88 replies to this topic

[Terradoss]

KinLuu, on 04 April 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

No, you are a flip-flop because you change your point of view regarding canon as you see fit. As long as it suits your personal agenda. The fact that you have a problem with the K2 has nothing to do with it.

Something of a separate issue and I'm not referring to the Jager or K2 specifically here, but a game has to be willing to sacrifice adherence to realism and/or lore for the sake of balanced game mechanics.

If a particular mech has an unreasonable in game advantage over others because that's how it appears in lore......then I'm sorry, but you alter the mech to align better with your balance paradigm (or you alter whatever it is that causes mechs to achieve said advantage).

Lore and realism form the basis for a game's theme and feel and should be adhered to insofar as it is possible whilst maintaining and preserving the integrity of game balance. If this means you are required to alter some of the fundamentals of the theme in question in order to have them better fit, then unfortunately, so be it.

[Corwin Vickers]

There are a couple of whines here.

"It doesn't fit the universe" "It doesn't follow the rules" "They are too powerful"

There are lots of mechs that carry two large ballistic weapons. Just because there is a paragraph about a 35 ton mech carrying a gauss that mentions recoil dampeners doesn't really have any bearing on anything. As you have said, it's fluff.

It is well within the rules of Battletech and MWO. Isn't it pretty stupid to play a game that allows customization of mechs and then start complaining that things are customized? We aren't playing stock configs here. Customization was allowed in the TT as well and it is all over the "IP." Almost any single character written about in the novels and short stories drives a custom mech.

The K2 itself is a conversion of a LRM based mech into a direct fire energy weapon based mech.

Putting AC20s in a Catapult is legal. They even added art for it in this game.

To complain about piddly little crap like this is just assinine. To use it as justification for removing a build that you don't like boggles the mind. "It doesn't look right so ban it."


Then Aedan Dosiere tells this story about a bunch of idiots that walked into an ambush one at a time at close range with 4 AC20s as some kind of proof of your assertion that they are over powered and "ruining a good portion of this game."

I wasn't trolling, those players were nubs. Anyone who gets headshot got headshot because they weren't moving. If you get all your armor stripped off in 1 shot why the hell are you going to turn back on those guys. Why did you walk at the 2 AC20 cats in the first place? Why did they funnel in one at a time. Why did the second two guys walk in to be blasted? Why didn't anyone shoot the two GIGANTIC cockpits on the stationary Cats?


This is just another round of nerf X because I am too stupid to adapt. Then you have the nerve to call yourself a veteran and tell me how you're going to kick my *** in game? I have no idea who you are except for this crying thread. You should just shorten your name to "Prat."

And no, I don't run AC20s on my cats or any mech currently.

[Roadbeer]

Didn't read it all, OP has some good points.
Having said that.

If you agree that the armor is doubled, wouldn't a single AC 20 have had the same effect? The answer is yes.

So without doubling the armor, the stock variant of the K2 would have the same damage output as a single AC/20, more actually, because you have the dual MLAS on it, increasing your Alpha at optimal range to 30.

If you take the stock K2, remove the MLAS and MG, putting on DHS and Endo, you can now make it a 4 PPC K2, doing the same damage as the Boomcat. Sure it's not as heat efficient but now you're trading heat management for ammo management. So, you have a "true" K2, as designed, modified to compensate for the doubling of armor

I don't see the issue.

Edited by Roadbeer, 05 April 2013 - 05:09 AM.

[Appogee]

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

It concerns me though that so many bugs have persisted for so long, and a few new ones were introduced with the latest patch.

Me too. We need 'fundamental' bug fixes more than we need pink mechs with loudspeakers.

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

(Missiles) are now under-powered.

LRMs feel about right, and low enough to discourage LRM campers. SRMs feel maybe slightly under powered, but not much.

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Right now the LBX and the AC10 are just horrible.

100% agree. I wasted all my CBills on outfilling a Cataphract with AC10s, only to find that the lag on firing makes them unplayable. I can only use lasers at this point, which puts me at a significant disadvantage vs the 2 x AC20 brawlers I run into.

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Energy weapons... do feel under powered compared to ballistics but they require no ammo or travel time so I can let it go.

Yes, except that we also have heat to manage, vs the ballistics. But if the laggy ballistics could be fixed, I'd at least have two options.

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

This may be called a beta, but it really isn't. So that excuses nothing in my book. The minute you take my money for a product you are accountable to me for delivering on that product.

I wrote a thread about this last night. It got 34 likes and counting, but also attracted frothing hate, too... often from people who wanted to get caught up in what the definition of a Beta is.

But key issue is that ''it's a beta'' is being used as an excuse for the ongoing lack of resolution of bugs. The real issue is the unresolved bugs.

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

I'd appreciate any constructive feedback you guys have on any of these points.

I hope my responses have done your thread justice in this regard.

[Frederik Focht]

Corwin Vickers, on 05 April 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

There are a couple of whines here. "It doesn't fit the universe" "It doesn't follow the rules" "They are too powerful" There are lots of mechs that carry two large ballistic weapons. Just because there is a paragraph about a 35 ton mech carrying a gauss that mentions recoil dampeners doesn't really have any bearing on anything. As you have said, it's fluff. It is well within the rules of Battletech and MWO. Isn't it pretty stupid to play a game that allows customization of mechs and then start complaining that things are customized? We aren't playing stock configs here. Customization was allowed in the TT as well and it is all over the "IP." Almost any single character written about in the novels and short stories drives a custom mech. The K2 itself is a conversion of a LRM based mech into a direct fire energy weapon based mech. Putting AC20s in a Catapult is legal. They even added art for it in this game. To complain about piddly little crap like this is just assinine. To use it as justification for removing a build that you don't like boggles the mind. "It doesn't look right so ban it." Then Aedan Dosiere tells this story about a bunch of idiots that walked into an ambush one at a time at close range with 4 AC20s as some kind of proof of your assertion that they are over powered and "ruining a good portion of this game." I wasn't trolling, those players were nubs. Anyone who gets headshot got headshot because they weren't moving. If you get all your armor stripped off in 1 shot why the hell are you going to turn back on those guys. Why did you walk at the 2 AC20 cats in the first place? Why did they funnel in one at a time. Why did the second two guys walk in to be blasted? Why didn't anyone shoot the two GIGANTIC cockpits on the stationary Cats? This is just another round of nerf X because I am too stupid to adapt. Then you have the nerve to call yourself a veteran and tell me how you're going to kick my *** in game? I have no idea who you are except for this crying thread. You should just shorten your name to "Prat." And no, I don't run AC20s on my cats or any mech currently.

To be fair, most mechs mounting two large ballistic weapons either tend to be assaults or those large ballistic weapons are gauss rifles. I hardly recall any heavies mounting two AC20s, mostly two gauss rifles and that is pretty rare.

I agree that running into 4 AC/20s is pretty dumb but in maps which encourage or enforce brawling thats gonna happen more often than not, especially with fast Jagers running with an ecm mech flanking your ***. But I don't encourage removing the builds, just that it might need a little bit more of a drawback to balance it out. Also I find it hilarious that only heavies can run two AC20s in this game but assaults can't.

[Corwin Vickers]

Well the Hunchback IIC is a medium. Two Ultra AC20s.

The Omega mounts 3 Gauss and 2 LB10X

[Ganja Ninja]

That was a well thought out and articulated post. I only wish I had but more than 1 "like" to give...

I pretty much agree with everything except your point about AC40 Cats ruining the game (for the same reason that the second poster mentioned). I should disclose that I'm a Cat pilot and the AC40 K2 is currently my favorite build, but I think it will balance out a bit more once the LRM and SRMs are brought back up to where they should be as they're effective counters.

In regards to PGI, the core of this game is very solid. No game is going to be perfect and the fact that some bugs have survived this long is concerning, but the fact remains that if you boil this game down to its simplest components, you've still got a very solid, very fun game on your hands (mechs feel right, weapons feel right (for the most part), etc.). The maps and game modes are still basic, but I'm having fun each and every match. As long as they can steadily improve upon this foundation, we'll have a good product in the end.

Back in my day, we used to play the same maps over and over and over again and we liked it! Git off my virtual lawn!

[Frederik Focht]

Corwin Vickers, on 05 April 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Well the Hunchback IIC is a medium. Two Ultra AC20s.

The Omega mounts 3 Gauss and 2 LB10X

We already mentioned the hunchback IIC bro, remember that I backed you up on that example.

The Omega is 150 tons =X.

I would love to see the thunder hawk in game though. 3 Gauss rifles, 4 MLs 100 tons. Ka-Blam!

But as I said, most heavies don't mount two AC/20s in game. Even in the lore and stories, you hardly see heavies with that kind of firepower, mostly assaults, and even then its gauss rifles and not AC20s. That said, I am only disagreeing with your use of lore.

I find the double AC/20 build to be reasonable in most maps, just not the ones which force you to get up in their face and anyone stupid enough to walk an assault mech into a pair of K2 AC20 Cats is asking for an ***-whooping anyways (learn or die I suppose and there is a first time for everything). If we nerfed the Jager's speed, then it would be reduced to a K2 and I find that very reasonable indeed. Sacrifice speed and range for heavy firepower, a very fair trade off indeed. If we get larger maps, these builds become less viable too, but I hope we only get larger maps when we implement 12v12

[Sorter]

I agree with everything OP wrote here (and im also sitting on 1200+ games).

/signed

[Viper69]

KinLuu, on 05 April 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

The dual UAC20 Hunchback IIC is a terror. I hope it never makes it into MWO.

The only saving grace to fighting it is its relatively thinly armored for a hunchback if I remember correctly and it is fairly slow. I think it has jump jets though or am I thinking of something else? I was thinking its TT movement was something like 3-5-3

[Kill Dozer]

IMHO three things should be the top priorities for PGI at this point, not necessarily in this order:
1) Game stability and performance: if the patch frequency needs to be reduced to get a quality product then so be it, don't deliver a patch that causes CTD's or reduces frame rates dramatically. It would be better to leave the game in a stable state than release new code with known issues.

2) Match making: ELO, grouping restrictions, tonnage matching are all terrible. ELO isn't the only answer to evening out players in a game, tonnage matching plays a big part in that and right now the match making is pretty sad. The last statement from PGI was harping on "12v12 being available soon!!!11eveven!1!" which is absolutely worthless without an improvement in match/round creation. New players are getting slaughtered, veteran players are dissapointed in having to match up with rookies on both sides, every. single. match.

3) Content, including pay content: Additional game modes are needed (escort, capture, defend, team death match etc.) Stop trying to take things that are a natural part of the game and make money off of them, like coolant flush, it feels cheap and dirty, like your getting ripped off for something. People will gladly pay real money for fluff items, paint, camo schemes, unit tags, cockpit items, mechs, using MC to level up faster etc. stick with that.

My advice: Take the best of the last 25 years of Mechwarrior games and use that as a base, fix the parts that need fixing and/or tweak them for the F2P model. Take the best of successful F2P games and use that as a basis for your business model. This isn't new material and the wtf per minute rate should be low. People want to play Mechwarrior with updated graphics, they don't want a completely new game that appears to be Mechwarrior (because of the mechs obviously) but really isn't.

As for me, I installed the last patch and the game went CTD the first three times I tried to start it, when it finally loaded the mechlab was black. I just shut it down and haven't been back, I'm not planning on trying again until after some stability and match making fixes are delivered.

[MustrumRidcully]

Prathios, on 05 April 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

Yes, it certainly had the firepower! But if you had read your own link, or even the summary Aedan posted earlier, you would see it was A) Using an XL engine, and lightly armored.

"The Hunchback IIC is a Clan-tech refit of the venerable Hunchback. Its meager six tons of armor, coupled with paltry ammunition and lack of long-range weapons, led Inner Sphere observers to conclude that this 'Mech was a last-ditch effort for failed warriors to die with glory. In truth, the assignment of a Hunchback IIC was essentially a death sentence. Warriors given this machine were not expected to survive their next battle."

First two sentences of the link you posted. You rather defeated your own argument there. Current Jagers and Cats can use regular engines with maxed armor to achieve their damage output. An IIC would probably die from a single round of IS AC20 to his center torso. I'll grant you that if it gets to shoot anything... ouch.

Exactly, the Hunchback IIC has a lot of sacrifices to make to carry 2 (U)AC/20. THe Jagermech and the Catapult are 15 tons heavier, so is it really a surprise they can pull it off without being so weak? I mean, for what else do we build heavier mechs?

Hey, and another 35 tons later, we get mechs like the King Crab, that fit 2 AC/20, lots of armour, an LRM20 and a Large Laser, without tricks like XL Engines or Endo-Steel.
Seems to scale reasonable well to me.

[Sadistic Savior]

Prathios, on 04 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

The AC/20 Jager was my goto mech until I bought the Highlander a few days ago. I totally disagree it is overpowered at all.

Yes, you can one-shot with cockpit hits. But that comes at a price...either butt-slow movement or paper thin armor. Which is a real problem with your range is limited to 8 feet in front of you.

"OMG two AC/20s is totally unrealistic!" - It is as realistic as an AC/20 hunchback. It has 15 tons on the hunchback too...yes it makes sense IMO, both from a "realism" view and a gameplay view. I say this having been on both sides...I do not have a huge problem taking out AC/20 Jagermechs and I have felt their drawbacks firsthand myself.

I have even less of an issue with AC/20 Catapults, and for the same reasons. Limiting either to only one AC/20 is ridiculous. The game already forces you to compromise if you want them, which is as it should be.

[Prathios]

Kill Dozer, on 05 April 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

IMHO three things should be the top priorities for PGI at this point, not necessarily in this order:
1) Game stability and performance: if the patch frequency needs to be reduced to get a quality product then so be it, don't deliver a patch that causes CTD's or reduces frame rates dramatically. It would be better to leave the game in a stable state than release new code with known issues.

2) Match making: ELO, grouping restrictions, tonnage matching are all terrible. ELO isn't the only answer to evening out players in a game, tonnage matching plays a big part in that and right now the match making is pretty sad. The last statement from PGI was harping on "12v12 being available soon!!!11eveven!1!" which is absolutely worthless without an improvement in match/round creation. New players are getting slaughtered, veteran players are dissapointed in having to match up with rookies on both sides, every. single. match.

3) Content, including pay content: Additional game modes are needed (escort, capture, defend, team death match etc.) Stop trying to take things that are a natural part of the game and make money off of them, like coolant flush, it feels cheap and dirty, like your getting ripped off for something. People will gladly pay real money for fluff items, paint, camo schemes, unit tags, cockpit items, mechs, using MC to level up faster etc. stick with that.

My advice: Take the best of the last 25 years of Mechwarrior games and use that as a base, fix the parts that need fixing and/or tweak them for the F2P model. Take the best of successful F2P games and use that as a basis for your business model. This isn't new material and the wtf per minute rate should be low. People want to play Mechwarrior with updated graphics, they don't want a completely new game that appears to be Mechwarrior (because of the mechs obviously) but really isn't.

As for me, I installed the last patch and the game went CTD the first three times I tried to start it, when it finally loaded the mechlab was black. I just shut it down and haven't been back, I'm not planning on trying again until after some stability and match making fixes are delivered.

Actually this is something I forgot to mention. In the new content section I really should have stated my desire for additional game modes. For starters, I love maps like Alpine and Tourmaline because they feel like the Mechwarrior maps of old. I miss getting sensor readings thousands of meters out on a raven and then having to decide the best way to engage. Current games boil down to, go high or go low. I mean there is no serious strategy involved on any maps save the two mentioned. What would really spice up the game for me, is an Unreal Tournament style assault map where one team defends objects while the other team tries to take them and then swap sides. Akin to the base assault mode some people have mentioned wanting. The maps repetition doesn't bother me, but the mode repetition does. So thank you for reminding me of that.

[Pihoqahiak]

Prathios, on 05 April 2013 - 03:47 AM, said:

I had forgotten that they had to design a recoil dampener on the Hollander, which was a mech designed around a Gauss rifle which has less recoil than an AC20. Granted it is 30 tons less, but it is only compensating for 1 of them. It would be hard to believe that a Jager could keep from falling over backwards when it's weapons are mounted above its head.

Not that is matters a whole lot, but Gauss Rifles would have far more recoil than an AC/20 if they were real. Gauss Rifles accelerate a round to around 4 times the speed of what a cannon would fire a projectile. It doesn't matter whether the projectile is accelerated from magnetic coils or from explosive propellant, the force of recoil is strictly a factor of weight of the projectile and the acceleration applied to it during weapon fire.

[Vermaxx]

Ok, so there are my stats, since we're posting stats to validate our positions. I hope I'm veteran enough for this thread.

My responses:

Bugs are a HUGE issue. Probably the biggest. And yet we continue with monetization and new content (which introduces more bugs, funny how content works), and the core game mode isn't even in yet. Supposedly this isn't even the end UI!

LRM seem underpowered, but I use them rarely. I will defer to you. SRM/SSRM are still killing people for me, and how! Not sure if they're killing people SLOWER, but frankly if they were unfairly benefitting from MASSIVE damage bonuses due to borked splash, I can live with a properly working system, because the previous numbers were a bug and I cannot expect PGI to rebalance the game around formerly bugged performance.

Ballistics are all effed up. LB is useless, and the AC10 needs some kind of serious buff (probably ROF) to make it worthwhile. Machine gun isn't functional. The CRIT SYSTEM PGI designed is insane, worthless, and unnecessarily complicated. Get rid of it, go back to crit rolls, redo the MG as a cooldown weapon, and suddenly both it and LB pellets are worthwhile.

Here is the first disagreement - cannons can't fit in a Catapult. Yes, they can - evidenced by the fact that PGI remodeled the mech to swap 'machine gun ports' for HORKING BIG CANNONS. IF you are willing to completely strip a mech, lower armor on components, waive your right to an XL engine, and generally be gimped in all manner of ways, yes...you can carry two AC20. You can do that in your torso, or in stub-arms like the K2 has or the Jager. There are drawbacks, as I said. However , a 65 ton mech has the critslots and the weight to carry two big cannons.

Mechs that 'had to lock arms' as you refer to were using the tabletop rule that let you take something big, like an AC20, and split the installation between an arm and the torso. This game doesn't allow that. If it did, EVERY Centurion could be a YLW. There is probably no way to do that in this game engine. It saddens me, because it means the King Crab cannot be, but I will waive one of my fave mechs in the interest of the game being easier to finish.

Besides, we can now lock arms. All they'd have to do is make that non-optional on some mechs.

Heat management is a touchy subject. I think they need to stop the lie that "true DHS will break the game" since you can get damned close NOW. True, they make you elite out three mechs to do it, and you need a 250 engine, but you CAN do it. THE PROBLEM with heat management is the breaking point. A system that is too effective makes energy builds trivial, which destroys the game (boating is already hated, if boating was also THE BEST WAY TO PLAY, the game would implode). There is room for improvement in the heat system, and I won't refuse softer heat...but I think the system is fine. If they start throwing us cooling system bones, things come apart fast.

Clan tech/play/bacon is too up in the air right now to worry about. Yes, in THIS system Clan weapons will be SEVERELY heat forked. They might also need to be with their range, weight, and damage bonuses. Fortunately, PGI has been so vague on CW and Clans that I'm not worried in the slightest - because I assume they're just never coming in my lifetime.

Now, here is another area where we disagree. Salvo firing SHOULD NOT ADD MAGIC HEAT. If it did, people would just chain fire, and take the same level of guns. All it would do is spread damage a little. It isn't a fix because salvo firing isn't a problem. DPS versus Burst has been a tradeoff in every major game for years. Nothing says MWO must be built in DPS. A burst player is at an extreme disadvantage if they miss a lot, while a DPS player can take them apart. I can see where you got this, if you are coming from 'matches are too short.' I don't think they are, because I don't want 30 minute matches. Maybe CW will change that, but I doubt it.

Mechlab HAS internal balances - crit slots and mech tonnage. No, it is not realistic to say that the Raven has the same internal area in an arm as a Stalker...or is it? Every mech can 'strap on' as many things as those crit slots will allow, and then the armor is spread over it. Clearly, the smaller weapons are more effective because the target is smaller, but that doesn't mean the weapons HAVE to be smaller. It may not have the same internal DIMENSIONS...to start...but it can if you really want to attach a GodCannon to the left side of your birdmech.

Let's say they redo the model for the Raven just like the Tusker Guns on the K2 now. Then it has a big horking cannon on one side when someone installs an AC20 or gauss. Then what we have is a mech that weighs 35 tons, uses the available critslots, and has a hitbox more in line with what it is carrying. Nothing in that formula is unrealistic. Frankly they need to do this for both gearheads like me, and for balance. I WANT to see models change with what is in them, because it is friggin cool. Before they did this, I assumed it was impossible and told people to deal with it. The K2 changes (the FIRST ones, with the PPC tubes) showed us that is not true, so the models need to all have some work redone to reflect 'major' changes. No, I don't mean changing missile tubes (which wouldn't change anyway), but small ports should get bigger with bigger guns. Should big ports get smaller? No, that is the drawback to swapping a PPC for multiple medium lasers - you still have a big target on the outside of the mech. Hence, the K2 ears. They get shorter barrels, but never get 'smaller.' Even if all they have in them are small lasers.

You can't use "logic" as a basis for a game based on Battletech. Weapons go where/how they go because. Period. "Logic" is not a reason why that CANNOT. It didn't even matter in games like Chrome HOUNDs, all that mattered was the max weight of the HOUND. As such, people ran around with small mechs that had artillery pieces strapped to their heads. Same thing here, although we need more model variation for these off-the-wall builds.

Lastly, your comment about defending cheese builds. Objective players do not call any build "cheese." You're asking us to debate in a mature manner, but you use strongly opinion based phrases like that. I don't think any mech build is "cheese," because I have ZERO RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PLAYER HOW TO EQUIP THEIR MECH. If it fits in the hardpoints/critslots/weight, it's fair game. I have to deal with what people come up with.

The only thing I have a problem with right now is the combination of light mech speed with SSRM and ECM. They've already taken steps to deal with that by rolling back lasers, and making Raven legs easier to hit. Even still, I can't call it "cheese" because it is perfectly valid by the rules this game imposes. I don't like running into it, and I STILL have trouble shooting legs, but I deal.

[F lan Ker]

S!

While I agree with the argument "if game allows it then full green to go" I would still reconsider some things. I give an example for some food for thought. Let's take the alltime favorite AC/20, a HUGE gun with good short range damage. You can fit it on several Mechs and only one of them, YLW, has it in the arm with limitations due the sheer size of the gun.

OK, to the point. Now let's look at the physical size of that said gun. Hunchback has a hunch where it fits, Atlas has big chassis where it fits, arm of YLW is relatively big, Jagermech has space in it's arms etc. Now people stuff that gun under the cockpit of a Catapult K-2 or a small Mech. How I see the problem is that people only look at slots, you got them just fit them.

So let me ask this..How on earth can you fit a gun sized bigger than a Raven's head or over half of Cicada's torso under the cockpit of a Catapult without the internals getting totally messed up? The guns just could not go in there without portruding outside the Mech like a strap-on thus easily destroyed. The gun would go perfectly to the "ears" as there is room for it.

So instead of only looking at the slots also some kind of physical limitation could be in place for weaponry thus making it more of a challenge to fit your Mech, but you still could do it just fine within the limits. I am all for building them and I know this is a scifi game, but c'mon some realism could be added. At the moment we have slots that miraculously wander around the Mech even the physical appearance and measurements of the Mech and their equipment do not change.

TL;DR Size of weapon could matter where and on which Mech you can put it.

[Helican]

Vermaxx, on 06 April 2013 - 08:39 PM, said:

Ok, so there are my stats, since we're posting stats to validate our positions. I hope I'm veteran enough for this thread.

My responses:

Bugs are a HUGE issue. Probably the biggest. And yet we continue with monetization and new content (which introduces more bugs, funny how content works), and the core game mode isn't even in yet. Supposedly this isn't even the end UI!

LRM seem underpowered, but I use them rarely. I will defer to you. SRM/SSRM are still killing people for me, and how! Not sure if they're killing people SLOWER, but frankly if they were unfairly benefitting from MASSIVE damage bonuses due to borked splash, I can live with a properly working system, because the previous numbers were a bug and I cannot expect PGI to rebalance the game around formerly bugged performance.

Ballistics are all effed up. LB is useless, and the AC10 needs some kind of serious buff (probably ROF) to make it worthwhile. Machine gun isn't functional. The CRIT SYSTEM PGI designed is insane, worthless, and unnecessarily complicated. Get rid of it, go back to crit rolls, redo the MG as a cooldown weapon, and suddenly both it and LB pellets are worthwhile.

Here is the first disagreement - cannons can't fit in a Catapult. Yes, they can - evidenced by the fact that PGI remodeled the mech to swap 'machine gun ports' for HORKING BIG CANNONS. IF you are willing to completely strip a mech, lower armor on components, waive your right to an XL engine, and generally be gimped in all manner of ways, yes...you can carry two AC20. You can do that in your torso, or in stub-arms like the K2 has or the Jager. There are drawbacks, as I said. However , a 65 ton mech has the critslots and the weight to carry two big cannons.

Mechs that 'had to lock arms' as you refer to were using the tabletop rule that let you take something big, like an AC20, and split the installation between an arm and the torso. This game doesn't allow that. If it did, EVERY Centurion could be a YLW. There is probably no way to do that in this game engine. It saddens me, because it means the King Crab cannot be, but I will waive one of my fave mechs in the interest of the game being easier to finish.

Besides, we can now lock arms. All they'd have to do is make that non-optional on some mechs.

Heat management is a touchy subject. I think they need to stop the lie that "true DHS will break the game" since you can get damned close NOW. True, they make you elite out three mechs to do it, and you need a 250 engine, but you CAN do it. THE PROBLEM with heat management is the breaking point. A system that is too effective makes energy builds trivial, which destroys the game (boating is already hated, if boating was also THE BEST WAY TO PLAY, the game would implode). There is room for improvement in the heat system, and I won't refuse softer heat...but I think the system is fine. If they start throwing us cooling system bones, things come apart fast.

Clan tech/play/bacon is too up in the air right now to worry about. Yes, in THIS system Clan weapons will be SEVERELY heat forked. They might also need to be with their range, weight, and damage bonuses. Fortunately, PGI has been so vague on CW and Clans that I'm not worried in the slightest - because I assume they're just never coming in my lifetime.

Now, here is another area where we disagree. Salvo firing SHOULD NOT ADD MAGIC HEAT. If it did, people would just chain fire, and take the same level of guns. All it would do is spread damage a little. It isn't a fix because salvo firing isn't a problem. DPS versus Burst has been a tradeoff in every major game for years. Nothing says MWO must be built in DPS. A burst player is at an extreme disadvantage if they miss a lot, while a DPS player can take them apart. I can see where you got this, if you are coming from 'matches are too short.' I don't think they are, because I don't want 30 minute matches. Maybe CW will change that, but I doubt it.

Mechlab HAS internal balances - crit slots and mech tonnage. No, it is not realistic to say that the Raven has the same internal area in an arm as a Stalker...or is it? Every mech can 'strap on' as many things as those crit slots will allow, and then the armor is spread over it. Clearly, the smaller weapons are more effective because the target is smaller, but that doesn't mean the weapons HAVE to be smaller. It may not have the same internal DIMENSIONS...to start...but it can if you really want to attach a GodCannon to the left side of your birdmech.

Let's say they redo the model for the Raven just like the Tusker Guns on the K2 now. Then it has a big horking cannon on one side when someone installs an AC20 or gauss. Then what we have is a mech that weighs 35 tons, uses the available critslots, and has a hitbox more in line with what it is carrying. Nothing in that formula is unrealistic. Frankly they need to do this for both gearheads like me, and for balance. I WANT to see models change with what is in them, because it is friggin cool. Before they did this, I assumed it was impossible and told people to deal with it. The K2 changes (the FIRST ones, with the PPC tubes) showed us that is not true, so the models need to all have some work redone to reflect 'major' changes. No, I don't mean changing missile tubes (which wouldn't change anyway), but small ports should get bigger with bigger guns. Should big ports get smaller? No, that is the drawback to swapping a PPC for multiple medium lasers - you still have a big target on the outside of the mech. Hence, the K2 ears. They get shorter barrels, but never get 'smaller.' Even if all they have in them are small lasers.

You can't use "logic" as a basis for a game based on Battletech. Weapons go where/how they go because. Period. "Logic" is not a reason why that CANNOT. It didn't even matter in games like Chrome HOUNDs, all that mattered was the max weight of the HOUND. As such, people ran around with small mechs that had artillery pieces strapped to their heads. Same thing here, although we need more model variation for these off-the-wall builds.

Lastly, your comment about defending cheese builds. Objective players do not call any build "cheese." You're asking us to debate in a mature manner, but you use strongly opinion based phrases like that. I don't think any mech build is "cheese," because I have ZERO RIGHT TO TELL ANOTHER PLAYER HOW TO EQUIP THEIR MECH. If it fits in the hardpoints/critslots/weight, it's fair game. I have to deal with what people come up with.

The only thing I have a problem with right now is the combination of light mech speed with SSRM and ECM. They've already taken steps to deal with that by rolling back lasers, and making Raven legs easier to hit. Even still, I can't call it "cheese" because it is perfectly valid by the rules this game imposes. I don't like running into it, and I STILL have trouble shooting legs, but I deal.

Sorry, but that is completely wrong. You or I have EVERY right to call something "cheese". Just because its allowed in the current mechanics doesn't make it "gospel". You are correct in saying that it is allowed. The part you seem to forget is that things change. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, well, you get the idea. And we have every right, almost to the point of responsibility, to point out when something isn't working as it should. Granted, most people do this in a less than proper manner, but it still needs to be done.

[Prathios]

As Helican pointed out, I believe I have every right to call something cheese when I see game mechanics being abused. I think any build that can destroy 100 tons of mech in .25 seconds is cheesy. I don't believe the game was made to allow that. I think a good player should be allowed to **** pit a mech if they try hard enough with repeated weapon hits. (Granted very few weapon hits.) But 1, should never be enough. I also think that in the current state of the game, these builds are even worse than usual with Splat Cats and Missile boats being so much less lethal. However I've never seen precedent in Battletech for a Jager to be able to out brawl an Atlas and yet that's where we are now. This throws the game balance pretty hard sideways. For instance, if they finally got drop weight to be fairly equal on both sides, the side that has more dual AC20 builds in its heavy slots has a serious advantage because it counters the enemies assaults so hard. Splat Cat's do almost twice as much damage, and I've never had a problem with them. Yeah, they suck to fight, but they never felt nearly as cheap and have nice big pods to blow up. Some limitation or balancing factor has to be introduced if these builds are to stay in the game.

BTW Vermaxx, I enjoyed reading your post. Regardless of our disagreements I think you did a good job with your response and your statements encourage thoughtful debate rather than 1 shot rebuttals. I think your 1300 games entitle you to calling yourself a Vet!

[N0MAD]

OP thank you for a good post, I agree with you on 95% of the content in your post, I disagree on the Content part I don't think 2 new maps in over 8 months as being enough ( I don't consider maps with a night version as new maps). My credentials? I will say many people in the forums and game have known me since MW2, have played this title since close Beta and apart from the last month or so played 2to4 hours a day 1200+ games? I think I have far exceeded that number but..So can I call myself a Vet? I will outright say that Twin AC20/6SRM/4+PPC mechs are Cheese and expect users of these mechs to argue the point, in the same way a Steroid using Athlete would. As this post has brought up and countered most points in your post I will bring up one point I think hasn't been. Omni Slots, as I understand this, an Omni slot is a space of a certain size that will equip weapons of the same type but will accept different versions of that weapon that will fit into that given space, eg, a 4 crit slot will fit a single 4 crit weapon, 2x2crit weapons or 4x1 crit weapons assuming the mech has the tonnage available for said weapons, is that how it fundamentally works? If this is the case then the current system is just bogus, wasn't one advantage of Clan mechs their Omni slots?. Why can a current IS mech fits an AC20 into a MG slot as an example, makes no sense and makes the idea of the Clan Omni slot advantage a joke. Oh and BTW I think personally that say a Comando has the same amount of crit slots as an Atlas is totally hilarious but....oh well.