5 replies to this topic

[Vanir]

The thing I want most in the current MWO is what most would consider a fairly standard feature. A simulator. In addition to changes to Mechlab that would allow you to completely 'build' a selected mech/frame without having to spend the MC/C-Bills.

This is all so that we can... you know... actually TEST the mechs in a controlled environment with maybe even target drones so we can see how they perform before we are forced to spend resources. Test how the mech performs under low heat, high heat, speed and mobility, jump jets and all that.

[Hesketh Vernon Hesketh Prichard]

Vanir, on 21 December 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

The thing I want most in the current MWO is what most would consider a fairly standard feature. A simulator. In addition to changes to Mechlab that would allow you to completely 'build' a selected mech/frame without having to spend the MC/C-Bills.

This is all so that we can... you know... actually TEST the mechs in a controlled environment with maybe even target drones so we can see how they perform before we are forced to spend resources. Test how the mech performs under low heat, high heat, speed and mobility, jump jets and all that.

If you good at maths you dont need this. Think of it as 'training' your maths skills that have probably eroded over time

I know what your saying but you should be able do the maths BEFORE you choice. That said, I've added double heatsinks before only to remove them, Costing 2.250.00-CB which hurts! I know your pain

[Karl TenBrew]

Poor excuse is a poor excuse. You're right, of course, in that anyone with paper, a pencil, and the wiki can piece together a theoretical build and even come up with values like its heat efficiency. I challenge you to name a player who can take the heat efficiency value and truly judge whether they want to tinker with their mech more before testing up different ways to link their weapons and how they preform in actual combat. It wouldn't be so bad if 'upgrades' and 'loadout' weren't seperate, making us bite the cost to swap every time we hit a constraint in testing.

Is this a game-breakingly awful thing? Not really. But it would be a great quality of life improvement to have a 'training room' before you finalize/pay-for a loadout, including upgrades (DHS, Artemis, FFA, ES).

[Aurien Titus]

Hesketh Vernon Hesketh Prichard, on 21 December 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:

If you good at maths you dont need this. Think of it as 'training' your maths skills that have probably eroded over time

I know what your saying but you should be able do the maths BEFORE you choice. That said, I've added double heatsinks before only to remove them, Costing 2.250.00-CB which hurts! I know your pain

That would be fine if PGI/MWO gave us all the information we need for building 'mechs. And I can guarantee that there are people playing MWO who still think all double heatsinks are 1.4, even thought the 10 engine ones are 2.0. And lord knows how that works out on smaller engines that don't have 10 internal. Guessing game go. And just because it looks good on paper, doesn't mean it performs well on a battlefield. An expensive lesson to learn on your freshly designed 'mech you've just dropped millions of C-Bills on.

[Bhael Fire]

The mechlab is currently unwieldy and not very user-friendly. This is a known issue.

I look forward to when UI 2.0 is implemented.

[Necromantion]

I think this is an interesting suggestion, i mean ive bought one mech that i regretted in the long run solely due to its speed (which was my fault cause i didnt read the mechlab loadout but i also didnt know that it had the max engine in it already.)

That being said to impliment this maybe they could let you do it but earn no mech or general xp or cbills for the matches?

As Bael Fire said above though the mechlab and everything is still very rusty and if i was a game dev i know id focus on the actual game play being polished first before a well polished user interface.