72 replies to this topic

[Kyone Akashi]

Strum Wealh, on 28 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

And it seems to be these examples (together with the BT gameplay rules) upon which, for better or worse, PGI has based their implementation of Guardian - not fully within the as-published gameplay rules of BattleTech, true, but not wholly without precedent with regard to in-universe representation or functionality either.

Well, at the end of the day, ECM is not working as it ought to by the rules of either normal or double-blind games. Personally, I'd also prefer if it were to use the TacOps system, as supposedly the double-blind rules are the more realistic application, but right now we just don't have something that works "as it should", if we were to compare MWO to the tabletop and its setting.

Battletech canon is (fortunately) rather clear-cut in how it works, prioritising rules over novels, and rendering the computer games wholly uncanonical, but that doesn't mean we could not wish for something closer to the tabletop which has spawned everything else.

The people at PGI are, of course, well in their rights to go a different path ... I'm just saying I do not believe this was necessary, and that in fact sticking closer to the canon would have resulted in a more interesting version of information warfare.

Strum Wealh, on 28 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

It does also raise the question of what PGI will do and what precedents they will use with regard to the Targeting Computer mounted on such 'Mechs as the Masakari Prime and Puma Prime, both in terms of in-match functionality (especially with the 'Mechs no longer having non-instantaneous convergence) and modification/customization practices (as TCs' weights and crits canonically varied as a function of the total tonnage of applicable weapon systems were mounted on the 'Mech).

Ten ryu say we'll see another deviation from the canon there, albeit a more necessary one. Perhaps a simple lock speed increase? Or a computer-assisted reticule that looks at your projectile speed and pre-calculates where you'll need to point your gun to hit a moving 'Mech? Or ... there just won't be a targeting computer, just like our 'Mechs all seem to have lost magscan, and seismic only being available as an extra unlockable module.

Also, kudos @ that post.

Strum Wealh, on 28 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Oh - is that a standard katana, or a vibroblade model?
*rests my palm atop the pommel of my épée de combat, my fencer's sense piqued...

A "standard" katana, of course. Like the Jenner, a family heirloom of the Akashi clan, handed down from one generation to the next. Not simply a weapon, but a relic of the deeds and service of its former bearers in the name of the Dragon.

Strum Wealh, on 28 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Anywhoo, I suspect we both know that your response would have been had I inquired about your turning your back on the Combine (e.g. that such a suggestion would not have elicited an affirmative response) - and that I would have given a similar answer with regard to likewise turning my back on the Suns.
I take it you're not going to tell me that I am mistaken in that regard?

Of course not.
I will say that the Davion military at least makes for a formidable foe - from all that is being talked about within the Academies, anyways. There are many young warriors who cannot wait to test their skill and mettle at the border towards the Federated Suns. Let us see what fate the future holds for the two of us, then!

Strum Wealh, on 28 December 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Though, knowing about the particular part of the Dictum Honorium (where, recall, ISN News reported on the lampooning thereof some time ago) that deals with what to do with bested foes... well, I hope you won't fault me too much for preferring to keep my major organs (including, and especially, the ole' chunk 'o grey & white matter) both attached and fully functional.

That being said, we of the Federation's armed forces tend to be generally more forgiving of our bested foes (especially those who have fought with valor and honor - as I expect you will, and which I intend to reciprocate)... thus, I expect that it would be to the greater benefit of all parties to reverse who bests whom relative to the scenario you've presented.

"More" forgiving? As the Dictum Honorium teaches us, it is the warrior's duty to fight, or die fighting. Would you not agree that a honorable end on the battlefield is preferable to a life in some labor camp where you would not only be prevented from fulfilling your oath, but in addition be treated like an unproductive? The shame! What would your family, your ancestors think?

You gaijin have such weird notions of honor. But fear not - once our divinely inspired struggle ends and our Coordinator takes his rightful place as First Lord of a reformed Star League, we shall aim to export the Dragon's virtues to the entirety of the Inner Sphere.

Edited by Kyone Akashi, 28 December 2013 - 07:09 PM.

[ValdnadHartagga]

Aaanyway, bringing the topic back in line, here's some speculation.

So there was talk of the Wolf Dragoons being the ultimate end-game faction goal - what if PGI plans to restrict techs to their home factions, except for the Dragoons? This gives players a reason to grind the IS factions (for the ability to use Clan tech in an IS fight).

[Myomes]

short answer is Yes because They are trying their hardest to dilute the game. Those people who bought Clan mechs early with the packages wouldn't be able to use them at all if there was factional equipment restriction on chassis or items.

The mere mention that they're trying to figure out how to "balance" clantech suggests they want everyone to have equal access to it, which dilutes the strict lines of houses and nations vs other nations vs clans.

CW cant be put in, because it'd create Repair and Rearm costs, limit or restrict access to certain mechs for people in certain houses when they may already have those mechs waiting for them via clans or have bought and trained them up currently already in game.

Unless I'm missing something and they were smart enough to figure out what mechs all houses had access to, and give us only those before releasing CW.

However, since all of the above and the fact that they claimed CW would be out in 90 days from Feb 2012 at MOST, and then a few months roll by and they then have it shown they haven't even worked on CW, for the former and this latter reason, I really doubt "IS houses cant use clan mechs". there will be no houses and no boundaries. It's going to be a homogenized pot without CW.

They blew past their CW deadlines multiple times, so I don't see any of this happening.

[Myomes]

ValdnadHartagga, on 28 December 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Aaanyway, bringing the topic back in line, here's some speculation.

So there was talk of the Wolf Dragoons being the ultimate end-game faction goal - what if PGI plans to restrict techs to their home factions, except for the Dragoons? This gives players a reason to grind the IS factions (for the ability to use Clan tech in an IS fight).

the concept of WoW like faction grinding to "get in good" is flawed. What if people dont want or care about grinding it up to Pokemon style Collect-em-all?

What if people want to be a part of a house, take areas, and live with the mech restrictions? I doubt anyone who actually WANTED to play a true to Canon/Tabletop mechsim would simply want to grind everything and unlock all mechs, because that's not what this warfare is about.

Look at Eve Online. People dont grind and unlock all ships. It's not practical on the one hand, on the other, people want to represent something, or use a specific type of weaponry and defenses. They aren't interested in pigging out on the whole smorgasbord of ships until they're fat and bloated. They want to get the right ships they want and blast away.

If this game ever would've been like Eve Online in catering to "hardcore/niche BT/MW", it would've happened the same way: People choose and love their factions, and rarely step outside of certain mechs.

Edited by Myomes, 29 December 2013 - 02:20 AM.

[Javin]

I am curious if we can just buy clan tech. If we can then I would cheerfully still use IS mechs but with clan gear. Massive LRM spam anyone?

[Strum Wealh]

ValdnadHartagga, on 28 December 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Aaanyway, bringing the topic back in line, here's some speculation.

So there was talk of the Wolf Dragoons being the ultimate end-game faction goal - what if PGI plans to restrict techs to their home factions, except for the Dragoons? This gives players a reason to grind the IS factions (for the ability to use Clan tech in an IS fight).

The Dragoons also have certain 'Mechs that are (in BattleTech) unique and exclusive to them, like the Annihilator and the Hoplite (among others); there is a possibility that being able to join the Dragoons might unlock such 'Mechs as additional content?

-----

As an aside (since the ANH has now been invoked)... under PGI's OmniMech customization system (as outlined in the Command Chair post), one could switch out the arms of the Daishi B with those of the Daishi Prime, and have a 100-ton, 54 kph Assault 'Mech with nearly full armor and 50.5 tons of pod space & the ability to mount at least two ballistic weapons in each side torso and at least one ballistic weapon in each arm.

Such a monster - for a monster, it is - could mount, hypothetically, a quartet of CUAC/10s (as either 1 in each arm + one in each side-torso, or 2 in each side-torso) with a quintet of CERMLs (2 per arm, 1 in the CT), a LAMS, and 5 tons of ammo for the guns (or 4 tons of ammo plus a Clan Active Probe).

--------------------

Javin, on 29 December 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

I am curious if we can just buy clan tech. If we can then I would cheerfully still use IS mechs but with clan gear. Massive LRM spam anyone?

And the ability to freely do so would, with near-certainty, not only render the entire current IS weapon & equipment line obsolete, but probably the Clan (and eventual IS-built) OmniMechs themselves as well (as standard BattleMechs do not have the engine/structure/armor restrictions of the OmniMechs, and could thus be further min-maxed).

That being said, what we know as yet (from Bryan Ekman's Twitter posting) is that (as of 12/16/2013) PGI "won't comment on mixed tech. But salvaged Clan tech ok the black market is always a possibility."

So, we'll see what happens...

[Strum Wealh]

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Well, at the end of the day, ECM is not working as it ought to by the rules of either normal or double-blind games. Personally, I'd also prefer if it were to use the TacOps system, as supposedly the double-blind rules are the more realistic application, but right now we just don't have something that works "as it should", if we were to compare MWO to the tabletop and its setting.

Battletech canon is (fortunately) rather clear-cut in how it works, prioritising rules over novels, and rendering the computer games wholly uncanonical, but that doesn't mean we could not wish for something closer to the tabletop which has spawned everything else.

The people at PGI are, of course, well in their rights to go a different path ... I'm just saying I do not believe this was necessary, and that in fact sticking closer to the canon would have resulted in a more interesting version of information warfare.

Well, I did acknowledge that the novels were "of a lower tier of authority than the rulebooks".

Though, at this point we have the rulebook in question disagreeing with itself (and here I though the whole "rules-as-written vs 'interpretation'" issue for fencing's priority/ROW was bad ) and the next tier down (the novels) disagreeing with the literal letter of the rules in question while agreeing with the example of said rules' application provided in said rulebook.
That the official TacOps errata (currently) doesn't help to settle matters is merely the proverbial icing on the cake.
Moreover, the post you had linked describes how BT's TPTB apparently go through extensive fact-checking for the novels - which would mean that someone among them approved the novel passages that I quoted in addition to approving of the example found in TacOps.

And on top of that, Era Report: 2750 (which, as a sourcebook, should rank above the novels but below the actual rulebooks?) apparently described Guardian as an ultra-high-ROF, precision-targeting, stutter-blasting EMP cannon (which is unique among the materials that I, at least, have seen... and not reflective of how ECM systems would have worked in reality at the time Guardian originally appeared in print, in the late 1980s) - a point of interest as it (IMO) shows that there may not be as much unity/consensus even among the BT staff as to what Guardian actually is & what it does & how it does it.

That being said, I will generally that "closer to BT canon is generally better", but it is my position that Guardian in its current form - aside from hopefully being just the most complete component of an extensive-yet-incomplete (and to-eventually-be-completed) EW/IW system.

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Ten ryu say we'll see another deviation from the canon there, albeit a more necessary one. Perhaps a simple lock speed increase? Or a computer-assisted reticule that looks at your projectile speed and pre-calculates where you'll need to point your gun to hit a moving 'Mech? Or ... there just won't be a targeting computer, just like our 'Mechs all seem to have lost magscan, and seismic only being available as an extra unlockable module.

Also, kudos @ that post.

Personally, I would hope that the implementation of the Targeting Computer is accompanied by the return of non-instantaneous convergence, with the TC decreasing the convergence time (similar to what the "pin-point" skill once did).
Combined with a leading pip (using calculations not dissimilar to my previously-linked post) and the ability to target individual sections (essentially, that the TC did in MW3), I am of the opinion that such would be a decent implementation of the TC.

Then again, I'd also like to see the implementation of a player-controlled "gun harmonization" system, but that is probably too much to hope for.

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

A "standard" katana, of course. Like the Jenner, a family heirloom of the Akashi clan, handed down from one generation to the next. Not simply a weapon, but a relic of the deeds and service of its former bearers in the name of the Dragon.

Hmmm... now I wonder which would be more interesting, to do battle in 'Mechs or to cross blades?

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Of course not.
I will say that the Davion military at least makes for a formidable foe - from all that is being talked about within the Academies, anyways. There are many young warriors who cannot wait to test their skill and mettle at the border towards the Federated Suns. Let us see what fate the future holds for the two of us, then!

And I can say that there are substantial numbers of AFFS cadets and freshly-minted soldiers who would relish the opportunity to test themselves against the forces of the Dragon... and quite a few veterans who look forward to continuing to display the formidability of the AFFS.

As I amended to my previous message, I look forward to when I & my Centurion come face-to-face with you & your Jenner.

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

"More" forgiving? As the Dictum Honorium teaches us, it is the warrior's duty to fight, or die fighting. Would you not agree that a honorable end on the battlefield is preferable to a life in some labor camp where you would not only be prevented from fulfilling your oath, but in addition be treated like an unproductive? The shame! What would your family, your ancestors think?

I'd argue that the duty of the warrior is not so much "to fight, or die fighting" as "to win wars (or die trying) while conducting himself/herself in a manner that his/her people deem 'honorable'".

As a certain historical figure once observed...

• "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."
  
• "In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them."
  
• "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious."

In other words, what should be the primary business of the warrior - to emerge victorious from a conflict that threatens the safety or will of his/her state and liege-lord - is not always best accomplished through the direct application of force-of-arms... or by willfully seeking to "die gloriously" in any particular battle.

Even something as seemingly simple and benign as showing mercy can be used as a weapon; demonstrating that one has both the capability and the resolve to destroy an opponent (especially one who has demonstrated visciousness in the past) and then still choosing to stay one's hand can - and has been - an effective means of reducing or breaking an opponent's will to fight (and, occasionally, doing the same to that of those who would otherwise support said opponent), which can in turn lead to a "clean" victory that has a smaller likelihood of reversal from the local populace (due to the lack of resentment from destroyed homes and infrastructure).

Likewise, a warrior that is bested but evades capture and/or death can still be of utility to his/her comrades - by aiding or leading a guerella or resistance movement, or by assisting or organizing a revolt in the labor camps you mentioned, or by feeding the enemy false information (laced with just enough truth to make them believe it, of course), or in any of a number of other ways.

An honorable death in any given battle, while of course preferable to a dishonorable death, may not necessarily be the best option (with regard to keeping one's oathes) at any given time; death removes the warrior as an asset for his/her comrades and his/her nation, and part of a warrior's duty includes ensuring that his/her nations assets - including himself/herself - are not unduly wasted, yes?

(OOC: Is it just me, or does that sound surprisingly like what a non-twisted version of the Clans' founding ideals might have been like? )

Kyone Akashi, on 28 December 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

You gaijin have such weird notions of honor. But fear not - once our divinely inspired struggle ends and our Coordinator takes his rightful place as First Lord of a reformed Star League, we shall aim to export the Dragon's virtues to the entirety of the Inner Sphere.

Je suis désolé, Mme. Akashi, but the Kurtia line has no rightful place in the role of First Lord - especially as it was them who went so far as to provide aid to the Usurper!

(OOC: Yes, I am aware that said aid was provided under duress (but provided nonetheless!) & that Throdore Kurita is elected as the second First Lord of the Second Star League in 3061... though, he didn't really do much more with the position than provide SLDF reinforcements to St. Ives & swipe the Lyons Thumb region from the Lyrans.)

Edited by Strum Wealh, 29 December 2013 - 03:30 PM.

[Kyone Akashi]

ValdnadHartagga, on 28 December 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

So there was talk of the Wolf Dragoons being the ultimate end-game faction goal - what if PGI plans to restrict techs to their home factions, except for the Dragoons? This gives players a reason to grind the IS factions (for the ability to use Clan tech in an IS fight).

I'm actually hoping this being the case (with the caveat that you still cannot mix Clan tech with IS 'Mechs - yet), if only because this would mean that we won't see a lot of Clan 'Mechs on IS teams. I have a dreadful feeling that the current approach will see Clan and IS 'Mechs being available and used interchangeably regardless of faction choice, but I'd really, really prefer if we'd keep each faction's style (and this includes 'Mech choice) at least somewhat unique as a matter of atmosphere and immersion.
It's "bad enough" that we won't have the Clans show up in "lances" of 5 but maintain Inner Sphere organization.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

And the ability to freely do so would, with near-certainty, not only render the entire current IS weapon & equipment line obsolete, but probably the Clan (and eventual IS-built) OmniMechs themselves as well (as standard BattleMechs do not have the engine/structure/armor restrictions of the OmniMechs, and could thus be further min-maxed).

That being said, what we know as yet (from Bryan Ekman's Twitter posting) is that (as of 12/16/2013) PGI "won't comment on mixed tech. But salvaged Clan tech ok the black market is always a possibility."

The current approach seems to be to make Clan weapons only situationally more powerful than their IS counterparts - for example, whilst Clan lasers would be better at a distance for having a higher range and causing slightly more damage, I'd say the IS weapon would win once you're at brawling distance due to causing less heat and having a faster discharge cycle.

It's kind of mirroring what PGI did for the different weight classes when they decided to make Lights, Mediums, Heavies and Assaults all equally valid options in a fight, just requiring different approaches - or "gameplay styles". In this light, one could also see the locked CT customisation in Clan 'Mechs as the balancing factor for their ability to swap hardpoints.

Still, even if Clan weaponry ends up being "situationally equal" to its IS counterparts, I'd like to see some sort of limitation - such as IS pilots having to install a module to unlock the ability to mount a piece of Clan equipment. Alternatively, or additionally, it could also not only require the pilot to grind a lot in order to acquire it (for House warriors, Loyalty Points seem like a valid currency here), but also be expensive to maintain by deducting a larger amount of c-bills for repairs.

A fun idea could even be for individual Clan weapons only being available once you've "unlocked" them by shooting off a component that had one installed. It could lead to pilots really "hunting" for salvage, so to say.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Though, at this point we have the rulebook in question disagreeing with itself (and here I though the whole "rules-as-written vs 'interpretation'" issue for fencing's priority/ROW was bad ) and the next tier down (the novels) disagreeing with the literal letter of the rules in question while agreeing with the example of said rules' application provided in said rulebook.
That the official TacOps errata (currently) doesn't help to settle matters is merely the proverbial icing on the cake.
Moreover, the post you had linked describes how BT's TPTB apparently go through extensive fact-checking for the novels - which would mean that someone among them approved the novel passages that I quoted in addition to approving of the example found in TacOps.

Technically, I believe the rules themselves are more important than examples of their use, so when the two are in question, the former might take precedence. In this case, the result is also what the writers at the official Battletech forum are advising.

As for fact-checking, there would be no need to have a hierarchy when the novels and rules would be in harmony 100% of the time. There can always be cases of interpretation, misunderstandings, or plain editorial mistakes. Prominent examples might be Mr. Stackpole's engine explosions, or the controversy surrounding a certain sentient alien species.

With ECM, this gets even more complicated because the device has different and contradictory rules depending on whether you use it in standard or double-blind games. In reality, it should probably combine elements of both, whereas the rules discard aspects of one or the other for the sake of simplification and thus a speedier gameplay.
For example, even though TacOps says that ECM only affects systems within the bubble, I believe it would be realistic if it would also disrupt communications (such as C3 links) passing through it like it does in standard games.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

And on top of that, Era Report: 2750 (which, as a sourcebook, should rank above the novels but below the actual rulebooks?) apparently described Guardian as an ultra-high-ROF, precision-targeting, stutter-blasting EMP cannon (which is unique among the materials that I, at least, have seen... and not reflective of how ECM systems would have worked in reality at the time Guardian originally appeared in print, in the late 1980s) - a point of interest as it (IMO) shows that there may not be as much unity/consensus even among the BT staff as to what Guardian actually is & what it does & how it does it.

Now that is one book I do not possess - and I'd rather see the direct quote instead of another fan paraphrasing its content. It is possible that this is just a matter of misinterpretation and that the source did not aim to convey the idea of an EMP cannon, but rather the Guardian suite's ability to focus and adjust the intensity of its jamming capabilities to specific areas within its effective range. What other sources do agree on, after all, is the Guardian suite being "smart", which does hint at the ability to adapt to whatever happens around it.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Personally, I would hope that the implementation of the Targeting Computer is accompanied by the return of non-instantaneous convergence, with the TC decreasing the convergence time (similar to what the "pin-point" skill once did).
Combined with a leading pip (using calculations not dissimilar to my previously-linked post) and the ability to target individual sections (essentially, that the TC did in MW3), I am of the opinion that such would be a decent implementation of the TC.

Well, you'd have my support for that idea.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I'd argue that the duty of the warrior is not so much "to fight, or die fighting" as "to win wars (or die trying) while conducting himself/herself in a manner that his/her people deem 'honorable'".

Ah, but see ... these things are one and the same.

A leader cannot expect to be victorious if the forces under their command are not dedicated to the cause, and it is the Dragon's strength that the people of the Combine allow a general such confidence in his or her troops. After all, is it not true that The Nine Situations says that for a warrior prepared to face death, there is nothing they may not achieve? And as such, is it not preferable to go into battle with a mindset unsullied by concern and expectations of survival?

The warriors of the Dragon do not seek death (perhaps unlike some Liao troops, if rumors are to be believed), but they are well prepared to meet it, every time they take to the fields of battle.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

Likewise, a warrior that is bested but evades capture and/or death can still be of utility to his/her comrades - by aiding or leading a guerella or resistance movement, or by assisting or organizing a revolt in the labor camps you mentioned, or by feeding the enemy false information (laced with just enough truth to make them believe it, of course), or in any of a number of other ways.

Ah, but see, Wealh-san, now you are providing arguments as to why it is also better for the victor to grant any survivors honorable execution instead of risking them become a nuisance. You are not only shaming the captured warrior but also invite further trouble within your own ranks, by requiring to set aside guards and supplies to care for them, and even then a risk of rebellion remains. This is why, ultimately, the Dragon will triumph in this great struggle, for warfare, in its purest form, is a matter of honesty and skill as the soldiers involved struggle against one another. Victory or death, it is that simple.

Strum Wealh, on 29 December 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

(OOC: Is it just me, or does that sound surprisingly like what a non-twisted version of the Clans' founding ideals might have been like? )

(a bit? on a sidenote, I always found it funny how close current Clan ideals are in comparison to the IS' rule of nobility they oppose )

[nightsniper]

Lets face it Money is driving all decisions here. The business model as I see it is selling mechs. My Evidence is the level of detail and selection of the key elements to the game. Thus what many Battletech loyalist prefer in a " 3051" world is out the window when you look at the modeling going on.

If my theory is correct then the likelihood of limiting play or cross faction to play is out the window PGI and it's partners want you to have a huge stable of MECHs this = Dollars for the project. Lore is gone and has been for some time. It will be interesting how CW is implemented will this be planetary conquest or a solaris ladder conquest iteration we will see. Caution should be observed based on the Vlog the clan mechs maybe omni but play will be balanced and costs even in game will be high taking an example an arm on a Madcat going from beam to ballistic may be out of sight not to mention the actual # of slots may limit the actual equipment to battletech mech sheet configs. My one concern is how they will handle the heat on these map with the majority still hot, very hot settings.

Like a WOT model the mech you buy today may be buffed and nerfed tomorrow and more mechs will flow through the pipe line on a regular basis as money is needed by the project. Prices will climb and fall based on play and membership. Game content will remain Arcade like.

Just my opinion but it does seem consistent with the last two years experience.

[nightsniper]

If I may I want to ad my two cents as to what I would like to see

1 Clan plays with clan units.
2 Game drops are 3 IS lances (12 Mechs) vs 2 Clan Stars (10 mechs) this compensates for the better equipment and is consistent with the lore of the genre.
3. Clans begin only battle clans until a launch date for invasion
4. Omni tech for IS comes in slowly and only on the limited chassis consistent with battletech.

That PGI and it's partners look back at the EA model of conquest and design CW around that model of play. Faction selection is key. Lastly that they take the WOT model of leaving a unit and having a waiting period before allowing to join another unit or faction.

For Christmas 2014 Santa I want a Catapult in my garage. color: black and blue camo of the 1st Kestrel Grenadiers. Can I also ask for a remote starter so I can warm it up from the house.

[Walks_In_Circles]

Slater01, on 17 December 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Ok lets "pretend" i (a house Davion Loyalist) drops $4240.00 on some clan mechs. Could i use those mechs to defend the Inner Sphere? And if I can, hows that related to the lore of 3050? Has there been any info on this subject? And if not, then why would an IS loyalist buy a clan package?

This may have been pointed out already, however, in lore, clan 'mechs were/are often taken as trophies and are prized within the Innersphere. Alternatively, if you want to do a bit of RP you could be a Davion Loyalist that was captured by clanners and made into a bondsman. When you earned your freedom, you managed to return home with some tokens of your servitude to which you use to exact vengeance on your captors.

Have a bit of fun with it

Edited by Hrothmar, 17 January 2014 - 10:41 PM.

[FERAL TIGER]

Read title, looks at keyboard, "Yea, I see what he did there" haha

I view it as salvage. If I'm defending the IS, and take down a lance of claNNers, I'm probably gonna swap out weapons and potentially mechs. I doubt PGI will be cannon enough to restrict certain teams from using certain mechs.

[nightsniper]

Based on other comments in this thread does this debate make CW more or less likely?

I say this because of the new monkey wrench introduced by the issue of Clan Mech/ Clan Tech and IS vs.Clan. Is this going to be the latest excuse to keep this an arcade game and not a Community/ Faction game? will Factions be less important then say ladder play or just game of the week or the latest hottest build? With cool new builds to buy and refit.

I feel like the days of Ral Partha coming out with a new mini and a must have, are just going digital, and the prices are getting steeper.

You have to admit that is how the board game has gone with now 30 + years of existence is this where PGI is taking this?

Ask yourself how many mechs do you own and how many minis did you buy in the day?

[CyclonerM]

On a side note, has anyone ever read about these "clammers"?

[nightsniper]

CyclonerM, on 22 January 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

On a side note, has anyone ever read about these "clammers"?

It is what we put in our Clam Chowda!

[Peiper]

This debate reinforces my major complaint about the clan pack. We don't have planetary capture, community warfare, the timeline is stagnant, and people can't even CHOOSE their clan faction yet. For all intents and purposes, we're still stuck in the succession war era, and PGI introduces a clan pack which is like saying: So, you go to this bar and there's a black market hustler in the corner.

"Hey, for a big stack of gold, I'll sneak into your base one night and populate it with mechs unlike the inner sphere has ever seen!"

"Where did you get these mechs?" you ask.

"Nevermind that, just gimme your money and I'll deliver them, in secret, one day to your warehouse, along with all the repair and replacement parts and tools you'll need to run them indefinitely for the length of your career."

"Sure, where do I sign?" you say.

______________________________________________

Despite PGI's saying that 'we want to make the clan invasion a big event where the inner sphere and clans duke it out' the fact is: that big event is a giant sale, and most likely, the borders will be set when we get community warfare. We won't have a chance to turn back the clan invasion, and the clans won't have a chance to get anywhere near their goal: Terra. One day, we'll wake up and find that the clans are HERE, the FRR has been smashed, and we might be able to wiggle the borders a little bit by fighting over border planets with whatever mechs we have available.

But as of their release date: Everyone who paid for them will be able to play with their new clan mechs. If not, they would have advertised that you could only play them if you were a clanner or something. Most players have already picked their faction - many years and years ago - and will always be loyal to that faction. If you tell them they can't play their faction or that they can't play with their mechs if they do play that faction, there will be blood in the waters of Vancouver. PGI knows this. Consider as evidence their frankenmechlab. They have stated repeatedly that this is the single most important feature in mechwarrior: the ability to build and/or tweek out mechs and field them.

All of you who are arguing about salvage, earning clan tech through storyline and logic based missions and activities, factional exclusion of chassis, and Wolf's Dragoons get clan tech are spinning your wheels. The decisions have been made, that anyone, no matter what their faction, can purchase the clan pack. I know that after I write this, another sixteen pages will be written about it, but you're wasting your brain cells and time. It's too late. What you want to do is push for features that CAN be put into the game realistically, given PGI's resources and/or flexibility. Push for a dynamic planetary capture model, where the borders of the inner sphere can be re-written over and over (reset every 6 months or whatever). We all want to see our factions dominate, no matter what mechs we have available. Push for THAT, because you already have access to the clan mechs whether you like it or not.

Edited by Peiper, 22 January 2014 - 08:35 AM.

[nightsniper]

Peiper I think you said it all the fact is that the die has been set when the made the real world decisions on what will sell and make them money. By the way this is not greed they are driving it it is survive-ability for the genre, the game and PGI. the way they are moving a mech is a mech is a mech you want the best and the latest Pay up. CW for this reason is not likely to be what many of the old hands envisioned. Faction conflict like the EA version of the game and Clan invasion like we saw a generation ago in the mech commander planetary leagues. It is just not going to happen as we saw it before it will be new it will be different with new rules and new goals and new players. For some of the old dogs like myself that grew up playing the Mech commander and Mech Warrior games (all of them) and the board game this is just not it. The mechs are the same basic functional design but the play is different and the goals are different.

So you join in a new adventure or move on but it is becoming more and more obvious we can not bring back the past.

[Peiper]

nightsniper, on 22 January 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

So you join in a new adventure or move on but it is becoming more and more obvious we can not bring back the past.

I'm not going to give up on PGI. I wasn't around for the old planetary warfare leagues, but I know that MW4 was borked when it came to game balance. This game is designed around PVP, rather than single mission play. That means, it can serve as a bed for all manner of community warfare successfully with the implementation of private lobbies. Were the old planetary capture leagues player run? Or were they run by for-profit companies? Either way, the expertise exists out there among the player base that if PGI's CW is lacking, with something like a 'thin client,' we'll be able to run our own tournaments and leagues. That being said, there are planetary capture/galactic warfare models out there already that PGI should have access to that they can base their CW on. All the resources ALREADY EXIST among the playerbase of their game if PGI would swallow their pride and just ask for help.

If PGI puts out a crappy community warfare/planetary capture model, it will be shame on them, because they've known for years that the models already exist and are ready for an interface with their game ideal for a game like ours. As they game evolves, we can have stock leagues, Clan vs. Inner Sphere stock matches with weight/battle value/numbers restrictions. We can do it all, if only PGI would listen to and work with the talent that already exists among us. If they don't do that, PGI is shooting themselves in the foot.

[Strum Wealh]

CyclonerM, on 22 January 2014 - 06:40 AM, said:

On a side note, has anyone ever read about these "clammers"?

Well, Critter-TEK had the Clans' equivalent as "the Crans", named after "a unit of uncleaned herring".

They may not be clams, but there is something fishy about them, yes?

[nightsniper]

Peiper, on 22 January 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

I'm not going to give up on PGI.

I did not suggest giving up. What I was saying is the old models we were use to are not likely to be repeated, here in a new game that has different goals in mind. The past were not F2P, micro transaction run by boutique game designers. They were to be a game for general sale, that was building a model based on #'s of players in MMO style play. Hoping to build brand and genre allegiance. Times have changed economically the old model is dead no one group has or is willing to put up the cash to do a stand alone for $60 a copy.

PGI is keeping it going by making decisions that keep them and development alive. They have gone light years past the most previous attempts. But CW is not a priority read Russ's comments in the command chair thread. Resources are spread thin. Who knows how far they can even go with the community based play on the license agreements or other legal issues. This is simply the 2014 reality check, on the world of business.

I myself would have rather seen a reworked 3025 for example but that may not have been possible. So again I repeat they will put forth something, I feel certain, looking at what we have seen so far, the business model of selling mechs as the funding source, that we will not see the CW of the past but some hybrid that will be new. Lets just hope it pleases the base and they are all around when it launches, we still have 9 months before anything is likely to happen. In the mean time power up your mech and go kick some tin.

Edited by nightsniper, 22 January 2014 - 02:21 PM.