55 replies to this topic

[Der Zivilist]

I feel that PGI has had a great idea with the hardpoint system. In fact, I'm kind of tempted to port it over to tabletop just to plug up some of the common loopholes for game-breaking munchkinism.

On the other hand, restricting it even more would be pointless because it a.) adds nothing new to the game except needless complexity and b.) possibly invalidates several canon 'Mechs (at least the example option presented in this poll definitely does).

[TheOneGunslinger]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Nothing random about that. Just stating facts. Some people would break down the game and the buisness model with their suggestions. Whoever put the up the poll up here didnt understand that fact.

lol i dont think that anyone feels the devs will look at this and go
"well crap 66% of people think we are doing it wrong better go change it then"
its just to see how people feel.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

Nothing random about that. Just stating facts. Some people would break down the game and the buisness model with their suggestions. Whoever put the up the poll up here didnt understand that fact.

actually i posted i doubt this would change dev minds nor am i looking to do that. i wanted as i stated if you had read it was the opinions of the people in this forum. nothing more nothing less.

I will refrain from flaming you in response even though you were insulting as hell.

[Willpower]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

And thats the reason the restrictions exist. Your reasoning would break down the game and kill it, bevor it even startet.

I just don't see that. At all.

Besides, I'm not seeing anything backing up your statements of each mech filling a role that no other mech can fill. How many roles are there? How many different ways of filling each role are there? I'm thinking quite a few.

Now, from what I understand, there will be differing numbers of hardpoints on each mech. So, for your example above, the Catapult and the Dragon. Without quoting specifics for those two, most mechs will have differing numbers of hardpoints per arm (if it has arms), different weight restrictions for tonnage of weaps/ammo, so regardless of what you want to do to them, they will not be able to end up exactly the same. Which is the point. You find the one you like the best, drive it. It won't be the same as everyone else's loadout of the same chassis, but it will be the most comfortable for you to drive. And even better, it will be a viable option.

No matter how much you bellow about having set variants leading to more of them out there, I just cannot believe people will buy and drive gimped variants just so there will be more variety on the battlefield. That's just way too altruistic. The vast majority will stick to the best few options of each class for each role. And then you've just shot yourself in the foot when it comes to wanting variety.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

TheOneGunslinger, on 16 July 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

lol i dont think that anyone feels the devs will look at this and go
"well crap 66% of people think we are doing it wrong better go change it then"
its just to see how people feel.

Then whats the point? It doesnt matter how people feel if their decisions will break balance. Polls give users a feel of entitlement, when the polls succeeds. So it can actually do more damage than good.

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

That's not a good argument against customisation, because you could conversely ask: why buy a Dragon if you could modify a Catapult?

Where's the problem? You'd still see both Dragon and Catapult chassis being used.

No you wont. You would only see one Heavy Mech Chassis used. That one that can carry more weapons. The way it is now, people will buy the Cat for support and Dragon as brawler. Both will be used. So hard to understand? With full costomisation you only would need to buy one of them to build every heavy mech in existance. Thats bad buisness, bad balancing and bad gameplay in one.

[Graphite]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

No you wont. You would only see one Heavy Mech Chassis used. That one that can carry more weapons. The way it is now, people will buy the Cat for support and Dragon as brawler. Both will be used. So hard to understand? With full costomisation you only would need to buy one of them to build every heavy mech in existance. Thats bad buisness, bad balancing and bad gameplay in one.

Let's look instead at the 50t mechs where there are 2 (3? I forget) chassis in MWO.
If there were no hardpoint restrictions you would NOT see only one of them being used, because they couls all carry exactly the same number of weapons.

As for mechs of different weights, the lighter ones need smaller engines to go the same speed as larger ones (freeing up tonnage) and also count for less when opposing forces are balanced.

You could modify your argument to say only 100 ton mechs will ever be chosen, because they carry the most weapons! This is, of course, silly.

Edited by Graphite, 16 July 2012 - 01:46 AM.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Willpower, on 16 July 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

....

i dont get your point. what do you want to say?

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 01:44 AM, said:

....

i dont get your point. what do you want to say?

Edited by ngl, 16 July 2012 - 01:46 AM.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:36 AM, said:

Then whats the point? It doesnt matter how people feel if their decisions will break balance. Polls give users a feel of entitlement, when the polls succeeds. So it can actually do more damage than good.




No you wont. You would only see one Heavy Mech Chassis used. That one that can carry more weapons. The way it is now, people will buy the Cat for support and Dragon as brawler. Both will be used. So hard to understand? With full costomisation you only would need to buy one of them to build every heavy mech in existance. Thats bad buisness, bad balancing and bad gameplay in one.

i also think your forgetting looks, what if that one chassis looks like **** to the player they'll go with another. ooops there goes your idea right out the window. Battletech has always been about getting the mech you want and customizing for the job you want it to do. no one played stock mechs unless it was part of a random style battle. if it was YOUR mech unit each mech in your unit was tweaked to fulfill the roll or job you wanted it to do.

Sure you could take an atlas and try and make it a scout. its stupid but you could do it. As to this poll breaking the company and game, just LOL

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

i dont get your point. what do you want to say?

thanks must be tired to not have ID'd you as a troll quicker. have fun with that.

[Graphite]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

i dont get your point. what do you want to say?

If you intentionally delete my post to which you are replying in the quote, I have no idea what you are referring to, and can't explain.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Thorgar Wulfson, on 16 July 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

i also think your forgetting looks, what if that one chassis looks like **** to the player they'll go with another. ooops there goes your idea right out the window. Battletech has always been about getting the mech you want and customizing for the job you want it to do. no one played stock mechs unless it was part of a random style battle. if it was YOUR mech unit each mech in your unit was tweaked to fulfill the roll or job you wanted it to do.

Sure you could take an atlas and try and make it a scout. its stupid but you could do it. As to this poll breaking the company and game, just LOL



thanks must be tired to not have ID'd you as a troll quicker. have fun with that.

This is not Battletech. There is a buisness modell involved. If you want to have one spectaculary looking mech but dont like its role, then the devs have actually done the job right. Because it will force players to play more roles and spend money for more mech slots. So hard to understand? Devs whant to make money.

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

If you intentionally delete my post to which you are replying in the quote, I have no idea what you are referring to, and can't explain.

Understood the text but i didnt get your point.

[Thorgar Wulfson]

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

If you intentionally delete my post to which you are replying in the quote, I have no idea what you are referring to, and can't explain.

just report the troll like i did,.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Thorgar Wulfson, on 16 July 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

just report the troll like i did,.

Yeah maybe some Admin deletes this thread right away. Its pointless. But i wouldnt report the guy who started the poll. He didnt know better. And he only wants to make the game better by his point of view.

Edited by ngl, 16 July 2012 - 01:54 AM.

[TheOneGunslinger]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Yeah maybe some Admin deletes this thread right away. Its pointless. But i wouldnt report the guy who started the poll. He didnt know better. And he only wants to make the game better by his point of view.

if it pointless just walk away then.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Cant play my favorite Game. Im waiting till the Beta Servers are going up again.

[CrazyCatDaddy]

Three Admins have approached me via PM and told me that it was wrong of me to fault other peoples opinions as wrong. They also told me that i should state that the game in beta im referring to better be not MWO.

Im sorry guys if i hurt some feelings on the road. Sometimes i can be a internet bully despite the fact that i was bullied most of my life in real life. I will also say that i can neither comment or hint anything about the MWO Beta. The Game in question is a unity based browser mmo thats in open beta right now.

I hope you will continue this great thread without me in that orderly manner it had started before i began to violate the term of use.

Sorry again Folks.

[Graphite]

ngl, on 16 July 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

...
They also told me that i should state that the game in beta im referring to better be not MWO.
...
I will also say that i can neither comment or hint anything about the MWO Beta. The Game in question is a unity based browser mmo thats in open beta right now.

Yeah sure, a MWO founder customer in a MWO forum saying "The beta server" was actually referring to some other unnamed game...

Really not at all believable.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Way to start yet another flame war guys. ngl actually had a good argument against customization and you flamed him because his opinion differed from yours.

His comment about game decisions might have been a little harsh, but that held truth as well. If PGI listened to every single request on these forums, we would have P2W players flying Overlord Dropships over the field blasting everything to smithereens. We would have energy shields on our beloved BattleMechs. That kind of stuff is actually in the suggestions forum.

People on here need to chill out a little. We are all on the same team here (mostly). If you want to let out some rage and flame, head on over to the Hawken forums. They will be glad to assist you.



That aside, I am for restricted Mech Lab. If you are selecting your 'Mech based on looks, something is dreadfully wrong. The hardpoint setup is the way to go, as long as it allows some flexibility for each variant, and as long as there is equality of hardpoints. A Catapult should feel like a Catapult. A Hunchback should feel and be different from a Centurion.

Edited by Alaric Wolf Kerensky, 16 July 2012 - 03:25 AM.

[Saintphoenix]

Thorgar Wulfson, on 16 July 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

This is in response to another thread, im curious to see how many want restricted mechlabs and how many want more freedom like the table top.

admittedly doubt this will change any dev minds,

If u think u can change anything about the game with less than a month till the founders ur jokin, the game is basically made now its all just fine tuning and polish and adding things, far less changing and they wont change a core aspect of the game this late anyway

[Graphite]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 16 July 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

Way to start yet another flame war guys. ngl actually had a good argument against customization and you flamed him because his opinion differed from yours.

No-one was upset because he had a different opinion. The problem was the unpleasant manner he used to offer it.

Quote

His comment about game decisions might have been a little harsh, but that held truth as well. If PGI listened to every single request on these forums, we would have P2W players flying Overlord Dropships over the field blasting everything to smithereens. We would have energy shields on our beloved BattleMechs. That kind of stuff is actually in the suggestions forum.

This applies as equally to ngl (and your) opinion as it does to opposing opinions. And please don't conflate liking more customisation with wanting energy shields or flying mechs - there is zero relationship.

The point is moot anyway, as the mechlab has already been designed.

Quote

People on here need to chill out a little. We are all on the same team here (mostly). If you want to let out some rage and flame, head on over to the Hawken forums. They will be glad to assist you.

Erm, think ngl could perhaps benefit most from this advice?

Edited by Graphite, 16 July 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Orkymedes]

Graphite, on 16 July 2012 - 03:14 AM, said:

Yeah sure, a MWO founder customer in a MWO forum saying "The beta server" was actually referring to some other unnamed game...

Really not at all believable.

He apologized. And to be honest i was asking myself (and im sure a few others too) if he meant MWO. Whats there not to believe?


To the Matter at Hand:

Iam for no restrictions at all. Make the Mechs like Visual Skins only. So a Raven can be a 20t or a 100t Mech and could get as many Hardppoints and Armorpoints as the user wants. That would be Awesome. So i could have a Raven for every Role in the game!