206 replies to this topic

[Sor3n]

The concept of progress is an important aspect of the MMO. I am glad to see the MWO team deeply deliberating on a functional approach to this element.

A license based system wherein the player could choose to upgrade certain aspects of weapons, armor, and mechs might be a good start. A mechwarrior could choose to improve the range of certain balistic weapons or increase the duration of jump jet flight.

It would be more logical to simply NOT have a level based system as a Mechwarrior lives by his skill in battle rather than how many rats they've stomped on.

[Famous]

Gotta say the line of thinking in this thread is completely off. There is no way to take a "base" Awesome and convert it to the 8R, they have a completely different hard point configuration. The 8Q has four energy hard points where the 8R has two missile hard points and two energy hard points.

With the Hunchback, yes it does have an energy hard point in each arm, but we can't say that it has enough critical space in those arms to support a PPC. With the 'MechLab you have to take hard points, critical slots, and weight into account.

With the Jenner the C2/C4 would be the variant chassis because they have a different weapon load out, the C/C3 are not variants (as far as 'MechLab is concerned) because they retain the same hard points, but remove weapons for equipment.

To those lamenting that there is a leveling system- it is there to represent the greater connection your 'Mechwarrior gains with his 'Mech. The Dev's have told us the improvement are things like faster AMS reaction time to simulate the pilot's enhanced reflexes with his 'Mech. This is why you can level a chassis, then swap to a variant and have to start all over. It is functionally a new 'Mech with new quirks.

[Karyudo ds]

Bullwerk, on 19 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

Each Variant bought increases your options for customizing a chassis in different ways.

Think that was the post's point though, the Hunchback example would in theory have a pair of energy hardpoints and critical space possibilities in either variant. Thus you could buy either and kit them out the same way and get XP for 2 separate variants. Unfortunately unless you limit weapon specific critical space as well I think Sprouticus does indeed have a point. However...

Lomack, on 19 April 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

I am sure that.. this is what the beta will be for...

Very much so, there is much we don't really know. The price of modifying a mech could indeed be very high and make doing this somewhat costly to do. Maybe PGI doesn't specifically care if you modify the mech as long as you buy the new variant and buy the modification. There could also be tier based restrictions on customizing mechs for all we know.

Though the buying stuff thing seems like a biggy to me... if you have to pay cbills to get the mech version and mod it? You're still paying cbills to get to elite on that mech type, which might be enough point to the variant system. Though I do think it would be nice if you couldn't duplicate loadouts across variants but that might require tighter mod control.

Famous, on 19 April 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

With the Hunchback, yes it does have an energy hard point in each arm, but we can't say that it has enough critical space in those arms to support a PPC. With the 'MechLab you have to take hard points, critical slots, and weight into account.

If they use the mech stats from the books like they say they are... there is enough space, weight, and hard points to do that.

[Dnarvel]

To me it seems some people are thinking that if their chassis has 8 free energy critical hardpoints over the entire mech (just as an eg.) Then if a PPC takes 8 they can fit it in. But if you have say 2 harpoints/criticals in each arm 1 in torso and 1 on head, where will the supposed PPC fit? It would be like saying that if you remove all armanment off of an F-18, then you can theoretically fit a 150mm Howitzer on it. Something tells me it won't be happening. There will be weapon size limits, so taking out 2xML (1 from each arm) will not free enough space for a PPC. Alot of this seems to be fear of the unknown right now. We have no idea of the true way this system will work, the dev's probably aren't 100% sure of it themselves.
Also, maybe levelling the varient means NO customization in order to get to the Elite Tiers, and onyl full customization after that. OR if you want to do a massive customization, it won't be instant, it would take time. Like making a twin PPC Hunchie means the mech is un-available (in the shop) for 2 weeks (real time)... So many unknowns so many theories.

[MaddMaxx]

Dnarvel, on 19 April 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

To me it seems some people are thinking that if their chassis has 8 free energy critical hardpoints over the entire mech (just as an eg.) Then if a PPC takes 8 they can fit it in. But if you have say 2 harpoints/criticals in each arm 1 in torso and 1 on head, where will the supposed PPC fit? It would be like saying that if you remove all armanment off of an F-18, then you can theoretically fit a 150mm Howitzer on it. Something tells me it won't be happening. There will be weapon size limits, so taking out 2xML (1 from each arm) will not free enough space for a PPC. Alot of this seems to be fear of the unknown right now. We have no idea of the true way this system will work, the dev's probably aren't 100% sure of it themselves.
Also, maybe leveling the variant means NO customization in order to get to the Elite Tiers, and onyl full customization after that. OR if you want to do a massive customization, it won't be instant, it would take time. Like making a twin PPC Hunchie means the mech is un-available (in the shop) for 2 weeks (real time)... So many unknowns so many theories.

We have confirmation form the DEV, just yesterday, in the Q&A, that a Hard point will be weapon Type specific but not Size. So that means an Energy Hard Point can mount any Energy weapon regardless of size, if the Location on the Mech (CT, LT, RT, LA, RA) has sufficient critical slots open and the weight necessary such that the weapon mounting does not exceed the chassis maximum rated weight.

Please if anyone wishes to modify or outright dispute the above claim based on yesterdays DEV information exchange please do?

P.S. Everything is still Subject to Change (as per the DEV)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 April 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[guardian wolf]

I personally have faith in the Devs' efforts that this won't be a problem we have to deal with. I say we all wait and see what the final product is before we all go crying "Wolf".

[Kaemon]

I would think it make sense to make people 'grind' through the variants, get to Elite or Unlocked status, then allow customization which would auto switch the variant designation to whatever was closest based on the build you customized.

But, as par for the course, we do not have enough info to do more than speculate.

Edited by Kaemon, 19 April 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Kartr]

InnerSphereNews, on 18 April 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Lets say I take an Awesome, normally with 3 PPCs, 1 small laser. Then I modify it to its maximum theoreitcaly extent, that is to say 10 medium lasers. Will this be possible, or could the hardpoint system further restrict so there's a maximum number of smaller weapons that could replace a larger one to help prevent crazy boating? –CapperDeluxe

[DAVID] The hardpoint system will be related to how many weapons are in the default loadout, and not how many slots those weapons take up.

Isnt this system a little rigid? If i got this right you can only downgrade weapons because you couldnt fit a bigger weapon into the hardpoints even if you reduced armor. –Rutok

[DAVID] Hardpoints will limit the number of weapons that can be placed in a location on the ’Mech. The number of slots those weapons can occupy is not predefined (outside of the maximum number of slots in the location). So let’s say that I’m allowed 2 energy weapons in my right arm. I currently have 2 Medium Lasers which occupy 1 slot each. I would still be allowed to put in 2 Large Lasers, which occupy 2 slots each.

So I could theoretically make my Hunchback a twin PPC boat by removing the MLas and the AC/20. However I can't drop the AC/20 and add 6 MLas and some heat sinks, I don't have enough energy weapon hardpoints. This seems fine to me, it makes it so I can tweak my loadout to get it just right. However I can't take a stock Hunchback and turn it into a Swayback or take a Swayback and covert it into a stock Hunchback.

Nor (to use the original example) can I take an Awesome -8R and turn it into an -8T, I don't have the extra energy hardpoint for the LLas. Maybe if I drop the SLas I could do it, but since those two varients are so close to each other anyway and one is actually a logical upgrade to the other I don't see the problem. The only problem would be if I could take a stock Awesome and turn it into an -8R/T.

Also we don't know how the economy is going to work, it could be prohibitively expensive to modify 'Mechs. There could be other factors as well that we don't know about yet or that could be added in the future. Personally I think it's an elegant design that works better than any previous MechWarrior incarnation in helping keep 'Mechs from being gunbags.

[BarHaid]

MaddMaxx, on 19 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

We have confirmation form the DEV, just yesterday, in the Q&A, that a Hard point will be weapon Type specific but not Size. So that means an Energy Hard Point can mount any Energy weapon regardless of size, if the Location on the Mech (CT, LT, RT, LA, RA) has sufficient critical slots open and the weight necessary such that the weapon mounting does not exceed the chassis maximum rated weight.

This, I think may need to be tweaked a bit. Putting a PPC in place of a small laser bothers me a bit in light of the concept behind Hardpoints. If a PPC (and perhaps Large Laser) required TWO hardpoints for installation (to represent the increased energy load of the weapon), then I think there would be a lot less ability to create the same loadout across different variants.

Of course, now I see that this would lead right into "medium laser boat" territory for those who like to strip out PPCs.

Hmmm.... needs tweaking.

[Sprouticus]

Kartr, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

So I could theoretically make my Hunchback a twin PPC boat by removing the MLas and the AC/20. However I can't drop the AC/20 and add 6 MLas and some heat sinks, I don't have enough energy weapon hardpoints. This seems fine to me, it makes it so I can tweak my loadout to get it just right. However I can't take a stock Hunchback and turn it into a Swayback or take a Swayback and covert it into a stock Hunchback.

Nor (to use the original example) can I take an Awesome -8R and turn it into an -8T, I don't have the extra energy hardpoint for the LLas. Maybe if I drop the SLas I could do it, but since those two varients are so close to each other anyway and one is actually a logical upgrade to the other I don't see the problem. The only problem would be if I could take a stock Awesome and turn it into an -8R/T.

Also we don't know how the economy is going to work, it could be prohibitively expensive to modify 'Mechs. There could be other factors as well that we don't know about yet or that could be added in the future. Personally I think it's an elegant design that works better than any previous MechWarrior incarnation in helping keep 'Mechs from being gunbags.

To be clear (again), I am not crying wolf or freaking out, just pointing out a flaw in how the two systems will work. It is a valid point of discussion for the community and one which I believe the Dev's either already have or should discuss. It is something we as a group can weigh in on to help the Devs decide. They have shown remarkable adeptness at addressing concerns, but regardless of how they address this issue, it will require some major tweaking, so discussing it early is a good idea.

Let me describe ascenario that outlines my concerns.

NOTE: This is one example, I am sure I could think of others, but try to get past the specifics and see the root issue the example highlights.

The Jenner-A has 1 LL.
The Jenner-D has 4 ML.
The Jenner-C has 3 ML and a C3 slave


They have the same equipment otherwise.

I dont like having my scout only have medium lasers, and I dont want to have to learn to pilot my Jenner-D with medium lasers

So I remove all 4 medium lasers & 1 HS
Add 1 Large Laser. . Now I have a quasi-Jenner-A. It doesnt matter that the F has 4 hardpoints, all I need is one for the LL.

Now I get mech XP of the Jenner-F while riding around in what is effectively a Jenner-A.

I make some money and Buy a Jenner-A. Now I level up the Jenner-A without having to learn any new tactics, effectively I am running the exact same mech for both variant level ups.

Not I level up again and buy a Jenner-C.
I remove the Medium lasers and C3 along with 1 HS
I put in a LL and poof I have my favorite Jenner-A again.

I level up that variant and now I get elite 1 for the Jenner

Rinse and repeat for Elite 2 (doesnt even cost me any money.)


Does this highlight how customization can do an end around of the leveling system the way it is setup right now? It is a large flaw in the system IMO, one which the Dev's need to fix. How they fix it is a matter of discussion of course. But to pretend the flaw does not exist is just silly.

[Sprouticus]

Garth Erlam, on 19 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

I don't speak for David, but I'm pretty confident he's not adding variants that have identical hard points - why bother?

Garth, they dont need to be identical, just close enough. See my Jenner above. The root cause of course is that while the hardpoint system does a GREAT job of minimizing boating by 'going small' (small weapon like medium lasers are hard to boat), it does not go much to prevent you from 'going big' (replacing a bunch of small weapons with 1 big one). You can take almost any mech with 2 energy hardpoints and put PPC's on them, or 2 LL. You could take an atlas-D and put 4 PPC's on it (I think, I would need to verify crit slots).

Sure convergence issues might limit the boating a bit, but you could still do it and Im guessing it would work pretty well.

All of this is just an aside to my initial point that the radical customizaiton make the variant mean very little.

[Havoc2]

MaddMaxx, on 19 April 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

We have confirmation form the DEV, just yesterday, in the Q&A, that a Hard point will be weapon Type specific but not Size. So that means an Energy Hard Point can mount any Energy weapon regardless of size, if the Location on the Mech (CT, LT, RT, LA, RA) has sufficient critical slots open and the weight necessary such that the weapon mounting does not exceed the chassis maximum rated weight.

Please if anyone wishes to modify or outright dispute the above claim based on yesterdays DEV information exchange please do?

P.S. Everything is still Subject to Change (as per the DEV)

I'm still waiting to see a finished(ish) MechLab, but what I think the devs may do is use the hard points like "pods". Maybe in a Hunchback the left arm has 2 energy pods, each with 1 MLas. These pods are each 2 crits total (each has 1 free with the MLas)
You could strip the AC20 and the 2 MLas and put 2 LLas in the arm, but neither pod is large enough to fit a PPC (which requires 3).

[VarietyOfCells]

Even if two variants have a similar number of hard points, they are most likely going to be in different places. Maybe you don't want your PPCs in your arms for example. Variants will still make sense.

But even if you do find a situation where the the hard points are similar enough on two variants where you have effectively leveled up two variants at once (assuming we level each individual variant), what's the big deal? Good for you. It's not like you can pilot both variants at the same time. And I don't think many people are going to be hopping back and forth between drastically different play styles much. It doesn't really 'break' anything.

[Havoc2]

Sprouticus, on 19 April 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Garth, they dont need to be identical, just close enough. See my Jenner above. The root cause of course is that while the hardpoint system does a GREAT job of minimizing boating by 'going small' (small weapon like medium lasers are hard to boat), it does not go much to prevent you from 'going big' (replacing a bunch of small weapons with 1 big one). You can take almost any mech with 2 energy hardpoints and put PPC's on them, or 2 LL. You could take an atlas-D and put 4 PPC's on it (I think, I would need to verify crit slots).

Sure convergence issues might limit the boating a bit, but you could still do it and Im guessing it would work pretty well.

All of this is just an aside to my initial point that the radical customizaiton make the variant mean very little.

You're assuming (I think) that each hard point has the same number of available criticals. This can be eliminated by limited the number of criticals per hard point.

Let's say the stock Awesome has 3 PPCs. That's 3 energy hardpoints, each 3 criticals large (or available if you like, once the PPC is removed). Removing all 3 PPCs would let you "boat" 9 MLas or SMlas, but you could still only put in 3 LLas because the LLas is 2 crits.
So maybe you don't like the 3 PPC set up and you find it runs too hot for you to properly handle. Pull out all the PPCs and reconfigure it with 3 LLas and 3 MLas.

I suspect that the hardpoint and critical system (SUSPECT being key word) will be set up that each 'Mech has a certain number of hard points, and each hard point has a certain number of criticals available for WEAPONS, the remainder being for equipment.

This is what I hope anyway, otherwise we may see some of the abominations that you guys fear.

[Havoc2]

VarietyOfCells, on 19 April 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Even if two variants have a similar number of hard points, they are most likely going to be in different places. Maybe you don't want your PPCs in your arms for example. Variants will still make sense.

But even if you do find a situation where the the hard points are similar enough on two variants where you have effectively leveled up two variants at once (assuming we level each individual variant), what's the big deal? Good for you. It's not like you can pilot both variants at the same time. And I don't think many people are going to be hopping back and forth between drastically different play styles much. It doesn't really 'break' anything.

I doubt we'll be able to work around the system and level 2 variants at once, even if we buy 1 and turn it into another.

i.e we buy Mech 1A but outfit it identical to 1B. The 'Mech is still registered as 1A variant, no matter how hard we try we can't gain XP for 1B.
It sucks for you because you essentially need to level the same 'Mech twice. It's nice for you because you get to use a configuration that you're comfortable with for longer.

Assuming of course that 2 variants are included that have similar enough hard point and equipment locations that you can make the 1A like the 1B.

[Bryan Ekman]

Even though you can and will be able to recreate some variants using MechLab, XP will not accumulate for a particular chassis unless you actually purchase and use it. A Jenner JR7-D is still a JR7-D, even if you make it look like a JR7-F. The serial number on the chassis still says JR7-D.

[FaustianBargain]

I am also very concerned that a system I have only read about second hand in a game I have never played will ruin another system I have only read about second hand. [/sarcasm]

Can we all just wait for beta before calling the game broken? Or at least a substantial video with commentary?

I also don't see what the problem is. If I take one Hunchback variant and can completely re-work it to match every other variant (which doesn't seem possible due to what we know about about hardpoints) then aren't I just hurting myself? Besides just the cost of changing components, wouldn't I miss out on leveling the needed xp on the other variants?

I seem to have been ninja'd while writing this:

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Even though you can and will be able to recreate some variants using MechLab, XP will not accumulate for a particular chassis unless you actually purchase and use it. A Jenner JR7-D is still a JR7-D, even if you make it look like a JR7-F. The serial number on the chassis still says JR7-D.

[Havoc2]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Even though you can and will be able to recreate some variants using MechLab, XP will not accumulate for a particular chassis unless you actually purchase and use it. A Jenner JR7-D is still a JR7-D, even if you make it look like a JR7-F. The serial number on the chassis still says JR7-D.

No way we can just swap VINs? I have some really good engineers. They can also make a competing merc corp's Atlas disappear in under a day.

[William Petersen]

Garth Erlam, on 19 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

I don't speak for David, but I'm pretty confident he's not adding variants that have identical hard points - why bother?

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Even though you can and will be able to recreate some variants using MechLab, XP will not accumulate for a particular chassis unless you actually purchase and use it. A Jenner JR7-D is still a JR7-D, even if you make it look like a JR7-F. The serial number on the chassis still says JR7-D.

Yeah, but notice how the HBK-4G and the HBK-4P both have an E.HPs in each arm? If I wanted to, I could strip both of their other weapons and put a PPC in each arm and oh-my-goodness, I have two identical Mechs with different serial numbers and am leveling the exact same Mech twice.

That's the OP's point. I think.

But even if you restrict HPs to crits as the OP suggests, you can do more or less the same thing (at least with some chassis). /shrugs

I tend to think in Jenners because I like that design and am familiar with them. But, for example, take the JR7-F and JR7-D. I drop the SRM and ammo on the D and add 3 tons armour. Oshit, I just made a JR7-F and can still level the exact same chassis twice.

Now I'm not saying it'll be a dominant strategy, or at all an intelligent decision on the part of the player to choose to play like that. But to my reading that was the OP's point. I don't really see what's necessarily bad about it. If you *choose* to 'trivialize' (or, more accurately, be lazy with) the leveling by trying to make all your different variants carbon copies of one another, good for you, have fun not really growing as a player.


I don't really think it merits much worry unless you can make a broken load out with all the variants, but then again, if you can make *any* broken load outs with any variant/chassis, then something went wrong (probably with weapon balancing).

[guardian wolf]

Bryan Ekman, on 19 April 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Even though you can and will be able to recreate some variants using MechLab, XP will not accumulate for a particular chassis unless you actually purchase and use it. A Jenner JR7-D is still a JR7-D, even if you make it look like a JR7-F. The serial number on the chassis still says JR7-D.

And there you have it folks, an answer from the big man.