68 replies to this topic

[I am]

Well at least the new stalker hero isn't pay to win. Its not like it's able to accelerate faster, or turn faster, than the other stalkers. THAT would be truely terrible/pay-2-win-esque.

I mean stalkers are under powered in the first place right?

[Rhent]

Neverfar, on 05 May 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Adorable attempt to shoot down dissent. However, keep in mind, if you're attempting to use Battletech lore to push your pro-boat agenda, it can backfire. None of those vehicles up there were intended to be a full complement of a lance (or star), and were at best over-specialized machines that needed other Mechs or vehicles to pad their bad ranges or lack of versatility. See the problem here?

It's well and good to have 'boats' if it's viable or even preferable that they're not the only game in town. How many MMOs have an "alpha" class that doesn't need the assistance or support of anything other than more of its class? Oh, right, a few tried that and went down in flames, powergaming fanboys mourning the losses and all.

We get it, you have in your mind that somewhere you developed a blindspot to ignore how weapons are used in Battletech. Just looking at the Archer and you see a prime example of a boat. Plus your definition of what is a boat, is probably different from everyone else.

I'm running:
3 LL
2 ML
1 AC/20

Is that a boat? Well gee Tim, it has a ballistic in that heap of energy weapons. Gee, it has no minimum range and is lethal at the 500M and down range. Is it a boat? Depending on what anti-Boat **** you have, it May or May Not be a boat.

A few chicken littles are running around screaming about boats. Pick up a streak cat or a spider and you can fix the boating problem pretty damn easy with JJ's and careful piloting.

[Victor Morson]

Runs With Scissors, on 05 May 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

so ppl have been complaining for awhile that builds (especially stalkers) have been trending to ppc/gauss online. so naturally they create a stalker that can have gauss and a new map that they say is a crazy sniper map. does anyone else think that this is a "go to hell gamers"

They just need to fix the other guns. The 28th will see things change I think.

Dirus Nigh, on 05 May 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Great examples

And of course for the PPC/Gauss/Laser hate...



Shall we go on?

Neverfar, on 05 May 2013 - 10:00 PM, said:

Adorable attempt to shoot down dissent. However, keep in mind, if you're attempting to use Battletech lore to push your pro-boat agenda, it can backfire. None of those vehicles up there were intended to be a full complement of a lance (or star), and were at best over-specialized machines that needed other Mechs or vehicles to pad their bad ranges or lack of versatility. See the problem here?

Slow down Mr. Wannabe Authority.

Many of those vehicles such as LRM and SRM carriers are used in large groups, often with a lance of 'mechs or MBTs protecting them. Nobody drags a single SRM carrier along in their armor group unless they have no choice.

Also are you saying that you'd never encounter a star of Black Hawks, or maybe *gasp* two kinds of boats, just like lances often are in MW:O? Or are you saying, say, that the Clans would never field 2 Black Hawks, a Firemoth laser boat and a couple Warhawk PPC boats? 'cause I sure as hell think that's reasonable.

I won't even go into the customization rules in TT which are nearly a free for all. Nobody should ever hold up TT as a good reason not to boat (crappy, nerf'ed stock 'mechs) nor should they hold it up as a shining example of anti-boating, because there are both stocks that are more boaty than what we see here (See; The Above Devastator) and because if you modify your 'mechs, there's so few limits you're begging for cheese gimmicks.

Thus I'm not using TT to argue either point, I'm saying to stop talking about TT at all on this. It's bad in both ways.

EDIT: If they ever do include a Devastator and make it's most famous variant prime, at least the newbies will have the single best trial 'mech ever out of it.

Edited by Victor Morson, 08 May 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[I am]

Do you know why IGP hates you guys, really? First off recahracterize hate as "mistreat/ignore/fail to consider, etc. etc.)

Then go one step further. They have done it since, oh I dunno, OB started, and yet I have seen forum testimonials of OMG i have 80 mechs, or, I have spent hundreds on this, yada yada.

Basically they completely disregard waht you say, because you keep buying everything they print. You have for months. My policy is never drop a dime on a beta, and its worked great.

So why do they do it? Because they can get away with it, and you keep reproving this..

over

and over

and over again.

[I am]

You dont have to attack everyone, some of us agree with alot of your posting, and it was meant in humor so please relax.

But I do absolutely assert that giving them more money when you dont approve of their practices, absolutely reinforces those practices. No?

[I am]

I thought you said, I may spend more so it improves, but I can see how that could be interpreted as, I hpoe it improves, so I can again spend money.

[Atheus]

Dirus Nigh, on 05 May 2013 - 02:37 PM, said:

Seriously, what the heck do these special snowflake weapons system developers have against just making a bigger missle? 80 LRM's , 60 SRM's... How about a tomahawk cruise missile? One big missile that could blow up a mech in one shot and you could launch it from 2,500x as far away as an LRM. 1983 military technology would blow the heck out of 3050 military tech >.>

Edited by Atheus, 08 May 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Atheus, on 08 May 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

Seriously, what the heck do these special snowflake weapons system developers have against just making a bigger missle? 80 LRM's , 60 SRM's... How about a tomahawk cruise missile? One big missile that could blow up a mech in one shot and you could launch it from 2,500x as far away as an LRM. 1983 military technology would blow the heck out of 3050 military tech >.>

Arrow IV.
There's a catapult that mounts a single one, it's like the missile version of the AC/20.
Of course it has a range of several mapsheets.

[Mr 144]

One Medic Army, on 08 May 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

Arrow IV.
There's a catapult that mounts a single one, it's like the missile version of the AC/20.
Of course it has a range of several mapsheets.

I've said for a long time that's what missiles need....a big single hardpoint option. Too heavy/crit to boat, but something for the mechs that can't boat missiles due to hardpoints. Right now, it's a 2 hardpoint missile buy-in...differing from energy and ballistic. This was previously offset by the excellent damage to weight/crit of the SRM....but now....meh missiles, as hardpoints restrict firepower long before anything else in most cases....again, not true for E&B.

Mr 144

[Atheus]

One Medic Army, on 08 May 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

Arrow IV.
There's a catapult that mounts a single one, it's like the missile version of the AC/20.
Of course it has a range of several mapsheets.

Not big enough! Arrow IV rockets weigh 0.2 tons each. Tomahawks weigh 1.5 tons each. If you've got 400 tons of problem on the battlefield, 2 tomahawks should take care of it pretty easily for one low price of about 3 million USD!

[One Medic Army]

Neverfar, on 08 May 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

With armor ratings doubled, an Arrow IV would be a mean dirty long range system, but not an absolute be-all end-all, especially if it required someone to TAG/Narc a target first.

Even in TT is wasn't a one-hit one-kill weapons system.
Artillery in BT required quite a few hits to take out anything larger than a light mech.
20 dmg, in 5 dmg groupings. It's just like hitting someone with 4 medium lasers, but from multiple mapsheets away and with the ability to hit multiple targets with 1 weapon.

Mr 144, on 08 May 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

I've said for a long time that's what missiles need....a big single hardpoint option. Too heavy/crit to boat, but something for the mechs that can't boat missiles due to hardpoints. Right now, it's a 2 hardpoint missile buy-in...differing from energy and ballistic. This was previously offset by the excellent damage to weight/crit of the SRM....but now....meh missiles, as hardpoints restrict firepower long before anything else in most cases....again, not true for E&B.

Mr 144

The problem with introducing the Arrow IV (which I'd love, and at one point they did plan to do) is that it requires crit-splitting.
Crit-splitting isn't something that's currently planned for, though it'd make many ballistic mechs bad-@ss again with fully articulated arm mount AC/20s.

Fun fact, if we had crit-splitting you could mount 2 AC/20s on the Highlander 733C's arm.
TWO AC/20s.

Edited by One Medic Army, 09 May 2013 - 12:06 AM.

[Atheus]

Neverfar, on 09 May 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Again. Please. Let. Go. Of. Real. Life. Comparisons.

If not, the end point is "why do we even have manned giant robots?" Even if the walking mechanism could be made more sturdy and reliable than old tank treads, why don't we just make them autonymous drones? That'd be so realistic/fun too!

Now you're just talking crazy. PGI has stated plainly their aversion to AI! They either can't, or just won't. Aide from that, yeah, I guess tomahawks would be a bit like an I win button. This game certainly doesn't need any more I win buttons (coughBASECAPcoughcough).

[MustrumRidcully]

Adrian Steel, on 08 May 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:

Gentlemen, please.

There will be no balance.

The meta-game will be changed. You will be conned into buying meta-specific MC related gear to be competitive in the new meta. You will be milked. Then the meta will change again. You will be milked again with new meta-specific gear for MC.

This pattern is not new to MWO.

This pattern is not new to online games.

You're welcome.

I assume incompetence before I assume malevolence.

[Dakkath]

We've cleaned up the thread to remove the off topic responses. Please stay on topic in the future. Thanks.
-Dak

[MaddMaxx]

When did IGP become the Developer of MWO? I hate not getting those memo's.

[Ngamok]

Mr 144, on 05 May 2013 - 10:15 PM, said:

/agreed......however...

my personal best Atlas atm with nerfed missile hardpoint meta...
4xLL+AC/20
Misery does it better.....

Misery is not competing against sniper builds....misery is competing with the few non-sniper competetive assault builds...smoke and mirrors my friends...smoke and mirrors....

This of course means that any missile 'tweak' is put off for a minimum of 4 weeks to boost sales of misery. Once a missile 'tweak' occurs a month from it's release, it won't be a big deal at all....minipulate the meta ftw PGI...kudos to you guys for another smoke and mirrors profitability scheme...the sheep don't see it...congrats

Mr 144

AS7-RS

[Joseph Mallan]

Ngamok, on 09 May 2013 - 06:49 AM, said:

AS7-RS

Oh my goodness! What the heck were you thinking! No where near enough Double Heat Sinks for that heat load!

[Gaan Cathal]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 May 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Oh my goodness! What the heck were you thinking! No where near enough Double Heat Sinks for that heat load!

Obvious troll build. Has an AMS.

[Ph30nix]

Echo6, on 05 May 2013 - 01:33 PM, said:

Boating destroys the BT atmosphere. Rage is always appropriate.

Player QQ is what destroys the BT atmosphere.

we need more playstyles that are viable and have viable counters which in current meta means buffing a few things missles specificly. it doesnt call for nerfing anything into the ground.

[Ngamok]

Joseph Mallan, on 09 May 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

Oh my goodness! What the heck were you thinking! No where near enough Double Heat Sinks for that heat load!

Heh, same thing you can put in a Misery reliably. Just saying it can be done.

Gaan Cathal, on 09 May 2013 - 07:12 AM, said:

Obvious troll build. Has an AMS.

I tend to put AMS in regardless, it helps out some.