8 replies to this topic

[Armored Yokai]

Pick one

[Larry Headrick]

I chose 1.
The reason i chose 1 is it makes it a chalange to redesign a mech. I hope since the devs have said thay are following the TT rules that this is the way thay chose to go.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

I didn't vote because I would like to see PGI do their own system, it's a long time since even the MW4 system and I think they can come up ith their own version.

[Niftal]

I choose the MW4 approach; since all video games are limited to model design, the true Battle Tech rules cannot be applied. I find that MW4's approach was a good compromise between video game limitations and Battle Tech Customization.

[Nowan123]

I like the Mechwarrior Living Legends one - they add omnipods, hardpoints, hardmounts (even though it's currently without a mechlab, the devs have said that that's how it works ).
I also like the way MekTek redid the MW4 system with omnimounts, but I'd prefer the MWLL system, or a mix.
Hopefully PGI gets the best way

[Adridos]

I chose MW 4 system, but as long as they can manage to do something like in MW: LL, then I don't care about it.

[Stormwolf]

Option 1 and 3 are pretty much the same, MW2 did have a limit on weapons, but MW2: Mercs threw that out completely.

And MW4 didn't really have any criticals outside of weapons. ECM, heatsinks, BAP, etc were victims of the dumbing down.

[SilentWolff]

I choose option number 1, because truth be told, MW4 mechlab was absolutely horrible.

[wyggles]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 02 January 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

I didn't vote because I would like to see PGI do their own system, it's a long time since even the MW4 system and I think they can come up ith their own version.

Yes.