325 replies to this topic

[Juodas Varnas]

I'd exchange all the customization in the world for the game to have Quads in it!
.
.
.
Though to be perfectly honest, i wouldn't hate a completely stock mech game.

[KuroNyra]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 07:48 AM, said:

There are far too many people out there who take gaming and "proving I'm better than you!" in gaming way too seriously. They love to see "stupid noobs" punished - while at the same type being utterly unable to understand how that damages the business model of the game they are playing - and hate to see anyone derive any fun from a game in a way different from them. They hate roleplayers, people who love to play odd builds, people who aren't also fanatical about the game, etc. They also love to see games have super-steep learning curves and be locked in "hard-mode" forever because it validates their, realistically, worthless mastery of the game and makes it easier for them to laugh at "stupid noobs" and, in PvE games, kill them. It's petty behavior, but this is just more of the same.

Well, can we just agree that they are right ONLY when speaking with a Urbanmech?

Yes? No?

Ok.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

If you're glad somebody else is upset about something in a video game, you're wallowing in petty behavior and missing the point entirely while chest-beating. If a lot of people won't buy a game without a mechlab because it won't be fun for THEM - not YOU - THEM, this game may go nowhere, leaving you without your "stock only" builds that you so badly need to prove your pointless "superiority" over other people in a video game.

Think before bragging and try to understand that other people have different interests than you and enjoy the mech lab and consider a core part of the experience. And why do you care how they play anyway? It's PvE - if they want to rush through in a meta-cheese build, how, exactly, does that affect YOUR game? It doesn't, so stop trying to stifle other people's choices in a PvE game. God, it's like listening to somebody demand that a PvE game only have a hardest difficulty mode because "I can beat that, so it's the only right way to play, stupid noobs!"

The amount of petty chest-beating over this type of thing - "I can win a PvE game in stock only, so everyone else must suck and their opinions - unlike mine - are wrong!" is laughable. There is no superiority more worthless than video game superiority.

Here's the thing, I AGREE WITH YOU radagast.

But guess what, if the game comes out, and I buy it, and I'm happy with it, but others are not, guess what, it's not like they can take the game AWAY from me now can they? it'll be installed and on my hard drive, and given it's a single player experience, it's not going to matter,

So, your whole "the game will fail" argument, does nothing, because games fail all the time, I paid 60USD for Aliens:Colonial Marines, I wasn't happy with it, but I'm sure, someone, out there is. Granted, I've stuck to my guns after that released, and have never bought anything from Gearbox since. And hey, that's my right.

Just as it's anyone's right to boycott PGI for their practices in MWO or MW5, I for one however, am glad, that I'm finally, after all these years [with the exception of the original Mechwarrior] Getting a game, set in the setting I've desired since 2mercs, with locked down customization.

I say good job to PGI on that one.

[MischiefSC]

Customization breaks both game balance and any need to upgrade mechs or care much about salvage. If you can just build a laservomit whatever, liquid metal style like in MWO you've got a massive advantage over any/every enemy who will be in stock mechs. There's no real reason to care about what mechs you fight or capture.

With liquid metal customization balance is gone and the value of capturing mechs is gone. The only reason this didn't happen in prior MW titles is that we were all kids who didnt know how to minmax. I recently replayed MW4. It was a cake walk.

It's a good game design choice. A lot more BT. You want a particular build toy get a mech with that build.

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 07:49 AM, said:

Here's the thing, I AGREE WITH YOU radagast.

Just as it's anyone's right to boycott PGI for their practices in MWO or MW5, I for one however, am glad, that I'm finally, after all these years [with the exception of the original Mechwarrior] Getting a game, set in the setting I've desired since 2mercs, with locked down customization.

I say good job to PGI on that one.

Yeah, but being glad somebody else is ticked is just not cool and does nothing to help the Battltech community, which is already small and fading. Maybe you didn't really mean what you said, but it came across as petty - "I'm happy because you're not!" - and we just don't need that.

Look, here's the thing - games can have difficulty levels, so just let users SET THE CUSTOMIZATION LEVEL (stock only, limited, full) and then have higher game rewards and more achievements and such for those who can do the game in limited or no customization mode.

It's just like a difficulty level in a lot of earlier video games, and nowadays they could have a cool, online leaderboard and achievements website, so the guy who managed to finish the whole game in a Locust could have his name all over the internet and receive fame for such an achievement. Sure, it's only video game fame, but you see what I mean. That way, it appeals to a wide mass of players: the guys who spend more time fiddling in the mech lab vs. playing, and the guys who just want to play a stock (or near stock) build and see how well than can do with it.

It annoys me how we're somehow going BACKWARDS in game design options. Heck, DOOM and HERETIC had difficulty level options, so the casual, less-skilled player could still buy and enjoy the game, just as the hard-core, "up for any challenge" player could buy and enjoy the game. Why do we have FEWER choices now, 20+ years later? Why does everything now have to be polarized and absolute - we're writing the game for one group of fans, and if you don't like it, tough! Ugh!

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 08:00 AM.

[Trissila]

MischiefSC, on 17 September 2017 - 07:52 AM, said:

Customization breaks both game balance and any need to upgrade mechs or care much about salvage. If you can just build a laservomit whatever, liquid metal style like in MWO you've got a massive advantage over any/every enemy who will be in stock mechs. There's no real reason to care about what mechs you fight or capture.

With liquid metal customization balance is gone and the value of capturing mechs is gone. The only reason this didn't happen in prior MW titles is that we were all kids who didnt know how to minmax. I recently replayed MW4. It was a cake walk.

It's a good game design choice. A lot more BT. You want a particular build toy get a mech with that build.

This really needs to be emphasized. Prior 'Mercs' style games games (MW2 Mercs, MW4 Mercs, to a lesser extent MW3) had an entire salvage/market system that largely went unused. You got a collection of lasers in the start of the game, and slapped them on whichever of your 'mechs was your favorite-looking at the time, and held out until That One 'Mech You Always Like showed up on the field or in the market. Picked it up, transferred your lasers there, game's over. With free customization, there is no reason to care which 'mech you're actually driving, because they are all effectively the same except for some hardpoint geometry variation -- a difference which really does not matter in a single-player game.

[Rahnu]

Mcgral18, on 17 September 2017 - 07:02 AM, said:

FFA is supposed to be a possible upgrade, without obscene downtime


Endo should not be, that's replacing the entire substructure

Weapon Swapping will likely be a thing, but not completely open
Whether hardpoint (what we have now), or more restrictive (Sized hardpoint, hybrid between MW4 and MWO) system, to be seen

Yeah, weapon swapping is inevitably going to be in. There's no point to buying weapons if you don't have the ability to swap weapons in and out.

The nature of the hard points, on the other hand; that is the more important part of the equation. They could very well go with a sized hardpoint configuration to force specific roles on mechs while still allowing some level of build customization.

I'm curious about how armor values will be handled. I assume that we will still be able to control those (despite not being able to swap for ferro-fibrous) as otherwise the only other way to fill out tonnage would be to stuff as many heatsinks in the spare tonnage that we have.

Personally, I'm quite looking forward to jumping from system to system hunting for a specific variant while trying to build up my roster of mechwarriors and technicians.

Edited by Zyrusticae, 17 September 2017 - 08:02 AM.

[MischiefSC]

The logic of "it's SP, just let me play how I want" would logically support all games coming with godmode on, no leveling of any sort and the player having everything - then just throwing away or turning off what they don't want.

Games are designed with challenge in mind. I'm sure you'll be able to toggle heat and ammo off like you could before or whatever changes like that you want to make. The limitations on liquid metal customization will attract some players and turn off others - just like a more sandbox vs storyline design will.

MWO vs bots doesn't excite me. Using it be a bit more BT like this does. To each their own.

[Rovertoo]

I just want to point out that , clearly, there will be weapon customization. The free market bit describes that new weapons like xpulse lasers will become available as time goes on. I think it will probably be similar to clan mechs without omnipods, locked engines and upgrades and the like. Not unbearable I think, and much better than no customization at all!

[o0m9]

I really enjoy games that force me to make do with what I have in order to progress, so no/limited customization on mechs doesn't particularly bother me. The highly specialized builds like you see in MWO get stale to play (for me anyway) since you only ever have to adapt your positioning. It'll be nice to sit in a bracket mech and not be at a massive disadvantage.

All that said, there is likely to be weapon customization in some form. Another part of the article mentions traveling around the Sphere to visit particular manufacturing plants that sell variant weapons with unique characteristics, so build tweaking will almost definitely remain somehow.

My biggest hope is that JJs actually cause mechs to jump this time around. None of this 'hover three and a half feet off the ground' crap we get in MWO.

Edited by o0m9, 17 September 2017 - 08:12 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 07:55 AM, said:

Yeah, but being glad somebody else is ticked is just not cool and does nothing to help the Battltech community, which is already small and fading. Maybe you didn't really mean what you said, but it came across as petty - "I'm happy because you're not!" - and we just don't need that.

Look, here's the thing - games can have difficulty levels, so just let users SET THE CUSTOMIZATION LEVEL (stock only, limited, full) and then have higher game rewards and more achievements and such for those who can do the game in limited or no customization mode.

It's just like a difficulty level in a lot of earlier video games, and nowadays they could have a cool, online leaderboard and achievements website, so the guy who managed to finish the whole game in a Locust could have his name all over the internet and receive fame for such an achievement. Sure, it's only video game fame, but you see what I mean. That way, it appeals to a wide mass of players: the guys who spend more time fiddling in the mech lab vs. playing, and the guys who just want to play a stock (or near stock) build and see how well than can do with it.

It annoys me how we're somehow going BACKWARDS in game design options. Heck, DOOM and HERETIC had difficulty level options, so the casual, less-skilled player could still buy and enjoy the game, just as the hard-core, "up for any challenge" player could buy and enjoy the game. Why do we have FEWER choices now, 20+ years later? Why does everything now have to be polarized and absolute - we're writing the game for one group of fans, and if you don't like it, tough! Ugh!

Given the amount of flack I've caught because of my "Bad" designs on here, excuse me for being a bit salty, and actually taking some solice, that for once, everyone will be forced to play the way I like, even if I never get to see the results, I'm glad that people will finally come to understand the true spirit of Battletech.

Zyrusticae, on 17 September 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

Yeah, weapon swapping is inevitably going to be in. There's no point to buying weapons if you don't have the ability to swap weapons in and out.

Repair/Rearm actually makes this a reason to buy weapons. You need the weapons system, to replace a broken one.

[Tarl Cabot]

Sorry but many of the posts here are hilarious with many getting their panties in a wad . Remember the original MW5 before PGI went kickstarter for MWO was set in 3015, an INNERSPHERE campaign. There likely would not have been any sort of mechlab in it except to review/repair/reload mechs, in the same manner as the original Mechwarrior. Unfortunately many appear to be spoiled trashborn Clanner children.

MW2+ was all about after the Clan invasion of the Innersphere. If PGI does not provide some sort of customization now, I could see them adding it as a DLC later, at a price... Imho adding a fully functional mechlab while adding at some sort of Free/Black Market as part of the non-linear gameplay would defeat its purpose.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 17 September 2017 - 08:28 AM.

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 08:20 AM, said:

Given the amount of flack I've caught because of my "Bad" designs on here, excuse me for being a bit salty, and actually taking some solice, that for once, everyone will be forced to play the way I like, even if I never get to see the results, I'm glad that people will finally come to understand the true spirit of Battletech.

*sigh* Countering salt with salt accomplishes nothing. Some people gave you grief over your super-stock builds - so now you want to stick it to them and make sure they can't enjoy the game they want to play? What does that accomplish, except drowning everyone in a sea of salt? How does becoming like them - punishing people for playing the game the "wrong way" - achieve anything?

Look, I get it. I play Hunchbacks with autocannons, and I play an Awesome 8Q with PPC's. I get the desire to run things close to Lore and try to make it work. But I don't blow a gasket if I see a Lore-hostile build, and while I may chew out some twit for giving me grief over my mechs, I don't wish the whole game would change so he was forced to play the game MY way.

Attitudes like this - demand others be forced to play the way YOU want to play, be it stock-only or full-customization - are exactly how player bases become splintered and spiteful. We don't need that in a game that is already based on fading IP with a dwindling player base.

As I said before - give players the CHOICE of how much customization they want, just as difficulty levels used to exist in video games, and then more heavily reward the players who play in "hard mode" - stock only - when it comes to online achievements and leaderboard fame.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[oldradagast]

MischiefSC, on 17 September 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

The logic of "it's SP, just let me play how I want" would logically support all games coming with godmode on, no leveling of any sort and the player having everything - then just throwing away or turning off what they don't want.

Games are designed with challenge in mind. I'm sure you'll be able to toggle heat and ammo off like you could before or whatever changes like that you want to make. The limitations on liquid metal customization will attract some players and turn off others - just like a more sandbox vs storyline design will.

MWO vs bots doesn't excite me. Using it be a bit more BT like this does. To each their own.

Except there is literally no need to program in this limit - it's not like they are going to run out of space on an old 8-bit Nintendo cartridge. Let the players pick between a few customization choices when starting a new game - much like the difficulty levels of old - and you'll have something for everyone and more sales will be produced.

Now, I get it; you probably can't have the full level of customization seen in MWO in a game like this, and I'm fine with that. But I strongly suspect customization levels could be varied in some way to offer different things for different people, as well as basically offering another way to change the difficulty of the game so it appeals to more people.

I'm very disappointed with the number of posters here who think that there is one "right" way to play Mechwarrior or Battletech - THEIR way - and all other ideas should be discarded. Does such a mindset really have any place in a single-player game? Does somebody else fully customizing their mech in THEIR game wreck the enjoyment of your stock mech in YOUR game? Ugh... people seem more interested in punishing people who are playing the game "wrong" than making sure this game has enough market appeal to even be finished or turn a profit.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 08:25 AM, said:

*sigh*

Countering salt with salt accomplishes nothing. Come on, man - you must know that. So, people gave you grief over your super-stock builds - so now you want to stick it to them and make sure they can't enjoy the game they want to play? What does that accomplish, except drowning everyone in a sea of salt? How does becoming like them - punishing people for playing the game the "wrong way" - achieve anything?

Look, I get it. I play Hunchbacks with autocannons, and I play an Awesome 8Q with PPC's. I get the desire to run things close to Lore and try to make it work. But I don't blow a gasket if I see a Lore-hostile build, and while I may chew out some twit for giving me grief over my mechs, I don't wish the whole game would change so he was forced to play the game MY way.

Attitudes like this - demand others be forced to play the way YOU want to play, be it stock-only or full-customization - are exactly how player bases become splintered and spiteful. We don't need that in a game that is already based on fading IP with a dwindling player base.

As I said before - give players the CHOICE of how much customization they want, just as difficulty levels used to exist in video games, and then more heavily reward the players who play in "hard mode" - stock only - when it comes to online achievements and leaderboard fame.

And again, I agree with you.

I'd love for them to give all options... however, there is this little thing called: GAME DESIGN.

One of the tennants of that, is that you cannot please everyone. In fact, it's not good to TRY to please everyone, because in doing so, you'll never please anyone.

So, instead, you stick to your guns, and make the game you want your players to play.

People can complain all day that MW5 isn't "for them" because of no mechlab... and that's fine, there are literally 20+ years of games they can return to, that are "For them" with unfettered customization, stronger[possibly] storylines, and all the game breaking mechlabby goodness they could want. Those games are still playable, you can go, play them, right now in fact.

However, MW5, sounds like it's playing to my strengths, and to my desires for what I want out of a mechwarrior experience, so you're damned right I'm going to champion it, it's literally the game I've been wanting for years.

Besides, the playerbase, is already splintered, you only need to look at MWO to see that. And even further, there's already a good portion of people, who won't buy mech5 because "Muh Clans arn't in it as playable!"

So, I'm sorry, what you don't want to happen, is already here, no matter what PGI does here, they're going to fracture the playerbase. I know personally I'll likely finally abandon MWO, for Mech5 once it releases. Because it sounds much, much more like the game I expected MWO to be, than the game I've been playing since 2012.

[oldradagast]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 17 September 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

And again, I agree with you.

I'd love for them to give all options... however, there is this little thing called: GAME DESIGN.

One of the tennants of that, is that you cannot please everyone. In fact, it's not good to TRY to please everyone, because in doing so, you'll never please anyone.

So, instead, you stick to your guns, and make the game you want your players to play.

"You want your players to play?" Sorry, but the game designers should be trying to make a game that the customers want to BUY, not the game they are trying to SELL, which is what you're implying.

As for game design issues with full customization, I'm just not buying it. How is sticking SRM's on my Awesome 8R and upgrading the engine to make it a fast brawler- a large customization change - going to break the game? If the AI is programmed so badly that it can't handle a brawling Awesome 8R with SRM's, but it can handle other brawling mechs with SRM's, than it's rubbish code and won't be worth playing anyway.

I understand the concerns about interaction between customization and in-game markets and mech-upgrades, but I just can't imagine this being some sort of insurmountable issue. There are countless games out there, both PvE and PvP, with marketplaces and customization options, and they all work fine; why are we to believe that THIS game MUST be different from all the others and can ONLY work with limited to no customization?

You can argue about the spirit of Battletech all you want, and I do get it - I like super-stock builds, too. But for many people, the mechlab is a huge part of the experience, and I just don't see this game selling well if it alienates about half of an already dwindling and splintering fan base... particularly when it is not rocket science to add in at least SOME reasonable level of customization if the player wants to have that active for his campaign.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 08:39 AM.

[MischiefSC]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 08:32 AM, said:

Except there is literally no need to program in this limit - it's not like they are going to run out of space on an old 8-bit Nintendo cartridge. Let the players pick between a few customization choices when starting a new game - much like the difficulty levels of old - and you'll have something for everyone and more sales will be produced.

Now, I get it; you probably can't have the full level of customization seen in MWO in a game like this, and I'm fine with that. But I strongly suspect customization levels could be varied in some way to offer different things for different people, as well as basically offering another way to change the difficulty of the game so it appeals to more people.

I'm very disappointed with the number of posters here who think that there is one "right" way to play Mechwarrior or Battletech - THEIR way - and all other ideas should be discarded. Does such a mindset really have any place in a single-player game? Does somebody else fully customizing their mech in THEIR game wreck the enjoyment of your stock mech in YOUR game? Ugh... people seem more interested in punishing people who are playing the game "wrong" than making sure this game has enough market appeal to even be finished or turn a profit.

You have it backwards.

They are re-creating the game in a whole new engine. The mech lab doesn't just "port". It would need designed from scratch. It also has a huge impact on how to balance the game for SP. If you hear game challenge toward "players whole team is on tweaked meta mechs" it's impossible for stock mechs. If you make it for stock mechs it's a cakewalk for meta.

Prior games were geared toward stock or semi-stock. So meta builds just waltz through.

So the question becomes "why do they put the time and cost I to making a full mech lab when it complicates all other facets of balance".

We're not arguing the "right" or "wrong" way to play a game. However we're discussing the relative merits of liquid metal on game balance. If it's there you have to minmax or you're inte originally playing gimped and the game needs balanced around that. That's its own set of issues. There's benefits both ways and some will enjoy one or the other. There's no "right" option, same with sandbox vs story campaign. Some will like one more than the other. If it's liquid metal customization I won't but it until it's like $10 on steam because MWO vs bots isn't really a new game for me. Restricted customization makes real logistics and more challenges I would enjoy, so, for me, that's like a new game (like HBS Battletech, which I spent a lot on, happily) so I'll pay full price.

Neither will make the game "fail". Just different and likely pretty equal markets.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 08:38 AM, said:

"You want your players to play?" Sorry, but the game designers should be trying to make a game that the customers want to BUY, not the game they are trying to SELL, which is what you're implying.

As for game design issues with full customization, I'm just not buying it. How is sticking SRM's on my Awesome 8R and upgrading the engine to make it a fast brawler- a large customization change - going to break the game? If the AI is programmed so badly that it can't handle a brawling Awesome 8R with SRM's, but it can handle other brawling mechs with SRM's, than it's rubbish code and won't be worth playing anyway.

I understand the concerns about interaction between customization and in-game markets and mech-upgrades, but I just can't imagine this being some sort of insurmountable issue. There are countless games out there, both PvE and PvP, with marketplaces and customization options, and they all work fine; why are we to believe that THIS game MUST be different from all the others and can ONLY work with limited to no customization?

You can argue about the spirit of Battletech all you want, and I do get it - I like super-stock builds, too. But for many people, the mechlab is a huge part of the experience, and I just don't see this game selling well if it alienates about half of an already dwindling and splintering fan base... particularly when it is not rocket science to add in at least SOME reasonable level of customization if the player wants to have that active for his campaign.

Except what's "Reasonable" customization?

I've always advocated here, that a +/- 1 option is best.

IE if you have a medium laser in a spot, you can drop it for a small, or upgrade it to a large, but you could not put in a PPC.

If you have a small laser, you could drop it to upgrade to a medium,downgrade to a flamer or install TAG, but that's it.

Whatever the original weapon in a spot is, would allow you to drop it, and add a tier above, or below of weapon in it's place, but only of the same type.

So you couldn't remove a laser, and put in a ballistic, because that's not what the feeds in the area are set up for.

however, too many people would say that is "too restrictive." Yet, oddly enough many of those same people, would say that MWO's customization is too open.

So what do you do?

Again, what constitutes "Reasonable" customization at this point.

Personally I find it better to just lock down customization, because then, while the complaint is "I can't customize." at least the complaint isn't "It's too much" or "too little."

Edited by CMDR Sunset Shimmer, 17 September 2017 - 08:49 AM.

[Bigbacon]

Zergling, on 17 September 2017 - 06:46 AM, said:

No customisation is a very bad idea, since every Mechwarrior game since MW2 has had customisation. I don't think PGI realise just how big a deal this is; it is one of the fundamental features of the Mechwarrior series.

And the example of the JR7-F vs JR7-D is also bad, as ferro-fibrous armor is a common field upgrade in the lore.

and that is the thing. every other game had this and they didn't suffer from some made up issue.

hell even the MW4 way, which wasn't terrible, would be better than nothing.

Edited by Bigbacon, 17 September 2017 - 08:54 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Bigbacon, on 17 September 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

and that is the thing. every other game had this and they didn't suffer from some made up issue.

hell even the MW4 way, which wasn't terrible, would be better than nothing.

"Unfettered customization never impacted the game ever"
*runs through the entire game, legging mechs with laser vomit, calls it balanced.*