325 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

I've seen a lot of assumptions going around MW5 threads...

For one, we don't know if laser boating will even be effective. PGI very well could use different stats than TT stats. They might even make lasers the weakest weapons in the game if they felt like it. Even the HBS game modified TT values in many places.

Keep in mind that with the era, the majority of mechs are going to be using SHS, so that keeps energy spam in check more than a future era where DHS are the norm.

Additionally, we don't know what the difficulty level of the game will be yet. For all we know it could be a total cakewalk even with stock mechs, or even with min-max monsters it could be like Dark Souls. Preferably, the game would be like any normal game that lets you select the difficulty level ranging from easy to keyboard-smashing frustration. How is the game being "too easy" with customized mechs any different from a player using stock mechs and selecting the lowest difficulty level?

Furthermore, even in BT lore itself the energy boats were always the most cost-effective. In an environment with expensive rearming bills and supply lines, energy builds are much easier to maintain because they never need to rearm. That's just a design choice of the IP working as intended. ACs and missiles are SUPPOSED to be less efficient to run if you want to be a true lore purist. Oh, and there's that whole ammo explosions thing...

Lastly, you can always use stock mechs even if the game did have customization. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. If you're a fan of stock mechs but feel like you "need" to min-max, then that's your own lack of self-control at fault.


TL;DR: Ya'll are making a lot of assumptions.

Edited by FupDup, 17 September 2017 - 09:04 AM.

[Koniving]

The6thMessenger, on 17 September 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

I love how it says Bullock is doing the work.
Bullock is the CEO, managing the team, and his ideas are going into MWO.
It's Eckman guiding the creative process, lore process, etc. of Mechwarrior 5 Mercs. (This is why we literally haven't heard or seen him since the last Mech Con, where he was making sure the demo was ready for Russ to play live).
Prior to that, we hadn't seen him since the Transverse flop. Reason? They took that Unreal engine team that was going to work on Transverse and -- welp, what do you think they were doing since then?

If you guessed Mechwarrior 5: Mercs, you'd hit it on the nose.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Can I say it again, like I have said before?

Forced-stock Mechs will decrease the number of top-tier viable Mechs on the field because only a small handful of stock Mechs have the potential to be Top Tier - you can't Meta-ize a non-meta Mech without a Mechlab.

The "Free Market" will become the next Destiny Loot Drops - people waiting endlessly for That One Good Mech they are waiting for, and when they get it they will t en wait for the next That One Good Mech to appear.

DHS, ES, etc. will drive the "Market" just like Legendary weapon drops.

[Koniving]

FupDup, on 17 September 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

I've seen a lot of assumptions going around MW5 threads...

For one, we don't know if laser boating will even be effective. PGI very well could use different stats than TT stats. They might even make lasers the weakest weapons in the game if they felt like it. Even the HBS game modified TT values in many places.

Keep in mind that with the era, the majority of mechs are going to be using SHS, so that keeps energy spam in check more than a future era where DHS are the norm.

Additionally, we don't know what the difficulty level of the game will be yet. For all we know it could be a total cakewalk even with stock mechs, or even with min-max monsters it could be like Dark Souls. Preferably, the game would be like any normal game that lets you select the difficulty level ranging from easy to keyboard-smashing frustration. How is the game being "too easy" with customized mechs any different from a player using stock mechs and selecting the lowest difficulty level?

Furthermore, even in BT lore itself the energy boats were always the most cost-effective. In an environment with expensive rearming bills and supply lines, energy builds are much easier to maintain because they never need to rearm. That's just a design choice of the IP working as intended. ACs and missiles are SUPPOSED to be less efficient to run if you want to be a true lore purist. Oh, and there's that whole ammo explosions thing...

This is very true. Though I have found that (through campaigns on Megamek and Mek Wars; a sort of Community Warfare on a Megamek-like program) if your supply lines to energy manufacturers are long or you like fusion engines, then the cost of them doesn't really play a factor anymore because while the buying cost is low, the time to receive and shipping costs (Mek Wars) pretty much eliminates them as a viable, practical or economic option. Particularly if you're in an area with limited access to Fusion engines (or even if you aren't limited in their access but limited in the proper repair equipment and therefore can't fix or maintain them)...

Areas that are less reliant on energy weapons but have economies that heavily produce ammunition do seem to have good, solid discounts on obtaining their ammo when in a good proximity to cut back logistical overhead which does make them on par with energy weapons in the long run.

Energy weapons also had certain, very noticeable flaws in lore. Mega Mek is kinda iffy on its implementation of custom rules for this but Mek Wars have adopted some rules that really help bring to bring this home. Areas filled with smoke, excessive dust (such as from storms or collapsing mechs, crashes, etc.) or other "particles" (including torrential rains) will diminish the effectiveness of laser-based weaponry over range.

So there were good reasons to run other things. But yes, for economical reasons even in real life, laser weaponry -- provided you have a sufficient power source and the means to maintain, repair or replace them -- is the most economically efficient.

How much of that PGI will actually take into consideration, who knows? But if fan-made unofficial tabletop and tabletop Faction Warfare can think of it... maybe PGI might have some inclination to think of it.

---

How the autocannons work is what concerns me. The stock Shadowhawk 2D has an 80mm AC/5. That's smaller than the 3 shot burst Marauder's AC/5 at 120mm. So there is no ******* way it has a bullet that goddamn big. SHKs are scout mechs and the AC/5 and its pitiful LRM launcher are its long range tools to pepper damage alongside other mechs in a medium-light lance. In the "Trailer" video, he takes the Raven 3L's right torso armor out completely in a single blow.

That's a HUGE concern for me.

Edited by Koniving, 17 September 2017 - 09:19 AM.

[oldradagast]

I have yet to see a single argument as to why THIS game - unlike nearly every other one out there today in PvE or PvP - MUST have limited or no customization that amounts to anything more than "that's the true spirit of Battletech - in my opinion - and thus is the only right way to play."

I've made my point very clear as to why allowing different levels of customization - like difficulty levels - that are set when a new game is started would attract the most players and ensure fun for: hard-mode gamers, Lore-lovers, and casual gamers. And every reply against this has either tried to nit-pick the definition of "reasonable customization" or pretended that, again, THIS game for some magical reason MUST have customization levels locked at nearly zero or it just isn't possible to create.

These replies are bunk. Arguing that no customization is the right path because we haven't yet decided upon what "reasonable customization" yet means is just a fallacy, and pretending that a game like this can't handle customized mechs is either simply inaccurate or a sideways shot at the development team and their programming abilities.

Yes, you can't make a game that pleases everyone, but corollary to that statement is NOT to make a game that pleases only a few people and then prattle on about how that is the "only right way to play and everyone else is wrong."

It's sad that I'll probably have more options for how to play DOOM than I will this game. Nice job, guys.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 09:26 AM.

[Koniving]

Don't get me wrong, I see that "Weapon manufacturers will be making variations on weapon systems, giving you granular control over every aspect of your mech."

So you won't be able to easily yank that AC/5 out and shove in an AC/20, but you might be able to shove in a faster firing, less damage per bullet AC/5 or a slower firing, higher recoil (and yes the trailer shows that Recoil is part of the game which... hasn't been in an MW game since MW3 where firing big guns or multiple smaller guns would jerk your body toward where that weapon system[s] is[are] mounted).

But I'm concerned that they even had a single shot AC/5 in the first place. The largest autocannons in the Inner Sphere in 3015 is the Tomodzuru AC/20 with 180mm shells (5 shots, 4 damage each per reload) and later the Chemjet Gun (4 shots, 5 damage each per reload; considered the most powerful autocannon in the Inner Sphere) with the 185mm. However the Tomodzuru is phased out well before 3039 because, lets face it, they stopped making big *** shells in that caliber. And even the 203mm shells of the Cauldron Born (Ebon Jaguar) are not 1 shot = 20 damage.

So any gun of a class that doesn't go above 120mm, getting 5 damage in a single shot is very worrisome to me as it makes me wonder if they're really digging into the lore of the weapons... or just making some stuff up when it comes to guns and "balance."

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

I have yet to see a single argument as to why THIS game - unlike nearly every other one out there today in PvE or PvP - MUST have limited or no customization that amounts to anything more than "that's the true spirit of Battletech - in my opinion - and thus is the only right way to play."

It's sad that I'll probably have more options for how to play DOOM than I will this game. Nice job, guys.

Would you play a tank game where you can mount Russian cannons on American Tanks, Chinese machine guns on said American tanks, stuff in German engines on American tanks, and then paint it to be French and say it is a French tank?
Or would you laugh at it?

To further this, would you play a game that is say, X military versus Terrorists, where the terrorists aren't actually terrorists but a large global military power and never do any actual terrorizing, and the X military (say American) runs around shooting civilians, burning flags, used bomb-strapped suicide dogs and were depicted as less-than-comical parodies of themselves?

Because if you blatantly ignore the source material in the name of maximum customization, you ruin a great many things... most precious of which is the immersion.

For example, playing Deus Ex Mankind Divided... They went through a lot of trouble of world building. "How come you can redo your augs?" Great reasoning and plot behind it, even some underlying mysteries to find. But then there's the little things. When a person covered in Augmentations talks about hatred for "Your kind" (because you're augmented), it seems..off. Every car and vehicle you can find have no way of traversing speed bumps, and yet speed bumps are mentioned as little more than a nuisance that doesn't stop speeders. Huh... Why is there a civilian with no military ties armed better than the police in the area? (Reloading the game I found out it's because he stole a grenade launcher from the back of a truck when he 'entered panic mode', but see there's a reason for it! Without that, and since it is a random AI fluke since the door was unlocked, if you saw a random civilian saying "Don't kill me, I don't wanna hurt anyone" and then rapid firing a grenade launcher... it makes you really question some design choices.)

My point is... If you ignore lore, it doesn't really make sense.

Gauss Rifles in Hunchbacks; the kick from them is expressly written to be so bad that the concept was considered a flop due to the Hunchbacks constantly falling over even while stationary and braced. Thus the reason for the Hollander's existence. And the Jackal exists exclusively as a mech that can handle the immense weight and powerdraw of an ER PPC in a 30 ton package, as otherwise... they can't!

So when you pop into your little mechlab and squeeze 2 ER PPCs onto your 25 ton mech... Think about that. What was more important? The immersion and a decent game...

Or being able to type /allweapons and being able to run around with a RAC/5 in 3020 on the side of your Locust?

Besides: Two thoughts come to mind. "Unreal Engine" and "Mods."

So if you don't like it, MOD it.
And let those of us who want a game that actually honors its source material..have that game.

Edited by Koniving, 17 September 2017 - 09:45 AM.

[Zergling]

I cannot understand how anyone could be opposed to customisation in a single player game. It just doesn't make any sort of logic to me.

Like, just why restrict all players simply because a few want to run stock builds? What possible advantage is there to that, when having customisation in the game means everyone can be happy? All the 'stock build' players have to do is just not use the customisation feature!

[MischiefSC]

FupDup, on 17 September 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

I've seen a lot of assumptions going around MW5 threads...

For one, we don't know if laser boating will even be effective. PGI very well could use different stats than TT stats. They might even make lasers the weakest weapons in the game if they felt like it. Even the HBS game modified TT values in many places.

Keep in mind that with the era, the majority of mechs are going to be using SHS, so that keeps energy spam in check more than a future era where DHS are the norm.

Furthermore, we don't know what the difficulty level of the game will be yet. For all we know it could be a total cakewalk even with stock mechs, or even with min-max monsters it could be like Dark Souls. Preferably, the game would be like any normal game that lets you select the difficulty level ranging from easy to keyboard-smashing frustration. How is the game being "too easy" with customized mechs any different from a player using stock mechs and selecting the lowest difficulty level?

Lastly, even in BT lore itself the energy boats were always the most cost-effective. In an environment with expensive rearming bills and supply lines, energy builds are much easier to maintain because they never need to rearm. That's just a design choice of the IP working as intended. ACs and missiles are SUPPOSED to be less efficient to run if you want to be a true lore purist. Oh, and there's that whole ammo explosions thing...

Yet the underlying issues are the same. Balancing the game around players having compable builds to the AI is not the same as players having liquid metal customization. It's also a very different game experience - on is weighted towards getting new mechs to have new options and keeping them Mau rained and do I g upgrades to existing weapons. The other is just hardpoint based, mechs are just a bag you fill with the best stuff. Whatever that is.

[oldradagast]

Koniving, on 17 September 2017 - 09:32 AM, said:

Would you play a tank game where you can mount Russian cannons on American Tanks, Chinese machine guns on said American tanks, stuff in German engines on American tanks, and then paint it to be French and say it is a French tank?
Or would you laugh at it?

Tell me again which part of Battletech is historically accurate to the real world? Are there real-world Lyrans who are going to be offended if their mechs are customized "wrong?"

Now, tell me where I said the game MUST have FULL, "liquid metal" customization or it's junk?

And, finally, tell me why a game written today - in a world of games full of varying levels of customization - MUST have almost NO customization options or it is somehow "impossible to create" or "a grand insult to the true meaning of Battletech... which just so happens to be the one way I like to play the game."

Seriously, guys, just give it up. Nobody has presented a single convincing argument as to why the game must have a single level of customization options - and a very low at that - other than "that's the way *I* like to play Battletech, so everybody else is wrong." Given what can be done with games today, that's just short-sighted and petty.

Battletech does NOT have the number of rabid fans needed to support games that appeal only to one faction; a simple customization level option set at game start would allow this game to appeal to many different people. But, I guess since somebody, somewhere, might be playing the game "wrong," we'll see 100+ more posts as to why there's only one right way to play Battletech.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 09:47 AM.

[Antares102]

BTW for all of you supporting this "Single player must be a challange" nonsense thats why we cannot have customisation.
If PGI adds cheats to MW5, which are quite common for solo games would you still buy/play it?

[Kanil]

Zergling, on 17 September 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

I cannot understand how anyone could be opposed to customisation in a single player game. It just doesn't make any sort of logic to me.

Like, just why restrict all players simply because a few want to run stock builds? What possible advantage is there to that, when having customisation in the game means everyone can be happy? All the 'stock build' players have to do is just not use the customisation feature!

The game would be designed/balanced/whatever around the idea of there not being customization. Playing MWO5 without customization vs playing a hypothetical MWO5 with customization using only stock 'mechs would be two different experiences. It's hard to say how much different, but I'd say it matters.

[FupDup]

Kanil, on 17 September 2017 - 09:45 AM, said:

The game would be designed/balanced/whatever around the idea of there not being customization. Playing MWO5 without customization vs playing a hypothetical MWO5 with customization using only stock 'mechs would be two different experiences. It's hard to say how much different, but I'd say it matters.

Well, if playing stock ends up being more difficult than playing custom, isn't that what a bunch of people want judging by this thread and others? There's your challenge right there.

[Koniving]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

Tell me again which part of Battletech is historically accurate to the real world?

Is historically accurate to the real world any different than historically accurate to its source material? We want "accurate" to its source material.
Just as any historical tank sim guy wants historically accurate to the real world.

Also the game has customization. It even says so in the article.
You can change out weapons for other variations of each type. (Sounds like MWO really).

Specifically it says:
"But mechs are only as good...[blah blah] technicians [blah snip].. Likewise, different manufacturers will make variations of weapon systems, giving players granular control over every aspect of their mech."

Sure you can't yank out that AC/5 and shove in an LRM-20. But you can't do that here, either. You can shove in a different AC/5. Perhaps a different AC, or a couple of MGs or a Gauss Rifle. Sound familiar? Oh my god, it's a ******* mechlab with ******* customization and it's right there in the ******* article, so shove your ******* tears in the ******* can.
--------------
All said and done, I would expect BT level lore mods. Such as the Dragon retro-fit upgrades from AC/5 to UAC/5.

Hunchback, technically, its many variations are all made from a 4G with either brutal custom modifications [that not many could do] or with sold refit kits which most any technician could do. So in a way you should be able to do what Old here wants within lore if you had a top level technician, access to all the luxuries of a factory, all the right tools, etc. Something you'd never have as just a random "nobody mercenary group." So instead, like most people in Battletech lore... you'd rely on purchasing refit kits and having your technician do the work. There you go. Accurate to source material, which is the same as accurate to real world history. It's just being accurate to Battletech history.

Another interesting example to think of is the King Crab 000 versus 0000 where the only real difference besides armor is that the weapon brands are "downgraded". (Particularly, the high damage per shot yielding Deathgivers at 120mm are swapped out for faster per bullet fire, slow damage delivery Imperator-D autocannons [where the ongoing advantage to counter its disadvantages is that the Imperator-D autocannons had no mandatory downtime to change magazines as they are belt-fed, meaning the only issue was barrel heat and general heat generation overtime, which the general heat generation was softer due to it taking longer to deliver the full payload of damage as such longer to build up the full payload of 7 heat). Its electronics was downgraded to more readily available and cheaper models to cut repair costs, uses standard armor and has no CASE. Noteworthy is that the laser brandname of choice Magna Mark III over the old Exostar, is known for having higher output per shot and as such is less likely to be affected by particle issues (smoke, fire, dust, etc.) The beam finishes its delivery sooner, too. However it generates the heat faster and needs longer to cool the lens (just lore, no effect in tabletop since 10 second time slices). The Simpson 15 LRM-15 launcher and Doombud LRM-15 launcher "felt different" but there was never any detail into how so.

Don't think PGI is really gonna dig into lore differences though.

Edited by Koniving, 17 September 2017 - 10:10 AM.

[oldradagast]

Antares102, on 17 September 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

BTW for all of you supporting this "Single player must be a challange" nonsense thats why we cannot have customisation.
If PGI adds cheats to MW5, which are quite common for solo games would you still buy/play it?

True - their arguments are all BS anyway. If some level of customization is allowed, you can STILL play the game in stock mode for an extra challenge. This is no different than demanding a game only have a "super-hard" mode just because "stupid noobs suck and shouldn't be allowed to have fun!" except replace "noobs" with "people who like the mechlab."

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with people? We've got no shortage of bitter players who hate what MWO is and that they can't run a stock mech without dying that their think this is there chance for "revenge" so now they can force everyone else to play THEIR way in MW5 - it's nuts. Dividing the game population even further accomplishes nothing, and losing it over how somebody else is playing a SINGLE PLAYER GAME is also nuts. God, people - just grow up!

[MischiefSC]

So if in DOOM you can customize the pistol to work like every other gun - in fact you can give it BFG damage, MG rate of fire and shotgun quirks... why usr any other gun?

They're talking about limiting liquid metal customization for the same reason that every other SP game doesn't let you liquid metal customize every weapon and armor to work literally like any other weapon and armor in the game.

In PVP where every opponent is a player with the same customization tools as you it's a different balance animal from a SP game where all enemies are stock. That's not hard to understand. It's why games like DOOM, mentioned above, have different weapons that are not all totally customizable.

[oldradagast]

Koniving, on 17 September 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

Is historically accurate to the real world any different than historically accurate to its source material? We want "accurate" to its source material.
Just as any historical tank sim guy wants historically accurate to the real world.

Also the game has customization. It even says so in the article.
You can change out weapons for other variations of each type. (Sounds like MWO really).

But can I swap an ERPPC onto my Awesome 8Q, or do I have to wait around forever for an Awesome 9M to drop? Can I downgrade the LRM on my Atlas D to an LRM15 so I can add more ammo and heatsinks, or is that just utterly impossible because no specific Atlas was made that way? That's what I'm getting at here - limited customization within hardpoint number and type.

I'm not saying we need "liquid metal" customization, but if the game just turns into waiting for that one "good mech" to drop, it'll be like Diablo 2, but twenty years behind in terms of game development, which will be dull and lacking compared to what COULD have been done.

That, and I'm just tired of watching people jump up and down in glee as if this game is going to be some sort of "payback" for all those "power-gaming mechlab people" to somehow balance out MWO. Petty crap like that does not sell games or help gaming communities, and it's certainly not a valid way to design or market a game.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

still waiting for the first person to point out where the article actually says "the will be no customization" instead of people reading into a vague statement about not having the options like MWO and instantly jumping to the nuclear option.

The6thMessenger, on 17 September 2017 - 01:59 AM, said:

That "the level of customization is huge" they say, i'm pretty sure that it should have been "high" not "huge", nevertheless it's not high nor huge, it's little. What should have been there is "Variation".

Oh look pushing half truths and such around as gospel still then asking why I'm salty. The irony.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 17 September 2017 - 09:56 AM.

[Kanil]

FupDup, on 17 September 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

Well, if playing stock ends up being more difficult than playing custom, isn't that what a bunch of people want judging by this thread and others? There's your challenge right there.

It's not really about challenge, it's more about design. A game where a JR7-D can be turned into a JR7-F is a different game than one where a JR7-F is actually a different (and typically speaking more desirable) 'mech. Both of these games can be equally difficult, but simply ignoring the mechlab doesn't get you the same gameplay experience as there not being a mechlab in the first place.

[oldradagast]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2017 - 09:57 AM, said:

still waiting for the first person to point out where the article actually says "the will be no customization" instead of people reading into a vague statement about not having the options like MWO and instantly jumping to the nuclear option.

Oh look pushing half truths and such around as gospel still then asking why I'm salty. The irony.

Well, when they say "stick to the Lore" and specifically show that changing Ferro is not an option - not Endo, which I get, but Ferro - you should be able to see why people are concerned. Most stock builds are junk, and I'm sure some percentage of the community would at least like SOME ability to customize meaningfully in the mech lab vs. being forced to play junk, mission after mission, hoping for that one good mech they like to show up.

We don't know for sure yet, that's true, but the words used and examples given are not exactly confidence inspiring when it comes to even limited customization other than changing the specific flavor of a specific weapon on your mech. Some people love this idea, and some people hate it. I'm just disappointed in the notion that a game must have a single customization setting in this era AND in the sheer number of people who are happy that other people are going to dislike this game as some sort of "payback" for MWO.

Edited by oldradagast, 17 September 2017 - 10:01 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

oldradagast, on 17 September 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

Well, when they say "stick to the Lore" and specifically show that changing Ferro is not an option - not Endo, which I get, but Ferro - you should be able to see why people are concerned. Most stock builds are junk, and I'm sure some percentage of the community would at least like SOME ability to customize meaningfully in the mech lab vs. being forced to play junk, mission after mission, hoping for that one good mech they like to show up.

We don't know for sure yet, that's true, but the words used and examples given are not exactly confidence inspiring when it comes to even limited customization other than changing the specific flavor of a specific weapon on your mech. Some people love this idea, and some people hate it. I'm just disappointed in the notion that a game must have a single customization setting in this era AND in the sheer number of people who are happy that other people are going to dislike this game as some sort of "payback" for MWO.

See potential concern, YES.

Jump immediately to ZOMG NO MECHLAB?CUSTOMIZATION!?!?!?!?!?!? No.

HBS also is limiting mechs to specific roles and such, by limiting customization... NOT removing it. As I'e said probably a dozen times now... it is possible that indeed they mean none. Or NOT. There is no definitive statement to that effect in the article. Just the usual forum BS of people reading a vague statement and then supplying extra meaning to it that fits their disposition or agenda. You might recall someone doing EXACTLY the same thing over when the Madcat mkII was going to be added.

Has anyone even bothered to PM or tweet Russ for clarification? Anyone?