72 replies to this topic

[Kenyon Burguess]

zudukai, on 22 December 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:

we do not NEED one style or the other, we need 1/4 MW 1/4 TT and 1/2 BT = 100% awesome.

+! vote! dump it all in, give it a stir, and pour out awesomeness

[Pht]

flessar, on 22 December 2011 - 11:18 AM, said:

There are elements of the TT that are completly retarted, such as the mech construction rules where you can build the CANODEATH and be unstopable with the largest engine, more armor then 3 assualts, and more weapons then a company of stock mechs.

The construction rules are for just that ... 'mech construction - not 'mech customization. Customization is what an MW game is after. If you want to see how the TTR handles customization, check out strat ops for the customization and refit rules. This is not so much a case of mental-midget rules as a case of misapplication.

Besides which, the pen and paper end has this person called the GM who wields the almighty "NO! ... BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

[verybad]

Exactly.

Because there is no GM in multiplayer games, you end up with completely optimized units, the TT style of mech construction results in far fewer actual designs being used, because the best mech in every category (hit boxes) is married with the best weapons loadout. Pretty much everyone ends up using the same design with the same tactics. The people who want to use "Canon" designs get blown up nine times out of ten, and stop playing the game.

A "free" design system like MW2 and MW3 will result in less diversity in actual game play. I agree with those that would like to see actual changes in the mech's look depending on weapon loadouts, However that would not prevent people from using mechs for vastly different purposes than their description or in battletech purposes have.

Mechs in Battletech aren't typically switched around between engine weights, armor placement, internals, etc. The freedom of mech customization allowed in MW2 and MW3 is NOT Canon. Mercs with 4-8 mech companies don't carry mech factories around to modify their mechs to whatever specification they want instananeously. MW4's limitations were FAR more adherent to the spirit of each mech's design than previous games, and yet people still compalin about that game because it dared to try something different.

Edited by verybad, 22 December 2011 - 01:45 PM.

[Duncan Fisherr]

verybad, on 22 December 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

and yet people still compalin about that game because it dared to try something different.

People don't complain because it was different, they complain because it was different in a bad way.
In a way that was completely arbitrary and restrictive.


The only legitimate concern I have seen for limiting mech customization, has been the idea that people will lean toward a "universal design" or "min/max optimal".

These fears are based almost solely (from what I gather here) on the fact that it happened in MW3 multiplayer, and games like WOW.

This problem has far less to do with whether or not the lab is restricted, than how the weapons themselves are balanced vs eachother. (Dmg /Heat/ ammo/range/ROF)

[verybad]

Well, we'll never agree that it was different in a bad way. To me it was the most enjoyable of the series.

Optimization in online games is a given, It's always going to happen. Protecting diversity in gameplay through mech limitations (such as Hardpoints) will extend the length of gameplay as people don't get bored as quickly. It also gives Omni mechs something that they didn't have differently in MW2/MW3....

[Oppi]

verybad, on 22 December 2011 - 02:46 PM, said:

Well, we'll never agree that it was different in a bad way. To me it was the most enjoyable of the series.

Agreed. In MW3 you could build an Orion with all medium pulse lasers, which was ridiculous considering the obvious missile launchers on the chassis. In MW4 you had to use the catapults missile pods for missiles, which was fine.

Edited by Oppi, 22 December 2011 - 03:24 PM.

[Catamount]

MW4 was a little too restrictive, but MW3 was just downright silly, probably because certain weapons took FAR too few crits to be reasonably constrained, so you ended up with things like assault mechs running around with a dozen LRM-15s, or small mechs that could 1/2-shot enemy mechs, even considerably bigger enemy mechs.

I hope this game doesn't emulate MW4, but given a choice, I'd rather have that in a competitive multiplayer game than MW3's system, as much as I absolutely loved MW3 overall (mechlab silliness aside, it was vastly superior to 4 in overall simulation of the mechs)

Edited by Catamount, 22 December 2011 - 04:01 PM.

[Duncan Fisherr]

I loved MW4 Mercs - regular MW4 was 'Meh' - I just don't see the lab limits as "protecting diversity" I see them as stunting it.

You're right about essentially every online game having optimization issues - but shackling our ability to customize isn't going to change/help that.

What I think it boils down to, is that it feels like you're losing too much control - it went from full and complete customization, to a VERY rigid framework.

A hardpoint system might be workable, but the system from MW4 does not belong.
Mainly insomuch as that one can't replace ballistics with lasers or vice versa.

Realistically, an ammo feed system would take up every bit as much space as an energy feed - so there's not really a reason to restrict it.

I don't think anyone wants to run up against some kind of "frankenbeast tweak machine" - but at the same time - I'd rather deal with the risk, than have all my freedom taken away.

[verybad]

The reason it protected diversity was because if you wanted a mech to do something in particular then you had to take a mech that was designed to do that, not just the mech with the most advantageous hitboxes. If you wanted a mech that was an energy boat, then taking a mech that had a lot of missile hard points wasn't going to work. If you wanted a mech that had both ECM and BAP for sensor advantages, then you were also more limited in the chassis you could take, you couldn't just go "one size fits all" with mechs.

This is why I still say that the Hard Point system was the single best advance in the Mechwarrior gaming series. Previous games had fewer types of mechs used in MP games, They had less tactical ranges also. The mechs in MW4 felt like they were different units, not just generic gunboxes.

[Duncan Fisherr]

I think in the end they need to find a healthy medium between MW2/3 and MW4 style labbing.

I do agree with certain limitations for loadouts - just not quite as limited as they did MW4.

Basically - if MW4 had more hardpoints - and weapon hardpoint use was spread out better (For instance: small laser uses 1 Hardpoint, Med laser uses 2, large laser 3-4, ERPPC uses 4 or 5) - then I (and likely most people who dislike the MW4 lab) wouldn't have anywhere near as much issue with it.

[Original ArchAngel]

I'm with cobra on this one..

[Catamount]

I honestly expected more debate on this, but it honestly seems like we largely agree on concepts of the mechlab.

[Semyon Drakon]

Stormwolf well said.

One little niggle guys

It's SEYLA, not sayla....sigh Freebirths...

Semyon

[Raeven]

Hyuga Tseng, on 22 December 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think in the end they need to find a healthy medium between MW2/3 and MW4 style labbing.

I do agree with certain limitations for loadouts - just not quite as limited as they did MW4.

Basically - if MW4 had more hardpoints - and weapon hardpoint use was spread out better (For instance: small laser uses 1 Hardpoint, Med laser uses 2, large laser 3-4, ERPPC uses 4 or 5) - then I (and likely most people who dislike the MW4 lab) wouldn't have anywhere near as much issue with it.

You have to remember, this is a Multiplayer game only that they have said is going to adhere to the TT rules and lore as best they can. By the lore, customization is rare and costly. You simply can't take any 'Mech, strip of every weapon system and rebuild it how you want it to be.

[Oppi]

Hyuga Tseng, on 22 December 2011 - 05:52 PM, said:

I do agree with certain limitations for loadouts - just not quite as limited as they did MW4.

You can't just switch weapons in a normal Inner Sphere non-Omni without having a fully equipped Mech factory and some very skilled techs, and even then some things just won't work because of all the little errors occuring whenever you change a working system (as everybody who ever scratchbuilt a PC will agree ). So normally there would be given Mechs with given armament and some variants that have been developed, tested and sold by the actual manufacturer, and that's it. If something got blown up in the field and you tried to repair it with a non standard part, you'd run into problems.

Then the clans appeared, and they had omni mechs with "weapon pods", designed for easy weapon switching, but even then you could only change weapons without much complication, and a better reactor, more or different armor or a different heatsink loadout still required a lot of work and said skilled techs.

Considering this, MW4 gave you far more freedom than fluff ever gave to the "real" mech jockeys.

Me personally, I'd love a game where you could only choose canon variants if you had no omni mech, but I understand that many people wouldn't be happy with that, so I could live with some kind of MW4 system. Every additional freedom is too much from my point of view.

Edited by Oppi, 23 December 2011 - 08:53 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Just a thought in passing. I would like Mechs to have a limitation in the ability to put ALL one Range weapons on a Chassis. The Alpha Boats came from the ability to pick a Range and go nuts. If I have to have 3 Ranges on a Chassis, then I have to fight at one or two Ranges with a sub-set of my load out and if I decide to Alpha, I will have to get into the Range of my shortest weapon and then Alpha. In doing so I have to place myself in harms way and that is how it should be. No stand off and just burn ammo without overly worrying about my lack of in close defenses, or lack thereof.

Given that scenario, any other Alpha attempt is tempered by the fact (basically) that if I have 3 MLaser's (300m), a Gauss (800m) and a Strk6 (250m) and I am currently at 400 M out, Alpha'ing wastes (or dumb-fires) some weapons with only certain weapon(s) being in range to hit.

As opposed to the 6 LLasers (whatever) build and I just have to get to 599 and BOOM! Take that foo!. Flush Flush, keep moving at MAX speed.

In closing I can only say I am very much Psyched for the next Gen MW game. The Dev will no doubt do us proud.

P.S. Merry Christmas to those who indulge.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

So people put an ML & an SL on as well and take an armour hit on the mech?

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 23 December 2011 - 07:55 AM, said:

So people put an ML & an SL on as well and take an armour hit on the mech?

Want that armor or not? Just don't make it armor or ALL the same weapons.

Put what equates to a Balanced load out with whatever armor one finds appropriate or not. You can carry whatever armor you want, none is always a bad idea, Max has apparent benefits with obvious drawbacks. Lack of something else.

Same for Heat.(assuming the Dev make it happen) Go with a mix of Lasers and then suck up (no flush) the heat issues (wait to cool) if you don't offset that with some low heat weapons systems or HS's. Pull Electronics to save weight for weapons, fine, Radar range is reduced to minimum and you still have armor and HS's based on want or offset.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 23 December 2011 - 08:10 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Hyuga Tseng, on 22 December 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

People don't complain because it was different, they complain because it was different in a bad way.
In a way that was completely arbitrary and restrictive.

Its far closer to the refit rules you should be using for modifying a mech than the construction rules that should only be used for building a mech from scratch.

[Deamented]

Find a balance, that is all I want. I can play a balanced game for a long time, but one with no balance, dies. PVP more so than anything.