62 replies to this topic

[Owl Cutter]

Double Heatsinks are a huge gripe for me because they so dramatically change what you can get for so many tons of 'mech but without really adding what feels like much variety, yet oddly Endo-Steel and Ferro-Fibre don't bug me nearly so much. I think a lot of it is that I feel that battlemechs could use some help carrying guns and rockets, which are traditionally weapons that usually make more sense on non-battlemech assets, since the 'mechs should be deploying mostly beam weapons with the way the rules work. As such, CASE is just a sort of thing we needed, so Doubles rub me the wrong way by working against that influence.

All the rest of the Star League "foundtech" is pretty nice, IMO, since the ER and Pulse weapons don't render standard versions obsolete (IMO the standard PPC is still better for building a general-purpose head basher, but the ER PPC is a brilliant tool for some focused roles) and the new guns that do exhibit real power creep are actually a good thing IMO: autocannon have long had a problem keeping up with other weapon types, so the new guns are creeping toward parity rather than away from it.

As for the Clan stuff, I guess I can't complain about numeric disparity being needed as a balancing tool if much of the whole point in the first damn place was for the clans to provide a "balanced" game while being dramatically outnumbered. O.o Since pretty much all the exposure I have to clan tech is in the Refusal War MW game rather than the actual tabletop game, I tend to think of clan tech in terms of being used against more clan tech rather than speroid tech...

Rodney28021, on 31 May 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

</p>
So what is a IS PPC in MWO going to fire like within minimum range?  Does the stream spiral or arc for 90 meters and then straigthen out?  Does the computer chime in "Target is in Minimum Range" and does not fire the PPC?  How is the minimum range simulated for IS PPC, or does it not have minimum range?  Or if i remember the reason for IS PPC minimum range was the chance of damage bouncing back to the user.  If you fired a IS PPC at a target at 10meter and hit, the blast would arc back to the user, sorta like chained lightning, causing half damage, disrupting the onboard electronics or shorting out the PPC.  Do you have to hit the Field Inhibitor to get the PPC to fire within 90 meters and risk feedback.

http://www.sarna.net...rojector_Cannon  for PPC

It says "PPCs are equipped with a Field Inhibitor to prevent feedback which could damage the firing unit's electronic systems.^[6] This inhibitor degrades the performance of the weapon at close ranges of less than 90 meters. Particularly daring warriors have been known to disengage the inhibitor and risk damage to their own machine when a target is at close range."

Zyllos suggested just decreasing damage, which is what I'm expecting.  I can't pull up a link and am not really sure I get this impression from this site anyway, but I was under the impression that PPC minimums are represented by decreased damage.  The spiraling idea is pretty neat IMO, though.  I guess if Piranha ever decides to translate the optional rule to disengage the safety mechanism, that could be modeled either directly by trading the damage penalty for the chance of catastrophic destruction or, as I'd prefer, more loosely by instead having it just splash damage back on the user's 'mech: not quite like in MW2 with the short-ranged spherical area of effect, but rather a more reachy cone pointed back at the user.

Post-Script: I think of the different "tech levels" as things to mostly play within, rather than trying to balance games that are asymmetric in that respect, so... yeah. My favourite ends up being the nadir toward the end of the Succession Wars almost entirely because minimum ranges are very common and heat sinks eat up a lot of tonnage, which together encourage bracket fire over boats more strongly than in any other era. I guess I also like how lower overall mobility encourages "shoot and scoot" over "run and gun" as well, for that matter...

Edited by Owl Cutter, 03 June 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Woodstock, on 31 May 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

the thing about the clans that I liked though ...and this really is the ONLY thing about the clans that I like ... is that they were meant to be outnumbered but still HARD.

The problem with the gaming world is ... that effect is often not represented in the gaming community.

So many people want the strongest kit ... soooo they play the clans (not all ...some actually like clan culture?!?!) My worry about MWO is that when the clans arrive they will just be another playable faction and 70% of the player base will switch to the clans ... cos their uber like man!

I approve 100% of the power of clan weapons ... just the IP limits on who uses them should be reflected in the MWO game.

In the table top game this problem of the Clan Mechs being far superior was solved by a point system. So a star of Clan mechs would face a company of Innershere mechs. As the Innershere tech got better the number would go down but the the Clan mechs always faced more IS mechs. This of course would be hard to simulate in a pc game. Only time will tell.

[HorribleGoat]

Zerstorer here said all I had in mind. On pc if/when they bring in the clans one solution might be to go along the tabletop style and clanners will always face more IS players like 8 vs 10 or smthng.

I thought I read somewhere that MWO is going to have all kinds of online campaing things so maybe there lies the way to limit access to certain tech, the more planets the faction controls the more they can have. Mercs and Loners could perhaps have slightly wider access depending where they've been fighting. For a price of course.

That'll be my thoughts for now, hopefully this one won't turn out to be overly paying customer favoring game like most others f2plays. :I That what worries me the most. Tho somewhere the makers need to get their money from.. :/