110 replies to this topic

[Fate 6]

The second the OP said I couldn't put 3xSRM6 in my CN9-A I thought this whole thing was stupid. Also, this might as well be like saying "screw you Hunchback customization, only stock weapons for you". Basically, this severely limits customization of mechs with small weapons as stock, but allows mechs with large weapons to take what they want. So, Awesomes can now boat whatever the hell energy weapons they want (which I'm not opposed to) but medium mechs HAVE to take medium lasers (with the sole exception of the BJ-3). Seems a bit like a double standard.

EDIT: I forgot to mention how this system also takes a giant dump on every single Dragon variant.

Edited by Fate 6, 11 June 2013 - 07:46 AM.

[mania3c]

Sug, on 11 June 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Can you customize your MTG cards?  Or your Monopoly pieces?  Or a deck of standard playing cards?   TF/TF2 existed for years before you could change your loadout.

If the devs didn't have to waste a year balancing things to prevent cheesey custom builds (a huge effort that will be completely and utterly wasted when Clan tech is introduced) we might have more mechs/maps and CW by now.  You know an actual game...

because stock builds are so balanced...yea..right!

Edited by mania3c, 11 June 2013 - 07:44 AM.

[Acid Phase]

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Funny things is..that you think hardpoint size system would fix balance..

I don't believe it's the be it end all solution, but it's a start. It needs to go more in depth. Such as:

Acid Phase, on 06 June 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

I for one believe they have to go and re-do some mechanics to solve the boating/outrageous builds and balance issues.

• Let's start with the DHS not becoming an extension to the heat threshold, but rather to dissipate heat.
  
• Hardpoint size to restrict from going from a 1 slot energy to a 3 slot/ a 1 slot ballistic to a 10 slot/ 1 slot missile to a 3 or 5 slot. Those are the crazy transition upgrades hardpoint sizes are meant to avoid.
  
• Next we move onto weapon convergence. We all know it shouldn't pinpoint as it does.
  
• Heat penalties for overheated shutdown mechs. Plain and simple restricts high alpha premature shooting and boaters.
  
• Lastly weight distribution for both sides. Please end the 1 light vs 4-6 lights. Or 1 Assault vs 4-6 Assaults. Even up the playing field.

With all of this in place, I can fully expect people here piloting a variety of mech variants. Not just strictly FoTM builds as that has been the case patch, after patch.

[Sybreed]

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Meh, they would sell more if they were worth owning. Many however, are not.

also: Are you implying people use a C1 for direct fire support? Besides that there are only 4 Catapults. 3 of which are missile based mechs. 2 that can really do nothing else. To level you need 3. Without allowing the C1 to do anything else, you choice is Missiles or K2. Now you have k2 half brawler C1 or missiles.

I know it was a little far fetched, but when I see a jager mech using a dual or quadruple PPC build (before Firebrand got here), I simply don,t see the point of having so many variants in the game.

[mania3c]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

I don't believe it's the be it end all solution, but it's a start. It needs to go more in depth. Such as:

we don't need all of these....again..if some other options could fix problems what we have..we don't need hardpoint size system which would cause more harm in my opinion..

[Tarrasque]

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

Really? I just loaded all my mechs with as many clan ERPPCs as they could hold and the group alpha'd down any mech in range.

Yeah, well that speaks to this entire argument in a nutshell - there are gamers who wish to powergame and do things like that, they find joy in total domination. Myself, I enjoy realistic, difficult struggles to overcome that force me to use my judgement and decision making in order to achieve a positive outcome.

Basically, I make things harder on myself, because I want to be challenged. This isn't challenging to me, its too similar to any other team deathmatch shooter.

[Acid Phase]

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 07:48 AM, said:

we don't need all of these....again..if some other options could fix problems what we have..we don't need hardpoint size system which would cause more harm in my opinion..

To each his own then. I stand firmly on hardpoint limits, you don't. Respectable.

[Unbound Inferno]

Such an extensive hardpoint restriction system just kills the customization abilities of this game. I don't like it.

[3rdworld]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Yeah, well that speaks to this entire argument in a nutshell - there are gamers who wish to powergame and do things like that, they find joy in total domination. Myself, I enjoy realistic, difficult struggles to overcome that force me to use my judgement and decision making in order to achieve a positive outcome.

Basically, I make things harder on myself, because I want to be challenged. This isn't challenging to me, its too similar to any other team deathmatch shooter.

Which is why I don't think hardpoint restrictions are the way to go.

People like me will still abuse the mechanics available.

People like you will still be upset about us running nothing but the best mech available given the criteria. (this isn't condemnation or calling you a QQer).

It is our nature. Not saying 1 is inherently better than the other. You have fun differently than I do. But that is the nature of gaming.

Edit: I am not intending this to come out snaky or mean. I can not think of a different way to say it at the moment.

Sug, on 11 June 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Can you customize your MTG cards? Or your Monopoly pieces? Or a deck of standard playing cards? TF/TF2 existed for years before you could change your loadout.

I could customize my mechs in battletech trading card game.

Edited by 3rdworld, 11 June 2013 - 08:01 AM.

[Acid Phase]

We've been given open customization obviously from the start. We've tested it's aspects from it's pros and cons. My question is shouldn't we be allowed to test this alternative to prove wether it holds a shred of balance? And let's not look at this from a gamer's perspective, but rather a tester. After all we're "Beta Testers" aren't we?

[Tarrasque]

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

snip

And a big high five to you sir. We may not agree on proper implementation, but I can tell we both understand that our opinions do not make us correct.

Thanks to everyone for a great discussion, I should probably go do something productive.



....maybe I'll play a FEW matches...

[Mangonel TwoSix]

First of all. Pretty good original post. I can respect the amount of work and thought you put into it. However your changing a system that does not need to be changed.

There is nothing wrong with boating. I have yet to see a sound point of view that boating breaks the game.

[3rdworld]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

We've been given open customization obviously from the start. We've tested it's aspects from it's pros and cons. My question is shouldn't we be allowed to test this alternative to prove wether it holds a shred of balance? And let's not look at this from a gamer's perspective, but rather a tester. After all we're "Beta Testers" aren't we?

I agree with that. But given the amount of rework this would require, and how "quick" they develop, it is pretty unlikely unless the switch is permanent.

[Soy]

Sug, on 11 June 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Can you customize your MTG cards?

I could customize my deck in MTG...

Edited by Soy, 11 June 2013 - 08:05 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

Sug, on 11 June 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Can you customize your MTG cards?

Stupid question. You're not playing 60 mechs, just one. It would be more appropriate to ask if you can customize the deck, to which the answer is "yes."

[Panzerman03]

I think it's pretty cool that a fully upgraded A1 Cat comes in under max tonnage with a 315 STD engine using your hardpoint system.

And I'm really pleased you addressed Atlases hitting too hard with their SRMs. Much needed tweak.

Edited by Panzerman03, 11 June 2013 - 08:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

If you read more closely, I actually said that while I don't have an issue with suspending my disbelief to allow for plenty of mechanics, the notions of gravity and mass are difficult for me to shake. I have a hard time reconciling that where an engineer designed a mech to fit a machine gun, they also accounted for putting a massive cannon. It doesn't make sense.

It might not make sense, but they did. The Side Torso has 12 critical slots in it, the MG and the Medium Laser only fill 2 each.

IF you install an AC/20, you don't rip out just the Machine Gun. You rip out all those heat sinks and possibly the Medium laser. That's a significant structural change.

Basically, I am doing what the Kurita Engineers did that turned the missile boat Catapult into a direct-fire mech.
I changed a lot and created my own, personal variant.

You can call the Dual AC/20 Catapult CPLT-MRAC20

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 June 2013 - 08:25 AM.

[Soy]

I sideboarded Flying Men back in the day. Real talk son.

[Tarrasque]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 June 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

It might not make sense, but they did. The Side Torso has 12 critical slots in it, the MG and the Medium Laser only fill 2 each.

IF you install an AC/20, you don't rip out just the Machine Gun. You rip out all those heat sinks and possibly the Medium laser. That's a significant structural change.

Basically, I am doing what the Kurita Engineers did that turned the missile boat Catapult into a direct-fire mech.
I changed a lot and created my own, personal variant.

You can call the Dual AC/20 Catapult CPLT-MRAC20

Yes, and according to me, what you did should not be possible - the Kuritan engineers you mentioned did so at extreme cost and time commitment, something not given to a single mechwarrior every time they want to change their loadout. That is a single variant that many, many pilots use, and while I don't advocate stock only at all, the notion (again) that every mechwarrior goes into combat with a personalized and highly unique variant flies in the face of the entire IP.

[Shalune]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

Yes, and according to me, what you did should not be possible - the Kuritan engineers you mentioned did so at extreme cost and time commitment, something not given to a single mechwarrior every time they want to change their loadout. That is a single variant that many, many pilots use, and while I don't advocate stock only at all, the notion (again) that every mechwarrior goes into combat with a personalized and highly unique variant flies in the face of the entire IP.

I'd agree, but add that anything approaching strict realism is rarely ideal for an interesting game. If freely customizing weapons is over the top, then what does that say about changing engine sizes, or switching to XL or ES?

Unless someone makes a Battletech game modeled after EVE Online then-... Yeah, okay, there's nothing I want more in the world than exactly that. But my point stands!