One small thing bother me with refitting. Why does it cost any cash to replace? You have your large laser equipped and replace it with a medium laser from storage. Why should that cost any money? Repairing I can understand then have to buy in metal plating and cables. Dont the people working in mech bay get paid any monthly salaries and only paid when they do any jobs?
Refitting cost
- Thread starter stavern
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
HBS takes into account all the expendables that are consumed when Repairs occur. Wiring harnesses, switch’s, circuit boards, even replacement coolant in Heat Sinks, etc. That plus tools wear out and need replacing. BATTLETECH just aggregates all these various expenses under those charges per Repair Action.
Personally I’d like to see this aspect of BATTLETECH taken down to a more granular level, but after three years of this topic I understand I am in the minority when it comes to this subject... and that is perfectly alright. :bow:
Switching weapons is going to involve switching out parts, beyond just the weapon itself and the design time involved. There would be new housings, linkages, cabling, even just bolts to secure it to the internal structure. The weapons we have are definitely not plug-and-play parts. The price isn't that substantial, so I have never worried about it.
Well, since you seem lonely sitting there by yourself, I'll join you.
I'd love to see more granularity in the repair/refit category of the sim game. And since I'm wishing on a star, I'd also like there to be a chance for complete success, success, failure and complete failure.
I'll add to that. I've often wished we could see a much more detailed repair/refit system put into place, along with a better salvage system. I've never liked how the salvage system works as is (although I LOVE the game). I've often felt that I've been cheated when I've managed to headcap a mech, but didn't go high enough on the salvage contract of say 2 priority picks, and then have a fully functional mech get "chopped" up into 3 pieces when I should have been able to basically walk it off the field intact.
I've said before that I'd like to see the system at least changed to something where you could take a full chassis as salvage by using up say half your remaining "random" picks for the full chassis, as that would be reasonable to you and your employer then they get more pieces and no 1/3 of a mech.
Seems fair to me.
now to be honest I'd much more enjoy a robust salvage system that would require a complete retooling of the repair bays as well. You only get what you actually manage to salvage.
That to me would make the whole game much more interesting to me. I'd have to be a HECK of a lot more precise in the battlefield in trying to take down a particular mech so I could get that particular gyro/engine/left torso, what have you.
You could potentially end up with a half dozen of one particular chassis that all need a left arm because you keep destroying them. I think that would be great, in that it would force people to think differently.
All this would work well together with a more detailed repair/refit system, and I'd still like to see a much more involved way of refitting mechs down to actuator/gyro/engine refits.
So you all aren't alone in wanting a more robust/detailed system in place.
I think it could certainly change the games dynamic since now you won't see a mech cresting the hill, see the designation and know exactly what it is, what sort of weapons loadout it has, and generally how far/fast it's going to be able to move just because it's always been that way.
This is BattleTech, each mech is going to be different that every other mech of the same model since over the hundreds of years they've been active each pilot will change things.
It would be a massive undertaking of HBS to do something like that, but it would feel SOOOO much more like BT to me.
Just my two c-bills on the subject.
I've said before that I'd like to see the system at least changed to something where you could take a full chassis as salvage by using up say half your remaining "random" picks for the full chassis, as that would be reasonable to you and your employer then they get more pieces and no 1/3 of a mech.
Seems fair to me.
now to be honest I'd much more enjoy a robust salvage system that would require a complete retooling of the repair bays as well. You only get what you actually manage to salvage.
That to me would make the whole game much more interesting to me. I'd have to be a HECK of a lot more precise in the battlefield in trying to take down a particular mech so I could get that particular gyro/engine/left torso, what have you.
You could potentially end up with a half dozen of one particular chassis that all need a left arm because you keep destroying them. I think that would be great, in that it would force people to think differently.
All this would work well together with a more detailed repair/refit system, and I'd still like to see a much more involved way of refitting mechs down to actuator/gyro/engine refits.
So you all aren't alone in wanting a more robust/detailed system in place.
I think it could certainly change the games dynamic since now you won't see a mech cresting the hill, see the designation and know exactly what it is, what sort of weapons loadout it has, and generally how far/fast it's going to be able to move just because it's always been that way.
This is BattleTech, each mech is going to be different that every other mech of the same model since over the hundreds of years they've been active each pilot will change things.
It would be a massive undertaking of HBS to do something like that, but it would feel SOOOO much more like BT to me.
Just my two c-bills on the subject.
Ugh. No.
Adding RNG there may make it more realistic, but it will get super frustrating when you head towards bankruptcy because Yang fat fingers the repair for the fourth time in a row.
No one ever said #MercLIFE was easy or fair.
“Go, tell the MRB, thou who passest by, That here obedient to Maintenance RNG we lie. ... Go, tell the MRB , passerby, that here but for a slip of Kang’s wrench we lie.”
As I said, realism versus fun. I’d rather have my RNG on the battlefield not in the mech shop.
Well, if it did ever have a "fail" state at worst if should be no more than a small time increase I think. Otherwise if the only degree of "failure" is the job completes as normal, but successes can reduce time or buff the installed equipment slightly that would possibly be neat. Or cause the player to always try to get perfect rolls on repair/refits.
A more developed Maintenance System would open up Quirks for more or less easy to Maintain.
I don't think I'd like an RNG aspect to repairs and refits. I'd rather it stay more straight forward like it is now myself. Mech repairs or refits failing seems for frustrating than fun.
I do like the HBS kept some random RNG elements when retooling weapons in the random events. To me that still encapsulates the nature of the risk/reward system while keeping it more fun than frustrating.
I do like the HBS kept some random RNG elements when retooling weapons in the random events. To me that still encapsulates the nature of the risk/reward system while keeping it more fun than frustrating.
repair/refit costs are to low 
a small change, but a bit more "realistic" aproach would be a cost + time increase for every part involved.
beginning from the original STOCK layout, every change in the loadout should be considered on space + weight increase/decrease
changeing an ac5 to an ac5+? 5 days + 50k
changeing an ac5 to an ac10? 10 days + 100k
changeing an ac5 to an ac20++? 30 days + 500k
but
changeing an ac10 to an ac20? 10 days + 100k
or
changeing an ac10 to an ac5? 5 days + 50k
and so on and so forth.
small change = small impact = small time + money, large change = large impact = "boss thats gonna cost, i need hundreds of things to fit that 6LV12 in that Golf1"
more granular, the loadouts would be changeing in smaller steps and in the end more immersive.
a small change, but a bit more "realistic" aproach would be a cost + time increase for every part involved.
beginning from the original STOCK layout, every change in the loadout should be considered on space + weight increase/decrease
changeing an ac5 to an ac5+? 5 days + 50k
changeing an ac5 to an ac10? 10 days + 100k
changeing an ac5 to an ac20++? 30 days + 500k
but
changeing an ac10 to an ac20? 10 days + 100k
or
changeing an ac10 to an ac5? 5 days + 50k
and so on and so forth.
small change = small impact = small time + money, large change = large impact = "boss thats gonna cost, i need hundreds of things to fit that 6LV12 in that Golf1"
more granular, the loadouts would be changeing in smaller steps and in the end more immersive.
I could live with that.
I understand that others might not be able to. And while I would like the option to have it, I know that I'm also in the minority so it would be a waste of resources.
But I can dream.
I have great hopes for BATTLETECH’s Difficulty Settings. Maybe at some future point HBS will give it a go and add some like Granular Repair and Maintenance, even something like MechWarrior Fatigue into the Difficulty Settings...I could live with that.
I understand that others might not be able to. And while I would like the option to have it, I know that I'm also in the minority so it would be a waste of resources.
But I can dream.
...or our Modding Community might. : )
That could be done now with a time multiplier for work on that chassis with no need for RNG.
I’m so not a hardcore gamer who wants RNG everywhere. I used to be more ok with it, but as my leisure time for gaming has decreased my desire for RNG causing fail states has similarly decreased.I could live with that.
I understand that others might not be able to. And while I would like the option to have it, I know that I'm also in the minority so it would be a waste of resources.
But I can dream.
While the difficulty settings might be an option, I'm thinking something like this would best be served as a mod. The return of investment that HBS might, or could, expect to see probably just wouldn't be significant enough for them to consider it.
And, to be honest, while I would like it in the core game, I'd rather they do as they have done and focus on things *everyone* can/will enjoy instead of just a select few.
That could be done now with a time multiplier for work on that chassis with no need for RNG.
I’m so not a hardcore gamer who wants RNG everywhere. I used to be more ok with it, but as my leisure time for gaming has decreased my desire for RNG causing fail states has similarly decreased.
Not really.
A time multiplier just means it, takes more time. Which, in and of itself isn't bad. You could be given something that says it will take X amount of time and if you chose to give Yang a lot of extra time to work on it, the chances for an oopsie decreases.
Conversely, you could choose to have it take *less* time and the risk of oopsies increases.
And for me, something like this has nothing to do with Hardcore Gamer RNG. it has to do with facts rooted in lore. Making modifications to your battlemechs is not only costly and time consuming but, if done wrong, can have adverse effects on your machine. There's nothing, in my mind, that makes that "hardcore", just inline with lore/fluff/etc.
And, if it could be done as extensively as I'd wish/like, it could allow for mechs to earn quirks as they're repaired. I think @stjobe gave a list a while back in one of the threads of some of the premier Mech companies in the Sphere and how their main line units had irreparable battle damage.
Anyway, like I said, I'm just wishing on a star here and seriously doubt I'll ever see something like this in a computer iteration of Battletech.
But that's okay
Perhaps this thread is what you're remembering? The Mercs of Yore and Now.
I've been an advocate of a more detailed repair/refit system since the Kickstarter began, but I know it's not everyone's cup of tea to have a 'Mech sidelined an extra week because the techs messed up the installation of that new, expensive Lower Leg Actuator and had to do it all over.
Ayup! That would be the one.
We can dream I guess.
That's what I was hoping for when they said we could "drill down to the actuator level" . . . .
A mention of “actuators” came up again recently... now where did I see it from HBS...
EDIT: I looked and couldn’t find it. As I recall “actuators” were mentioned in conjunction with HEAVY METAL. It might have been in relation to the COIL and how actuators drive the build up of a COIL’s Damage and Heat.
Last edited: