655 replies to this topic

[Kristov Kerensky]

Wolf..I'll pass on powerups, thanks anyway.

Volume..hardpoints..see MW4 for how that's just all sorts of wrong and extremely non-BTech. You list some perfect examples of why, very nicely done. In another thread, I pointed out how with the hardpoint system, I can literally put more weapons on a Mech then is possible via BTech/MW1/2/3, 3 LBX20s and 3 LBX10s..no Mech can contain that config, it isn't the tonnage, it's the physical space they take up, it exceeds what a Mech has. But not only can I make that in MW4, I can even leave the engine stock, add some armor AND put 1 extra ton of ammo on each of the LBX20s! And it's just ONE of the abominations that MW4 allows you to create

Dlardrageth..weighted matches using stats that PGI won't tell us..we'll figure them out, it's what online gamers do, decode the mysteries of their game universe..it's a LOT easier then decoding the real universe's mysteries after all...and it takes so much less time..and lets face it, the experimentation to prove/disprove theories is a hell of a lot more fun. Then the stat padding would commence in earnest if stats are tracked, whether they are used or not, they'll be padded.

Like you Dlardrageth, I don't look at a player's stat to determine their ability, I only look at MY stats to see where I personally need to work on my skills, but other players..I could care less what someones KDR or hit/miss, point/min, whatever is. I want to game with them, see how they play, listen to them as we play, figure out if they are someone I want on my team or not. They can be horrible killers, missing the ground when they trip..but if they ALWAYS spot the enemy and call them out, always try to keep my back covered, or just amuse the hell out of me with their comments and jokes, I want em on my team. Hell, Dacobra, the leader of SRM, was probably my biggest nemesis when we played together in MW2/3/4..and he was my CO! The man would ALWAYS shoot the hell out of my Mechs during combat, but I didn't care, he was great to game with, excellent tactician and leader, and he always made the game fun no matter what happened.

Stats used to determine drops..no thanks, leave that for the kids who play console games and don't like to be challenged by people who are just plain better then they are. I didn't get to be one of the top dogs in MW2 by playing inferior opponents, far from it, I played the best and learned from them until I was one of the best. Some want to be best of the losers, I want to be the best of the best..

[FACEman Peck]

Tweaks, on 17 December 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

I think we can all agree that there's a difference between instant and week(s)-long repairs. Repairing a single gun out (or replacing it with a new one), should probably take a few minutes at least, and major overhauls should probably take a few hours.

I don't know how it could be done without penalizing us too much and still fit within the 1:1 timeline. I just don't want class F refits to be able to be done instantly. Doesn't mean it has to take a week though (even if it actually does in the rulebook and canon). It has to be somewhere in between.

I have to agree with this. Enough so to start another forum.

[Volume]

@ Kristov: Agreed 100%. I want a critical system only, honestly, but I expect them to do a hardpoint/crit mixture. Even that would be significantly better than heatsinks, engine speeds, ECM equipment, etc, not taking up critical spaces like in MW4. Perhaps they should have sort of an "auto-build" for new players who don't want to fiddle with crits assigning ferro fibrous and such, but i think MW3 did it fine (it would just "reserve" criticals away if you picked FF armor or Endo-Steel).

@ this whole "pilot skill affecting BV" thing...There is no possible way to measure it accurately. I don't care what kind of perfect algorithm you have, what happens when people intentionally suck for 15 matches to lower their ELO to have the ability to stomp noobs, or what happens when you have someone who has played MW2, 3, 4, in planetary leagues and NetBT for years, but he only has played MW:O for two hours - he'll be better than at least 90% of the people he comes across until the skill-matching system sorts him. It just won't work. It's better than nothing for sure, but it still won't work. People will find whatever 'Mech is "best for the BV" and be using that, or people will just join games in a Daishi/Dire Wolf because they want to be the big bad that no one else can kill, even if it means they take up 1/2 their team's allotted points.

One possible suggestion: Have a "draft" system. First off, this would require the devs to make sure there are free 'mechs with varying roles, BVs, weight classes, tonnages, whatever, on top of what the players have in their garages/hangars/mechbays/whatever. Maybe each week there will be a free variant of every weight class available or something. You could have captains pick a draft order, or you could randomize it, or base it on in-game faction rank, or whatever.

Another possible suggestion:

I know it wouldn't WORK, because people can intentionally fail or screw up to mess up the measurements (and they will), but here's an idea:

Training simulator or academy. Have different piloting exams, gunnery exams, field tests, whatever...Have it affect, say, a pilot's "portfolio" - shoot X amount of targets in alotted time, or run past here with your torso twist aimed here in X amount of time, or pilot your 'mech between these cones, fastest time gets higher scores...And then when you are picked for a contract, whoever is hiring you will see "Oh, this guy has a B+ in piloting, and a A- in gunnery according to "Standardized Test that all Mechwarriors take in this game." You can do a Portal 2 Challenge map style comparison of your scores to everyone else's scores, see how you match up against the competition, and people will hire the best accordingly, based on skill and price...Or it can be like, say, Gran Turismo where you need to perform well to pilot your new 'mech or equip a certain weapon, like acquiring licenses before you can drive faster cars. Like, "Oh, I need to get my 65-ton license" and they have you do some standardized mission - eg: "Destroy objectives at nav alpha, beta, gamma, delta within 70 seconds" and they give you a Hellbringer (or something, probably worst example since it's Clan).

I know this would take like 127637846 man-hours of development time they don't have, but it would be a fun way to measure against other 'Mercs and a great way to learn a bit about pilots you've never played with. Obviously people would rig the system, and just practice and get better at these "challenge" maps which might have no bearing in actual combat, but at least you know that the guy knows how to use jumpjets and won't say "hey guys i shot all my guns and now i cant move, ffs this dang graphic bug my hud disappear stupid AMD drivers" when they overheat and shut down...

Bringing this back to the topic at hand, you could use these pilot measurements and standardized skills to affect BV if you must, or affect customization and scratchbuilding - "You must score a B or better on this test before you are authorized to mount PPCs on this 'Mech" (though honestly it makes no sense when I think about it that way.)

Anyway I just mean the best pilots get the best contracts for the best money and then they can scratchbuild all they want to. I'm hoping that I can buy a stock 'Mech, have a cute little "STRIP" button in the corner of the 'Mech lab, buy a bunch of parts off of the market, have them show up instantly (trolololo wait 4 and a half days for delivery from Outreach), be able to fit them on my 'Mech, and go play with it (maybe in 2 weeks since I'm boating ERLL or maybe 5 minutes if I swap the SRM6 for a LRM10). I would obviously rather not need to wait in "Real" time, but that's another topic. Maybe just have changes be made to a 'Mech when you come back from a mission in another 'Mech. Like, you go and jump and do a campaign or battle for some planet, come back after, and the changes are done. Maybe a similar thing for repairs - pay to have it repaired and it will be ready when you're back from your mission in your other 'Mech. It would encourage people to play different weight classes and have multiple 'Mechs in their garage which would continue to add variety.

Edited by Volume, 27 December 2011 - 07:56 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

One small nitpick, Volume, I never said I expected it to be perfect. Of course it won't be, the best one could strive for is a matchmaking with no blatant flaws to be exploited. You can likely never make it completely foolproof.

Alss like the training idea for certificates and exams. Sounds like a different game though, from what PGI is currently developing. Maybe in a year or two, call it "MechWarrior Academy"?

[Kristov Kerensky]

I actually like that training idea Volume..and it's been done, quite well I might add, in another F2P PvP FPS game..America's Army. The tutorial for the game makes you do some Basic Training, just like they really do in the US Army, and how well you do on certain parts effects exactly what you get access to in the game. Marksmanship training for example, using the M16A3, you have to hit X targets out of Y to pass the course...straight from Boot..and hitting a specific number qualifies you for Sniper Training..without that, you do not EVER get to select a sniper rifle as your weapon in the game. You can pick it up off someone who's dead, but that's it without the training to use it. The Army doesn't just GIVE you whatever weapon you want you know..you have to show them you are worth training on it FIRST. Be a good idea for Mech class..training to pilot anything over a Light, since ALL House Mech pilots are trained in a Light to begin with..Mercs/Lone Wolves could be given the option to pick 1 class to be auto-trained in as they probably have a family Mech they start with and it could be anything from a Light to an Assault. For anything else, they need to train to use it.

[Canned_Dman]

I found a huge part of playing TT btech was modding mechs within the rules set out by btech fitting crit spaces and weight limits. As long as no weapon ends up having a freakish ability that it shouldnt have then people will all build different stuff within the guidelines and it should work out.
If you ever played btech or read any of the books then you would see modded mechs is a huge part of this system and should be embraced.
Starting from scratch wouldnt be what people would do with this game unless you had the backing of NAIS or whoever.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Volume & Kristov. Excellent ideas, having to go through a "bootcamp" first is probably essential to introduce beginners to the IP as you can't just get in a mech and expect to survive. Some form of training is essential if noobs are to survive long enough to have some fun and stay with the game. The idea of "proficiency" certification is great. I would like to see these as something you could re-sit as you got more used to the game or wanted to expand your gameplay. This would be useful in House or Merc unit's where you don't know all the players and where you have Lone Wolf pick up's to make up the numbers.

[Primarck]

Ghost73, on 21 December 2011 - 07:30 PM, said:

Full customization is not what broke previous MW games, its the fact that the devs of those games didn't think of the imbalanced possibilities that players could create and did not balance the game properly for that, which allowed some customizations to be far superior than others.

Right, so what makes you think it will be balanced this time? I think thats what most of the "little to no" customization crowd is saying. Since all other games failed at making it balanced, why not try something different, like real BALANCE, by not allowing the crazy stuff some folks will do. Besides the fact that most of those folks don't give a crap about the Battletech or Mechwarrior universe, and only care about a big fighty robot they want Gundam, not Battletech.


Clay

[chewie]

I gotta agree with some of the folks here. A mechlab is not required to make this game work.

You don't need (and if it was rl, you certainly wouldn't want to do it even if you could) make a stupid op/ua mech the way we all used to in MW4/Mercs.

Yea i had fun with my 2lbx ac10 / 6 er med laser Uziel or my 4lbx ac10 + some er med lasers Daishi, but why is it not enough if you have mechs with lots of alt configs available to you.

case in point.

In 3025, you could take a Commando. it had 3 (i think) different load outs. but officially, it has loads more. over the entire BT universe, it has something like 10, not including the ones they cooked up for it in the Crescent Hawks games.

If they include access to the different mech configs for different prices or upgrades in the mechlab, why should you need (or want) to monkey about with it just to make it a 1 shot alpha killer. Wheres the joy in battle if you just want to walk about snuffing other players in 1 shot (before then getting snuffed yourself because you have no back armour due to your ridiculous weapons load out.

so back to my example.

COM1A (large laser in right arm and 5t of armour)
COM 1B (large lase, srm2 and a medium laser)
COM 1D (large laser, srm6 3t of armour)
COM 2D (srm6, srm4, 1 medium laser)
COM 2Dr (MML-7 adn er medium laser, Ji-Had error, so wont be seeing this anytime soon.)
COM 3A (2 x srm 6, Medium laser, flamer)
COM 4H (2 RL 15 and 2 med lasers, again, post 3055, wont see it soon)
COM 5S (ArtemisV linked SRM6 and a Streak SRM2 with Case and other goodies)
COM 7S (2strk 2's, Artemis V linked SRM4, 2 er mediums lasers, Xl/Light engine)
COM 7B (go see the sarna wiki for that one)
finally, the Blazing Inferno (this has mechlab written all over it) from Crescent Hawks Inception. " removed both missile launchers from the COM-2D and exchanged them for three additional medium lasers to the right arm, right torso and head, six small lasers mounted in pairs on each leg and the center torso, and an additional ton of armor"

what more would you need to make your own, unless you REALLY wanted the blazing inferno version????

Edited by chewie, 28 December 2011 - 10:07 AM.

[FACEman Peck]

I have no IDEA how many people would leave the game after they learn that MechLab isn't in the game, but I'd bet there would be droves leaving MW5 for something like MW4 or different games. I would be one of them. It would be like saying to a kid playing Modern Warfare 3 "you can play, but you are going to be limited so the game would be 'fair'".

RIIIIIIGGHT...

[Ceefood]

well for one thing I want a mechlab to get rid of crap weapons like the MG & most notably the FLAMER - what a stupid weapon it was !! it took heat from your reactor & fired it at the enemy which sounded great a way to get rid of heat & give it to the enemy & possibly damage him is how I would read it from that description but NO it gave you more heat & did less damage to the enemy than if gave heat to you - 2 damage to them & 3 heat to you!!

now if it gave 2 damage & took 3 heat I would have been fine with it but noone I EVER met took the dumb thing & everyone who was allowed too removed it for a med laser or some extra armour or something

I thing teamplay should lessen the alpha strike mechs if the devs get the teamplay right so the mechlab should be etter than it has been
also maybe we as players should stop the alphas - by simply not following suit when someone does & putting pressure on any player who makes one eg player XYZ mechwarrior brings an alphastriker hunchback to game - everyone targets this player game after game until he plays a "normal" config letting them know that an alpha strike mech is not tolerated - that would stop me since I would not be having fun

[Canned_Dman]

Ceefood, on 28 December 2011 - 02:28 PM, said:

well for one thing I want a mechlab to get rid of crap weapons like the MG & most notably the FLAMER - what a stupid weapon it was !! it took heat from your reactor & fired it at the enemy which sounded great a way to get rid of heat & give it to the enemy & possibly damage him is how I would read it from that description but NO it gave you more heat & did less damage to the enemy than if gave heat to you - 2 damage to them & 3 heat to you!!

now if it gave 2 damage & took 3 heat I would have been fine with it but noone I EVER met took the dumb thing & everyone who was allowed too removed it for a med laser or some extra armour or something

I thing teamplay should lessen the alpha strike mechs if the devs get the teamplay right so the mechlab should be etter than it has been
also maybe we as players should stop the alphas - by simply not following suit when someone does & putting pressure on any player who makes one eg player XYZ mechwarrior brings an alphastriker hunchback to game - everyone targets this player game after game until he plays a "normal" config letting them know that an alpha strike mech is not tolerated - that would stop me since I would not be having fun

I have had great success not only in TT playing with flamers and infernos but also in some of the MW games.
You set up a light mech with heat makers and slip in behind an assault mech running the red line, give him a shot and either have and ammo explosion or have him go into shutdown then next round target his head or if you have mercy have him eject or surrender.
Done deal!

[Hellen Wheels]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Hellen, I know we had boats in NetMech, I built a few myself, but I also know that boats weren't very productive usually. Sometimes..1v1 situations, they could be, but common and everyone driving the SAME design? No, we both know that's not even close to true. Grand Council..doing C combats..sure, you saw the same designs, but when you purposely limit yourself to a SINGLE weapon type, what do you expect to happen? Same thing in MW3 and MW4, you limit yourself to a single weapon type, which is exactly what people did, that's what you will get, a single weapon type dominate game. You can't blame the game or the Mechlab for the players forcing a specific weapon type combat, that was choice, nothing to do with the game design at all. And boats..please..hit Sarna, spend a few hours perusing the Mechs, tell me how BTech doesn't have boats and that that is a result of the Mechlab...you gonna sell me a bridge too?

Good point, I had forgotten how the battles on NetMech were driven so much by the bidding choices (and also how the mech lab allowed so much liberty and even sharing of designs.) That's something that I *don't* want to happen in MWO.

In MWO we have a desert scenario I think. With a mech lab, imagine 8x8 (or 12x12 if we get it) with both sides running all LRM boats rigged up in a mech lab. BORING. That's what happened to TKZ and GC...everyone figured out the boats for the scenarios and shared them and that became the game: who had the better boat. Yeah, that's part of the game (who can bring the better mech) but those sites devolved into simply who has the better missile / AC / whatever boat and who could shoot their loads the fastest. Not interested in a replay of that.

That's why I would prefer no mech lab or a very limited mech lab in MWO. And some sort of governor in the lobby pre-drop that would act as a clutch preventing one side or the other from engaging in just a boat match.

JMHO. :-)
H

[Nik Van Rhijn]

@Ceefood - treating alphastrikers only works when their a minority. What do you do when your the only one in the lance with a fairly "standard" Config? I agree with MG's, flamers etc as they are only low level refits, If I want to refit my Hunchback as a "super swayback" with 10 ML's, double heatsinks and FF - no problem as long as I don't mind waiting for the facory to build a 1 off and ship it to me, along with footing the (enormous) bill. But i then have a mech capable of dealing 50 damage instead of 33, with no ammo to run out or explode, wrecking your mech, and the same range profile.So why would I want to play with standard mech's", theyre sub-optimal and terefore not do easy to pliot or kill other mechs. Anyway, as shown by the other MW games (which were single player) we have the rught to a Mechlab which enables us to build any variant we can dream up immediately or we'll throw our toys out the pram.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Hellen, never did TKZ, another ladder league like GC?

I guess I just played with more creative people, because boaters weren't common and they usually got their ***** handed to them real quick. I did GC, always preferred mixed weapon because I can set up for more options, not restrict myself to less options, just me..and the rest of SRM..and quite a few other people, like all the NBTers and other non-ladder league players.

You want to be restricted Hellen..I'll not question why, it's a choice you made. But it's not my choice, being allowed more options was always part of BTech, it was part of the MW games, and just because you GET more options doesn't mean you HAVE to use them. You want to stick with stockers, by all means, go right ahead. But don't limit me because you don't like surprises or having to think outside the box.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 24 December 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

Hey, Pht, your cut and paste skills are great..but those comprehension skills..not so great.

Weapons frame attachments are custom designed into the internals for each Mech.

A:"This means that most BattleMech systems are mounted to the exterior of the internals ("bones") instead of being caged in a frame."
+
B:"The exterior..." (of the bones, aka internals)..."is configured to mount the assorted equipment 'Mechs carry. Struts extend outward from the bones to hold the armor shell, and attachment points for myomer are built onto the bone."

=C:

Xhaleon, on 24 December 2011 - 08:56 AM, said:

Uh... The weapons are fitted onto the internal structure, which needs to be custom made to accept them. ... The chassis needs to be modified, because it is not the weapon that is being made compatible with the chassis.

OH, and "INto the internals" not ONto or Mounted to.

And just to clinch it: Techmanual, page 32, left column, 2nd paragraph:

Quote

Anyway, the major components—the major “bones” of the standard internal structure—are composite structures with a core of ultra-light foamed aluminum, shrouded in carefully oriented wraps of silicon carbide fibers. This assembly is then clad with titanium-alloyed steel. The fiber layer also has assorted structural sensors and data lines woven into it, while the exterior is rigged to mount assorted equipment. Struts extend outward from the bones to support the armor shell without interfering with the myomer rigging. Weapons frame attachments are custom-designed for each ’Mech.

And the older but not superseded in this area "Classic BattleTech Companion" 10975, page 243, right column last part of first paragraph:

Quote

The skeletal frame of the BattleMech consists of only sixteen to twenty-five "bones," providing for somewhat limited movement capability. From the internal framing, armor struts extend outward for the attachment of outer armor plating. Additional framing extends from the muscles for stringing myomer bundles and so on. Weapons frame attachments are much more specialized and must be machined for the particular 'Mech and weapon.

Context, it's illustrative. We ignore it to our peril.

Edited by Pht, 28 December 2011 - 04:06 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Pht...I'm..uh..HUH? Weapon frame attachments are attached INTO the internal structure..I said that..you even quoted me saying it. Please, PLEASE look at what that says. Those weapon frame attachements are what is customized, NOT the internal structure itself.

Go look at the various pics of Mechs and their variants, lots of them on Sarna, and you'll SEE that the internal structure doesn't get altered to suit the weapon changes on the variants, they look like the SAME Mech, just different weapons on them.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 28 December 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

Pht...I'm..uh..HUH? Weapon frame attachments are attached INTO the internal structure.

NO, they are not. The direct source quotes from the books are even MORE specific that they are not. The bones of each variant are designed for the weapons it mounts.

The subject being discussed in each of the two direct source quotes are the internals, NOT a frame that is attached to those bones which the weapon is than attached to.

The writers of the source are not so bad at clarity as to require us to assume a never explicitly mentioned intermediary frame, and they have to go through editors would beat them about the head with a baseball bat if they used such poor english as your assumption would force them to have used.

sarna said:

The exterior is configured to mount the assorted equipment 'Mechs carry.

"The exterior" referring to the outside surface of the bones. I have not said nor meant what you are persisting in saying I have.

Quote

I said that..you even quoted me saying it. Please, PLEASE look at what that says. Those weapon frame attachements are what is customized, NOT the internal structure itself.

I have looked at what it says. You are, I guess, ignoring the context, or trying to force your idea into the texts. Why?

Quote

Go look at the various pics of Mechs and their variants, lots of them on Sarna, and you'll SEE that the internal structure doesn't get altered to suit the weapon changes on the variants, they look like the SAME Mech, just different weapons on them.

The pictures are not rules and should not be construed as rules; and the pictures do not show the internal bones anyways, and the few that do are not consistent enough to derive a baseline from. The art is for cool factor, not for establishing how the 'mechs are built.

Besides which, even IF ... and they do not use them... 'mechs had this intermediary piece, that would require, at an absolute minimum, having mounting holes or brackets across nearly the entire surface of every one of a 'mechs bones, so that every variant could be made from a single set of internals; the weapons are of vastly differing bulk, weight, and conformation... and if you persist in thinking the art supports your idea, none of the art shows the bones having these mounting points all over the bones.

[Ceefood]

Dev909, on 28 December 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

I have had great success not only in TT playing with flamers and infernos but also in some of the MW games.
You set up a light mech with heat makers and slip in behind an assault mech running the red line, give him a shot and either have and ammo explosion or have him go into shutdown then next round target his head or if you have mercy have him eject or surrender.
Done deal!

flamers dont add heat like infernos do they only add heat to you (3) which is more than the damage (2) it did to the enemy & thats if you hit at all

I agree infernos were great & I also used them with some good success

@Nik - I agree it only works if they are in the minority & my only solutions to this is
1) start this process from launch
2) make sure members of your merc corp follow same rules
3) try to team up only with like minded players - hopefully rule 1 helps this
4) the devs put in place reasons not to alpha ie the teamwork benefits outweight the reasons to alpha

not ideal but I would prefer this than no mechlab & no MW4 was not my idea of a mechlab

[FACEman Peck]

You my friend, Pht, have WAY too much time on your hands. First off, going through the whole 15 page forum, second, going through the whole 15 page forum and "correcting" 4 people? Seriously man?