76 replies to this topic

[Sprouticus]

Well it looks like we need to clarify a few things for some folks.

First, none of these arguments are new (mine included). It has been ongoing since MW3 came out. Just like legging. So lets summerize:

• I cannot stress how bad boating was in MW3. Pretty much that was the only viable option. That meant that the MW4 Devs had it clearly in their minds when designing MW4. To be clear, simplifcaiton was part of the reason they did it to, but boating issues were the primary focus.
  
• The MW4 mech lab was not very good, but it served a point. The idea was to prevent the ML boating which took place in MW3, and to simplify the loadouts(. You got rid of criticals, and you allowed customization of HS, electronics, etc based solely upon wieght. Obviously this meant that those components could not be destroyed (which sucked), and that you could not boat except for a few chasis. This system also allowed them to split systems in say the arm (say 2 energy slots and a 4 energy slow in one ar instead of 6 contiguous ones) to further minimize boating. The problem of course was that the chasis that COULD boat became the only viable ones for multiplayer (Novacat, MadCat, MC mk II, Daishi). So it was partially successful, but not great.
  
• The MW4 mechlab was not meant to allow other variants. That was not the intent. Think of each mech as ONE variant. Which is why when NBT and mektek started modifying the code they included variants such as the catapult-K2 with energy hardpoints. mektek also included hardpoints. This was a compromise with its basis on the first issue above.
  
• The MW4 Mechlab actually was the first mechlab to differentiate omnimechs from regular ones in any real fashion.

Overall, the MW4 mechlab was maybe a D+ or C- in my book. It was amazing how it became more fun as mektek and NBT added variants and new mechs.

It appears that PGI is attacking the boating issue from a different angle.

• LRM's appear to spread damage across the while mech.
  
• Lasers are DoT weapons( ~2seconds for ML) which means it is not point and shoot a la MW3 & 4. it will be difficult to 'core' an armor section with one shot even if you do boat.
  
• There is no coolant (to our knowledge yet) and it sounds like PGI will have a fairly tight heat scale (in the video 4 ml shot jumped heat from 35& to nearly 80%), and with dire consequences for overheats(ammo explosions, maybe others). That means you cant just one shot someone, shut down, and be fine with it.
  
• We will see how they handle PPC's.

All of the information above is why I would be fine with a limited hardpoint system, (use criticals like MW3, but color code them for weapons only like MW4) as long as HS and electronics are also taking up critical slots so they can be destroyed.See my post for the layout I would prefer.


Obviously I know that this is all speculation, but PGI does know what they are doing, and they at least appear to have listened to the community on several contentious topics. Either that or their internal discussions mirror the ones online.

[snakeman5150]

My option of using the MW4 Mechlab is based on keeping weapon hard points to only use certain weapons types so we dont have a Madcat shooting LL out of his missile racks or LRM20 firing from his left arm. MW3 did indeed have the most versatile Mechlab with its many variants but how many people didn't make there own. Having more than one variant for sale is unnecessary when you can change every thing. Every one would just by the cheapest one and then make there own variant.

Edited by snakeman5150, 10 March 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Ragotag]

Black Sunder, on 10 March 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Dunno about the rest of you but I'd be willing to spend 20-30 bucks per mech if it let me use the lab to design the mech I want within the confines of the critical system that 2/3 used. Before someone accuses me of wanting to put all lasers or PPCs or all missiles, etc etc on a mech I prefer balanced loadouts of weapon systems.

That might be your preference, but for every one of you there will be 10+ l33t players who will do exactly that.

Lorcan Lladd, on 10 March 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

A customization system changes little, with regards to gameplay. There's canon boats and custom boats alike.

I totally disagree with this assumption; such extreme customization totally ruined the MW4 leagues IMO. Yeh, there are canon boats, but they're not stripped down to minimal armor, maxed out on double heatsinks, and designed to be capable of 2+ alpha strikes without overheating. I guess some players like that style, but I'm just not one of them.

[Karyudo ds]

Sprouticus, on 10 March 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

All of the information above is why I would be fine with a limited hardpoint system, (use criticals like MW3, but color code them for weapons only like MW4) as long as HS and electronics are also taking up critical slots so they can be destroyed.See my post for the layout I would prefer.

I kind of liked the idea of say being able to take a laser and swap it with another laser trading armor to make up the difference. Would be hard to build super boats that way and if variants are separate units then you could buy the variants if you wanted a specific point etc. As you said though, till they spill the beans on part 2 this is all speculation anyway. I would like my non-omni mechs to not be omni mechs but the videos make me want to play either way

[Ragotag]

Karyudo-ds, on 10 March 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

I would like my non-omni mechs to not be omni mechs...

So would I.

[Seabear]

The element of customization is basic to the BT universe, but not to the point of subverting the basic nature of the mech. The use of canon varients with the ability to change some of the supporting/secondary armaments would seem to me to allow the most freedom without allowing a player to screw with the basic mech design. Some mechs have a boatload of variants, i.e. Archer, but the basic purpose of the mech remains unchanged. The unpleasant fact is that if there is any way to twist the system to provide an unfair advantage or to cater to an unethical player's particular style, it will be done even though it ruins the game for everyone else.

[Black Sunder]

Dlardrageth, on 10 March 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

fantasy FrankenMechs at heart's desire.

Just this part I'll respond to in part because of the inaccuracy that it gets thrown around with. Frakenmechs are mechs created using pieces of other mechs. Like a centurion arm, the legs of a hunchback, the torso of a enforcer, and the head of a T-bucket. THAT is a frankenmech.

[Zarkan]

You guys are idiots if you think live play won't ultimetly wind up just being a lot of people running 1 or 2 assualt 'mech designs around regardless of what the devs try to do. I don't belive the inclusion or lack of inclusion of a mech lab is going to have much effect on that. People boated quite heavily in MW3 with their "true" critical system that just made every mech in the same tonnage a fancy designed gun garbage bag. In MW4's lab atleast each chassis had it's own character even if two thirds of them didn't get used.

[Wyzak]

If people want to strip their armor to add a ridiculous amount of weapons and ammo, they better have teammates willing to play linebacker so they can hang out at the edge of combat range and use their assets without being harassed or critical ammo explosion from a stray shot. Seems like a fairly standard military tactic.

[Gremlich Johns]

Yeah, I wanna strip down an Atlas, minimum armor, the fastest engine I can get and just arm it with machine guns and loads of ammo

[Sassori]

Boating exists in the game. Pure missile boats, pure laser boats, etc etc. That's TT rules. I would prefer TT variants only myself. If there is completely uncontrolled customization of every mech... well then it just becomes weight. I am curious to see how the hard point system will work as we know very little about the /type/ of hard points they are yet.

P.S. Just look at the Awesome, Catapult, and Crusader (Or many others TT variants of many mechs) to see that Boating is by design. Versatility however... if used right can be very strong.

[Brakkyn]

Christopher Dayson, on 10 March 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

Boating exists in the game. Pure missile boats, pure laser boats, etc etc. That's TT rules. I would prefer TT variants only myself. If there is completely uncontrolled customization of every mech... well then it just becomes weight. I am curious to see how the hard point system will work as we know very little about the /type/ of hard points they are yet.

P.S. Just look at the Awesome, Catapult, and Crusader (Or many others TT variants of many mechs) to see that Boating is by design. Versatility however... if used right can be very strong.

At least those are canonical boats and not something someone tossed together in the MechLab. For every canonical 'Mech designed to carry a limited number of weapon types, there's ten others that aren't. If players are given too much freedom with customization, those numbers effectively switch.

[UncleKulikov]

Sprouticus, on 09 March 2012 - 04:31 PM, said:

Im totally fine with a hardpoint/crit based syste, (assuming you have limits on weaopn type).

So you have critical slots Someone suggested in another thread that you could make non weapon items take critical slots (ECM, CASe, etc) and allow them to be placed in any critical slot,

I have two concerns.

1) What is to stop someone in say an atlas from stripping ALL the armor from one arm, removing the medium laser, and jacking up the speed and heatsinks. Removing the weapon is one thing. Turning the arm into a shell is another. This happened all the time in MW4, and while I did it as much as the next guys, it always bugged me.


2) The one aspect of modification that really bugs me is changing the engine. Im guessing the modificaiton in the mechlab will cost a LOT of C-Bills (far less for omnimechs when they come around). But even with that it was suppposed to be almost impossible to change the engine in a mech. I suppose if you made engine costs crazy expensive I would not mind too much, but no being able to change them at all would be better.


Summary:

• Let people change their mech in the mechlab (before entering the queue to drop).
  
• Charge an arm and a leg to mod mechs. Dont make it something you do every drop, more like something ou do once a week or two.
  
• Dont allow engine changes, or if you do, make it CRAZY expensive
  
• use a hardpoint/crit system, with weapon hardpoints being limited by type and non weapon systems able to be placed anywhere
  
• finally ammo should have to be in the same or ajacent mech areas, no putting ammo in the leg for an arm weapon.

Why is changing engines a bad thing?

If the fluff bothers you, STOP. Fluff after gameplay.

In terms of balance, it could just be adjusting the emphasis the engine can place on speed compared to power.

[WV Betrayer]

Its interesting that a lot of the posts are the basis of old and new fears. Most of them come out of who the players in the end will be, not the game itself. As I have posted in other threads before, the MW environment, the variables within weapons themselves, and the fact there is no level 35 mechwarrior pilots puts MWO in a rather unique place in the gaming world.

In the end it will always come down to the character of the gamers themselves - not the game itself. Like a 13yr old lunatic who thinks it makes sense to run around a map in CoD with a pistol and knife and speed vs a rifle... we will get those too in MWO. But in CoD what rules... are teammates. This will be true in MWO as well. You want a Deathmatch, or an instant Team Deathmatch (with no real teammates)... it will more than likely have a few "punks" in it who will annoy me, you, and the mechdog. But real missions/role playing, real teams fighting each other... I have zero concerns. Zero. The caliber of the MW player has always been higher in my opinion, and in the end that is all that matters.

So thats... no to frankenmechs, yes to an awesome mechlab... and a purchasing system that is "painful", "expensive", "limiting", etc. Nothing will be more boring than 60,000 of us, all with the ability(c-bills), and somehow the rank to all be 100 ton pilots on dream machines. No I dont want it to drag, but the danger of any gaming system is making the rewards too easy, and the consequences for bad game play... nothing.

New engines? Well I might want a Hemi in the MadCat, but the range of options should be perhaps 5. No speedy Atlases...

[J0anna]

I'm firmly in the camp that less is more. Giving us the ability to endlessly change an Atlas (swap armor to FF when it becomes available, Change to an XL engine, upgrade to clan heat sinks and weapons, move weapons from arm to torso and back, and on and on) and it might as well be a daishi.

MW4 was a step in the right direction, omnimechs are significantly better then non-omnimechs, and they should be. The ability to change a mech based on the terrain is an inherent omnimech advantage. While we haven't seen the mechlab, this is all guessing, but an infinately customizable mech is very much against cannon. I guess I'll take a 'wait-and-see' approach.

[Zarkan]

Moenrg, on 10 March 2012 - 05:16 PM, said:

I'm firmly in the camp that less is more. Giving us the ability to endlessly change an Atlas (swap armor to FF when it becomes available, Change to an XL engine, upgrade to clan heat sinks and weapons, move weapons from arm to torso and back, and on and on) and it might as well be a daishi.

MW4 was a step in the right direction, omnimechs are significantly better then non-omnimechs, and they should be. The ability to change a mech based on the terrain is an inherent omnimech advantage. While we haven't seen the mechlab, this is all guessing, but an infinately customizable mech is very much against cannon. I guess I'll take a 'wait-and-see' approach.

Define "better" None Endosteel mechs tended to be rather tougher than the endosteel (mostly omnimechs) thanks to the way damage transfer worked in MW4.

[Tuhalu]

UncleKulikov, on 10 March 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Why is changing engines a bad thing?

If the fluff bothers you, STOP. Fluff after gameplay.

In terms of balance, it could just be adjusting the emphasis the engine can place on speed compared to power.

From a design perspective, if you don't limit changes to mechs then you can only differentiate mechs by tonnage and looks. This eliminates the value of variants of a mech chassis. This is a good enough reason to restrict being able to vary the engine size in a mech.

From a gameplay perspective, who wants to look at a mech and have no idea of it's capabilites? It's more fun to be able to improve your skills by being able to learn something of what to expect when you see a mech. Being able to modify everything about a mech eliminates that element of personal skill progression.

[Rattlehead NZ]

Gremlich Johns, on 10 March 2012 - 03:23 PM, said:

Yeah, I wanna strip down an Atlas, minimum armor, the fastest engine I can get and just arm it with machine guns and loads of ammo

lol i was thinking this exact thing last night. Did it all the time on MW3 for a laugh.

[Zarkan]

Rattlehead NZ, on 10 March 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

lol i was thinking this exact thing last night. Did it all the time on MW3 for a laugh.

MW4 Annilator+Light Machine guns+Max engines=Roflmao

[J0anna]

Zarkan, on 10 March 2012 - 05:33 PM, said:

Define "better" None Endosteel mechs tended to be rather tougher than the endosteel (mostly omnimechs) thanks to the way damage transfer worked in MW4.

Better as in TT.