103 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Maybe im being misunderstood. What my point is for example as long as i have enough tonnage available and open slots i can configure on the same rules. for example... I can take an atlas drop down the engine or some of the heat sinks off and put 4 lrm 20's on a atlas. put 2 in left torso and 2 in right torso as long as i have the tonnage and space to do it. I mean that only seams legal i should be able to do that. or a madcat for example: drop the engine to a lower speed and lower tonnage and put 4 ppcs and some extra heat sincs.

You are just missing the point - if you can put the same exact config into an Awesome and a Zeus (both are 80 ton assaults), then what's the point of having both mechs in game. The only difference would be the "skin". With TT mechlab rules (a.k.a unrestricted mechlab) you only need 1 mech of each weight, the rest are for looks only.

[Dracol]

Ya know, back when I was playing brech, we in a sense had hard points cause we played with minis and ran wysiwyg (what you see is what you get). mwo has kept true to that play style. IMHO it would be a total buzz kill if a cat started shooting lasers out of its missle pods.

Oh and I also agree with what others have posted. What would be the point of differant mechs if you could slap anything anywhere.

Edited by Dracol, 05 August 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Jonneh]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

The mech loadouts for weapons are not the same as the rules for the actual battletech universe. when setting up weapons to a location like a arm or torso it takes up the entire load up for the weapons in that one location whether you still have open slots or not.

Also the the fact that you have only certain weapons you can put in certain locations is limiting your configurations. Also something is not maching to battletech rules. I can deal with the fact that i can only put weapons in certain locations.

But to be limited the amout of weapons you can setup to each location due to that type is completely pointless. as long as you have the slots available in that location there should be no restrictions to how many weapons you have setup to that arm or location on the mech.

Mentioning battletech/lore/TT rules or anything similar in a thread aimed at giving balance feedback for a live action game results in an immediate void of your opinion and instant execution of a puppy.

You monster.

[Der Hollander]

Last time I checked, if we're gonna argue TT customization, you can only customize OmniMechs in TT. Period. Customization for IS mechs came about in Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries, and in case you haven't noticed yet, the mechs in Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century Combat with a few exceptions were all Clan OmniMechs. The rest were Clan Second Line.

Stop crying about your lack of customization and be glad it's there in the first place. True skill comes from the ability to work within constraints.
If you're going to argue TT, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the rules first?

[TizZ]

Why so many mw4 haters lol it wasnt that bad and brought more mechwarrior fans into being , it wasnt perfect but what can you really say has been the perfect mechwarrior game ( considering it was 10 years ago ) ... hopefully mechwarrior online is .

I mean my first mechwarrior type game was shattered steel by bioware then mechwarrior 2 and 3 all good and i enjoyed them all even mw4 .

different mechs with different load outs , half the fun for me is making different loadouts for different roles , some mechs use lasers more than ballistics and viceversa .. that is what makes this game diff to others ... same mechs can be very different depending on how skillful the pilot is in the load out of his mech .

[Calon Farstar]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

The mech loadouts for weapons are not the same as the rules for the actual battletech universe. when setting up weapons to a location like a arm or torso it takes up the entire load up for the weapons in that one location whether you still have open slots or not.
Do you understand the difference between a regular Mech and an Omni-Mech?


Also the the fact that you have only certain weapons you can put in certain locations is limiting your configurations. Also something is not maching to battletech rules. I can deal with the fact that i can only put weapons in certain locations.

But to be limited the amout of weapons you can setup to each location due to that type is completely pointless. as long as you have the slots available in that location there should be no restrictions to how many weapons you have setup to that arm or location on the mech.

Do you understand the difference between an standard mech and an omni-mech?

Edited by Calon Farstar, 05 August 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[vettie]

I am thinking we should be happy there IS customization at all. We COULD be stuck with stock / standard variants ONLY.

Oh, and just for the record, I enjoyed MW4 and still do. Play it 2 to 3 times a week. I also play MW2 (all 3 titles) and, tho I dont or havent played the TT version, I am somewhat familiar. I also play MegaMech (kinda cool version of the TT brought to the PC).

What can I say, I am a MechHead...

[tyrone dunkirk]

Alex Wolfe, on 05 August 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

People's hatred of MW4 seems to be clouding their judgment and memory? MW3 and below were "everything-is-omni".

MW4 introduced type- and size-based hardpoints and was taking a lot of flak for that from the "old school" crowd because it was limiting configs. Personally I really liked it, it gave mechs a certain feel.

I thought I liked MW4... But if this guy says I'm wrong then, maybe I was secretly hating it all along.
Bummer

[Barbaric Soul]

Uh, your still under NDA when it comes to game content. This is not the BETA forum.

[tyrone dunkirk]

Barbaric Soul, on 05 August 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Uh, your still under NDA when it comes to game content. This is not the BETA forum.

They've told us all this stuff before through videos and dev blogs, haven't they?

[Barbaric Soul]

If he wants to take that chance, by all means. It doesn't change the fact that the NDA is still in affect and BETA testers are not allowed to discuss game play(mechlab included) outside of the BETA tester group.

[Onifrk]

I love that people think these are just arbitrary decisions and not hard thought out choices. Developers work very hard to balance and design games. Personally the hard points are a damn good thing. because without them there are plenty of mech configurations that simply destroy the game. I have found that those who fight hardest for the fully open designs are normally the ones who want to field the broken designs.

[tyrone dunkirk]

I don't care if he gets banned or not lol But the testers are breaking NDA if they're posting info that has already been told by the devs; and not elaborating on it as if they were in beta?

Edited by tyrone dunkirk, 05 August 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Karyudo ds]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Also the the fact that you have only certain weapons you can put in certain locations is limiting your configurations. Also something is not maching to battletech rules. I can deal with the fact that i can only put weapons in certain locations.

Really? Because I heard it matched Strategic Operations very well. Not to mention that there was is such thing as configurations in Battletech to begin with. Unless you play the construction manual.

[Metatron]

thontor, on 05 August 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:

Without hard points we might as well just have one mech of each tonnage

Agree and then the game would be so Boring with a mech covered in small Lazors moving at 90kph.

I like my Hunchback he is the Boss with da Box of doom !!!

Edited by Metatron, 05 August 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[verybad]

tyrone dunkirk, on 05 August 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

I don't care if he gets banned or not lol But the testers are breaking NDA if they're posting info that has already been told by the devs; and not elaborating on it as if they were in beta?

I'm not on beta, but the rules for Hardpoints and crits were largely given out by the developers months ago. I've not heard anything new here, so I wouldn't be so concerned.

[Kendricke]

Revak Vendal, on 05 August 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

everyone brings up mech warrior 4 as a example. mech warrior 4 was the worse game to the legacy of battle tech and mech warrior. to base the rules truley lets go back to mech warrior 2 that was the true game for mechwarrior. mechwarrior 4 change up all the rules and really put a bad end to the mechwarrior name.

Yes, because in tabletop battletech, I spent all of my time in "circles of death" wheeling around opponents at speed while constantly recycling weapons.

In all seriousness, tabletop was nothing like Mechwarrior 2. Base rules, Compendium rules, Level 2 vs Level 3 rules, 3025 rules vs 3050/3055 rules. It wasn't even the same as Solaris rules.

...and you know what? I'm totally fine with all of that. While we're on the subject, none of the Shadowrun games were identical to the tabletop rules (though the NES version was pretty close on most combat, while the Genesis version was better at presenting Decking), and Crimson Skies wasn't the same on Xbox as it was on tabletops. I'm still waiting for an Earthdawn PC game.

[StarfyrGuns]

Welll...always seemed to me the biggest complainers about MW4 couldn`t think outside the box lol. For every mech config, there will ALWAYS be a counter. If you can`t find one, thats no ones fault but your own..just my opinion of course lol

[El Death Smurf]

the MWO style is quite possibly the optimal style. heck you can boat lasers, yes, but only on mechs who were laser boats by lore (e.g. Awesome and the Swayback.) and it borrows from the WM4 attempt at balance with hard point locations, but at least we wont have sunders with arrow IV in it's center torso, anailiators with 4lbx20 in its arms.
but they need to let us make our own mechs, that we can call ours. thats what draws so many people to the game, and finally we have a mechwarrior where the stock mechs can be considered up to par with custom mechs, or where the custom mechs (foro the most part) still look and feel like what they were inteded to be.

[ice trey]

Are they perfectly true to BT rules? No.

Are they close? As close as they can make it without confusing laymen.

Are there component-limiting construction rules in Battletech? Yes.

See: Strategic Operations - Customization (Pg 188)

Free-to-do-whatever construction rules are for pickup games and the like. But when playing scenarios, roleplaying games, so on and forth, 'mechs were never made to just customize all-day-er'ry-day.

Edited by ice trey, 05 August 2012 - 03:21 PM.