35 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

No Mech Bay would be a bad thing. Balancing tech to Mech's should/could be done as in the original MW2. You get a chassis and it will only hold so much weight, it comes with a default (non-down gradable) Engine (based on Mech size) and allow the Pilot to add and subtract the Tools they desire to provide their Mech the best Kit to do the Role they see themselves best engaged in. AS a note, in the Timeline noted by the Dev, 3049, In August of that year: The Clans invade the Periphery and as such, may begin to influence/provide some new Tech to the era.

I would love to see customization but have it be realistic in the manner in which it is accomplished. Have all the components (TAG / C.A.S.E, Sinks etc.) available but a player has to start with a chassis of type and weight that can't be stripped and made into a walking gun that simply would explode first trigger pull in the Table Top rule set. Oh and a switch in game to deny any customization (Stock Mech's baby as noted already.

[TheForce]

Great post vance, but I doubt it will happen as they have to build this game for the masses not the old school hard core like us

I just hope they have an option for stock only battles...

[Vance Diamond]

Thanks!

Though I hope these two ideas aren't considered "hardcore." They seem necessary to make the game feel like a battle between giant machines- not an odd-Giant Robot version of Call of Duty. And, in my humble opinion, they add a great deal of depth to mech piloting without increasing the learning curve an unreasonable degree.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 02 November 2011 - 08:05 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

theforce, on 02 November 2011 - 07:59 AM, said:

Great post vance, but I doubt it will happen as they have to build this game for the masses not the old school hard core like us

I just hope they have an option for stock only battles...

After all these years you still like stock only... ;P

[TheForce]

Mr_Blastman, on 02 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

After all these years you still like stock only... ;P

Hells ya! I recognize your name too...but from where?

[Mister Blastman]

Mercnet/mercppp... I still remember your hosted drop lobbies.

[TheForce]

Vance Diamond, on 02 November 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Thanks!

Though I hope these two ideas aren't considered "hardcore." They seem necessary to make the game feel like a battle between giant machines- not an odd-Giant Robot version of Call of Duty. And, in my humble opinion, they add a great deal of depth to mech piloting without increasing the learning curve an unreasonable degree.

Ya I don't want battles that end with 2 or 3 shots to the CT with 8 grouped lasers either

If the pinpoint accuracy and grouping fire was addressed i think customization would be OK. Here's a good thread on this:

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

As Mr_Blastman said...I still prefer stock only though

[Vance Diamond]

Thanks for that link, theforce. I never even considered convergence- but after going through that thread and thinking about it- I feel its a game defining topic- equally essential in all respects.

[omegaclawe]

I very much like the consequences of overheating (which might necessitate flamers and the like being rather weak), and Ammo explosions. However, ammo explosions should not happen because of a random dice roll for a critical hit. It should be based on well placed shots in spots that are already weakened for armor, or done with weapons that are fairly good at armor piercing. Missiles, for instance, should be more or less awful at that.

I'm also an advocate of extensive customization taking a large amount of player skillpoints and money to do, starting off with more or less Stock only, moving on to other TRO designs, then letting you swap out a few similar weapons, replace large ones with multiple small ones or vice versa, and finally move on to where you can get more or less a full customization experience... within the reasonable design constraints of the mech. Swapping a large lazer for a PPC, I think, should be more of a mid-range thing. Swapping a large Lazer for an SRM rack? More endgame. Changing to an XL engine or something like that? Pretty much maxed out in the customization category.

Speaking of which, Omni's probably shouldn't even be pilotable until you hit the mid-range.

[Vance Diamond]

Yes, I did not mean TACs (Through Armor Criticals). I don't think those have much place in a Mechwarrior game, unless you want to turn them on for the elites. Armor needs to be blown before the ammo takes a shot.

As for the scaling customization- you're granting greater power to the older players- thus making the new player experience much less friendly. I think that's a bad idea. You want to attract players, and the best way to do that is to make it fun, exciting, and fair right from the get go.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 02 November 2011 - 09:44 AM.

[omegaclawe]

That can be solved, to some extent, by having the lower-skilled players, who can't customize, play against each other, until they get more skills.

[Vance Diamond]

Except that you divide the game population by installing a sort of bland training environment.

I don't understand the need for this advancing customization idea- the only thing it gives the game is something for the older players to hold over the heads of the new ones. Its a huge tactical advantage- and it makes new players feel like they aren't playing the real game yet.

I have to jump into Call of Duty analogy again- like in Modern Warfare 2- when you have to advance four or five levels before you can even make your own class. Those were pretty lame levels. Why not have the stock options available for use if the new player doesn't want to use it just yet- but still have it open if they do want to mess around first.

I just don't see any advantage to denying such a cool feature for any length of time.

[UncleKulikov]

If you do include ammo explosions, make ballistic weapons better than in Tabletop. Energy weapons weigh less, don't jam, take up less space and less tonnage, and don't run out of ammunition. Ballistics still generate heat, and don't do significantly more damage per ton than energy weapons, so keep it balanced.

[Vance Diamond]

See: Consequences of Heat

Energy weapons pump out a great deal more heat per damage than ballistics.

AC10 - 3 heat
PPC - 10 heat

Big difference and they both deal 10 damage.

Though those are table-top rules, and I would anticipate some tweaking for MWO.

[UncleKulikov]

An AC 10 also takes up more space than a PPC and is shorter ranged in addition to the ammunition (which also takes up space). Since a weapon can be disabled by a hit on any of it's crit slots, an AC10 reduces your mech's weapon potential and makes your remaining weapons more vulnerable, not to mention the chance of your mech taking 100 damage from the exploding ammunition bin. (~10 or so shots per ton).

Edited by UncleKulikov, 02 November 2011 - 10:23 AM.

[Vance Diamond]

Right.

Its a trade.

You can have a more reliable- ammo-less heat machine that you must fire with discipline. 3 times for 30 heat and 30 damage

Or a longer ranged, finite, potentially dangerous weapon that you can fire 10 times for 30 heat and 100 damage.

Are you a play-it-safe pilot who likes to dodge out of line of sight to cool off? Or do you want to keep your enemy in front of your blazing guns, trusting your marksmanship will end the foe before he can end you?

Two different playstyles, two different sets of tactics- all in one simple trade.

Edited by Vance Diamond, 02 November 2011 - 10:32 AM.