179 replies to this topic

[Dr Hobo]

You should be able to customize EVERYTHING within limits of what the chassis could realistically handle.

Basically,you have to start from the engine and your servos all the way up to your weapons. This way,you can balance for yourself between heavy and slow,or light and fast. But again,you cant mount an XL engine in a Medium slot. Its slot based and each module should have size and weight restrictions. Weapon slots should only be for X or Y weapon unless its an omni.

[Neutron IX]

My only real concern with Mechlabs, as implemented in previous iterations of Battletech video games, is that it allows us to utilize any mundane and run of the mill design in the same fashion in which Omni-mechs were intended, and essentially takes away the exact advantage that having an Omni was supposed to give.

Retrofitting a non-Omni is supposed to be a laborious endeavor, and in the lore, sometimes even just replacing a medium laser with a medium laser manufactured by a different company then the original could give the techs headaches and problems, much less swapping out your entire weapons load and min/maxing your armor/engine speed.

I do feel the lab should be included, but I wouldn't mind seeing it more limited to reflect canon in this go round, though, the truth is, I'm so excited for the game to launch, I don't know that I'll even care what type of mechlab we actually get.

[zudukai]

as long as i eventually get two Gauss on my timberwolf, i'm happy. however throwing a clan Gauss on a Hellhound would be very... stimulating. *shifty eyes*

[Paladyne]

I voted for maybe because every game has completely messed up the limitation version, and stock mechs with 3 different firestarters and 2 griffins works well, I say use TRO mechs but allow limited mods such as HS adding, weapon drops for HS and like on my Black Knights the ability to get rid of those worthless srms for a couple more freezers

[diana]

Well, this is set before Omnimechs, so I don't know. Maybe peripheral equipment\weapons in hands.

[DreyfussFrost]

If the focus is going to be competitive multiplayer then balance needs to be a priority. I'd personally like to see variants only. It's way too easy to simply dump everything for a couple gauss rifles or PPCs and one-shot another mech with an alpha strike. I still expect something like 30+ mechs with maybe 4 variants each but at least that's not as much of a balance nightmare as full customization, and it's a lot less overwhelming to new players (which I am not, but I REALLY don't want to see MechWarrior go another decade with no new games).

[Souske Sagara]

Having done EXTENSIVE modding of 'mechs on the grid, sometimes during combat missions I think that if there aren't limitations on what can be put where and what can be taken out people wont look at a mech for its original role and capability, but for its tonnage and hitbox profile. I always played it on the grid that you cant modify a chassis past a certain point, but with no rules in the book about it some players I know took the stance that it was valid to turn a hunchback into a light scout with LRM's, or make a locust into a 25 ton pillbox because it suits the scenerio.

Rack for rack, cannon for cannon, engine for engine I think there should be plenty of room to play, but putting hands on a catapult is beyond stupid in an MMO with no GM to say, 'Well he made the rolls and spent the three months transit time to take the arm from another 65 tonner and replace the blown out missile rack."

[typhon]

I'm agreeing with some of these and disagreeing with others. The MW2 system, while cool was aweful stupid. I have a riffleman with big flailing arms and instead of armoring these up I pretend they don't exist and put lasers in my legs! I like mod idea where things can go wrong through installation, however from a gameplay perspective this makes no sense. This isn't RTS or an RPG, this is brutal FPS style (simulator hopefully) warfare. If something goes wrong because it has a "chance" to from installing it in the wrong place, we may as well succumb the whole game to RNG.

On another note I think the MW4 style was great because it allowed you to customise with limits to type and space. Both of these are crucial, it makes no sense to have a catapult loaded up with AC20's, yet in other systems this is possible. Also it makes no sense to load a Gauss Rifle on your Jenna. This is where the space issue takes major shape, as in MW4, you may have enough blocks that if you combined them you could fit that Gauss in, but because they're so spread your stuck with machine guns.

And finally, I think something has been overlooked that is crucial to the entire process, gameplay mechanics. The entire thing is urban, with mechs having roles. If you have a scout mech, there is probably no point having LRMs in it anyway as you are fast enough to dodge a lot of sniping by simply hiding behind a building. Your maneuverability as a light mech may outweigh the massive payload of those assaults, simply because of environment. So getting up close and personal while running circles around that custom super-snipe-nuke atlas may be a better defence than trying to take him out from a distance.

All a theory and only time will tell!

[Varador]

The true success of any game is in its ability to allow the player a large (but not unlimited) customisation range. To be able to make something your own and not have the same as every other person out there is what makes an experience enjoyable. As long as there is a lot of variety and options, it's all good by me. Like most i hate min/max people, but thats just the way of things, game balance is always an issue and most people will jump on the wagon that allowed them more of a chance of winning. They'll always be around.

[nektu]

Varador, on 03 November 2011 - 04:25 AM, said:

The true success of any game is in its ability to allow the player a large (but not unlimited) customisation range. To be able to make something your own and not have the same as every other person out there is what makes an experience enjoyable. As long as there is a lot of variety and options, it's all good by me. Like most i hate min/max people, but thats just the way of things, game balance is always an issue and most people will jump on the wagon that allowed them more of a chance of winning. They'll always be around.

A Mechlab does not promote variety, it will just force you to choose the current "best" loadout to be competitive in game. You could of course build your own **** if you like loosing to the cheesemonkeys.

Mechwarrior: Living Legends did if right - no mechlab, just mech variants.

This way the game is decided by skill in game and not by skill in min-maxing while still providing you with enough choices to keep things interesting and to adapt to different tactical situations.


While the MW4 model for the mechlab seems to promise customization with some kind of balance, it was not able to keep that promise: MW4 multiplayer was the worst kind of min-maxing bullshit ever.

Let's not kid ourselves: balancing games is hard, and allowing a mechlab adds too many different loadout possibilities to keep things balanced. Only a limited selection of loadouts can achieve that.


Using fluff arguments to support a mechlab is retarded - that would only work for a singleplayer game. Gameplay-considerations have to take precedence for a multiplayer game, otherwise you will not be able to keep competitive gameplay (and every multiplayer game is about that) interesting for all participants.

Edited by nektu, 03 November 2011 - 05:20 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"just Mech variants"

Then how many Variants will be enough for Launch and how long would it take the Dev to make enough to satisfy everyone's "niche" variant config?

There can be no "Well I got the Variant load-out(s) I like and will ride so **** everyone else!"

It can't and shouldn't be like that and not having many choices, something a Proper Mechlab will provide, will kill the game faster than facing off against the "Frankenstein" Mech from Laser/Missile boat Hell.

[zverofaust]

Making a semi-permanent alteration to a Mech chassis such as switching out one weapons system with another should be quite an expensive undertaking (unless it's an Omni) for the obvious reason that it requires almost a complete rebuild of that part of the Mech in order to fit and integrate the new weapon. Real-world example, upgrading a 105mm-armed M1 Abrams with a 125mm gun takes months and costs millions of dollars per tank. Sometimes a refit isn't enough; when the Soviets wanted to switch from a 100mm gun to a 115mm gun (only an extra 15mm!) they had to redesign the T-55 completely to produce the T-62.

So my suggestion would be to make refitting expensive and even time consuming, with extremely heavy "min/max" refits being so expensive that a player may feel it more appropriate to buy a new Mech that fits the playstyle better.

Edited by zverofaust, 03 November 2011 - 07:10 AM.

[Darklord]

The starting year will be 3049.

So that means for the IS all the mechs are in the military which runs by what is best for the overall units not the single pilots.So they should have the variants for the mech choices and use a mech lab idea for small mods and repairs.
The clans more than likley won't be in the game at first release i'm just guessing here though.
Even if we do have clans the TRO show the Omni have variants too so their military would use the attitude that the unit is more important that pilot.

The devoplers are going to have to take in count balance or you'll have the board flaming up all day long about nerfing everything in sight.
Many of you take your point of view from the game you played in the BT universe.
You can see the gamers wanting to design a mech their way for themselves.
My opinion is from the VWE pod point of view.
To me its more about the challenge of beating someone with the same mechs he has.I don't want a game were i need to set up
math tables to get the most out of my mech against the other guy that just spent hours doing the same thing.I want balance so when i win it's not about the mech but about the person behind the controls

DL

[mbt201188]

This topic is a hard one to approach. I kinda like the idea of picking variants cuz they feel unique but at the same time i like customizing. Ugh so hard to pick

[verybad]

Voted for MW4 system. Unlimited choice makes every mech the same as other mechs of it's same tonnage. Limited choice gives every mech it's one flavor and role and makes the game much deeper IMO.

[gilliam]

It wouldn't be mechwarrior without the mech lab.
Personally. I think an open mech lab where we can customize everything should be allowed, but more extensive refits should be more expensive and there should be a time factor as well. You should be better served replacing a mech than reconfiguring it completely to fit a different role. Such a system would keep the mechs from being able to be completely overhauled as if it were nothing like happened in previous games.

[Barsov]

It should be mechlab. But:
- no mixed tech (IS technology cannot be mixed with ClanTech if Clans will appear in the future);
- Battlemech's customisation must be limited or expensive like in CBT field refits rules;
- allow Omnimech's customisation by using valid and/or creating custom omnipods (again if Clan technology will appear in the game).

And I totally disagree with MW4 system.

[John Clavell]

Reading over the FAQ gives some insight into how the MechLab may, or may not work. It says some things will be customisable, but apparently armour and weapons wont be, so that means all you'll be able to customise is your paint job. It seems like there will be predefined TRO variants of the Battlemechs for use or something, it's not very clear though.

Q. Will I be able to fully customize my Mechs' load out, decals, paint job, and equipment?

A. You will be able to customize your load out, decals, paint job and equipment. But when it comes to armor, weapons and accessories please refer to the previous question and answer.

A lot seems to rest on what the 'defenition' of 'load out' means to the developers. In regards to armour, weapons, and accessories it says to refer to the previous question and answer, which is as follows.

Q. Will there be vehicular combat alongside Mechs for the players this time?

A. At the moment we are not following up with combined arms (tanks, hovercraft, jets etc.)

Not very helpful. And I actually think this is a mistake in the formatting of the FAQ. I believe it refers to the Q&A about LRM's. This makes a lot more sense, but it basically boils down to meaning there will be a balance between MechLab customisation and fun game design.

I'm not totally against a system where you can't alter armour, or weapons, effectively following the pre-defined TRO load outs. A system such as this also works a little better if your looking to have 'classes' like fire-support, defence and such. If you allow people total customisation, then suddenly that fire-support class Battlemech could be decked out with something totally different. This might not fit in with the game design. This is all however speculation, and no one really will know until the developers layout their plans.

The MechLab is an important part of the franchise. And many people, myself included spend almost as much time in the MechLab, as they do playing the game. I think it's also a real boon for the game in attracting people. Look at EVE Online. Their ship customisation, while not as free as say Battletech or early MechWarrior games is almost a mini-game in unto its self. People spend hours tweaking, and coming up with new strategies based around Ship load outs. And the same thing happened in previous MechWarrior games.

In conclusion, expect the unexpected here. I would not be surprised if the MechLab we get in MechWarrior Online, is something different, much in the same way the MechWarrior 4 MechLab was a different take on the system to allow for better game balance, and Battlemech role (class) control. However, I would say to not allow any kind of customisation would be a crime.

[Razor Kotovsky]

Do you even have to ask? Everyone who voted maybe/no should get out and never look back.

F**K YEAH mechspinning!

MW4 lab was fine but too simple. MW3 had no weapon type and size limits, just weight.
Mech modification should be a complex and creative process taking in account ammo feeding and placing, heat dissipation and other parameters.

Hell, i'd like to customize separate modules as well. Trading some accuracy (surely the MW4 type range will die off) for power on PPC or placing AMS on front only for example.

Edited by Razor Kotovsky, 04 November 2011 - 04:39 AM.

[Sideways]

I say a mixture, Omni's ARE Omni's because of the ability to put whatever, whereever to suit the situation. so for Omni's I say use the MW2 system as it most closely resembled the books. For IS/Secondline mechs use a hardpoint system like MW4 Mercs. Also since this is real time, Omni's should beable to hotswap where as refitting a traditional mech should take time depending on how advanced the alteration is.