52 replies to this topic

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Or in other words: MW2/MW3 pretty much had a built-in Solaris Skunk Werks.
Whereas MW4 had a rather different system, as shown here.

[theginganinja]

stormwolf, on 04 November 2011 - 09:31 AM, said:

I would personally prefer a MW2 or 3 style mechlab updated with the latest ruleset.

Now there would be a number of limitations:

1. The internal structure would be fixed, you can't select a different engine or add endosteel to a existing design.
2. Armor can be increased or replaced with ferro, though it would be expensive and time consuming.
3. Weapons or other equipment can be swapped out, there would also be a cost for this along with a long waiting time.
4. Omni's would be able to swap out weapons or equipment between missions, regular battlemechs inbetween campaigns.
5. Omni's have no problems with different weaponloadouts, regular battlemechs can suffer from the quirks mentioned in TacOps (unreliable, etc).
6. All mechlabs are dependant on what's in the inventory, this inventory becomes more limited in a campaign since you are most likely away from your regular supplyline.
7. Repairs might not be 100% completed inbetween missions (due to lack of time), so your mech might not be fully operational during the next fight.


This would force the players to stock up on parts and supplies for the next mission and use them wisely since they can't get replacements while they are out in the field (like in MW2: Mercs).

The partial repair stuff would force a player to reconsider their playing style, many people would consider a fast medium over sluggish assault just to avoid the damage.

The capturing of supplies can also have long term benefits, you can get stuff for free in the field and use it on your mechs later on. You can generate some more C-Bills by selling all the stuff you don't need.

Any thoughts on this?

I think this would be a great system for realism purposes within the game. The only modification I would consider making is restricting the standard 'Mechs (not the Omnis) to a hardpoint system a la MW4, since they have limited space assigned to each weapon, and don't have the near-limitless pod system of omni-tech. It might not necessarily have to be restricted by weapon type, just by further restricting the sizes of weapons that can replace what you take out - so, for example even if you would have the right amount of free weight and (as far as the MW2/3/tabletop systems would be concerned) critical slots, you still couldn't replace a medium laser with an AC/20 or Gauss Rifle or something

[Heatsink Junkie]

well I like tinkering, more options mean more tinkering depth, tinkering is fun, therefore I agree

[Twilight Sparkle]

wolf74, on 04 November 2011 - 09:55 AM, said:

What about a Hybrid system: We have the Critical slot of Battletech. But to make Omni-Mechs and Battlemech have some differences in the mechlab.

Omni-Mech: Internals, Engine, Gyros, Armor, and Locked gear can't not be change. Only the Pod-Gear/Weapon can be changed. Weapon Layout can be changed in hours game time.

BattleMechs: You can change out a lot more but each will have a Time delay of a day for a few weapons too a few Weeks for engine game time, but you will also have MW4 Overlay on the critical slot limited to what the CBT versions had.
for an image file so you can see what a few Battlemech would look like:http://home.grandeco...h%20Layouts.pdf

You know, I really should have said this before, but in the end, I feel that a time-delay is one of those things that might take fun from the game for people. Especially for those with only one mech. On the other hand, I admit it still makes one think a little before making such radical changes to a machine.

That said, the thing about Omnimechs is that those things can still be changed, but it's just as difficult as it would be on any other mech. What really separates an Omnimech from a standard mech is that any unused space is pod space, and anything can go into this just about, quickly and cleanly. This very much includes not just weapons, but electronics hardware (ECMs, Probes) and Heat Sinks. The other factor of this was this could be done relatively quickly in an Omnimech. Pretty much in hours like you suggested and likely at a negligible cost because this hardware is designed to be swapped quickly and efficiently. That's part of the advantage of Omnimechs (as well as part of the initial cost).

When doing similar tasks on a standard battlemech, one has to deal with modifying structure, hardware, and software.

gregsolidus, on 04 November 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

I think we need a better definition of a field refit in order to get a better grasp on customization.I believe a that an MW3 system where you could change out just about anything is the truest representation of Battletech but should only be available when out of matches,when you select to take part in a conquest match your options should become vastly limited since these represent last minute changes where an engine replacement is not feasible.

A Field Refit is a basically a refit that can be done by techs on the field with limited equipment. In Battletech, they really came about for two reasons: to quickly replace lost weapons on a mech (even with other weapons) and to quickly update machines on the front-line when better technologies became available enough or better configurations came out.

Heatsink Junkie, on 04 November 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

Um... this clarifies a little, but not really, as this explans the diffrence between mw4's system and mw3's system in terms of the table to game, having not have played the rpg (by this I mean the table top game of the same name, as compared to battletech) the terms arn't as clear as they could be. also, twightlight sparkle said something that suggests mw4 and mw4 mercs had slight diffrences in their systems, so it still dosent quite answer the question.

How Mechwarrior 3 worked is it borrowed heavily from the table top. Each location had a certain number of 'Critical slots' that represented space inside the machine. 12 per arm, 12 per side torso, 12 in the center torso, and 6 to each leg and the head. Actuators, Engine, and Gyro all take up space. Depending on the engine and structure, you can even take more space. Even your cockpit and life support gear took space. On a completely empty mech, you might have 51 empty slots. Depending on what items you wanted, they would take different amounts of space on top of their weights. An ER Large Laser would take two 'slots' and 5 tons. An AC 20 would take 10 slots and 14 tons. You could place the items anyplace you wished so long as you had the space and tonnage. This very closely mirrored the model used in the table top except for one factor: You could often perform Factory grade refits on the field, when at best you had the equipment on hand for a Maintenance Grade refit. One of the other factors is that this system often resulted in a lot of min-maxing of machines, usually ones with better profiles. Finally, as Valerian Mengsk put it, nothing felt unique or individual about any of the chassis. They were there just to look pretty at best or have a better combat profile at worst.

Mechwarrior 4 (and Mercs before MekTek got their hands on it) gave 4 types of slots on a machine: Omni (holds anything), Missile, Ballistic, and Energy. These slots would be at specific locations on the mech, depending on what mech it was. For example, an Awesome has lots of energy slots in the Right Arm, Right Torso, and Left Torso, where its PPCs were. Also, on mechs which said sub-systems were available on, you could add additional systems just by clicking the check box.

MekTek Mercs expanded the system to have 7 types of slots. The new slots were Heat Creating (Missiles and Energy), Direct (Ballistics and Energy), and Ammo Feed (Missiles and Ballistics). It also upgraded the boxes on several machines so they could better represent the range of mods they saw in the canon universe. Ultimately, these systems did cripple customization a lot in the name of game balance. Maybe too much so considering I have a hard time finding 'balance' sometimes when playing. Still saw a much wider variety of mechs played, though. This was because people picked mechs based on the style and flavor of mech they wanted to play. Mechs felt unique, and it was rare for one to not be loved by someone. Even fleas and other lights saw some love (and boy, have I seen some scary fleas).

gregsolidus, on 04 November 2011 - 10:34 AM, said:

I'm sure they'll find a medium between the two.

This would actually please me.

I think the game would be healthiest if it could find a healthy bridge where different machines still are unique while still allowing for fun customizations.

[Captain Nice HD]

Perhaps it would be preferable to go with the Solaris Skunk Werks model, except limiting what can be allocated to each of the individual criticals on standard BattleMechs depending on the nature of the base chassis? For example: a CPLT-C1 Catapult would only be able to mount missile-type weapons in its arms, while a CPLT-K2 would only be able to mount energy weapons in the same. Some crits could be designated as 'non-weapon equipment only' (i.e. ammo, ecm, endo-steel, etc), limiting just how large or how numerous valid weapons systems can be within a given location. It could even be enforced that weapons can't split crits within a location, thus creating the possibility of a BattleMech's design that permits a bunch of smaller weapons to be mounted in a single location, but not a single big one.

[KingCobra]

I cant say enough to this topic the MW2-3 mechlabs were the best overall with all the armor,weapon,speed, & electronics options anthing less like MW4-mw4mercs would be just a mistake to implement again in MWO.The only thing other i would like is the option to build my own mechwarrior character and walk around my MechBay and work and animate my Mechwarrior as he designs and outfits his Mech.The mechlabs also used to double in many mech games as a painrt &insignia shop,training & tactical scenarios,ect all rolled into one thing you just had to use the scroll or tabs at the top of the mechbay screen.also a chat bar to talk to your teammates when sharing a config for league play.

[wanderer]

Give me something along the lines of the modifications in the Strat Ops book.

Refits are rated from A to F- the more complex it is, the more expensive facilities, time costs, and CBills it needs to be done. A simple weapon replacement might be cheap. Rebuilding the 'Mech from the ground up, hideously expensive.

And if you get the 'Mech destroyed? Time to mod a new one from scratch.

People should be able to add a little flavor, but since there's zero risk of part failure in Mechwarrior, it should never be easy to radicially redesign machines.

Edited by wanderer, 04 November 2011 - 11:58 AM.

[Stormwolf]

I'll give my vision of a workable mechlab and how the hardpoint system could be somewhat integrated into it:

Both the MW2-3 and a modified MW4 could be implemented, the primary factor would be the techlevel of the place where you have it modified and the techlevel of your faction.

You can have repairbay refits and factory refits/rebuilds.

The repairbay would be more limited then a factory (but cheaper). A standard IS level repair bay can easily replace a damaged weapon with one of the same type. Replacing a weapon with a different one would require the internal electronics to be reconfigured, some weapons have more compatibility then others.

Now here's a example from a repairbay:



this CN9-A Centurion has a Autocannon/10 which you'd like to replace with something else, so you remove it. This frees up 14 tons, but you are limited to what you can install into the crit space:



The above 5 critspaces just became available for weapons, heatsinks can be place anywhere, so you don't have to take them into consideration. The arm slots would be only suited for direct fire weapons whereas the torso would only allow for missile weapons and ammo. the headslot could carry pretty much anything.

I viable combination would be the following:



The weapon has been swapped for a large laser along with a SRM-4, the rest was put into heatsinks. Note that this type of configuration would only work for a Centurion. A mech like a Bombardier or a Mauler would have a completely different setup.

A factory could essentially rebuild your entire mech, but it would cost almost as much as buying a brand new mech, so consider your options well. Once again there would be the limitation to internal structure, only this time you can have the engine replaced with a model that is available (not every factory has a full selection of engines). If you're lucky you can get a faster of slower engine, if not then you'll have to salvage one from a downed mech, but that would essentially cost you two mechs in the process.

The Clans have almost always got the factory option open to them, except when they are in a campaign and cut off from their supply line. Omnimechs get the full crit slots available to them, secondline mechs do not.

Now how's that?

Edited by stormwolf, 04 November 2011 - 12:30 PM.

[UncleKulikov]

@stormwolf:
Doesn't the Atlas have a torso mounted AC20?

I think that when you have a mech chassis, you can swap out any weapons mounted in it for weapons of equivalent size. So if you have a left torso weapon configuration that takes up 8 slots, you can replace those weapons with any combination of weapons that fits into 8 crit slots and the total weight class.

A more restrictive one would be as above, but require replacement weapons to be the same type as what was replaced (autocannons can only be replaced by ballistic weapons, lasers by energy weapons, and SRMs by missiles). That would cut down on boats.

[rollermint]

Valerian Mengsk, on 04 November 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

I felt that the MW3 mechlab gave too much freedom which devalued the individual chassis. The limitations that MW4 placed on customization provided a certain style to each mech and made them more unique.

I agree with this.

I actually prefer MW4's version. It made much more sense and like you said, it gives the chassis a certain uniqueness and style, rather than "how many crit points does this mech has?".

What I hope is that they take the MW4 version and expand its functionality + add more details.

[Stormwolf]

UncleKulikov, on 04 November 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

@stormwolf:
Doesn't the Atlas have a torso mounted AC20?

I think that when you have a mech chassis, you can swap out any weapons mounted in it for weapons of equivalent size. So if you have a left torso weapon configuration that takes up 8 slots, you can replace those weapons with any combination of weapons that fits into 8 crit slots and the total weight class.

A more restrictive one would be as above, but require replacement weapons to be the same type as what was replaced (autocannons can only be replaced by ballistic weapons, lasers by energy weapons, and SRMs by missiles). That would cut down on boats.

Each mech would be different, that AC20 slot in the Atlas could just as well hold a PPC but not a LRM launcher. My entire point is that a MW4 style mechlab would overlayed on the crit mechlab to show your available options at that time some parts could only be replaced with a similar part or parts while for others it doesn't matter.

It would make each mech unique in that aspect.

Another aspect would be that not everything is in ample supply, a merc might experience a shortage of ER PPC's early on since every house military is buying them at that time.

There will always be limitations, it forces the player to make some hard choices on how to configure their mechs if they would bother to do so.

[gregsolidus]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

I agree with this.

I actually prefer MW4's version. It made much more sense and like you said, it gives the chassis a certain uniqueness and style, rather than "how many crit points does this mech has?".

What I hope is that they take the MW4 version and expand its functionality + add more details.

That's not how Battletech works, predefining a mech as energy focused or a missile boat on a constructive level takes away from the customization that is the hallmark of the game.

Edited by gregsolidus, 04 November 2011 - 12:56 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Taking a canon example: the CPLT Catapult.
Mostly used/equipped with LRMs, the Kuritans got the CPLT-2K which instead carries twin PPCs.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Customization is only a hallmark of the video game. Actually battletech is far more restrictive and all mech labs failed in one way or another.

1) I don't want to see mechs reduced to gun cabinets of varying sizes
2) customization should not be trivial both in in game cost and in real world time to complete
3) there should be an on going penalty for using a non-stock mech. It is both not as reliable and more expensive to repair.
4) omni mech need to retain their status as the *** you can switch loadouts! mechs.

Aside from that I have severe reservations about the game balance implications of an unrestricted mechlab. People invariable want it so they can do min/max muchkin mechs.

I know mechlab is a big part of why some people like mechwarrior. I love tinkering with mechs too. However I think custom mechs should be largely limited to a solaris 7 arena. It could be an anything goes place, and even fits canon better. The regular persistent game would be TRO mechs and their variants.

[rollermint]

gregsolidus, on 04 November 2011 - 12:48 PM, said:

That's not how Battletech works, predefining a mech as energy focused or a missile boat on a constructive level takes away from the customization that is the hallmark of the game.

To a certain extent, I do agree with you.

So imho, for example, a laser slot, should be able to hold projectile cannons as well. Thats what I meant with expanded functionality. edit : I should add that if its not an Omnimech, the cost should be exorbitantly high including the repair cost should it get damaged.

What I disagree with, is to have lasers firing out of, as you posted, what is clearly a missile rack. It seriously breaks the immersion for me, just as much as to have them shooting out of a mech's legs that also clearly have no weapons installed on them (from external view). Including Mechwarrior 2 mercs style, where I find it game breaking and exploitative to, you know have all your weapons and critical components stored in the mech's torso/body and avoid the limbs area. Or at least, thats what I recall usually doing.

My only experiences of mechlabs have been from the games, I've no idea how the tabletop rules work for I've never had the opportunity to try them.

Edited by rollermint, 04 November 2011 - 01:10 PM.

[gregsolidus]

Your drawing pretty deeply into the fluff and rules lawyer,some people just build loadouts they like and roll with them with neither player caring about the whole "custom units have a higher failure rate".Those rules are meant for larger campaigns that mix in role playing.

Edited by gregsolidus, 04 November 2011 - 01:12 PM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Except that the arms would have better lines of fire.

[TheRulesLawyer]

gregsolidus, on 04 November 2011 - 01:09 PM, said:

Your drawing pretty deeply into the fluff and rules lawyer,some people just build loadouts they like and roll with them with neither player caring about the whole "custom units have a higher failure rate".Those rules are meant for larger campaigns that mix in role playing.

I know some people don't care. Lots of people have only played the flawed video game versions. Its not really about fluff though. Its about balance. Being able to custom tweak your mech really is a distinct advantage. You need to balance out that advantage with a disadvantage or you are going to see nothing but fully tweaked mechs running around. All likely min/max for the currect nerf cycle. FWIW this game is going to be a long term campaign. You'll be holding onto that mech between battles, you'll be repairing and upgrading it. There will be RPG development of your pilot. Its entirely appropriate to bring stratops type campaign stuff in.

[Wicced]

I don't know, to be honest. On the one hand, the MW2 system gives the most flexibility. But the MW4 system gives each 'Mech a flavor, a style to it. This is useful in combat. If a catapult comes over the horizon I like knowing that it has missiles of some type, for example.

[gregsolidus]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 01:06 PM, said:

To a certain extent, I do agree with you.

So imho, for example, a laser slot, should be able to hold projectile cannons as well. Thats what I meant with expanded functionality. edit : I should add that if its not an Omnimech, the cost should be exorbitantly high including the repair cost should it get damaged.

What I disagree with, is to have lasers firing out of, as you posted, what is clearly a missile rack. It seriously breaks the immersion for me, just as much as to have them shooting out of a mech's legs that also clearly have no weapons installed on them (from external view). Including Mechwarrior 2 mercs style, where I find it game breaking and exploitative to, you know have all your weapons and critical components stored in the mech's torso/body and avoid the limbs area. Or at least, thats what I recall usually doing.

My only experiences of mechlabs have been from the games, I've no idea how the tabletop rules work for I've never had the opportunity to try them.

Laser coming out of missile pods is a definite problem which (if they go the MW3 route) they will fix so the Draconis Catapult will visually reflect its TT counterpart.On the point of legs with lasers I think they should restrict weapon mounting to the upper body (again,if they go the MW3 route) and leave the legs for ammo and electronics only.

Edited by gregsolidus, 04 November 2011 - 01:31 PM.