206 replies to this topic

[FinnMcKool]

I dont know.

[Hayashi]

Halfinax, on 19 April 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

A.Your variant x->y argument could actually be intentional. Many IS 'Mechs have more than a half dozen variants so if the devs pick 3 that can't be converted to one another, but could be converted to similar, but not included, variants then I actually see this as a good thing (I am against any customization at all for the record).

B. We have no idea what it will cost,if anything, to customize a base variant to your liking, but assuming it is in I would imagine it's not going to be cheap considering they are referencing the original TT rules where they can logically be applied to a real time environment, and still be fun (like costs),

Basically I see this all as a moot issue until we know/see more about those points before I can make a decision. Initially I groaned when I realized we were going to be allowed to customize IS 'Mechs in the first place, but I've developed a wait and see aproach, and am cautiously optimistic. The PGI guys seem to have their finger on the pulse of what will please the old hats and the new comers along with everyone in-between.

This is an interesting discussion.

What he said.

[Bloodmaid]

I must of missed something but can anyone confirm where it says about variants being essentially the same and that I can rip its guts out and put in the guts from the previous one to make it a hannbal Ekkta suit but with PPC's

its pretty hard to argue points about variants when we know sweet FA about it. plus like others have said how is it cheating as such to want to use specific weapons in specific variants. I would not be suprised if the variants are fairly different in weapon configs to the previous ones. so really puttng your favourite weapon config into the next variant might not be that easy to do.

Disclaimer: its friday arvo still at work and beer o'clock has been and gone:( sorry for the grump.)

[John Clavell]

I'd be more worried if the developers had not already thought about this and planned the levelling system to avoid such things.

[Savant]

I'm fairly sure that they did, I wouldn't be suprised to see rather stringent hardpoints on the default variants of mechs.

[Soviet Alex]

Let's admit it, some people HATE Mech-Lab. It doesn't matter what it is or what it does, they hate its very existence & have been posting as much for months. SO DON'T USE IT. Simples. As for the rest of us, I think we're reasonable enough to wait & see. So far the Devs have been ahead of the naysayers on every topic they've covered. We simply don't have enough information to come to a valid conclusion.

[Kartr]

[EDMW]CSN, on 19 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

Make it simple. A player buys a mech or its variants.
Only stock variants can get full mech Xp.

If you wish to min max your own insane chassis, you can do so BUT you gain 50% of the mech gain exp.
So yes it will keep players playing stock for a long time, but still allow them to use their pimp loadouts for hard battles.

Alternatively players who use stock get a carrot and gain mech xp faster instead. Like 30% to 50% more exp ?

Why should we be forced to use a stock variant? Why can't I drop a useless SLas to get some extra armor or drop 6MLas for a PPC? Why are you and so many others against letting people customize their 'Mechs? This system prevents 'Mechs from becoming generic gunbags but still gives us a lot of flexibility to tweak a 'Mech to fit our playstyle.

[GargoyleKDR]

MaddMaxx, on 19 April 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

That might be useable. At the North Pole of a FROZEN Planet. lol

Swap out the single HS for 10 DHS and Bob's your uncle.

[Barbaric Soul]

Sprouticus, on 19 April 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

This is pulled from another mechlab thread. I wanted to talk about what the mechlab will mean to the MWO leveling system, and how it will IMO break it or make it absurdly meaningless.



But the problem is that variants can be customized, the XP/leveling system gets borked.

As a review, the training system in MWO will rely upon training in each variant of each mech to open up bonuses for that mech and variant and to get pilot points for modules.


Now, let's say the Awesome has the 8Q, 8R and 8T. You can take an 8T and turn it into an 8R. Which means from a training standpoint you are using the EXACT same mech to 'train up' two different variants.

What is the problem with that you ask? It circumvents the entire idea of leveling variants to achieve extra pilot points and modules. They might as well just have 1 leveling tree per mech and call it a day.

You could make it even more extreme. Take a stock Hunchie, take out the AC20 and put in 2 PPC's. Now you are leveling a Hunchie, but it is NOT a Hunchie, it is an Uziel with a different profile.

I want the variants to mean something, and I want the leveling system to mean something. With the extreme level of customization allowed currently, the leveling system becomes meaningless. If they Devs want this level of customization, Im ok with it (not happy, but ok).

But in that case they should revise the leveling system to account for it and at a minimum remove variants as a factor in leveling.

More and more I am leaning toward Zorak's suggestions in the thread below. If you have not read this thread, it is worth the time.

http://mwomercs.com/...bt-build-rules/

In particular I think each hardpoint should have a MAXIMUM size for weapons (if you had a ML in the arm, it can only be replaced with a ML or SL. If you have a LL it can be replaced with LL, ML, SL, and if you have a PPC it can be replace with anything). This will limit customization some, but it will also make variants very important. And make leveling a variant MEAN something. It may also cause some variants to be shelved, but that is a topic for discussion in another thread.


What does everyone think about this? Do you care about the leveling system? Should it matter that you are cheating it by using custom mech which completely re-purpose a mech and still allows you to level the mech?

How did you get a copy of MWO before us? I mean, with all this (bullsh.t) knowledge you apparently have of the unreleased game, you must have played it already. That or you just don't know *** your talking about and making assuptions about what you think the game will play like.

[Sprouticus]

GargoyleKDR, on 20 April 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

Swap out the single HS for 10 DHS and Bob's your uncle.

I built one with single HS that was 20/19 pretty easily. It required endosteel, but other than that it was fairly painless.

BBut as I have stated hald a dozen times now, focusing on the example instead of the root argument is silly.

[UncleKulikov]

Kartr, on 20 April 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

Why should we be forced to use a stock variant? Why can't I drop a useless SLas to get some extra armor or drop 6MLas for a PPC? Why are you and so many others against letting people customize their 'Mechs? This system prevents 'Mechs from becoming generic gunbags but still gives us a lot of flexibility to tweak a 'Mech to fit our playstyle.

Because the stock mechs are inherently worse than anything you can cook up in the lab, even with the hardpoint system overlay.
It doesn't impact your mech's performance, only the rate you would progress along that mech's pilot tree. It's a simple tradeoff (love that word) between more combat effectiveness and flexibility, and progression.

[Sprouticus]

Barbaric Soul, on 20 April 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

How did you get a copy of MWO before us? I mean, with all this (bullsh.t) knowledge you apparently have of the unreleased game, you must have played it already. That or you just don't know *** your talking about and making assuptions about what you think the game will play like.

Wow, that is a great deal of hostility. You might want to tonw it down, please.

Point to one piece of information I put forth that I said was knowledge (rahter than opinion) that is incorrect and I will modify my statements.

As for the opinions, I am using the known knowledge at hand, along with years of playing multi player MW(and other Multiplayer games) and a decent (not great, but good) understanding of TT. I believe my opinions are logical and reasonable. There is some conjecture, but not much. Even the ones I made (like assuming customization will not be a huge cost) I inferred from reading all of the articles and looking at the attitudes of the developers around customization. They WANT people to customize. Making it cost a ton would limit that.

some may argue that the difference between the mechlab and the leveling system dont really matter, but IMO the leveling system is an important element in the metagame, and having the core of it (leveling variants) have minimal meaning means the system should be reviewed. If it isn't, Im not going to cry a river. I just think something so contradictory is worth fixing.

[GargoyleKDR]

Sprouticus, on 20 April 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

BBut as I have stated hald a dozen times now, focusing on the example instead of the root argument is silly.

Ah, but I consider the root argument as moot.

Quote

But the problem is that variants can be customized, the XP/leveling system gets borked....
But in that case they should revise the leveling system to account for it and at a minimum remove variants as a factor in leveling.

The XP leveling system will be working per design as intended. Variant chassis are required to expand a pilot's skill into the elite levels. PGI wins through player aquisitions of more chassis. Players win by expanding their pilot skills in those chassis. Making one variant chassis behave like a different chassis in performance through customization is moot to the system, therefore the argument is also moot.

- Garg.

Edited by GargoyleKDR, 20 April 2012 - 10:30 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Toothman, on 19 April 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

You can't put PPCs on a ballistic hardpoint. You'd have to purchase the variant that had the energy hardpoints. You Can't make the stock into the variant. At least not the example you have given.

It is known that the Swayback Variant of the HunchBack is in the game. It has been lurking about in the videos. It is a 8 Medium Laser, 1 Small Laser variant. That is the conversion unit in question I do believe.

[Sprouticus]

Soviet Alex, on 20 April 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

Let's admit it, some people HATE Mech-Lab. It doesn't matter what it is or what it does, they hate its very existence & have been posting as much for months. SO DON'T USE IT. Simples. As for the rest of us, I think we're reasonable enough to wait & see. So far the Devs have been ahead of the naysayers on every topic they've covered. We simply don't have enough information to come to a valid conclusion.

I am assuming you refer to me re: hating the mechlab. To be clear, I LOVE the mechlab. I spent more time testing, tweaking , and building goofy loadouts for NBT drops than I care to admit.

But the other aspect of the mechlab that is important is its limitations. I know some people hat e ANY limitation, but some are necessary. IMO these include:

You want to limit the ability to boat small weapons. (a la mw3)- hardpoints limit this amazingly well
You want to limit the ability to boat large weapons (a la MW4)- ther are lots of ways to mitigate this (minimum range, weight, convergence, severe heat scale, etc)
You want to make each mech (if not each variant) viable.- The current system does not do that IMO. I free admit I might be wrong on this one, and testing will be required. But the evidence (see Zorak's thread) is fairly strong that it may be an issue moving forward. Replying upon ONLY hardpoints to differentiate mechs is NOT enough to maintain their personalities. I say this from experience in MW3/4 multiplayer and just by extrapolating what we do know.

None of this has anything to do with my initial statements in this thread, but it is an important thing to understand because the overly generic nature of customization in the current mechlab is part of why the leveling system has a flaw currently. If I am wrong, then its not an issue. If they change the mechlab, they can fix this issue. If they change the leveling system they can fix this issue.

Finally, and to be REALLY clear for those of you who dont bother to read my posts. I have a great deal of faith in the PGI Dev's. Reasonable people can disagree. And I admit to not having a full set of knowledge. But I am also willing to bet they have not play tested the leveling system all that much. They seem very focused on the gameplay (which I agree with 100%) right now. Would it be all that much of a shock if they had not connected these particular dots?

[MaddMaxx]

GargoyleKDR, on 20 April 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

Swap out the single HS for 10 DHS and Bob's your uncle.

And Bob's Uncle no longer has room for the 2 X PPC, 4ML's the creator somehow automagically got on the thing to start. lol

[MaddMaxx]

GargoyleKDR, on 20 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Ah, but I consider the root argument as moot.

The XP leveling system will be working per design as intended. Variant chassis are required to expand a pilot's skill into the elite levels. PGI wins through player aquisitions of more chassis. Players win by expanding their pilot skills in those chassis. Making one variant chassis behave like a different chassis in performance through customization is moot to the system, therefore the argument is also moot.

- Garg.

Dang it. Must have been reading this one out loud.

Any advice on what to do with the Cow that just showed up in my office?

Anyone! MOOOOt LOL

[Sprouticus]

GargoyleKDR, on 20 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Ah, but I consider the root argument as moot.


The XP leveling system will be working per design as intended. Variant chassis are required to expand a pilot's skill into the elite levels. PGI wins through player aquisitions of more chassis. Players win by expanding their pilot skills in those chassis. Making one variant chassis behave like a different chassis in performance through customization is moot to the system, therefore the argument is also moot.

- Garg.

Im confused. Are you saying that the system that exists right now is optimal or even useful. Don't you think modifying the leveling system to account for how the mechlab works might make the game better? Using variants as a lynchpoint of leveling when variants dont mean anything is not particularly immersive and the entire point of a leveling system is to:

1) give pilots a reason to pilot more mechs (more points/modules)
2) Reward them for playing a mech longer (bonus values)
3) Provide an immersive environment where pilots feel the need to pilot a specific chassis (some would cal lthat grind, I disagree)

At least that's what I see from the configuration they put forth. There may be other reasons

Maybe that 3rd point does not mean anything to you, and if it doesn't then I see why you would not care. But having a leveling system that makes sense and is internally(it itself) and externally(to the rest of the game) consistent is important to some of us.

[GargoyleKDR]

MaddMaxx, on 20 April 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

And Bob's Uncle no longer has room for the 2 X PPC, 4ML's the creator somehow automagically got on the thing to start. lol

The HB uses a Nissan 200 engine. That engine fits 8 heat sinks (single or double) internally. Only 2 DHS have to be fit into the chassis to make the total of 10 DHS. There are ample crits and available tonnage to place those 2 DHS into the LT while still fitting 2 PPC and 4+ ML's into the hardpoints while still having full armor. If you doubt that check the math here.

Edited by GargoyleKDR, 20 April 2012 - 10:49 AM.

[Barbaric Soul]

Sprouticus, on 20 April 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

Im confused. Are you saying that the system that exists right now is optimal or even useful. Don't you think modifying the leveling system to account for how the mechlab works might make the game better? Using variants as a lynchpoint of leveling when variants dont mean anything is not particularly immersive and the entire point of a leveling system is to:

1) give pilots a reason to pilot more mechs (more points/modules)
2) Reward them for playing a mech longer (bonus values)
3) Provide an immersive environment where pilots feel the need to pilot a specific chassis (some would cal lthat grind, I disagree)

At least that's what I see from the configuration they put forth. There may be other reasons

Maybe that 3rd point does not mean anything to you, and if it doesn't then I see why you would not care. But having a leveling system that makes sense and is internally(it itself) and externally(to the rest of the game) consistent is important to some of us.

I think I see what you missed. Yes, each mech will have variants. The part I think you missed is, IIRC, that each variant will have a different set of hardpoints. So say I can put 2 guass rifles on Atlas A, while on Atlas B may only capable of carrying a single guass rifle because of its' different hardpoint set-up

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 20 April 2012 - 10:59 AM.