103 replies to this topic

[Elsydeon]

In TT, there are no limits to customization of a Mech in terms of equipment.

The advantage the OmniMech gives is time. You can strip an Awesome down and slap Gauss Rifles on it, but it takes lots of time in the shop and C-Bills. However, an OmniMech can go from being a missile boat one day to being a dual Ultra AC/20 wielding brawler the next, the only limitations being that the pod space is not alterable, you have X tons and Y crits in each location, and the lower arms use the same mounts as PPCs, ACs, and Gauss Rifles, so you can not punch with those weapons (which probably evolved to physical combat being dezgra).

[Scytale]

Quote

Im just use to playing the game as it was meant to be played and can drop the engine and give 4 ppc's then i feel that i should have the same priviledge here.

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

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.

I read these twice, three times over.
Do you know what this is? This is boating. And this is *exactly* why the hardpoint system has been decided.
I want to say more but I think I'd burst an artery if I tried.

Edited by Scytale, 05 August 2012 - 03:36 PM.

[Deathspore]

OP -

First, post in the right forums...

Second, find another game to play and leave this game to the more mature players

Edited by Deathspore, 05 August 2012 - 03:39 PM.

[ice trey]

Elsydeon, on 05 August 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

In TT, there are no limits to customization of a Mech in terms of equipment.

There is in terms of success chances and faction availability. Stratops emphasises the difference between easy jobs and difficult ones, as well as the difference between a field refit kit and full-on customization jobs.

Further, Omnimechs are based on pod configurations, thus why they have alt config a-through-whatever. Deviating from these configs requires lots of engineering and programming, and the difficulty to do so goes up. Mind you, it's easier to do than with a standard Battlemech, but deviating from the standard configs means that you're taking the job out of the hands of a crack team of engineers for Defiance Industries or Luthien Armor Works, and putting it into the hands of Harry Knuckles the Greasemonkey.

These are Battlemechs, not lego-bricks.

[GoodRevrnd]

I think hardpoints aren't necessarily a bad idea, but the way they are implemented now is not only too restrictive but also doesn't make sense. You're telling me I can theoretically put an AC20 on one of the small K2 side torso hardpoints but not in one of the actual pods? Or I could put a PPC in the Commando's hand?

I think hardpoints need size classifcations on them and some of them should be designated omni. This will add more flex in some areas and more logic and restrictions in others.

Divide hardpoints into the following type and sizes and classify all the weapons as various sizes:
Energy S/M
Ballistic S/M/L
Energy/Ballistic S/M/L
Missile S/M/L
Omni S/M/L

Energy S = small & medium lasers
Energy M = large lasers & PPCs
etc.


The other alternative is like people said allow for reconfiguring of the hardpoints in a sense like TT. A big Cbill charge and a success roll would certainly limit people going crazy with weird configurations.

Edited by GoodRevrnd, 06 August 2012 - 09:32 PM.

[Scytale]

GoodRevrnd, on 06 August 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

I think hardpoints aren't necessarily a bad idea, but the way they are implemented now is not only too restrictive but also doesn't make sense. You're telling me I can theoretically put an AC20 on one of the small K2 side torso hardpoints but not in one of the actual pods? Or I could put a PPC in the Commando's hand?

I think hardpoints need size classifcations on them and some of them should be designated omni. This will add more flex in some areas and more logic and restrictions in others.

Divide hardpoints into the following type and sizes and classify all the weapons as various sizes:
Energy S/M
Ballistic S/M/L
Energy/Ballistic S/M/L
Missile S/M/L
Omni S/M/L

Energy S = small & medium lasers
Energy M = large lasers & PPCs
etc.


The other alternative is like people said allow for reconfiguring of the hardpoints in a sense like TT. A big Cbill charge and a success roll would certainly limit people going crazy with weird configurations.

I said this in another thread, but I'm not so sure that we need hardpoint sizes. For example, today, (and this is the analogy I always use =P ) we can fit most things requiring power into an electrical outlet, right? Regardless if it's a shaver or a computer. 1000 years in the future, why should developments be more restrictive?

[Valaska]

tyrone dunkirk, on 05 August 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

You know what mate, you're right. Let's go back to the good old days of MW4's everything-is-omni hardpoints.

MW4 wasn't even that bad, only Omni mechs would have a couple omni slots.

[KnowBuddy]

Scytale, on 06 August 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I said this in another thread, but I'm not so sure that we need hardpoint sizes. For example, today, (and this is the analogy I always use =P ) we can fit most things requiring power into an electrical outlet, right? Regardless if it's a shaver or a computer. 1000 years in the future, why should developments be more restrictive?

I always thought about it as an actual size restriction, not a power restriction. Also this "thousands of years in the future, things must be more infinitely more advanced" idea is incorrect to apply to the BT universe. It's more like "thousands of years in the future after catastrophic events and eons of feudal interstellar warfare have severely limited the understanding of existing technology, let alone how much fundamental technological understanding has been completely lost."

Edited by KnowBuddy, 06 August 2012 - 09:49 PM.

[GoodRevrnd]

Scytale, on 06 August 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

I said this in another thread, but I'm not so sure that we need hardpoint sizes. For example, today, (and this is the analogy I always use =P ) we can fit most things requiring power into an electrical outlet, right? Regardless if it's a shaver or a computer. 1000 years in the future, why should developments be more restrictive?

Because as I said in some cases the weapon is just too physically big for that hardpoint on the mech.

I suspect the real answer might just be rebalancing the number of slots weapons take up and/or altering slots available per component per mech. If some of the weapon slot sizes were increased appropriately then we could add more hardpoints in certain mech components to add flexibility without opening the game up to stuffing too many oversize weapons into one component. An HBK-4G has 3 ballistic slots in it's shoulder, which actually kinda makes sense. You could fit an AC20 and 2 mguns in there or 3 smaller ACs or whatever. The problem is all the mech arms essentially have nearly unlimited slot space no matter the size of the mech when it should probably vary by mech. In this manner you could restrict a Commando's right arm with it's two hardpoints to 1 large laser or 2 medium lasers for example. If the intention is for a K2's pods to only be able to hold up to a PPC then reduce the available slots (not counting gyros) down to 3 and increase the hard point number. Then someone could put 3 lasers in there or one ppc or whatever (PPCs should take up more slots IMO). Or you could allow the pod to have one ballistic hardpoint and one energy hardpoint, but with low enough slots people probably wouldn't use both.

[Scytale]

KnowBuddy, on 06 August 2012 - 09:45 PM, said:

I always thought about it as an actual size restriction, not a power restriction. Also this "thousands of years in the future, things must be more infinitely more advanced" idea is incorrect to apply to the BT universe. It's more like "thousands of years in the future after catastrophic events and eons of feudal interstellar warfare have severely limited the understanding of existing technology, let alone how much fundamental technological understanding has been completely lost."

Hmm, I thought that size restriction was symbolized by the amount of critical slots~ In any case, your point about technology is true~

GoodRevrnd, on 06 August 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Because as I said in some cases the weapon is just too physically big for that hardpoint on the mech. I suspect the real answer might just be rebalancing the number of slots weapons take up and/or altering slots available per component per mech. If some of the weapon slot sizes were increased appropriately then we could add more hardpoints in certain mech components to add flexibility without opening the game up to stuffing too many oversize weapons into one component. An HBK-4G has 3 ballistic slots in it's shoulder, which actually kinda makes sense. You could fit an AC20 and 2 mguns in there or 3 smaller ACs or whatever. The problem is all the mech arms essentially have nearly unlimited slot space no matter the size of the mech when it should probably vary by mech. In this manner you could restrict a Commando's right arm with it's two hardpoints to 1 large laser or 2 medium lasers for example. If the intention is for a K2's pods to only be able to hold up to a PPC then reduce the available slots (not counting gyros) down to 3 and increase the hard point number. Then someone could put 3 lasers in there or one ppc or whatever (PPCs should take up more slots IMO). Or you could allow the pod to have one ballistic hardpoint and one energy hardpoint, but with low enough slots people probably wouldn't use both.

Hmmm you mean almost like the old MW4 system? Would be interesting~

[Grendel408]

Does anyone also understand the term for hard-point when it comes to 3d animation and games? They are where designated areas are triggered in a sense for weapons to appear from which is run off of a script that is tied into another script and so on... there's a lot that goes into not only following the BattleTech lore and TT rules. Then implementing them into the game properly and also keep customization very flexible, while also trying to prevent "boating" like in previous versions of MW. I know this from past experience

Plus... "It's Beta" as the Devs say... things are going to change whether folks like it or not for balancing and such... that's the world of game development... you think the original creators of BattleTech didn't take the time to balance things out so any player could have a chance at winning? You better believe not... or they wouldn't have a client base to sell to... same goes here

Edited by Grendel408, 06 August 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[GreenHawk]

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.

On the MatCat point, it will probably be that way, but it being a clan mech, we will not see it in the game for another year.

As to the first issue, you just need to find the right mech in the list to do that. The hard point system allows one of the Awesomes to do what you want even with the hardpoint system.

Edited by GreenHawk, 06 August 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Python46]

throughout the TT game life, there were variants to standard issue mechs, which had slightly different weapon loadouts. but the original game didn't encourage you to alter the config of an existing mech so much as create your own design, based on a starting point that was a specific chassis, such as an awesome's chassis. if your GM let you customize everything, without penalty, he or she wasn't running the game per the intent of the developers. certainly, throughout history, there have been field modifications of vehicles and equipment, on all levels of combat(replacing 2 weak guns with 1 or 2 stronger guns, on some WWII bombers, for instance). but as the tech becomes more and more advanced, making those modifications in the field becomes more and more difficult. so allowing full customization of a chassis, to whatever you want it to be, without penalty somewhere, just doesn't make sense. as someone said, if it cost you an ungodly amount of c-bills and/or m-cash to make a customization, the number of ridiculous mods you see in-game will diminish, because many people won't want to invest 20 million c-bills in buying a mech, then spend another 20 million refitting it like they want. even if there's no chance their refit will fail. only a small number will seek to do that, because they just have more money than sense.

and personally, i liked the MW4 method of doing things. i think it just has to be limited to the clan Omnis and the later inner sphere proto-omnis. everything else should be limited in that you can put different energy weapons where energy weapons already exist(within reason), ballistic upgrades or down grades where ballistic weapons already exist, etc. no putting an A/C 20 where there used to be a PPC. get too carried away with what you allow people to do and you will obviate the need for multiple 90 ton assault mech types. you'll only need 1 chassis and everyone can fit whatever weapons, armor, reactor and electronics they want. and that's just not what TT was.

[Dr Killinger]

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.

You know what? I think MW4 Mercs was fantastic. The hardpoint system was a great way of limiting what can be put where, and making omni points actually matter. It gets a bad rap, but it was a fun game with solid build rules, unfortunately let down by poor weapon balance choices which made multiplayer silly. That said, I loved the game. Back on topic: we need hardpoints, check the forum.

[Tyr Anasazi]

As long as I can do small changes, I'll be happy. That way if I get a Jagermech I can retool it into my DrakkenJager. Remove the 2 AC/5's and the 2 tons of ammo, and switch out for 2 Large Laser's, 2 more heat sinks and 6 more tons of armor, which will double all the armor to amost max for all areas. I used to hunt Dragon's with it on tabletop campaigns. By small changes I mean simple weapon swaps, armor adds and/or heat sink adds with any excess tonnage if there are any.

[Xathanael]

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.

[Grayson Ward]

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

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.

Actually the hardpoint system from mw4 was a step in the right direction. Those *censored* from M$ got the flak because with their hardpoint settings you couldn't even build much of the orginal variants/loadouts.

[Madra Allta]

The other thing to keep in mind as well, is that this is going to be a free to play title. The devs need some way to balance that out, and yet still be able to possibly make some money from it. So if they gave you a single chassis that you could load iwth whatever you want, you would have less incentive to actually get more mechs. Sure, you are probably going to find a variant that works for you, and stick pretty close to it, but then you would'nt be buy that Catapult with the 6 missile points for your LRM boat, yo would just load it up on your Atlas maybe.

So I can see why they went this direction, personally I am fine with it. It may not be totally faithful to the tabletop, but then again, it does not need to be.

[EDMW CSN]

Grayson Ward, on 06 August 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Actually the hardpoint system from mw4 was a step in the right direction. Those *censored* from M$ got the flak because with their hardpoint settings you couldn't even build much of the orginal variants/loadouts.

Which is no longer a concern now as every mech would have at least 2 to 3 variants.
And the critical system allows for more truthful TT play as well.

Just look at the Catapult K2 and C1.

There is even a canonical JagerMech and Awesome variant with missile racks too.
Which turns the bog standard gun bag / energy boat mech into a fire support design.

[CharlieV]

Im not familiar with desktop games and my only MW games were both Mechcommanders and MW4:Mercenaries.

From my point of wiew system of hardpoints in MW4M is logical - you have some ammount of space in each location, and depending on type of this space (energy/ballistic/missiles) you can put here anything you need. So if mech is designed with two large lasers in torso, you can put here 4 medium (or something like that, i didnt remember correct space needed for every type of weapon), but no AC - because there is no space for ammo loader, only "electricity cabel" for supplying energy, and in opposite direction, when mech is designed to wield one AC-5, I can hardly put here AC-20. Same with the rocket pods - theyre not constructed to withstand heavy recoil from ACs and Gauss rifles, nor equipped with powerful power links - its simply not needed for this type of weapons, so why make Mech more expensive? So I can strip Catapult from its launchers and equip more armor and with some limitations more lasers, but what was possible in MechCommander, where I put on Catapult large amount of PPCs, Lasers etc is totally wrong (not to say that this config will overheat after few salvos, I did this because I lack heavy mech and Catapult-A had big weapon loadout and heavy armor, so it makes him formidable heavy mech).

I heard about extremes, when somebody designed heavy mech with lots of light lasers - and it was really killer. But this is in my opinion ruining the game. What do it another way - there are few variants of same type, found out which one suit you better (or make yourself familiar with it). In MW4 best loadouts were basically that designed in factory (and it was silly attempt make energy-based mech from Fafnir). Only thing I customized was throw out those silly IS Large lasers and replace them with amazing Clan Er large lasers - more damage, less tonnage, same heat oh, actually I replace every piece of weaponry from IS with their clan equivalent.