46 replies to this topic

[Grafix]

I agree with DP, there has to be some kind of mech mastery/achievement to unlock the possibility of customization and not just outright give a new person the possibility of mech loadout costomization of any kind.

Just like any job/training/work environment.  You have to prove/earn/learn/show proficiency before you get some latitude.

[Kyrzon]

Grafix, on December 02 2012 - 06:37 PM, said:

I agree with DP, there has to be some kind of mech mastery/achievement to unlock the possibility of customization and not just outright give a new person the possibility of mech loadout costomization of any kind.

Just like any job/training/work environment.  You have to prove/earn/learn/show proficiency before you get some latitude.

Look at the cost of buying a mech under this suggestion; 32000 HP AND 1050 MP. So if they're new, they'll be in other mechs for a while before they can customize outright. Or they can drop what looks to be almost 35$ on meteor points to buy the mech, either way, I doubt someone new would be dropping money on this, and the people that are have already been around the block a few times. This is what I was trying to iterate earlier, but either everyone keeps missing it or I'm not explaining this well enough.

[Ace4225]

I like this idea [the OP] and was just about to post some thoughts of my own concerning this topic.

The current weapons balancing may be a bit flawed, but there is a potential solution that may solve balance issues and allow for customization:

There simply needs to be a factor that would only allow certain setups. I don't think HP cost is the best solution for that as it could be abused quickly. However, adding a simple extra factor, such as weight, could easily balance out weapon availability.

I.E. [and these figures are totally for concept purposes and not intended to be taken as balanced figures]:

An A-class base frame can hold 40 tons of equipment. You can use that space to purchase a primary/secondary weapon, a special ability, items, and internals.

So... you might be able to put a TOW [heavy secondary], HEAT cannon [heavy primary], and damage reduction [moderate special ability] on the same mech, but since you just spent say 30 tons, now you don't have enough tonnage left to buy 3 internals. You can get two, but then you won't have space for items other than maybe a deployable radar [not-so-useful item, so it doesn't weigh much]

^That's totally just an example for how a weight system [like what's been used in Mechwarrior, Armored Core, and Chrome Hounds all successfully] could work in Hawken, but I feel it would add a nice dynamic by limiting players on customization options, allowing them to focus on either more firepower or more tactics without always having lots of both.

Anyway, I'll start a thread on specifically on the weight system idea anyway since it's not directly related to the OP:
http://community.pla...-weight-system/

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[Kyrzon]

Kyrzon, on November 26 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

My suggestion is this; keep the current pre-con and also create the ability for players to buy a frame (A, B, C), and then individual parts (Weapons, Internals, Items, Ability, Cosmetics) for the mech at a higher cost than pre-cons with a limited resource table; each part as defined above would have a cost associated with it (cosmetics notwithstanding), and each frame is only capable of holding a particular total of cost during construction.

Ace4225, on December 03 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

There simply needs to be a factor that would only allow certain setups. I don't think HP cost is the best solution for that as it could be abused quickly. However, adding a simple extra factor, such as weight, could easily balance out weapon availability.

That was precisely what I had meant from the beginning when I referred to a 'cost' system, not the HP cost that would also be associated with the parts. I didn't want to outright refer to it as a weight system primarily because that is what MWO indirectly refers to their mech building resource as; the 'cost/limited resource table' could be weight, computer module support, wiring incompatibilities... I wanted to leave that to the devs to decide what the limitation would be to fit into Hawken lore & player perspective.

EDIT: Bold + Italics where in my original post I had referred to weight as.

Edited by Kyrzon, December 03 2012 - 02:40 AM.

[Ace4225]

ok. Didn't see that. You did go on to talk about HP costs, so when you said parts would have a "cost associated with it" I thought you simply meant an HP/MP cost.

[Frenotx]

DarkPulse, on December 02 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Frenotx, on December 01 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

The whole "More options in battle" is why people would buy more than one chassis.

And how would this solve the fundamental problem of them not knowing what is best for their playstyle_ Some people can tear people up in Infiltrators. Some simply cannot. How will they know if they can just build a custom on Day One_

People will figure out / find what mech suits them best by experimenting.
"This mech is fun, but I feel like I need more speed. Lemme try out an A-class."
"Holy fuzzy bunny! That weapon looks awesome! I should give it a try."
"That dude just handed me my ass using a B-class. I should try one out."
That ability to tinker / eternal hunt for the mech that suits you best is somegimg that will make people hooked on the game.

[Ace4225]

Frenotx, on December 03 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

That ability to tinker / eternal hunt for the mech that suits you best is somegimg that will make people hooked on the game.

This is why I never got tired of Mechwarrior, even when the gameplay began to get a little duller. I could keep trying all kinds of variants of mechs.

As it is right now, this game will not allow for the easy addition of new mech chassis/weapons [as we've already seen some balance issues with each]. If the devs want to keep things as is, then every time they want to add a new weapon, they'll have to tweak many of the others as well to balance things out.

With a cost system, however, that could be more easily mitigated.

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 11:28 AM.