199 replies to this topic

[Will Hung]

MW4's mechlab seems to be the way to go. This'll emphasize just how advantageous it is to have a true Omnimech.

[Dlardrageth]

Will Hung, on 01 March 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

MW4's mechlab seems to be the way to go. This'll emphasize just how advantageous it is to have a true Omnimech.

That was a trolling attempt, right? Because if you actually meant that seriously... oh boy...

[Polymorphyne]

MW4s mechlab has made MW4 multiplayer... not that fun. Some battles I will go into and the players will be using reasonable mechs more similar to normal canon fits (mixture of weapons, etc) and I will have fun.
But most battles, even if I take an assault mech it often gets 2 or 3 shotted by insanely fitted Black Hawks and the like, and anything smaller than assault just dies to a lucky shot.

[LordDeathStrike]

3049, IS mechs, they dont have omni tech yet, aka you cant just change loadouts on the fly, pre omni tech IS mechs have their weapons built in.

omni mechs introduced easy variant swapping in the field, before it existing variants were built as they were in factory and sent out, you didnt change them up later as weapon systems didnt have a unified mounting system between them.

[Maris]

GDL Germ, on 01 March 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

Maybe if they set it up this way? There's the base mechs atlas,catapult,hunchback etc etc. You can customize them all you want but only to the specifications of the variants of said mech so example you buy a atlas base model and want to "customize" it. You could make into AS7-C, AS7-CM, AS7-D-DC, AS7-K and so forth that seems like a good compromise to me. Instead of having to buy the same mech 6 times for different variants.

I suspect the same too. It doesn't make sense and is simply an annoyance if they are making players buy 6 different atlases just for the variants. Of course, its prolly more like 2 or 3 but still...

[Xavier Truscott]

I'm of the mind that even if we only get 12 mechs at the start of the game to play with, that would actually be approximately 36+ choices for mech if they are making varients, which we can assume to be true based on the teaser trailer. I think customization looses it's flavor when you already have a large selection to choose from. I know we would all love to build the perfect killing machine, but at the same time, i really appreciate being forced to make do with what is available. It adds a larger tactical aspect to mech choice and force composition. I don't think anyone wants a repeat of MW3 type of play where people would sit in a room advertising for c1 matches only all day. As far as MW4's restrictions on the mech lab...most of the boated mechs, while fitting into the MW4 mechlab, would not really be possible to make if you had to assign crit space for all the ammo/heatsinks/jump jets if you stuck to TT rules.

[MaddMaxx]

DragonClaw, on 01 March 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

i think after you make so many kills that you can costomize the mechs. you know an Ace thing.

If you gain "Ace" status in any one Mech, why in hell would you want change it? Seems rather counter intuitive really...

[Rastan]

Maris, on 01 March 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Then u just invalidate your whole stance. Why should anyone take what you say seriously anymore? We are playing Battletech/Mechwarrior here, not generic "Robot Battles" game so some respect for the lore which inspire the game to be what it is and won it many fans, please.

If you want people to take your arguments seriously, some amount of appreciation for the source will help your argument. Besides, like you, I hardly read any of the source book, i've never read any of the TROs except a few glances here and there, i've never read a single novel about the IP, I've never played the tabletop games but I understand the concept and how it works. Its only after MWO announcement that I seriously started to do some research on the game's background. And the player discussions help a lot to further my understanding.

Why? because I could do it in prior games?
BTW If you think they'll be strictly by the book forget it, there will be other comprmises.. and if thats how the game was gonna be designed we would'nt even be having this conversation would we? it would be a forgone conclusion.

It probbly will not be a open lab but then again no one knows till it's out.

Maris, on 01 March 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

And you think full custom mech lab won't produce a specific FOTM build that everyone copies?

Again, hundreds of variants. Of which there are many that can be chosen based on their effectiveness to perform specific tactical roles.

I rather have diversity of mechs with their specific flavor, strengths and weakness than generic 50 ton boxes that means absolutely nothing from other generic 50 ton boxes.

In my exp there are enough weapon types that there is more then one weapon for any given job.
I do not see each mech having 100's of variants.. 12 if you're lucky.
If there are 100's to choose from i'd imagine the variants would be so wide specturm that it'll be nearly indistinguishable from full custom.

I've already said armor,weapon,engine,jumpet capacity would still be in play so not quite "generic box"
But even if that is true and lets say specific builds are popular that's not really a big deal imo.
My way maybe everyone copies every one elses loadouts, maybe.

Your way for sure there will be a handful of mechs that are favored.. I'd rather play in a ngame where everyone has the exact same weapon load out then one where every ones mech looks alike cause that just happens to be the best in class mech with the best in class weapons load out.

Maris, on 01 March 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

Obvously it will make a huge difference, or else you won't be arguing vehemently for a full no-restriction mech lab.

Cause I don't wanna see loads of the same freaking mech on the field.. simple as that
I also don't wanna be locked in the most god aweful ugly mech just cause it happens to have the best stat's
And omg yes there are a LOT of butt ugly mech's out there.

Maris, on 01 March 2012 - 03:29 AM, said:

You don't need to play MWO to know how it will turn out, there are already preceding MW games. MWO is more or less a graphical update to a very old game concept. Sure it has new bells and whistles, extra features but the core concept, rule and gameplay will remain largely intact. Its still the same weapon techs, chassis, more or less similar control mechanisms etc etc. What happened to the old MW games will happen again now, if they don't avoid the mistakes of the past.

Only MW I played online was the 3rd, I personally did'nt see any problems variety of mech's

I think this discussion has went as far as it's going to, I from playing other MOO games know how this is gonna work out, a few mech's will rise above the rest and most mechs will be only in use because they're either rare or expensive. It will kill variety on the field.

You claim the same will hapen if you can customize, I disagree there will be less to "copy".
Me thinks you're just scared of missle or laser boats, there are trade off's for that but no one acknowledges them.

[Kartr]

When it comes to variants and modding I had some thoughts:

When something is designed it's designed to work a certain way. If said thing is modified to radically it will no longer have the expected stresses and will be prone to catastrophic failure or at least earlier failure since it wasn't designed to handle those stresses. That's the concept behind the different variants of a particular BattleMech chassis.

The original design of a BattleMech is engineered to handle the stresses of the weapons it's mounting, the speeds it moves, the armor it carries, the heat it generates, etc. Change it around to much and you'll be putting stress on the chassis it wasn't designed to handle. Variants represent official versions that have been re-engineered to handle the different load outs. Variants are all designs that are intended to be built in a factory, or modded from a different variant in the field. They are expected to meet the laid out by the BattleMech engineers so that they don't tear themselves apart or melt down or any other catastrophic failure that could result from overloading the tolerances of the 'Mech.

Omni-mechs are the same way, except enough tolerance is built in that it can handle any changes for a short time. Though Omni's probably (and definitely should) require significantly more maintenance to ensure that the varying load outs aren't causing structural damage due to forces not originally designed for. Also the maintenance would be replacing parts that were starting to show wear far more often than a BattleMech.

The 'MechLab should focus primarily on visual customization, paint decals etc. The physical modifications should reflect the idea that BattleMechs are designed to handle certain stresses. Any modifications are going to increase your maintenance cost between battles in the future. Secondly the cost should scale depending on how drastically you're changing a 'Mech.

Here's how I'd limit it:
No changes in types, if it's a ballistic weapon you cannot replace it with an energy or missile weapon.

Only one degree of separation: you can swap a Medium Laser for a Small or Large Laser, but not an ER Large Laser or a PPC. Large Laser could be swapped for an ER Large or a Medium, but not a PPC. ER Large could be swapped for a PPC or a Large but not a Medium. Ballistics are similar, AC/5 can be swapped for an AC/2 or an AC/10 but not an AC/20 or an LB/10X. LB/10X can only be swapped for an AC/10 while an AC/10 can be swapped for an AC/20, LB/10X or AC/5. SRM6 can be swapped for an SRM4, LRM15 or LRM20, but not an SRM2 or LRM10 or LRM5. SRM4 can go to SRM2 or 6 or LRM 10 and 15, the others have a similar swapping system. Gausses can only be traded for AC/20s.

Each mod cost the price of the item being swapped in plus a fraction of the cost of the entire 'Mech, maybe 1/8th with the effect being cumulative. Make 8 changes and you've spent the cost of the 'Mech new plus the cost of the items new. Changes include everything that takes it away from stock or the original variant.

Each mod takes time in real time to complete, 6hrs and is cumulative for every change. Change 4 things on your 'Mech and it's unavailable for 24hrs real time. Decals and paint jobs would not take real time, nor would swapping modules. Armor changes would only cost the value of the armor plus half the normal change fee.

Each time you change your 'Mech you can use it as a new baseline for further modifications. If I started with an AC/5 but wanted to upgrade to an LB/10X I could change the AC/5 to an AC/10 then once the time for that modification was done I could change the new AC/10 for an LB/10X using the modification rules.

Extreme changes to the 'Mech like adding jumpjets to a 'Mech that doesn't have them, or changing the chassis or engine.. However there's a flat "redesign fee" of real $$, plus 1.5x the original cost of the 'Mech plus the cost of the component and fractional cost of the 'Mech in labor. The redesign fee is only charged once for the modification. If I'm adding three jumpjets to a non-jumpjet 'Mech I buy the redesign token from the cash shop, pay the 1.5x original 'Mech cost and then I pay for 3 jumpjets, the labor to install them and the labor to remove whatever I took off to make room for them. To change the chassis or engine it requires double the redesign fee, double the labor cost plus the price for the engine/skeleton.

This would make extreme changes to the 'Mech prohibitively expensive and keep down the munchkinizm (hopefully) and retain the usefulness of the original designs and variants while still allowing some customization. It also represents what we see in the novels and other fluff fairly well I think.

[Strum Wealh]

Kartr, on 03 March 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

When it comes to variants and modding I had some thoughts:

When something is designed it's designed to work a certain way. If said thing is modified to radically it will no longer have the expected stresses and will be prone to catastrophic failure or at least earlier failure since it wasn't designed to handle those stresses. That's the concept behind the different variants of a particular BattleMech chassis.

The original design of a BattleMech is engineered to handle the stresses of the weapons it's mounting, the speeds it moves, the armor it carries, the heat it generates, etc. Change it around to much and you'll be putting stress on the chassis it wasn't designed to handle. Variants represent official versions that have been re-engineered to handle the different load outs. Variants are all designs that are intended to be built in a factory, or modded from a different variant in the field. They are expected to meet the laid out by the BattleMech engineers so that they don't tear themselves apart or melt down or any other catastrophic failure that could result from overloading the tolerances of the 'Mech.

Omni-mechs are the same way, except enough tolerance is built in that it can handle any changes for a short time. Though Omni's probably (and definitely should) require significantly more maintenance to ensure that the varying load outs aren't causing structural damage due to forces not originally designed for. Also the maintenance would be replacing parts that were starting to show wear far more often than a BattleMech.

The 'MechLab should focus primarily on visual customization, paint decals etc. The physical modifications should reflect the idea that BattleMechs are designed to handle certain stresses. Any modifications are going to increase your maintenance cost between battles in the future. Secondly the cost should scale depending on how drastically you're changing a 'Mech.

Here's how I'd limit it:
No changes in types, if it's a ballistic weapon you cannot replace it with an energy or missile weapon.

Only one degree of separation: you can swap a Medium Laser for a Small or Large Laser, but not an ER Large Laser or a PPC. Large Laser could be swapped for an ER Large or a Medium, but not a PPC. ER Large could be swapped for a PPC or a Large but not a Medium. Ballistics are similar, AC/5 can be swapped for an AC/2 or an AC/10 but not an AC/20 or an LB/10X. LB/10X can only be swapped for an AC/10 while an AC/10 can be swapped for an AC/20, LB/10X or AC/5. SRM6 can be swapped for an SRM4, LRM15 or LRM20, but not an SRM2 or LRM10 or LRM5. SRM4 can go to SRM2 or 6 or LRM 10 and 15, the others have a similar swapping system. Gausses can only be traded for AC/20s.

Each mod cost the price of the item being swapped in plus a fraction of the cost of the entire 'Mech, maybe 1/8th with the effect being cumulative. Make 8 changes and you've spent the cost of the 'Mech new plus the cost of the items new. Changes include everything that takes it away from stock or the original variant.

Each mod takes time in real time to complete, 6hrs and is cumulative for every change. Change 4 things on your 'Mech and it's unavailable for 24hrs real time. Decals and paint jobs would not take real time, nor would swapping modules. Armor changes would only cost the value of the armor plus half the normal change fee.

Each time you change your 'Mech you can use it as a new baseline for further modifications. If I started with an AC/5 but wanted to upgrade to an LB/10X I could change the AC/5 to an AC/10 then once the time for that modification was done I could change the new AC/10 for an LB/10X using the modification rules.

Extreme changes to the 'Mech like adding jumpjets to a 'Mech that doesn't have them, or changing the chassis or engine.. However there's a flat "redesign fee" of real $$, plus 1.5x the original cost of the 'Mech plus the cost of the component and fractional cost of the 'Mech in labor. The redesign fee is only charged once for the modification. If I'm adding three jumpjets to a non-jumpjet 'Mech I buy the redesign token from the cash shop, pay the 1.5x original 'Mech cost and then I pay for 3 jumpjets, the labor to install them and the labor to remove whatever I took off to make room for them. To change the chassis or engine it requires double the redesign fee, double the labor cost plus the price for the engine/skeleton.

This would make extreme changes to the 'Mech prohibitively expensive and keep down the munchkinizm (hopefully) and retain the usefulness of the original designs and variants while still allowing some customization. It also represents what we see in the novels and other fluff fairly well I think.

I think the core concept sounds good, though I have a few questions/comments regarding some of the specifics:

1.) IMO, real money should not have any role at all in any customization scheme; making real money a factor in what one can or cannot do to affect the actual performance of the 'Mech (as opposed to cosmetic changes that have no effect on actual performance) gets dangerously close to (or even outright into) "pay-to-win" territory.
Making the process prohibitively expensive in terms of in-game capital should have similar effects and effectiveness, yes?

2.) How would "degree of separation" be objectively defined - by tonnage, by volume (critical spaces), or by some other means (or combination of means)?
For example, one can exchange a Medium Laser (1 ton, 1 critical) for a Large Laser (5 tons, 2 criticals), why couldn't one similarly exchange a Large Laser (5 tons, 2 criticals) for a standard PPC (7 tons, 3 criticals) or an ER-PPC (7 tons, 3 criticals)?
If one can exchange a standard AC-5 (8 tons, 4 criticals) for a standard AC-10 (12 tons, 7 criticals), why couldn't one similarly exchange the same AC-5 (8 tons, 4 criticals) for a LB-X AC-10 (11 tons, 6 criticals), which is both less massive and less voluminous than the standard AC-10?

I variant of the above would be to go with hardpoints denoted by type (energy, ballistic, missile) and volume (criticals) rather than "degree of separation".

For example, taking the standard AC-10 (12 tons, 7 criticals) out of a CN9-A Centurion's right arm would allow for the installation of a ballistic weapon (or set of ballistic weapons) taking no more than 7 criticals (assuming one has the free tonnage); replacing said AC-10 with 7 AC2s (6 tons and 1 critical each) or 7 Machine Guns (0.5 tons and 1 critical each) or 1 LB-X AC-5 (8 tons, 5 criticals) and 2 AC2s or 1 LB-X AC-10 (11 tons, 6 criticals) would be valid (assuming the free tonnage is available), but attempting to replace the standard AC-10 with a standard AC-20 would be invalid (right type, but not enough available criticals), as would attempting to replace the AC-10 with two Large Lasers or two PPCs (enough criticals, but wrong type).

Equipment (BAP, ECM, Jump Jets, AMS, Heat Sinks outside of the engine, and so on) hardpoints would work similarly, though weapons could not be placed in equipment-type hardpoints and equipment could not be placed in weapon-type hardpoints.
Additional ammunition for ballistic and missile weapons may be placed in equipment hardpoints, as well as in empty criticals in hardpoints of the appropriate weapon type separated by no more than one section - ballistic ammo may not be placed in empty criticals in a missile or energy hardpoint, missile ammo may not be placed in empty criticals in a ballistic or energy hardpoint, ammo for a RA-mounted weapon must be located in the RA, RT, or CT locations, ammo for a RT-mounted weapon must be located in the RA, RL, CT, HD, or LT locations, and so on.

Actuators (including hand actuators), criticals reserved for XL engines and Endo-Steel and or Ferro-Fibrous, melee weapons and such would be locked-down and unable to be removed or switched out.
Melee weapons (if/when implemented) would only be able to be mounted one-at-a-time in arms with a hand actuator, occupy no criticals (If picking up an I-beam or the arm of another 'Mech and using it as a club requires no criticals, why should holding a hatchet do so?), and would be limited by the tonnage of the 'Mech.

"Variants" would then be distinguished by the types, sizes, and locations of these hardpoints.
For example, a MAD-3R Marauder would have two 3-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), two 1-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), one 4-critical ballistic hardpoint in the right-torso (with one 1-critical ammo bin in the left-torso), and four 1-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each leg).
By contrast, a MAD-5D Marauder would have two 3-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), two 1-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), one 2-critical energy hardpoint in the right-torso, one 1-critical missile hardpoint in the left-torso (with one 1-critical ammo bin in the left-torso), four 1-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each leg), and four 3-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each side-torso).

OmniMechs would have "fixed" weapons and equipment (CT-mounted Medium Lasers on the Avatar, Jump Jets on the Summoner/Thor, standard Flamer on the Adder/Puma, and so on) locked-down and unable to be removed or switched out, to the point where destruction of the original component necessitates replacement with the same type of component - no getting the Adder's flamer destroyed and replacing it with an ER Small Laser (or anything else other than a new standard Flamer)!
By contrast, the "pod space" would be represented by hardpoints that could accept all weapon types and equipment, provided the free tonnage and critical spaces within a given hardpoint would allow for the mounting of the desired weapons and equipment.
"Variants" would then be distinguished by the sizes and locations of these hardpoints.

Your thoughts?

[Sinitron]

'Mechs should serve different roles and excel at them to some degree, but it should not be completely stone rigid. For example, take a Centurion and its primary weapon, the autocannon - it could full well be possible to change the caliber of the AC to optimize rate of fire, damage, or range, but not so much that it can match the Hunchback's gun. The missile launcher, being a smaller secondary weapon, could be either an LRM launcher for range, or an SRM launcher for close-range encounters adding a little more armor or electronics. Finally, supporting weapons could be switched between medium and small lasers as well as machineguns. A Catapult would likewise be able to switch between LRM20 or LRM15, but not downgrade to a bunch of SRMs as the missile launchers are the *primary* weapon in this case, while the other weapons could be mixed and matched more, by switching to LRM15 for example you could fit a couple extra lasers and heat sinks. This would allow for some customization and personal touches without going overboard and allowing stupid configurations that have nothing in common with the original design, in addition to paint jobs and personal cockpits.

[SMDMadCow]

I still think once you hit a certain number of loyalty points, you'll unlock a full or limited mechlab.

[Maris]

Rastan, on 01 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Why? because I could do it in prior games? _snipped for space-

I'm just going to disagree with you and leave it at that, its devolving into circular arguments of "I prefer this-No, I prefer That!".

And no, that you-must-be-scared oflaser boats/missile boats thingie...sigh, I guess you really miss my point anyways. I've played the prior MW games a ton, I spent hours in the Mechlab, I know exactly how it works, dude.

We'll see how the game is going to be.

Edited by Maris, 04 March 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Kartr]

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

I think the core concept sounds good, though I have a few questions/comments regarding some of the specifics:

1.) IMO, real money should not have any role at all in any customization scheme; making real money a factor in what one can or cannot do to affect the actual performance of the 'Mech (as opposed to cosmetic changes that have no effect on actual performance) gets dangerously close to (or even outright into) "pay-to-win" territory.
Making the process prohibitively expensive in terms of in-game capital should have similar effects and effectiveness, yes?

Well the goal is to keep people from munchkinizm by making it prohibitively expensive which might possibly work with just C-bills. However you're more likely (in my experience) see the munchkins anyway because they're the ones with the time to grind out the sheer amount of whatever to be able to min/max. They're also the ones who are going to take min/maxing to the extreme, its what they do. So no I don't think pure C-bills would be an effective deterrent.

They other thing is most people shouldn't need to min/max their 'Mechs with all new chassis and engines. The majority of the people who do that are going to be the munchkins, while the rest of us will get along just fine with the 'Mechs we get, their variants and some tweaking to make it "ours." So why not let those munchkins help pay for the game? That way their annoying tendencies are doing the rest of us good.

Yes could it stray into P2W, but that's a risk in any F2P game and we have to trust the devs to balance it so that it doesn't. Personally I don't think swapping out the engines and frame will be to unbalancing, after all endo-steel and XL engines have their own disadvantages.

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

2.) How would "degree of separation" be objectively defined - by tonnage, by volume (critical spaces), or by some other means (or combination of means)?
For example, one can exchange a Medium Laser (1 ton, 1 critical) for a Large Laser (5 tons, 2 criticals), why couldn't one similarly exchange a Large Laser (5 tons, 2 criticals) for a standard PPC (7 tons, 3 criticals) or an ER-PPC (7 tons, 3 criticals)?
If one can exchange a standard AC-5 (8 tons, 4 criticals) for a standard AC-10 (12 tons, 7 criticals), why couldn't one similarly exchange the same AC-5 (8 tons, 4 criticals) for a LB-X AC-10 (11 tons, 6 criticals), which is both less massive and less voluminous than the standard AC-10?

I variant of the above would be to go with hardpoints denoted by type (energy, ballistic, missile) and volume (criticals) rather than "degree of separation".

I don't think type and volume is enough. Obviously if you take out an AC you can't put in lasers. Degrees of separation could be determined by crits and tonnage. The greater the difference between those the more its going to cost to change from one to the other. The idea is simply to make the more drastic changes much more expensive.

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Equipment (BAP, ECM, Jump Jets, AMS, Heat Sinks outside of the engine, and so on) hardpoints would work similarly, though weapons could not be placed in equipment-type hardpoints and equipment could not be placed in weapon-type hardpoints.
Additional ammunition for ballistic and missile weapons may be placed in equipment hardpoints, as well as in empty criticals in hardpoints of the appropriate weapon type separated by no more than one section - ballistic ammo may not be placed in empty criticals in a missile or energy hardpoint, missile ammo may not be placed in empty criticals in a ballistic or energy hardpoint, ammo for a RA-mounted weapon must be located in the RA, RT, or CT locations, ammo for a RT-mounted weapon must be located in the RA, RL, CT, HD, or LT locations, and so on.

I'm not a fan of hardpoints, especially not for IS 'Mechs. It just seems to easy and glosses over the amount of work it takes to change a BattleMech. It really starts to feel like "do I want 500lb bombs or 3 inch rockets for this mission" which in my opinion is more the feel you should get when playing Omni's.

Perhaps if you take something out of a location

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

Actuators (including hand actuators), criticals reserved for XL engines and Endo-Steel and or Ferro-Fibrous, melee weapons and such would be locked-down and unable to be removed or switched out.
Melee weapons (if/when implemented) would only be able to be mounted one-at-a-time in arms with a hand actuator, occupy no criticals (If picking up an I-beam or the arm of another 'Mech and using it as a club requires no criticals, why should holding a hatchet do so?), and would be limited by the tonnage of the 'Mech.

Except I'm pretty sure melee weapons do take up tonnage/criticals. I think the idea is that they're built into the 'Mech rather than just picked up. There needs to be some limiting factor on melee weapons, otherwise there's no reason not to take one.

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

"Variants" would then be distinguished by the types, sizes, and locations of these hardpoints.
For example, a MAD-3R Marauder would have two 3-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), two 1-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), one 4-critical ballistic hardpoint in the right-torso (with one 1-critical ammo bin in the left-torso), and four 1-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each leg).
By contrast, a MAD-5D Marauder would have two 3-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), two 1-critical energy hardpoints (one in each arm), one 2-critical energy hardpoint in the right-torso, one 1-critical missile hardpoint in the left-torso (with one 1-critical ammo bin in the left-torso), four 1-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each leg), and four 3-critical equipment hardpoints (two in each side-torso).

If you take a weapon out of a location (L/R arms, L/R/C torso) it blocks off the critical spaces that weapon took up and you can only put the same type of weapon into those blocked off criticals, but if its bigger it can take up any other criticals in that location in order to fit. If there are criticals not used by the weapon you took out, you could put any kind of weapon in them, as long as it wouldn't overflow into the criticals reserved for the type of weapon that was originally there.

This way it feels more like MW3 and the TT, but it doesn't let people go crazy with modifications. Maybe some style of hardpoints is the best way, I don't know. Personally, like I said before I don't like the way they feel. They're just... un-BattleTechish in my mind.

Strum Wealh, on 03 March 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

OmniMechs would have "fixed" weapons and equipment (CT-mounted Medium Lasers on the Avatar, Jump Jets on the Summoner/Thor, standard Flamer on the Adder/Puma, and so on) locked-down and unable to be removed or switched out, to the point where destruction of the original component necessitates replacement with the same type of component - no getting the Adder's flamer destroyed and replacing it with an ER Small Laser (or anything else other than a new standard Flamer)!
By contrast, the "pod space" would be represented by hardpoints that could accept all weapon types and equipment, provided the free tonnage and critical spaces within a given hardpoint would allow for the mounting of the desired weapons and equipment.
"Variants" would then be distinguished by the sizes and locations of these hardpoints.

Your thoughts?

Omni's as I recall don't have variants, they just have configurations, which are basically the same thing as variants, but rather than being "factory set" the way a variant is, they're more of a "mission start at 0600hrs, pilot A you're running this config, pilot B you're running that config, etc."

No hard points, just critical slots and tonnage thats how I think it should be with Omni's. That and you can't change stock equipment like JJ's unless you get the store token that lets you make major changes.

[LordDeathStrike]

given the games stated purpose of "role warfare" its safe to think that there will be no customized weapon loadouts whatsoever, youll choose a pre made variant for its role, and then tune it with your module selections like artemis for missile accuracy or better ecm or better sensors.

[Nighthound]

****** WALL OF TEXT INCOMMING *******

Yes customizing is and was and always will be a part of Battletech.

With that said I am against custom configs in MW:O, first off this will end us up with 3 maybe 4 Mech configs which all players use (1Scout 1 Command 1-2 Assault) that's just not what Bettletech is all about. This is not the first Online Battletech, MPBT 3025 for instance had also no custimzation and we were happy with that game. CBT or TT alows for custimzation yes but I have newer seen any official match with custom mechs nor do I know of any League (TT) which alows these Units. These rules are construction rules and were there to allow you to build your own mechs, not go to ahead and change Mechs into what you think is best.
It is fun to customize a Mech yes, I spend days building the wickedest configs I could think of. And we played with them .... in friendly Matches!

And all this has a very good reason : Balancing.

It will be hard enough to figure out how to balance a 12 vs. 12 match without some kind of BattleValue/Tonnage/C-Bill/whatever restrictions. But if you add custom configs you can only screw yourself and your community.

Now a few more Points ....

If PGI realy (and It looks like it. see teaser Video Swayback) makes a Model for every Variant, then custom configs have to be out of the window, else why bother?

Look at it from the Books point of view. Pilots can't modify anything beyond their Mechs' password (overstatement I know ... moving on). Repairs though they can do. Most MechWarriors (95%+) don't have a personal Tech, their Companies have Techs and those are needed to repair your shot-to-pices Mech. And even most Techs in 3049 do not know how to modify a Mech.
Now, if you are one of the special, super rare, 1 in a billion, Charakters, with your own tech, because you are the personal friend to the leader of your House, well ok why didn't you say so, of course the Princes tech staff will get right on it and you can pick your Mech up in about 6 Months.
Why? Because you don't just throw your AC/10 out and but a PPC in! If you do that your PPC will likely send you to hell because you are trying to feed it with ammo instead of power. You have to remove the feeding mechanism and the ammo storrage as well, now you have a lot of space and you can start rewiring your Mech, retune your Gyro and adjust your reactor settings. Oh I forgot the whole thing needs to be pluged into your Computers and Targeting systems and you have to recalibrate those as well.

If I read one more time anything about changing reactors, internal structure and the like I will burst a bloodvesel. You can not (not even the Clans can do that) modify anything beyond weapons, ammo, tactical systems (TC, BAP, ECM,...) and heat sinks. Yes it was a fun feature in MW but it is just not possible.

There are a lot of Mechs out there and most Mechs have 1 or 2 or even up to 4 or 5 Variants depending on the popularity of given Mech. I don't have a fixed Number in my Head but I bet that there are at least 100 different 3025 Mechs/Variants out there. I know of over 400 Miniatures up to 3067 (never played Dark ages) and there are (nearly) no Variants in Miniatures, why would you wan't to add even more to this mix?
Yes I know we probalby only get 12 mechs wenn the game comes out, but if they Include all the Variants of those 12 we would have over 30 .... thats more then the MW Titles had, and PGI promised more after the release.

We do not know how MW:O is played, but we know that we probably get 2 target reticles, this means two independet firing mechanisms. Boating is bad because of alpha striking one location into oblivion, I know, but you can not penalize Boat configs because there are default Boats out there (Clans especialy like them), but you can not take away the alpha strike ability ether.
Picture two Mechs coming at each other from different directions (in a city), you then will only have a few (if not only 1) seconds to fire your weapons at your target .... this would be an ideal situation for alpha striking in the hopes that some of your weapons actualy might hit and do damage, but no you have to wait for some kind of global cooldown to fire the next weapon??? That makes no sense at all.
There is already a thread which discusses alpha-striking and boating, and I concede the point that all weapons hitting always the point you target at is bad, but you can not just throw a feature out of the window because of that, you have to balance it out. (i.e. you need time to focus your weapons otherwise they will spray as mad)

Giving weapons bonus features is not that bad of an idea but it brings the same kinds of problems with it. Battletech is in existance for over 2 decades now and thats because it is a balanced system (with the correct tools and restrictions) if you meddle with that you will have to rebalance everything which just means more work for the developers, which is bad because they will need more time and we will get to play later rather then sooner.

my 5 cents

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Like your post Nighthound, unfortunately the munchkins will carry on as ever. Looking at the mechs they have posted so far they are all classic 3025 non unseen Level 1 tech (yes I know it's now Era's or whatever). Although there is a limited amount of Level 2 tech around I have a feeling that it won't be available at launch purely from the point of balance. I think they will want to get the game bedded in before they start introducing more variables. Double heat sinks mean energy weapons become the favourite for most. Ammo weapons get a bit of a lease of life from CASE. It will be interesting to see what they go with.

[Doolie]

My whole take is from a realism based ideal. Would a targeting computer created and programmed to target a laser system work well when you put an auto cannon into it? I don't think so. It wasn't made to adjust for recoil, windage, or trajectory. There should be some aspect of that in the game wether you have to replace the system (time and money) or you deal with a wonky targeting profile.

The military doesn't just swap weapons around on platforms, and it's for a reason. Those vehicles were designed behind one weapon type. Sure the Abrams have seen the main gun upgraded, but it's still a cannon and the refit wasn't done overnight.

I'm for limited variations. Lasers for lasers. Missiles for missiles. Cannons for cannons. With the option to drop a weapon system and add heat sinks or whatnot.

Just my opinion though.

- D

[Unclecid]

Doolie, on 06 March 2012 - 08:13 AM, said:

My whole take is from a realism based ideal. Would a targeting computer created and programmed to target a laser system work well when you put an auto cannon into it? I don't think so. It wasn't made to adjust for recoil, windage, or trajectory. There should be some aspect of that in the game wether you have to replace the system (time and money) or you deal with a wonky targeting profile.

The military doesn't just swap weapons around on platforms, and it's for a reason. Those vehicles were designed behind one weapon type. Sure the Abrams have seen the main gun upgraded, but it's still a cannon and the refit wasn't done overnight.

I'm for limited variations. Lasers for lasers. Missiles for missiles. Cannons for cannons. With the option to drop a weapon system and add heat sinks or whatnot.

Just my opinion though.

- D

actually the military does swap weapons around on spme of its platforms.

their are countless variations of weapon loadouts on humvee, strikers, apc's, vtols and aero.
vtol and aero have hardpoints that make it much easier and quicker to do (like omni's)
vehicles (wheeled or tracked) not so much but can still be changed out without too much todo just time.

in the BT universe it all depends on how you view the 31st century state of tech.
in the 20th/21st century we have seen the move to more modular systems for ease of repair and changing condidtion in the field.

maybe some of the more popular ideas for mods could be included in a purchasable (in cbills) "field refit" as offered in some source books.

[Project_Mercy]

There are mechs you can change around, they're called Omnimechs. at 3049, there are none in the inner sphere. Non omni's take a massive amount of cash to make even minor changes to them. Omnimechs cost more to purchase, and to maintain, and there's still limits as to what can or can't go on them.

Fluff aside, letting people build out their own variants at-will isn't really balanced, and you just end up with a bunch of different looking mechs with exactly the same crap inside them. You might as well turn each mech into a vanity display. The reason people like or dislike certain mechs, is because they all have their own 'character' from , "well it has a lot of guns, but not enough heatsinks to really use them." to "It's an ammo explosion waiting to happen!" etc.

Mechs were beautiful because they were flawed. When you allow people to use the mechlab, they just homogonize all the mechs and remove the flaws. It's extremely lame.

Edit: Looks like Mechlab is in. I look forward to the long string of ML boats. vs the LRM/5 boats.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 07 March 2012 - 11:59 AM.