655 replies to this topic

[John Frye]

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

Sorry Tweaks, I was with you up until you said..

"That's what I don't like with full customization, not only it's counter to canon.."

It's not counter to canon, it's canon from the basic Battledroids up through ALL revisions of the BTech game.

-big snip-

Uh, I am not sure that is entirely accurate. I guess I can't speak to Battledroids rules, but the 2nd edition rules didn't have modification / customization rules. There were "Construction" rules included, which, in my opinion, it isn't quite the same thing. However, I am not going to claim my opinion as fact.

[Ghost73]

Dlardrageth, on 21 December 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

So while agreeing with you on the point of the duration of repairs basically, I tend to favour a more strict approach as far as customization is concerned. Sure, make some room for it, but still keep a close lid on what is possible and what not. Fhe former incanations of the MW games (well, excluding MW1) showed all to well where that leads to.

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.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dlardrageth, on 21 December 2011 - 07:07 PM, said:

To some degree, sure. But if you ever actually tried to incorporate the offical MW RPG (no, P&P, not the computer games ) into your BT gameplay, you'd have gotten an idea how unlikely aka forbiddingly expensive it would be for anyone, and yes, that includes most house units, to get a "personal modification" done. And don't throw Yen-lo-wang at me, that particular wang is an exception on many layers, not the least its pilot being part of the ruling nobility.

So while agreeing with you on the point of the duration of repairs basically, I tend to favour a more strict approach as far as customization is concerned. Sure, make some room for it, but still keep a close lid on what is possible and what not. Fhe former incanations of the MW games (well, excluding MW1) showed all to well where that leads to.

We did use the MW rpg rules, and we were in House Steiner, so it was a long time, game time that is, before we could even begin to get our stock variant Mechs, which WE didn't even get to pick out!, altered just a little bit... But, being in a House unit, we also didn't have all the expenses that a Merc would have had..and we invested our pay wisely. 20 years into the game timeline for us, I was able to fund the complete R&D, prototype building and final build of a new chassis, 100 ton Assault based on the Battlemaster but upgraded to include Clan influenced Tech, as this was shortly after we stopped the Invasion(no Tukayyid in our game, we tracked them all the way home and took em down..kinda like how MW2:Mercs ends..only we left NO Clans standning). I ended up letting Defiance put the Mech into production and pay me a royalty..and give me a seat on the board of directors. I became obscenely rich and retired a war hero

[Wolvers]

Tweaks, on 21 December 2011 - 06:25 PM, said:

With fully customizable weapons, internals and other parts, you can't know for sure what's inside your opponent's 'Mech because it's not a stock variant anymore.

With unpredictable variants (non-stock), you can't have that anymore and tactics only become centered around the weapons themselves, and not the 'Mechs.

Right, now we're on track, yes that is a concern about what may or may not be inside a mech, but I don't know, part of the fun for me I guess would be to be surprised at a new design.

However, if they eventually do do some customization and limit it to weapons only, that will still allow the "surprise" and "something different" factor.

[Wolvers]

Kristov Kerensky, on 21 December 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

Wolvers..IF you happen to have the parts sitting around, yeah, it's hours to fix up a Mech from combat damage..but again, that's hours, not instant, not a few minutes. And again, doesn't matter, in TT time doesn't exist. In a video game, it's an important thing because most of us will be using our so called 'Free Time' to play the game..that's time we're not spending with our whatevers. And for a lot of people, it's maybe a few hours a week total. So, they jump in, get into combat, get their Mech torn up, have to replace that engine. That's 6 hours of waiting..for someone who's just spent 30 minutes of the ONLY two hours they'll get to spend in the game for the next week...uh uh...especially not in a F2P game, ain't gonna happen, customers will be beating a path away from your door, not to it. This is one of those places where the TT fans, like myself, have to step back and go 'no, don't do this part of TT, it won't appeal to any but the very hardcore and that will kill the future of the game'.

True, I guess I was more thinking of mech repairs could be done during the off time, when people are sleeping or whatnot, but yes, it's no good if you've only got 1 mech, you get to play the 10-20 of game time only to have your one mech trashed. Even if you have a few mechs you could still end up twiddling your thumbs waiting to play until they get repaired.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Wolvers, on 21 December 2011 - 09:31 PM, said:

True, I guess I was more thinking of mech repairs could be done during the off time, when people are sleeping or whatnot, but yes, it's no good if you've only got 1 mech, you get to play the 10-20 of game time only to have your one mech trashed. Even if you have a few mechs you could still end up twiddling your thumbs waiting to play until they get repaired.

Yeah, and that's the only reason I'd be against a waiting time, people would end up not being able to play for extended amounts of time, especially when the game is new, cause ain't NONE of us going to be hotshots off the bat..seen that with every MW game out now, they always work differently and take a bit to get used to. Plus anyone totally new a MW style game..that would drive new comers off right away. THAT is something we and PGI both want to avoid at all costs, new blood is the best thing we can get.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Which means that PGI will most likely set payout for a mission to guarantee being able to repair the top end mech. Unless starter mechs are "free". With customisation they could set the pricing to encourage or discourage. ie dropping 2 MG's and ammo for more AC ammo and case could be cheap. Dropping an AC20 for lasers and double heatsinks could be 2 or 3 X the BT value. Actually thinking over your time point - repairs (even to customised mech's) would have to be "instantaneous" to avoid problems. I can't see any problems with taking time to have customisations, perhaps above a certain level (ie unfavoured by PGI) taking time can you?

[Dihm]

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.

The bit people seem to be missing or ignoring is that the previous MechWarrior titles were single player games FIRST. The multiplayer aspect was not the driving force behind the games, it was icing on the cake. The free customization allowed in the MW titles isn't a problem in single player, where it doesn't effect anyone but that player. The mech labs in those games was only "balanced" for single player gameplay, not multiplayer.

In a PVP only game, you can't have free customization. There has to be some form of restriction. I'm in favor of some manner of Strategic Ops rules. I would prefer stock + variants, but if people are demanding customization, that's what I'd prefer. If your merc company doesn't have a planet with a mech factory, you're SOL for the higher tier customizations. Be prepared to invest lots of funds and real life time (hours? who knows, up to the devs to balance) for the customization to take place.

Edited by Dihm, 22 December 2011 - 05:46 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

If you make it expensive enough and take enough time,(using Strategic Ops Rules) including shipping the mech from the factory to wherever then it does introduce some balance in that only a few will be able to affore it - and maybe by the time it arrives the Clans will be here. I think that there would be very few "optimised" mechs in that situation. They may be a PITA to deal with but the balance in game would be down to how the matchmaking is carried out. If the mech and player are rated so highly that the other mechs can only be piloted by beginners in bottom end light mechs, it won't seem such a bargain to the pilot, unless its capable of killing 12 opposing mechs on their own. That means that PGI would have to look at the balancing issues.

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 22 December 2011 - 11:28 AM.

[Win44]

I wanted to revisit this topic after reading the new Q&A a couple times.

I am still of the belief that anything done within the world will happen instantaneously. Que wait times, repair wait times, and customization wait times are just not going to jive with pub gamer expectations.

Quote

Do factions have access to unique mechs or weapons? -cobrafive

[BRYAN][color=#CCCCCC] No. Prices may vary, but everyone has equal access to items.[/color]

Quote

[color=#CCCCCC]Pilot Leveling – Experience Points (XP) are rewarded for in-game actions and completion of objectives and winning matches. XP is a running accumulator that does not decay or take anything you’ve earned away. This is the same mechanic found in most games that have an XP leveling system. We’ve added a slight modification to this system in which you can train your pilot using the XP you’ve earned. [/color]

[color=#CCCCCC]Mech Leveling – You earn Mech XP (MXP) for some in-game actions and match wins. This information is stored on a per chassis basis. Similar to the Pilot Tree, BattleMechs have an efficiency tree. Mech XP is used to purchase these efficiencies.[/color]

After looking at these two quotes I had an idea. If everyone regardless of rank/experience/faction has access to everything, then C-Bills will be the prime limitation to mech customization. That scares me.

However, the two experience factors can be used to limit what a pilot can actually field in battle. Maybe pilot experience will be used to give caps on how maxed out the weapon tonnage could be instead of just the chassis limitation. I.E. a player with an inexperienced pilot trying to bring a maxed out chassis into the field will take huge mobility/maneuverability penalties because his/her sense of balance isn't skilled enough to move the mech fluidly.

That plus Mech Chassis experience could limit heat managment, or even the abilities of Techs to swap weapon mounts.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Dihm, having actually worked on MW3 as a tester for Zipper, I can tell you firsthand that the Multiplayer aspect WAS considered and the customization factor wasn't an issue of concern for anyone. We spent as much time on the multiplayer as the single player, it was one of the selling points of MW3, because a lot of the success of MW2 was it's multiplayer, everyone at MicroSoft, MicroProse and Zipper was clear about that, multiplayer was very important, it was a big marketing point.

No one worried about what could or couldn't be put on a Mech because, quite frankly, it has no impact on the balance in multiplayer. Take 2 people, 1 skilled and 1 unskilled, put them in the exact same Mech, and the skilled person will win 9 out of 10 times, without fail. Give the skilled player a 'lesser' customized Mech and the unskilled a 'better' customized Mech and the skilled player will STILL win 9 out of 10 times. It isn't the Mechs that create the imbalance, it's the players. You CAN remove player skill from the equation to an extent, just look at games like WoW for examples, even the PvP in WoW limits just how much player skill impacts the game play. Now, take a game designed TOTALLY for multiplayer from the ground up, like Battlefield2 or 3. I've been in situations in those where I've personally taken down 4-6 players in a row using a pistol..the least damaging weapon in your kit. They came at me with assault rifles, Light Machine Guns, anti-tank weapons, even sniped at me, but my skill and luck allowed ME to be the one to walk away while they were all waiting to respawn.

Pray tell Dihm, how do you balance something like that? I was using the LEAST dangerous weapon in the arsenal, I was outnumbered and outgunned to hell and back, but I lived and they didn't. You can do what WoW does and remove the player's skill from the equation or you can do what the MW games have always done and simply give everyone access to the same toys and let the player's skill be the determining factor.

Something tells me that you'll find most of the fans of the MW series share the same feeling on that, make our SKILL count, do NOT impose some outside arbitrary limitation on what we can do because it's not 'fair' to people who don't have the same abilities.

[Dihm]

I've never once advocated balancing "skill", that's the reason I don't play MMOs. I suppose I stand corrected that multiplayer wasn't a consideration in the customization/mechlab.

[Pht]

*cough*



LINK

It's entirely possible to build a 'mechlab that stops the cookie cutter effect, gives everyone an equal opportunity at customization without the having to do the impossible - make a "working" command and control economy.

Edited by Pht, 22 December 2011 - 12:38 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

So Pht, you do realize that that system is an automatic failure don't you? You can't make stock variants with it..nuff said.

And btw, hand/lower armor slots are allowed to be removed in order to give arms that can flip over and fire directly behind the Mech, at the cost of some accuracy and mobility in the arm's range of movement.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 12:41 PM, said:

So Pht, you do realize that that system is an automatic failure don't you? You can't make stock variants with it..nuff said.

Wow.

That IS A STOCK VARIANT.

It is not intended to be a "base chassis" on which all variants are built. The variants would be ... just like they are in the BTU - actual 'mechs, unto themselves. In other words, each variant has its "build" - that pic is just a single variant.

Quote

And btw, hand/lower armor slots are allowed to be removed in order to give arms that can flip over and fire directly behind the Mech, at the cost of some accuracy and mobility in the arm's range of movement.

Yes, and you "can" completely rebuild a 'mech into ... virtually anything you want. The rest of the info is at the link.

Edited by Pht, 22 December 2011 - 12:48 PM.

[kamikaziechameleon]

Personally I play mech warrior for the custom lay outs tweaking engine size, armor density, etc.

I would like the mech's apperance to change some as you swap parts into different places. I want something akin to a MW4 not MW2(like 5 ppc cannons firing from the same barel, lol)

I would not mind being moderately constrained/guided in the custimization process as putting a gauss rifle in my LRM bay would be ridiculous.

The prospect of pimping a mech is probably the #1 reason I want to play this game. I don't want something like an Front mission or what ever but I don't want my heavy laser and Auto-canon barrel being identical.

I really truely hope we can save builds, even if we have only one chasis we should be able to save a build with a custom paint job, I would hope we can make super nuanced, custom designs that can best saved, sold etc. A player market place for this stuff could really explode and make tons of money.

[Kristov Kerensky]

So..you took a builder, selected that particular variant of the Cyclops, then lock down all the slots you don't want to see changed, some as unchanging, some as specific weapon type. Ok..fine..so which version of a Mech do you use as the BASE model, because using that, it would be impossible to order a CPLT-K2 model as opposed to the original CPLT-C1 model. SAME Chassis design, with different weapons mounted in the exact same spots..can't do that with a locked slot system. You just can't lock certain sections of a Mech to only accept particular weapon types, the stock variants can't be made when you do so, the Catapult is just ONE of the many examples of this. THAT was the failure of MW4, and your system isn't any different in that respect and you know it.

Funny, you link the actual BTech Mech information but then want to ignore how it works to enforce some sort of restrictions on it for 'balance'. I believe that falls under the 'ironic' catagory doesn't it?

[Phades]

kamikaziechameleon, on 22 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

Personally I play mech warrior for the custom lay outs tweaking engine size, armor density, etc.

I would like the mech's apperance to change some as you swap parts into different places. I want something akin to a MW4 not MW2(like 5 ppc cannons firing from the same barel, lol)

Except it wasn't the model changing in MW4, it was just forcing you to use the visual weapon mounts and did not conform at all to what you could actually fit in the machine.

kamikaziechameleon, on 22 December 2011 - 01:01 PM, said:

I would not mind being moderately constrained/guided in the custimization process as putting a gauss rifle in my LRM bay would be ridiculous.

The prospect of pimping a mech is probably the #1 reason I want to play this game. I don't want something like an Front mission or what ever but I don't want my heavy laser and Auto-canon barrel being identical.

Wait, what? You are contradicting yourself here. Front mission actually modeled the items on the machine, while mechwarrior has never made this attempt. Also, different energy weapon sizes would have different looks and were never represented in MW4, just positioning.

Are you sure you thought this through?

Edited by Phades, 22 December 2011 - 01:10 PM.

[kamikaziechameleon]

Phades, on 22 December 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Except it wasn't the model changing in MW4, it was just forcing you to use the visual weapon mounts and did not conform at all to what you could actually fit in the machine.

Wait, what? You are contradicting yourself here. Front mission actually modeled the items on the machine, while mechwarrior has never made this attempt. Also, different energy weapon sizes would have different looks and were never represented in MW4, just positioning.

Are you sure you thought this through?

Sorry you misunderstand, I mean in front mission(maybe I'm thinking of armored core, they blend together in my mind) you can change everything about the chasis to the point that they are not recognizable. I don't want to be able to change arms legs etc, just the representation of what weapon I arm, maybe by changing the barel or something subtle.

I want to have the constraints of MW4 in that you can't put LRMs in your laser housing, but I would like to add the visual differentiation to weapons, maybe not changing the housing but atleast the barrel. A mad cat should look like a mad cat and not have treds instead of legs, lol. I wasn't bashing front mission its a decent series. I was just using as a point of reference.

[Pht]

Kristov Kerensky, on 22 December 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

So..you took a builder, selected that particular variant of the Cyclops, then lock down all the slots you don't want to see changed, some as unchanging, some as specific weapon type.

... I see people still won't click links. I guess I *will* have to repost my post for the ... i think fifth time? Now.

Quote

Ok..fine..so which version of a Mech do you use as the BASE model,

NONE of them. I had hoped this would have been obvious from my previous post.

There will be a separate chassis for every variant built.

IE: A cyclops 10-Z, 10-Q, and 11-A, each one would have its own chassis in the 'mechlab.

Quote

You just can't lock certain sections of a Mech to only accept particular weapon types, the stock variants can't be made when you do so, the Catapult is just ONE of the many examples of this. THAT was the failure of MW4, and your system isn't any different in that respect and you know it.

I guess when you decide to be ignorant you can say anything you want about what someone says?

Quote

Funny, you link the actual BTech Mech information but then want to ignore how it works to enforce some sort of restrictions on it for 'balance'. I believe that falls under the 'ironic' catagory doesn't it?

Funny, the link I was referring to was my first post in this thread, not my sig link. Ironic, no? ... NM that nothing I've actually posted about how to set up a 'mechlab contradicts or negates anything from my sig link - again, ironically, it uses some of the stuff from that link as justification for the restrictions.

Post I linked to and referred to:
------

Pht, on 07 December 2011 - 05:07 PM, said:

---------------------------------------------

"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.

Should be pretty straight forwards.

Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).

Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.

This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.

Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.

One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).

This would stop the MW3 problem where all 'Mechs are rendered into nothing more than visually different bags full of guns - munchkin min/max Sheol misery, and still allow for a LOT of customization.