MechLab scratchbuilding
#301
Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:20 PM
#302
Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:32 PM
FACEman Peck, on 28 December 2011 - 05:10 PM, said:
Um ... you care about what I bother to post on ... why?
#303
Posted 28 December 2011 - 05:34 PM
#305
Posted 28 December 2011 - 07:39 PM
#306
Posted 28 December 2011 - 08:28 PM
Edited by Flawless, 28 December 2011 - 08:28 PM.
#307
Posted 28 December 2011 - 09:32 PM
Now, my honest and open to changes opinions on customisations and repairs. Concerning customisations, my understandering is that this will only be weapon changes (please bear with me, i dont know any of these weapons or there names well). am pretty sure that we all want the general build of the mech untouched.....i would like see a jenner or an atlas and know what is even from a distance and some unholy collabo, and thats should be left to comtemplate is what that mech is packing and how to approach.
It becomes redundant (in my opinion) say for example WARHAMMERS on carry 2x ppc's and 1x LRM. so if he open up on me with the two ppc's i know he only has an LRM left, thats boring, i'd prefer i dont know whats under the hood. Make for a better fight. Just like in DIRTY HARRY, you dont know if his revovler is a 6 or 5 shot...then the question is are you willing to fin out?
To close this in reference to customisation, let there be limited customisation, FOR EXAMPLE, do you want a barage of unguided missiles that deal 5% damage or do you want a single guided missle that deals 2.5% damage. Do you want a pulser laser cannon with laser heatup time than a single pulse laser cannon with greater damage....stuffs like. And i also say limited so as they can be visually represented, dont want a generic mech that has weapon fire coming out from unknown location...if i shot your am off containing a ppc i'd like to take that as a ppc loss and not have ppc shots coming out of your head. *THEY CANT MAKE VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF ALL WEAPONS ON ALL MECHS*. *CERTAIN MECHS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CARRY CERTAIN WEAPONS*
As for the time it takes for repair and customisation. so as to even try to please every camp i suggest, that a *QUICK REPAIR* of max 75% fix should be allowed so as player can return to battle, call it a patchup . For *FULL REPAIR* of 100% fix players sould be made to wait (for alloted time, ill leave it to those who know), GOOD TIME TO HAVE A SPARE MECH.
For the time it takes to customise a mech, i suggest that buying after buying a customisation (say a new LRM or whatever you guys buy ) it should be unvailable for a certain amount of time (as stated before time required to replace an engine or weapon i will leave to you guys). the unavialability of the of called upgrade/install will simulate time it take to for installation, that way people can still battle with their favorite mech untill the time allocated is elasped then equiping should be instant. a little addition would be that your mech has to be at a 100% condition before equipping can take place.
These are my toughts on these issues...
I usually dont post comments and when i do its no more than a sentence long.
I hope you all will take the length of my post as a visually representation of how pumped i am for this game.
Tochi
Edited by ToWcH, 28 December 2011 - 09:33 PM.
#308
Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:17 AM
Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 30 December 2011 - 10:39 AM.
#309
Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:24 PM
ToWcH, on 28 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:
Visually changing the Mech to show the weapons it actually carries..being done right now by the guys making the MWLL mod using another version of the CryTek engine, which is what MWO will use, so that's not really true
As to what weapons a Mech may or not may carry..
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult
Yeah..about that..
#310
Posted 29 December 2011 - 01:29 PM
ToWcH, on 28 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:
Just like you wrote it, we must all be deranged. In particular for not wanting unlimited customization.
Nothing to see here, move on, please, just some deranged people discussing stuff that seems completely irrelevant to the rest of the world...
#311
Posted 29 December 2011 - 02:57 PM
Then as the time-line progresses and we become better with our mechs and the clan invasion happens we will see a broadening of use in the mech lab as clan tech becomes available.
If you read the old mech loadout books they are full of descriptions of why other weapons didnt work or mount on a particular chassis.
Edited by Junkkmann, 29 December 2011 - 02:58 PM.
#312
Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:05 PM
#313
Posted 29 December 2011 - 03:08 PM
Zulu Cobra, on 29 December 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:
Frankenmechs won't be an issue for a bit, since they are composed of a mix of IS and Clan Tech, so no worries there Zulu.
Now, if you mean being able to change the loadout of a Mech so that it no longer fits what YOU think it should be..I'm afraid you'll just have to deal with disappointment, since even the stock variants of the IS Mechs of the time frame MWO is starting in don't even begin to fit the concepts you have of them. See my link above to the Catapult and it's variants..and that's just ONE of the many Mechs with a long list of known variants for the time frame.
#314
Posted 29 December 2011 - 04:38 PM
ToWcH, on 28 December 2011 - 09:32 PM, said:
Actually, this aestetics problem has been known about by this community for years, devs and players alike. All they have to do in the 3d engine is find a way to make the game render whatever appropriate type of port/barrel/ports on a given 'mech when whatever type of weapon is mounted in a location.
So if you mount an AC on the side torso of a 'mech that was carrying missiles there, it would tell the 3d engine to render the "base 3d chassis" with an ac port in that torso location, instead of the missile port.
#315
Posted 29 December 2011 - 06:49 PM
Pht, on 29 December 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
Actually, this aestetics problem has been known about by this community for years, devs and players alike. All they have to do in the 3d engine is find a way to make the game render whatever appropriate type of port/barrel/ports on a given 'mech when whatever type of weapon is mounted in a location.
So if you mount an AC on the side torso of a 'mech that was carrying missiles there, it would tell the 3d engine to render the "base 3d chassis" with an ac port in that torso location, instead of the missile port.
Good to know..
#316
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:06 AM
We know PGI reads these forums..we know they've heard us..we'll see how well they listened when MWO is released
#317
Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:32 AM
#318
Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:49 PM
cray said:
Different BattleMechs also take different approaches. One 'Mech may built an entire limb around a given model of weapon that is fixed directly to the structure (like the Panther's PPC), while another may mount the weapon on an independent mount (like a Shadowhawk-K's shoulder PPC mount).
This is why BattleMechs tend to require some degree of juryrigging to mount different models of the same weapon class - there's always some customization involved particular to the specific BattleMech and weapon combination.
#319
Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:58 PM
#320
Posted 31 December 2011 - 08:31 AM
- You can buy mechs as their standard varients.
- You can refit mechs from one standard varient to another.
- You can make modifications using a standard varient as a baseline, but each such modification causes cumulative drawbacks to the mech.
Ultimately, players will have the freedom to create whatever monstrousities they feel like, but they won't have quite the same efficiency as they would if they were built as a standard varient. This would also mean that minor personalisation would only have a small (probably insignificant) effect on the mech's effectiveness, but a full rebuild would not become overpowering.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users