439 replies to this topic

[BerryChunks]

I'd like to add one more piece of info regarding VARIANTS vs FULL CUSTOM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams

http://en.wikipedia....ts_and_upgrades

Quote

• XM1: Experimental model. Nine test-beds were produced in 1978.
  
• M1: First production variant. Production began (at Chrysler) in 1979 and continued to 1985 (at General Dynamics) (3,273 built for the US).
  
  • M1IP (Improved Performance): Produced briefly in 1984 before the M1A1, contained upgrades and reconfigurations like new turret with thicker frontal armor, new turret is referred as "long" turret instead of older "short" turret, armor upgraded from ~650mm line of sight thickness to ~880mm (894 build for US).
• M1A1: Production started in 1985 and continued to 1992, pressurized NBC system, rear bustle rack for improved stowage of supplies and crew belongings, redesigned blow-off panels and M256 120 mm smoothbore cannon (4,976 built for the US Army, 221 for USMC, 755 for Egypt, 59 M1A1 AIM SA sold to Australia).
  
  • M1A1HA (Heavy Armor): Added 1st generation depleted uranium armor mesh, some tanks were later upgraded with 2nd generation depleted uranium armor mesh, and are unofficially designated M1A1HA+.
    
  • M1A1HC (Heavy Common): Added new 2nd generation depleted uranium armor mesh, digital engine control and other small upgrades common between Army and Marine Corps tanks.
    
  • M1A1D (Digital): A digital upgrade for the M1A1HC, to keep up with M1A2SEP, manufactured in quantity for only 2 battalions.
    
  • M1A1AIM v.1 (Abrams Integrated Management): A program whereby older units are reconditioned to zero hour conditions;^[64] and the tank is improved by adding Forward-Looking Infra-Red (FLIR) and Far Target Locate sensors, a tank-infantry phone, communications gear, including FBCB2 and Blue Force Tracking, to aid in crew situational awareness, and a thermal sight for the .50 caliber machine gun. General Dynamics has been awarded contracts by the US Army to supply this variant.^[50]
    
  • M1A1AIM v.2/M1A1SA (Situational Awareness): Upgrades similar to AIM v.1 tanks + new 3rd generation depleted uranium armor mesh.
    
  • M1A1FEP (Firepower Enhancement Package): Similar upgrade to AIM v.2 for U.S.M.C. tanks.
    
  • M1A1KVT (Krasnovian Variant Tank): M1A1s that have been visually modified to resemble Soviet-made tanks for use at the National Training Center, fitted with MILES gear and a Hoffman device.
    
  • M1A1M: An export variant ordered by the Iraqi Army.^[65]

Whats important here is that these are different weapon platforms that are "produced". They are not some hot swap cannon for V2 rocket launcher in field business. To do so to a regular tank would mean sending it back to factory and costing time and money.

This sounds familiar.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Bushwacker

Quote

Variants

• BSW-X2 - Based on the standard Bushwacker, this simple variant removes the ER Large Laser and replaces it with an additional LRM-5 launcher in the torso and a pair of Medium Pulse Lasers. It also drops one heat sink. BV (2.0) = 1,193^[5]

• BSW-L1 - The L1 variant of the Bushwacker is a configuration that changes the 'Mech to a close combat unit. The only long range weapon on the L1 variant is an ER Large Laser. For close combat, the L1 carries an LB-X Autocannon/20 that can fire either standard or cluster ammunition, adding versatility to the crippling firepower of this extremely deadly close combat weapon. An additional two and a half tons of additional armor was added to the BSW-L1, giving excellent armor protection. The L1 saw its engine upgraded to a Light Fusion Engine for increased survivability. BV (1.0) = 1,342^[6], BV (2.0) = 1,513^[7]

• BSW-S2 - The S2 is a variant of the Bushwacker that makes the 'Mech more effective at short to medium ranges. The 'Mech carries an ER Large Laser to allow the 'Mech to engage an enemy at long ranges as it closes. The 'Mech carries an LB-X Autocannon/10, which can fire both standard and cluster ammunition for long to medium range engagement capabilities. For close combat, the 'Mech has two SRM-4 launchers, making it a powerful unit at any range. For added defense, the S2 carries an Anti-Missile System. BV (1.0) = 1,103^[6], BV (2.0) = 1,293^[8]

• BSW-S2r - This variant mounts a Plasma Rifle and ammunition in place of one of the SRM launchers and the ER Large Laser of the BSW-2S.^[9] BV (2.0) = 1,339^[10]

Quote

A BattleMech (often abbreviated 'Mech, although that could technically also refer to IndustrialMechs) is an armored combat vehicle of roughly humanoid shape, ( http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battlemech ) some 10 to 14 meters (about 30 to 40 feet) tall and typically massing from 20 to 100 tons. 'Mechs are best suited for ground combat, although they are also capable of operation under water, in vacuum and/or in zero-g environments (space).

Now, given this: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battlemech

Quote

In this technological and cultural dark age of Lostech, the Successor States of humanity soon fought with 'Mechs and other equipment that was literally decades, if not centuries, old and in a sorry state of repair. Ancient automated factories continued to produce BattleMechs even when their technology was not understood anymore. Over time, equipment shortages, system failures and similar problems sparked innumerable variants of the classic designs. Field modifications and makeshift repairs became commonplace.

It does talk about making field modifications. And since there's actually rules above for it, The correct compromise turns out to be making it a hardpoint system.

Edited by BerryChunks, 06 April 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[Anita Chess]

I hope there will be a chess board (checkboard?)-like customization design too, no no the full mech should get covered in it just parts of it, a shoulder, a vertical stripe on the chest, something like that.

[Soviet Alex]

Anita Chess, on 06 April 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I hope there will be a chess board (checkboard?)-like customization design too, no no the full mech should get covered in it just parts of it, a shoulder, a vertical stripe on the chest, something like that.

Something like this?

[AlanEsh]

Anita Chess, on 06 April 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

I hope there will be a chess board (checkboard?)-like customization design too, no no the full mech should get covered in it just parts of it, a shoulder, a vertical stripe on the chest, something like that.

The more custom texture ideas they steal from City of Heroes character designer, the better

[Soviet Alex]

Personally, I think the checquer-board pattern makes a mech look like a Croatian football shirt, but that's just me. Check out the link & you'll see what I mean.

http://www.classicfo...an/croatia.html

And since all of that paint is going to get burned off in every battle, I'd hate to be the astech who has to repaint it every time.

[TheRulesLawyer]

The rules in total warfare are construction rules. IE building a new unit at a factory. The rules in stratops are refit/customization rules. We should be using customization rules. The hardpoint system is a reasonable approximation of the stratops rules. Its nice in that it gives each variant of a mech a real reason to exist.

I'me fairly happy with it. JJ restricted to chassis that had them to start. I hope the same for ES and XL engines. I'm a little disappointed with engine size changes, but its not a huge deal. I hope they allow fractional accounting for move speed as long as we're going that way. That way if I have a couple tons left I can bump the engine up a little bit without having to spend for an entire movement point. I also wonder if you'll be able to move FF and ES crits around to fine tune where space is in the mech?

[mouzerius]

looks nice

[Claive]

"For example, energy weapons cannot be swapped with ballistic weapons." Well that removed any depth from the system and killed any possible enjoyment of all of us tinkerers out there...

[Captain Wolfsburg]

I like it so far. The only thing I'd suggest is that you change the visual customization so we can customize individual 'mech parts separately, such as legs, arms, torso, head. That way players can create truly unique paint schemes for their 'mechs even with a limited color and pattern pallet.

But, that's not really a complaint, just a suggestion. After all, this is Mechwarrior, not Pimp My Battlemech. XP

[Victor Morson]

Claive, on 06 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

"For example, energy weapons cannot be swapped with ballistic weapons." Well that removed any depth from the system and killed any possible enjoyment of all of us tinkerers out there...

Far from it. Rather, it just makes some 'mechs better at some roles than others. Depending on the weapons and the way you use them, you can do all kinds of things with a 'mech.

For example, MW4 used a hardpoint system. The Catapult had 8 missile slots in each arm, and then a 2 energy slot in each torso. Doesn't sound too impressive past a few defensive lasers, right?

Well one of the best Catapults designed was centered around 3 Large X-Pulse lasers in the body, turning into a great brawler energy boat that it wasn't really built for. Larger on, I saw all kinds of variation on that theme. There were a lot of Catapults out there with different balances and missile types to accent them.

Now if every single 'mech could do that same config, why bother with a Catapult? The slots make it unique and give it it's own set of options. It doesn't add depth to be able to put every gun on every unit. It gives each of them a purpose to exist over other 'mechs of the same tonnage.

EDIT: Long story short while I had a few good, common (mostly, tweaks withstanding) designs in MW4, I had literally over a dozen standing designs and countless others I scrapped for every single chassis in the game. I had no shortage of coming up with different approaches to each 'mechs unique capabilities and I think the same will hold true for MWO.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 April 2012 - 06:15 PM.

[trycksh0t]

Sounds absolutely fantastic. The combination of crits and hardpoints sounds like it may be the answer to the issue of previous mechlabs: Too much freedom (MW2:Mercs and MW3) and the 'Just didn't quite feel right' MW4. Can not wait to give this a spin.

[Felbombling]

Just wait until peeps start trying to shoehorn double heatsinks into their Mechs, along with trying to have Endosteel and/or Ferro Fib. Armour to be accounted for. Then we'll see who really knows what they're doing in the MechLab and who doesn't. Downgrading engine rating will force many of those heatsinks outside the engine, thus taking up critical spaces. This MechLab system will be pretty brutal when it all shakes out, I think, but that is a great outcome!

Edited by StaggerCheck, 07 April 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[Soviet Alex]

StaggerCheck, on 07 April 2012 - 06:52 AM, said:

Downgrading engine rating will force many of those heatsinks outside the engine, thus taking up critical spaces.

I'm wondering about that. In Battletech, number of heat sinks subsumed into engine criticals = engine rating / 25. In MW3, number of heat sinks subsumed into engine criticals = 10, regardless of engine size. Dunno about MW4, MWLL, etc. We don't know for sure yet how MW-O will handle this.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Ok, just to throw an idea out there, how about allowing the customization freedom of mw3 but limit the number of each weapon type? Eg.: something like 4LL max, 3PPC max, 2Gauss max, etc.
That way, you could put what you wanted, where you wanted but you still would be restricted so you'd never be able to go over-board with one particular type of weapon. Don't forget that you'd also need to add heat sinks, modules, equipment, etc.

What might be the down side to that?
Just a thought, so don't get the flamers out

[Wyzak]

Hardpoints are not being reintroduced just to prevent boating. Hardpoints exist for the same reason they did in MW4 - to make each chassis unique. In an online marketplace, if you want to encourage people to spend in-game money on different 'mechs and ensure that all the mechs you make get used, it makes sense. Maybe there is even a tie between in-game C-Bills and real dollars spent that is driving this philosophy but that is sheer speculation. I like it because it allows me to make choices based on my play style. For example, I hated the Osiris in MW4, but not as much as some other mechs in that weight class, because the Osiris only had energy weapons slots big enough for medium lasers. But at least it wasn't a missile boat. Other people, who like missiles, will make opposite choices.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

Ok, so you want each chassis to be unique, then why have variants? Isn't that moving away from a unique chassis? Isn't part of the choice of mech supposed to be about the look of the mech too? As in, having the load out you want that's in what you consider an ugly mech, but put in what you consider to be a really cool looking mech.

Just playing devils advocate a bit here.

[BerryChunks]

Your argument doesn't work.

No mad cat variant is the same as the Awesome or any of its variants. No Daishi variant is the same as the Atlas or any of its variants. Different chassis are different.

Conversely, total customization can drop the most weight ineffective and engine/critical ineffective mechs and leaves you with a supreme one in each weight class. With complete control, mechs are just different skins for doing the same thing.

Edited by BerryChunks, 07 April 2012 - 10:20 AM.

[Kiyoshi Amaya]

It wan't an argument. I just asked questions.

I think you misunderstood me.

[Anita Chess]

Soviet Alex, on 06 April 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

Something like this?

yes, a bit more but something like that, if I remember right there was such a design "camo" also in Mechwarrior 4

Edited by Anita Chess, 07 April 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[Arnold Carns]

Shrekken, on 07 April 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

Ok, so you want each chassis to be unique, then why have variants? Isn't that moving away from a unique chassis? Isn't part of the choice of mech supposed to be about the look of the mech too? As in, having the load out you want that's in what you consider an ugly mech, but put in what you consider to be a really cool looking mech.

Just playing devils advocate a bit here.

I'd say as a variant you could see the chassis of a 'Mech slightly altered. While the framework looks the same from the outside, the inner arrangements could look different from that of the primary version of that 'Mech, f.e. different eletrical wiring and piping for the heatsinks, struts and support beams may been arranged differently where ammo storage compartments helped supporting the framework, different hardpoints on which the weapons would be fixed on etc.
From that point of view just being able to swap a weapon from the same type with the same tonnage or less would make sense. You simply just can't put in a larger weapon or a weapon of a different type because of struts being in the way or the part of the framework in that place couldn't support a much larger mass. And adding ammunition storage or relocating the struts is something you can't just do in the field.

Edited by Arnold Carns, 07 April 2012 - 05:36 PM.