265 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Well, Mechwarrior was a dead franchise for a decade, until it wasn't. We can always hope that the situation changes... if nothing else, MWO will eventually shut down, as all games do.

I can see the benefits of a less extensive Mechlab, though; the MechLab tools we have are powerful, but there are certain options that are simply superior in most cases - maxxed torso armor, for example. I love the level of customization power that we have, but a more streamlined system might have a broader appeal, and paradoxically allow for more differentiation of 'mechs outside of a quirk system.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 01 July 2024 - 05:48 AM, said:

I can see the benefits of a less extensive Mechlab, though; the MechLab tools we have are powerful, but there are certain options that are simply superior in most cases - maxxed torso armor, for example. I love the level of customization power that we have, but a more streamlined system might have a broader appeal, and paradoxically allow for more differentiation of 'mechs outside of a quirk system.

Same, I've said this for years but there were a lot of lessons from MW4 that I think PGI just ignored to try appeal to those who look back to MW2/3 with rose tinted glasses. MW4's mechlab isn't perfect, but IMO it's a good starting point design wise.

[Void Angel]

Well, it's not just the PC games. A lot of the fun I had in tabletop was designing my own 'mechs. The Battletech Compendium from 1990 begins 'mech construction rules on p109, and the last page with any rules on it is p131: 17% of the rulebook is filed under 'mech construction, though a lot of that is gear descriptions, too. The original rulebook was the same way, and all Battletech games from the Crescent Hawks Inception onward had some kind of 'mech customization - something a lot of self-professed "purists" forget.

But it's totally true that there's a lot of ways to screw yourself over in the 'mechlab - particularly if you don't pay attention - and a lot of best practices aren't intuitive. I've seen people argue about everything from back armor to whether a (pre-quirk) LRM Commando was comp-worthy...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 01 July 2024 - 09:14 AM, said:

I've seen people argue about everything from back armor

Another thing MW4 was probably smart for changing, rear armor has a max and stripping it does not afford you more front armor. Not that it couldn't be improved upon (I'd prefer head/rear armor be removed in favor of "weak" spots for different sections that afford you some sort of damage boost or something) but it acted as guardrails for build optimization and that's what is really missing from Mechwarrior as a whole. If a feature functions as pretty much a noob trap only, it's probably a bad feature.

[Void Angel]

Some level of functionality is worth the possibility of sub-optimal builds, though. WoW found that out when they streamlined their talent trees down to a series of either-or choices every few levels, based on spec - for the same reasons we're discussing. But players found that to be just too restrictive and uninteresting; people like building their own stuff, whether it's a battlemech or a character. MWO has too many choices that inadvertently punish people who don't pay attention - which actually would be a good thing, if they'd learn from it, but...

[pattonesque]

Void Angel, on 01 July 2024 - 01:22 PM, said:

MWO has too many choices that inadvertently punish people who don't pay attention - which actually would be a good thing, if they'd learn from it, but...

that would require MWO pubbies to have object permanence, which, well

[Void Angel]

Oh, it's not that they don't remember, but there is a different mentality at work sometimes. I've run into people who don't want to grind cbills at all - "why not do like SOCOM did on the PS2?" I could be hard-nosed about it and say, "look, this is the genre, just learn how things work," and I'd be right. But that feels too close to gate-keeping the franchise. If we can keep the elements that retain the feel of Mechwarrior while streamlining things for the lazy people from different gaming backgrounds, that's an overall win.

[Gasboy]

Void Angel, on 01 July 2024 - 01:36 PM, said:

Oh, it's not that they don't remember, but there is a different mentality at work sometimes. I've run into people who don't want to grind cbills at all - "why not do like SOCOM did on the PS2?" I could be hard-nosed about it and say, "look, this is the genre, just learn how things work," and I'd be right. But that feels too close to gate-keeping the franchise. If we can keep the elements that retain the feel of Mechwarrior while streamlining things for the lazy people from different gaming backgrounds, that's an overall win.

There comes a point where you have to be hard nosed, though. You can never please everybody, and frankly it's too expensive to try. A company would be better off making two (or more) different games. There's multiple ways to play Battletech, and you risk diluting the game and losing the feel of what attracted the original core group of people if you try to simplify/streamline too much.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 01 July 2024 - 01:22 PM, said:

Some level of functionality is worth the possibility of sub-optimal builds, though. WoW found that out when they streamlined their talent trees down to a series of either-or choices every few levels, based on spec - for the same reasons we're discussing.

A little bit different of a situation though, I've never played WoW but iirc the talent trees was pretty much the only form of customization. Just from the sheer amount of different weapons/equipment/hardpoint variation I don't think it will ever be super streamlined to that level. You're just removing some of the illusions of choice which is more what I want from simplification. Min/maxing endo vs ferro, etc doesn't really serve much of a purpose in this game since cost, repairs, etc are never going to be a balancing factor. Unless it can have direct gameplay implications like MW4 (standard internals halved damage that was transferred between sections as an example) it's probably better off not in the game.

Gasboy, on 02 July 2024 - 03:34 AM, said:

There's multiple ways to play Battletech, and you risk diluting the game and losing the feel of what attracted the original core group of people if you try to simplify/streamline too much.

There's a difference between simplification and removing your hook/uniqueness in the market. There are a combination of things that make mechwarrior unique. It's like a hero shooter but with slower pace combat (both with TTK and movement), tank controls, overheating, sectional health pools, and firing that respects mount location. Which is already unique even without factoring in the customization aspect which even with MW4 was way more than you could get in other shooters.

TL;DR it matters what you simplify, and I think most people use this as a vague and lazy argument.

The mechlab is completely separate from gameplay in that it could be removed and we could run with stock only and it would not have a significant change in gameplay itself. While the mechlab is pretty unique, it is hardly the only unique feature of the game and I think people suffer a bit of survivor's bias when it comes to thinking that it is the selling point of the game. I've known players that don't care about the mechlab in MWO and find it obnoxious or overwhelming trying to create optimized builds, they would rather someone create one for them or rip a build from metamechs/grimmechs/etc which IMO why it's important for good stock builds to be a thing as well.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 02 July 2024 - 08:33 AM.

[Void Angel]

There's a point of diminished returns for both streamlined play and deep mechanics; whatever that looks like in the Mechlab system, for example, the balance point will be when those of us who like the full customization systems will still be happy with a system that streamlines it for those who don't, and vice versa. And that balance point, per system/mechanic in a game, will also determine how broad the appeal is.

And of course that will always be a conversation in Mechwarrior games, because this is a unique flavor of game, and a lot of its complex mechanics reflect the tabletop roots of the game and the intertwined stories of the fictional universe. So if we go too far in one direction, we end up making a game that doesn't feel right - like a Warhammer game that's hopeful and optimistic. Too far the other way, and we end up catering to the gatekeepers and "purists," and the game is worse for everyone, including them, because the low player count will cause problems.

(WoW's talent tree was the primary customization option, though there were also runes to mod skills, which could affect your build - there were enchants for your gear as well, but those were pretty set as to what you wanted for each build/class.)

[Gasboy]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 02 July 2024 - 08:21 AM, said:

TL;DR it matters what you simplify, and I think most people use this as a vague and lazy argument.

The mechlab is completely separate from gameplay in that it could be removed and we could run with stock only and it would not have a significant change in gameplay itself. While the mechlab is pretty unique, it is hardly the only unique feature of the game and I think people suffer a bit of survivor's bias when it comes to thinking that it is the selling point of the game. I've known players that don't care about the mechlab in MWO and find it obnoxious or overwhelming trying to create optimized builds, they would rather someone create one for them or rip a build from metamechs/grimmechs/etc which IMO why it's important for good stock builds to be a thing as well.

You will have people who dislike any changes, and simplification doesn't necessarily mean more players.

And you're bonkers to say that that gameplay would be the same without the mechbay. Stock mechs are utter garbage in almost all cases, especially without skill quirks. Customization is easily the biggest draw in Mechwarrior and it'd be a terrible move to ditch that. You would definitely lose players with no guarantee that the change would attract enough new players to cover the loss.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gasboy, on 02 July 2024 - 09:55 AM, said:

Stock mechs are utter garbage in almost all cases, especially without skill quirks.

You missed my point and got focused on implementation details. Trial mechs do not allow customization and yet they are significantly better than numerous underhive builds. If all stock mechs were actually built like that (which they should, "true" stock mechs serve only as a thin through-line to the lore that most don't care about), then no the gameplay really doesnt change that much.

As for customization, it is the biggest draw "to you" which is the key part here. I'm not even arguing for the removal of it, but I don't think it is the single key thing to this game, in fact it could be part of the reason people leave. Between the number of mechs, the number of equipment, the choices can be easily overwhelming. Again as well, there is a bit of survivorship bias going on. If you have a struggling product, game or otherwise, you are less worried about what keeps your current customers, and more about what keeps people away.

[Gasboy]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 02 July 2024 - 10:07 AM, said:

You missed my point and got focused on implementation details. Trial mechs do not allow customization and yet they are significantly better than numerous underhive builds. If all stock mechs were actually built like that (which they should, "true" stock mechs serve only as a thin through-line to the lore that most don't care about), then no the gameplay really doesnt change that much.

This kind of defeats your argument, though. If the gameplay isn't significantly changed, then people don't have to use the mechlab. Having the mechlab is a big enough draw for many, why not have it?

Quote

As for customization, it is the biggest draw "to you" which is the key part here. I'm not even arguing for the removal of it, but I don't think it is the single key thing to this game, in fact it could be part of the reason people leave. Between the number of mechs, the number of equipment, the choices can be easily overwhelming. Again as well, there is a bit of survivorship bias going on. If you have a struggling product, game or otherwise, you are less worried about what keeps your current customers, and more about what keeps people away.

No, I would bet you a decent lunch that the customization is a key point to many. You see it in loads of games past and present. CoD, Skyrim, Minecraft, Diablo, and so on. Certainly customization is present in all of the mecha games.

[feeWAIVER]

Remember when Armored Core 6 came out and there was huge hype over the stock builds and complete lack of customization?

[Gasboy]

feeWAIVER, on 02 July 2024 - 10:41 AM, said:

Remember when Armored Core 6 came out and there was huge hype over the stock builds and complete lack of customization?

No, I don't.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gasboy, on 02 July 2024 - 10:30 AM, said:

No, I would bet you a decent lunch that the customization is a key point to many. You see it in loads of games past and present. CoD, Skyrim, Minecraft, Diablo, and so on. Certainly customization is present in all of the mecha games.

Or Counterstrike, Valorant, or Overwatch....oh wait.

Again, I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, just that I think that people overweight its importance to the uniqueness of Mechwarrior. It isn't even the most customizable of the mecha genre, as fee reminds us, AC6 allows you to swap out individual sections of mechs much like the MercTech or whatever it is MW5 mod.

[Void Angel]

Ditching the MechLab would be a bad thing, of course. But we're theorycrafting fidelity v. accessibility here, so the question is, "where do we draw the line between 'fully customized at your own risk' and diluting the power of the MechLab until it doesn't feel like we're really making an impact with our builds?"

Edited by Void Angel, 02 July 2024 - 12:51 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Void Angel, on 02 July 2024 - 12:50 PM, said:

Ditching the MechLab would be a bad thing, of course. But we're theorycrafting fidelity v. accessibility here, so the question is, "where do we draw the line between 'fully customized at your own risk' and diluting the power of the MechLab until it doesn't feel like we're really making an impact with our builds?"

Well there's another part of the equation here as well and that's reducing overlap of mechs and their capabilities.

[Gasboy]

Quicksilver Aberration, on 02 July 2024 - 11:31 AM, said:

AC6 allows you to swap out individual sections of mechs much like the MercTech or whatever it is MW5 mod.

Omnimech. MWO did it long before AC6.

Quicksilver Aberration, on 02 July 2024 - 01:34 PM, said:

Well there's another part of the equation here as well and that's reducing overlap of mechs and their capabilities.

Yeah, but it'd get boring with only 17 mechs.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Gasboy, on 02 July 2024 - 02:18 PM, said:

Omnimech. MWO did it long before AC6.

Ignoring the fact that practically every AC has had customization like AC6, Omnimechs in MWO are have historically been more restrictive than Battlemechs due to locked slots, locked structure/armor/engines/equipment/etc. It's also important to remember they didn't get hardpoint inflation either.

Honestly Omnimechs in MWO were just a bad experiment that ended up forcing PGI's hand with heavy handed quirks and IMO kinda showed why copying TT's mechlab is problematic in the first place.

Gasboy, on 02 July 2024 - 02:18 PM, said:

Yeah, but it'd get boring with only 17 mechs.

Huh? How is this even relevant? The number of mechs has little to do with overlap. We had overlap in this game when we only had 12 different chassis (Stalker could do everything the Awesome could but way better) and we already started to see variant bloat that really didn't add much to the game.

Edited by Quicksilver Aberration, 02 July 2024 - 02:47 PM.