another of the same category and with the same (or fewer) critical spaces (including ammunition); for example, replace a medium laser with a medium pulse laser or ER medium laser, or replace an AC/10 with an LB 10-X AC, and so on. Additionally, changing a weapon's location or facing falls into this category.
  
• Class B Refit (Field): Allows the replacement of one category of weapon with another class of weapon(s), but with the same or fewer critical spaces (including ammunition); for example, replacing a machine gun and ammo with a small pulse laser, replacing a Gauss rifle with two large lasers (as they're both the same class and have fewer critical slots), and so on.
  
• Class C Refit (Maintenance): Allows replacement of one type of armor with another (all locations); for example, replacing standard armor with ferro-fiberous. A Class C refit also enables replacement of a weapon or item of equipment with any other, even if it is larger than the item(s) being replaced; for example, replacing an ER large laser with an LRM-10 launcher and ammunition. Also allows modification of armor quantity and distribution, moving components, and adding ammunition or heat sinks.
  
• Class D Refit (Maintenance): Permits installation of a new item where previously there was none, or to install an ECM suite, C3 system or targeting computer. May also change heat sink types (including those integral to the engine) or engine ratings (but not engine type). Also allows replacement of a location with a custom part.
  
• Class E Refit (Factory): Allows changing the type of myomers installed or install CASE.
  
• Class F Refit (Factory): Allows changing of internal structure type (all locations), engine type, gyro type, or cockpit type.

A modified version (which would have also worked for MWO, IMO) would have been to allow only Class A refits (which pretty much amounts to "sized hardpoints"), the non-weapon-related elements of Class C refits, and the non-weapon-related elements of Class D refits, while Class E & Class F refits would be completely locked down.
Additionally, the Engine rating element of the Class D refit might have to be limited to something like "no more than ±20% of the variant's original/stock Engine rating for any and all BattleMechs", so that one does not have things like a CN9-D running around at LCT-1V speeds (or some such).

[Mcgral18]

Ultimatum X, on 17 December 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

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.

Though, sized hardpoints would allow you to individually target mechs for balance, instead of the PPC+Gauss changing from HGN>Victor>CTF, along with the gimping of HoverJets™ and multiple weapon systems.

You can either quirk, or just edit the base chassis information, to adjust that peculiar mech. Agility, additional structure, things to that effect.


We'll see how it turns out there. Nothing is going to change here.

[Kjudoon]

I hope pgi ends boating mechs or rolls back hardpoints to more tt levels.

Its a carbunkle on the tuchas of this game.

[Wolfways]

Hexenhammer, on 17 December 2015 - 05:23 PM, said:

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.

Already happened. CW.

[El Bandito]

I prefer Sized Hardpoints. Always did. Gives the mechs more personality. Dual Gauss/AC20 K2 back in 2012 was an abomination to my eyes.

Edited by El Bandito, 17 December 2015 - 07:57 PM.

[Felbombling]

Well, this also shows how far reaching the core game mechanics dig into Mech design and the boating of certain weapons over others. You can try to make a mixed missile load out, for example, but the ammunition requirements often lead people to just pack on more of the same, due to the ammunition tonnage invested in a particular launcher type. I remember distinctly a time during Closed Beta where I was attempting to build a Medium Mech with an LRM for long range harassment and an SRM 6 for close in brawling. It ended up being an LRM boat because I just couldn't justify A: reducing the LRM launcher size or B: the ammo tonnage to support the SRM launcher sufficiently. The ammo requirements really do snuff out variety in this and many other cases.

Earlier, I mentioned core game mechanics. The heat system is messed up enough as to allow for heat sinks to not have their proper importance. Engines to the half ton being easily inserted as almost an afterthought instead of a key decision in the design process. The existence of alpha striking, let alone the pin-point precision of weapons. The list of issues and their hand in the gun-bagging reality is practically endless.

I see the problems of having standard load outs being selected for their potency by the CW crowd, or the min-maxers are always going to min-max, but I have to believe that that particular problem could be worked around with quirks or incentives. PGI could create a baseline where stock load outs perform better than modified load outs, while at the same time identifying weak stock loads and incentivising their existence with positive quirks associated with both the original hard point and number of original weapons. That would help stamp out one quirked Large Laser morphing into four quirked Large Lasers, for example.

As someone stated earlier, placing a cap on engine size might help keep Mechs in character, but at the same time allow for standard to XL engine upgrades and a place to put all that saved tonnage. I'd also like to see less engines available, like someone else suggested. Refund everyone every C-Bill they've spent on new engines and give them four engine choices per chassis, up to and including the max engine size. Standard or XL, that would be eight engines to choose from, and a slightly tougher time gun-bagging a Mech. Get rid of the ability to alpha strike altogether. Everything is chain-fired, even if it means a .365 second delay. Would spread damage around more and hopefully end the massive pin-point meta of 50+ damage to a pixel.

Like every one of us, I guess I just see the game for what it is, what it could have been and just wonder.

[Lily from animove]

question is what defines a laserboat? because BT has Laserboating in Lore.

[Felbombling]

Lily from animove, on 18 December 2015 - 06:01 AM, said:

question is what defines a laserboat? because BT has Laserboating in Lore.

Very true. I'm thinking Harebrained is concerned about the 'manufactured' laser boat as the issue they want to avoid. "Lasers have no ammo nor ammo explosions, thus they are the best weapon. I'll just strip out everything and pack on as many Medium Lasers as possible." So then you have every Mech in their game being redesigned to carry nothing but energy weapons. The difference is, though, that the game they're building 'should' have a more punishing heat system. People will still need to offset the values of the alpha strike versus the heat sink capacity of the Mech, turn to turn. Since energy weapons run hot, it gives a place for the cooler running ballistic and missile weapons to co-exist.

The general game philosophy at PGI seems to be a burst phase of multiple alpha strikes followed by a cooling phase. Sadly, the pin-point alpha strike makes that style very punishing against the board game inspired location and armour values. You could get around this by keeping the smaller weapons on a shorter cool down, but lower their damage output accordingly. Give the heavier weapons a longer cool down to make landing those shots really important and devastating. This would work even better were they to get rid of alpha striking altogether, as I suggested above, and make every weapon chain-fired or fire alone. No more dual Gauss Rifle shots in the same instant, etc.

[Widowmaker1981]

A huge part of the reason people boat weapons in MWO is ease of use - controlling no more than 2 direct fire groups is the most simple, and therefore the most reliable and consistent. That reason is completely gone in the HBS game because its a top down turn based strategy game, so id guess the mech builds would be more lore appropriate anyway.

[CDLord HHGD]

I'd be happy if they did a direct import of all of MWO's mechs and stuck with stock only. There's so much versatility in the variants we have now, the mechlab is overkill....

[Lily from animove]

StaggerCheck, on 18 December 2015 - 06:17 AM, said:

Very true. I'm thinking Harebrained is concerned about the 'manufactured' laser boat as the issue they want to avoid. "Lasers have no ammo nor ammo explosions, thus they are the best weapon. I'll just strip out everything and pack on as many Medium Lasers as possible." So then you have every Mech in their game being redesigned to carry nothing but energy weapons. The difference is, though, that the game they're building 'should' have a more punishing heat system. People will still need to offset the values of the alpha strike versus the heat sink capacity of the Mech, turn to turn. Since energy weapons run hot, it gives a place for the cooler running ballistic and missile weapons to co-exist.

The general game philosophy at PGI seems to be a burst phase of multiple alpha strikes followed by a cooling phase. Sadly, the pin-point alpha strike makes that style very punishing against the board game inspired location and armour values. You could get around this by keeping the smaller weapons on a shorter cool down, but lower their damage output accordingly. Give the heavier weapons a longer cool down to make landing those shots really important and devastating. This would work even better were they to get rid of alpha striking altogether, as I suggested above, and make every weapon chain-fired or fire alone. No more dual Gauss Rifle shots in the same instant, etc.

yes I think punishing heat system, and making lasers spread or less likely o hit cna balance stuff out for the battletech game.

cdlord, on 18 December 2015 - 06:47 AM, said:

I'd be happy if they did a direct import of all of MWO's mechs and stuck with stock only. There's so much versatility in the variants we have now, the mechlab is overkill....

This would kill the fun of the mechlab.
Also IS vs clanbalance would be quite a huge issue as well as Interchassis balance.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 December 2015 - 06:52 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Lily from animove, on 18 December 2015 - 06:51 AM, said:

This would kill the fun of the mechlab.
Also IS vs clanbalance would be quite a huge issue as well as Interchassis balance.

I'd rather kill the fun of the lab than the fun of the game. Running into meta cheese match after match gets tiresome.

Clan balance is another issue. PGI would just need to figure out how to get it done. Whether by 10v12 like it's supposed to be, or make clan mechs count for 150% of their weight (or back during 3/3/3/3, make Clan mechs count for one weight class higher (no lights, two categories of assault).

[kapusta11]

If anything it has too little customization, we're stuck with old tech and this abomination called "hardpoints".

[CDLord HHGD]

kapusta11, on 18 December 2015 - 07:01 AM, said:

If anything it has too little customization, we're stuck with old tech and this abomination called "hardpoints".

Ugh, I can't imagine the meta-vomit we'd get. Thank GOD you aren't a developer for PGI/MWO.

[Tombstoner]

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?

It's not the mech lab. its already restrictive in the sense you cant change IS hard points. Give players full customization would be very bad. all youd see are min maxed PP FLD designs because thats what's works best in MWO.

It's the interaction between PP FLD alphas and TT mech design rules. Get rid of hit locations.... no more torso, arm, leg. no front or rear armor. Give mechs one armor pool. With a % chance of partial penetration for a % damage penetration to internals. That chance increases with damage taken. do this one thing and you will see a completely different game.

As it stands it way too easy to place your shots on the atlas CT. This is a major nerf.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

And with one quote,m im less interested in the game now

[0bsidion]

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

That was actually along the lines of what popped into my head once I read that quote. There are multiple examples of stock mechs boating a single weapon type, like oh, I don't know, every mech in the Resistance 2 pack, (except the Mauler), for instance. Loadouts straight from TT.