179 replies to this topic

[BatWing]

I played all of the Battletech / Mechwarrior versions.

All of the versions were plagued by quite bad network code in multiplayer, especially (unfortunately) MW3. I loved the sense of realism MW3 gave to the entire Sim. MechLab in MW3 was bad tho.

IMO it depends on how the game react online. MW3 was bad, so players noticed the only effective weapons due to lag and other **** resulted to be Lasers. Therefore laser boats all over the place. No lag, instant hit.

BOATS are bad in general. They can be laser, cannons or missiles. if they are boats to me they are wrong. mechlab should seriously limit the possibility to create boats. Doesnt matter about Omni configs. they should have serious limits as well.

If we want to follow a minimum realism, a weapon should be represented on the 3D model. That representation should be something "believable".

Limits should be on each one Chassis. If you have a chassis with Arms and hands, showing cannons on the Arms, you should keep it as such. What you change should change the 3D model, meaning I dont want to see "Abominations" around.

A Catapult is a Catapult. To me, removing the missile launchers to replace with PPCs or ACs or LL is an abomination. I don t care if someone did it in the past. The original Battletech didn t have that ****. You should be able to modify missile settings, smaller or bigger racks, that make sense. Artemis or LRM or SRM that make sense.

Following this example, each one Chassis should maintain its "character".

Other than that, Customization should be part of a real environment, based on scarsity of materials. If you have no restriction on your materials, there is no logistic or challenge in any chouice. You just choose the most badass weapon.

Battletech original environment was great because all of the weapon system were scarse. Salvaging was a Must. Destroying a Mech was the last solution. Disabling was good, because then you go and take the spare parts to fix your Lance. Black Market to resell the components you can t use for those you desperately need to repair your Mechs. MechLab then make sense, because sometimes, you got a damaged Laser and you have to replace with a lower class because you don t have the right component... That s challenging.. That s real...

If you don t put Battletech / mechwarrior in this kind of echosystem, if the "world you live is nice and Pink" .. That s not mechwarrior

[UncleKulikov]

another method would be to make different versions of each mech, with more expensive (in game points) ones being easier to customize.

[Argatson Krieghammer]

Of course we need the mechlab, Mechassault was a disgrace to the series. that said, I've only used the MW4 mechlab so I don't know how the others are

[ThunderFox]

The issue I have with the mechlab concept is that most mechs were not omni mechs and having one automatically either mechs them omni's or makes the mechs 3D model a generic representation of whatever you built. If you can change what each design actually does it then has no real character, it's just a hitbox collection at that point. So personally I would rather not have a lab for just making whatever changes and just have as many of the variants as possible, giving each one it's modified appearance and functionality.

On the other hand I would swear they did have rules to modify existing mechs in campaigns. If there were some rules to it, it might make sense, but when the game had hundreds of official designs I always got the impression that custom mechs (which have made up 99% of all MW online matches) were pretty rare...in fact they used to mention custom variants as if you had to really look for them.

I'm not saying "kill choice" but if it existed at all I would like to see it as a realistic mechanic, not just a system to buy your mech-avatar and do whatever with it. MW4's slot system was slightly better but you still rarely saw people use stock designs. I'd rather have a system where the Stock mechs had a purpose beyond dust collection.

[TheRulesLawyer]

SteveRestless, on 01 November 2011 - 02:01 PM, said:

It doesnt make sense, especially in the case of omnimechs to limit them mechwarrior4 style. Maybe Mech4 style refits for non-omnis, and Full Customizability within the constraints of a base chassis for Omnimechs?

That's sort of my thought. Omni's would abide by omni rules. I'm not sure what the price for that flexibility would be though. It would have to be balanced somehow. Everyone else would have very limited refit.

[Angelo Fetladral]

Granted I stopped playing Mechwarrior video games with MW2:Mercenaries but to me Mechlab is a must as it adds depth to the game allowing you to have fun customizing your perfect mech.

I had no complaints with the Mechlab in Mercenaries. You picked the chassis and had tonnage to work with. Heavier mechs could take a lot more but were slower. You could decide where you wanted to put the weapons and systems. I say no restrictions and balance it out with gameplay.

[chewie]

I say no.

Lets have the same as MPBT3025, if you wanna different varient, buy it with the credits you have earned in game.

MW2 Mercs was the truest (with MW3 trying to be, but clans made it munchy) with MW4 being too arcadey and having far too many daft and often overpowered designs.
eg
twin LBX10 and 6 meds on an UZIEL. granted it had no JJ and minimal armour, but it was nasty up close.

So i say can we have MPBT3025 style lab please.

[r4plez]

MW4 style mechlab suits me

[arcangelS7]

As a player of the Battletech board game, I'd love for them to use the rules presented in the Strategic Operations rulebook as a basis for their repair/customization system. In many ways, it is a fusion between the systems in MW2/3 and MW4. While any equipment could be added, it takes a lot long to install equipment in areas that didn't have anything in them before, and some modifications can only be done in a factory, which would incentive to the planetary conquest system.
Also, I think it would add an increased element of tension to combat if the players know they would have to retreat to the dropship, and wait a couple of in-game hours for their mechs to be repaired.

[Grave]

cranston snord, on 01 November 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:

I'm killing myself to understand how allowing customization, which was exceedingly rare in canon, will allow MWO to be closer to canon.

Simple answer is that canon has always held that 'Mechs were able to be modified; the problem is that in both the RPG and in the boardgame, systems have evolved that point to the difficulty of wholesale customization of existing frames and variants. While it can be done it's expensive in terms of time, resources, and success rate (in the RPG it's possible to fail customization and end up with 'Mechs which have negative traits or are even more difficult to repair). I don't see that system porting over well, so as a result something similar to - but not a direct lift from - MW:4 may be in order.

I'd be much more interested in something where the arms of a given 'Mech can't support more than a certain tonnage since the underlying chassis which has been only carrying a medium laser (and is designed to do so) can't wedge a PPC or a heavy autocannon in the spot, even if the critical space is available. Allow modification based more on weight and structural limitations, worry less about what type (ballistic, energy, missile) weapon it is.

[Perfecto Oviedo]

Keep the distinctions between BattleMechs and OmniMechs, but overall, I vote the MW2/MW3 Mechlab.

EDIT: Which, on reflection, doesn't make a whole lot of sense, seeing as you don't REALLY modify BattleMechs (where as you have different set variants of the same chassis), so I guess my idea of the Mechlab makes more sense for Omnis

Edited by perfecto oviedo, 01 November 2011 - 02:34 PM.

[tyrone dunkirk]

I'd enjoy a more flexible mech lab than the MW4 one, but not so much that it would get overwhelming. I like the idea of being able to make my own unique variant of a mech, not the same stock one that everyone else has, but I wouldn't want it to get out of hand... if that makes sense

[Reoh]

Refits take time and money, but how does that translate into a persistant online game? Well reconfiguring your mech could be expensive, look at it like respecing your character, only you can have multiple mechs (there's your dual spec in a way!). The more extensive alterations you make the more expensive the process becomes. It could also take that mech out of your stable until the refit had become complete, measured in IRL hours. This would discourage major refits constantly. If you had more mechs you could just hop in the one you wanted and go but otherwise it would take an investment of time and money to discourage its over-use. Some components would be rare to find which is canonicaly accurate. Just because you want that c3 network for your unit, or harvesting a salvaged clan targeting computer doesn't mean you can actually get your hands on one to do so. Even more mundane equipment could fall into a similar (although not quite as rare) category. "Those fancy new ERPPCs? Yeah sure do look sweet but we don't have any of those in stock sir!" All this would paint a more accurate portrayal of the Inner sphere where custom builds while entirely possible also have innate checks and balances to prevent their abuse.

Also I like the idea of the mech displaying alterations visibly but can understand how difficult that would be to incorporate into a game. You can't make a model for every mech in every possible configuration that would be nuts. I suppose the only option available in that regard would be some sort of base model, along with the same for equipment super-imposed into various hook points on the main model. Still that would be difficult to pull off and a number of mechs may have to be structurally adjusted to be able to support such a thing. In all honesty I don't imagine seeing such a feature being in game, except maybe as a few variant "options" in a mechs appearance tab.

[fishfins]

Hell no. Mech labs are fun I guess but I'd rather see people working with the chassis as it comes out of the box you could say.

[Lightfoot]

After reading the posts I just wanted to say what Mechlab does is it allows you to dynamically adapt your mech to a map or a tactic your team wants to employ. This adaptability extends the gameplay by making each encounter a little unique and sometimes completely new. You never know what tactic your opponent will spring on you for sure and they never know what you will do. No other game has that much variability.

The hardpoints that MW4 used kept the 'mechs true in spirit to the original, but also allowed them to be adapted to the mission and no mech could do all the missions. You still needed a variety of 'mechs in MW4.

Conversely, without Mechlab you will get into many matches where everyone brings the same 'mech and battles are repeats of previous ones. That's gonna get boring real fast. Trust me.

[renegade mitchell]

To me, mechlab is a given. How else will you customize your mech?

[Scurvy]

Yes to option 1 mechlab.

Nothing I like more than customizing my mech down to the bolts and wires.

[Pht]

Yes, there should be a mechlab - and for the most part it should follow the rules from the parent system, with some common sense restrictions to keep away from the MW3 "gunbag" effect of rendering all 'Mechs into walking cabinets of varying sizes and weights.

Speaking of which, almost the same discussion is going on over here.

[gregsolidus]

I want to see a happy medium between MW3 and 4.

[ice trey]

This is a really touchy subject. Mech labs and customization are fun, but in the case of Mechwarrior 4, even with "limited" customization, it lead to some of the worst cases of min-maxing, making 'mechs that are supposed to be able to take ages to take down get dropped in one volley. Two at the most if you're bringing Atlases or something. Combine that with jump sniping and it made any time spent in MW4 online an unpleasant experience - there were no ways to counter the jump-sniping but with more jump sniping.

What I'd recommend for customization is what you'd find in the Battletech rule books - Mechs aren't meant to be customized. They're a mass of complex machinery and product of massive amounts of R&D, not just lego-blocks that fit neatly onto each-other. What Battletech did was that when you tried to customize a 'mech (See: BMR; Strategic Operations;) there was always a pretty high chance that something goes wrong. A medium laser could either break when you cram it in, or if you do cram it in, it is horribly inaccurate or shorts out after the first shot; New Jump Jets could spring leaks, venting plasma into your 'mech, causing you to generate twice as much heat when you jump; A new engine might vent more heat into the machine with every movement; Autocannons could have a chance to jam...

What was more, the whole process was ***-awful expensive, and anything more than a small refit required you to take your 'mech to a factory to get the parts installed, Slap these costs on the massive costs of customizing a 'mech in the first place (Man-hours, engineering calculations, etc), as well as the added difficulty of repairing a 'mech that's already customized (Repair cost modifiers based on extent of modifications), and keeping a custom 'mech really becomes something that only the super-rich can muster, and even then, THEY would likely prefer spending those C-bills on a 'new mech for a lancemate.

Long story short, while customization should be allowed, there's got to be some significant reason why the players should want to stick with Stock configurations. Time, Money, and Risk should be key components. If someone's going to make their ***-mode battlemech, are they really willing to risk that the whole thing is gimped until they buy a new one?

This is how Battletech has worked in the past, and I'd like to see it treated as such, again.