209 replies to this topic

[Odanan]

pbiggz, on 23 October 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

bla bla bla

What about keeping the Clan weapons exactly as they are?

Clan weapons are OP - that's what make them different of the IS weapons. They are technologically more advanced! If you are going to "balance" them with the IS weapons, why have the trouble to add Clan weapons in the first place?

Nerfing Clan weapons is heresy! Is unnatural! Is offensive! Is abominable!

You don't need to touch the Clan technology. Add it as it is. So why should someone play as IS?
- Have you heard about asymmetrical warfare?

Edited by Odanan, 26 October 2013 - 08:28 AM.

[KingNobody]

I think one solution is to allow IS players to purchase Clan Tech right off the bat. IS 'mechs equipped with Clan Tech are FAR superior to Clan 'mechs (Imagine what you could do with the extra tonnage on your Atlas). This would stop all the crying about how clan tech is an easy win button, as everyone would have this "win button". I cite MW4:mercs as an example of this, Where Highlanders and Atlai filled with Clan weapons were the most common sight on the battlefield (OK and Nova Cats)

[Odanan]

Imperial X, on 26 October 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Stop with this right now !!!

Everyone can't wait for clans to come out. Yet everyone can't wait to nerf them. What is the point of having clans in the game if your just going to nerf their mechs and weapons ?

If your going to change the core values of the clans to balance them with the inner sphere then you might as well not bring them out at all.

Thank you.

[Odanan]

KingNobody, on 26 October 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

I think one solution is to allow IS players to purchase Clan Tech right off the bat. IS 'mechs equipped with Clan Tech are FAR superior to Clan 'mechs (Imagine what you could do with the extra tonnage on your Atlas).

No, they aren't.
It's like putting Sidewinder missiles into a Spitfire.

IS mechs are superior in NOTHING.
If you make them able to mount Clan weapons, they will still have awful XL engines, DHS, ES and FF. Not to mention it will be a rush of armaments - being the mechs with IS weapons in great disadvantage.
For now, there is a general balance, no matter what weapon/equipment you choose (with the clear exception of the single heat sinks).

No, if IS mechs are able to mount Clan weapons that will kill the game.

And no, don't nerf the Clan weapons or mechs. Just make the Clan teams smaller and lighter.

BTW, I can't even talk with these players raised with the MW4. They think they know something about Battletech.

Edited by Odanan, 26 October 2013 - 10:46 AM.

[101011]

Odanan, on 26 October 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

BTW, I can't even talk with these players raised with the MW4. They think they know something about Battletech.

I was raised on MW4...am I really that bad?

[CyclonerM]

Odanan, on 26 October 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

No, they aren't.
It's like putting Sidewinder missiles into a Spitfire.

IS mechs are superior in NOTHING.
If you make them able to mount Clan weapons, they will still have awful XL engines, DHS, ES and FF. Not to mention it will be a rush of armaments - being the mechs with IS weapons in great disadvantage.
For now, there is a general balance, no matter what weapon/equipment you choose (with the clear exception of the single heat sinks).

No, if IS mechs are able to mount Clan weapons that will kill the game.

And no, don't nerf the Clan weapons of mechs. Just make the Clan teams smaller and lighter.

BTW, I can't even talk with these players raised with the MW4. They think they know something about Battletech.

101011, on 26 October 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I was raised on MW4...am I really that bad?

I started with MW2, the game in which you could fit lasers in the legs and in the missile launchers if i remember correctly..

[Chaos7]

I like C Hvy Ultra AC -- Ultra AC20, lighter than normal AC20 anyone ?

[101011]

VOHRIMENKO, on 26 October 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I like C Hvy Ultra AC -- Ultra AC20, lighter than normal AC20 anyone ?

And smaller, with a higher RoF.

[Odanan]

101011, on 26 October 2013 - 09:01 AM, said:

I was raised on MW4...am I really that bad?

MW4 is quite fun (specially the Solaris feature in MW4M), but it's not true Battletech.

The problems with MW4:

1- the modeling was actually inferior to MW3;
2- no respect for the Battletech dark, grim future (in terms of art direction);
3- no respect for the Battletech lore* (every low mechwarrior had a Clan mech - it's like in a WW1 game giving King Tiger tanks and Me 262 jet fighters to the Austro-Hungarians);
4- Steiner/Davion centralized;
5- the devs changed the stats of ALL weapons, the loadout of ALL mechs;
6- ugly customization system (even if better than MW2 and MW3 because of the necessary restrictions - but much inferior to MWO);
7- the game raised (corrupted) a generation of players who missed the best and most iconic of Battletech (the Succession Wars and - debatable - the Clan Invasion), in terms of lore, mechs, game system, characters and politics. The worst is: you can't save these players anymore.

*That's a feature for MW3 too, despite of which I loved.

Edited by Odanan, 26 October 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[Pariah Devalis]

The flip side being, as contrasted to MW2 and 3, it had far superior hit detection, designed to be played in multiplayer, and at one point even came close to being featured on G4 TV as an online, on air e-sports option. Came close. Never happened, however.

The game did have some serious flaws, however, when it comes to legitimacy of certain things. Stock loadouts were thrown in the gutter, what made individual chassis unique was discarded (aside from the fixed hardpoint system which, honestly, some of it was a smart balance move), and there was zero incentive to use Inner Sphere weapons whenever there was a Clan equivalent both due to its superiority and its availability.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 26 October 2013 - 10:27 AM.

[Odanan]

Pariah Devalis, on 26 October 2013 - 10:26 AM, said:

The flip side being, as contrasted to MW2 and 3, it had far superior hit detection, designed to be played in multiplayer, and at one point even came close to being featured on G4 TV as an online, on air e-sports option. Came close. Never happened, however.

The game did have some serious flaws, however, when it comes to legitimacy of certain things. Stock loadouts were thrown in the gutter, what made individual chassis unique was discarded (aside from the fixed hardpoint system which, honestly, some of it was a smart balance move), and there was zero incentive to use Inner Sphere weapons whenever there was a Clan equivalent both due to its superiority and its availability.

They could have done a good multiplayer even respecting the IP.

I still hope for the MW2 and MW2:M remakes, though. Best campaigns ever*.

*I still play both games, despite the awful weapon balance and how hard is it to make them run in Windows 7.

[Pariah Devalis]

True, they could have respected the IP more. However, I feel like the success of MW4 did far more good than harm to the franchize. Mech Assault, on the other hand, was almost like Microsoft was TRYING to put the IP in the grave. Even that game had one small feature that was nice: The PPC charging feature was an interesting experiment, whereby you could fire immediately for a minimum damage output, or charge it for a couple seconds for a full power shot. Like an inverse of our current Gauss Rifle systems, and far more user friendly.

[Odanan]

The MW games made by Microsoft were clearly developed by people who didn't know and/or liked the Battletech IP.
That's why I have contradictory feeling about MW4.
About Mech Assault... Jeez, it was offensive.

On the other hand, PGI won the jackpot in the art department when hiring Alex Iglesias. That guy was born for this job.

[101011]

Odanan, on 26 October 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

MW4 is quite fun (specially the Solaris feature in MW4M), but it's not true Battletech.

The problems with MW4:

1- the modeling was actually inferior to MW3;
2- no respect for the Battletech dark, grim future (in terms of art direction);
3- no respect for the Battletech lore* (every low mechwarrior had a Clan mech - it's like in a WW1 game giving King Tiger tanks and Me 262 jet fighters to the Austro-Hungarians);
4- Steiner/Davion centralized;
5- the devs changed the stats of ALL weapons, the loadout of ALL mechs;
6- ugly customization system (even if better than MW2 and MW3 because of the necessary restrictions - but much inferior to MWO);
7- the game raised (corrupted) a generation of players who missed the best and most iconic of Battletech (the Succession Wars and - debatable - the Clan Invasion), in terms of lore, mechs, game system, characters and politics. The worst is: you can't save these players anymore.

*That's a feature for MW3 too, despite of which I loved.

Well it's a good thing I also happen to love TT and MW3

[Pariah Devalis]

I figure insolong as the core gameplay values remain Mechwarrior, you can give the game any coat of paint. We play the game for the unique gameplay Mechwarrior offers, right? Even MW4 stayed mostly true to that. It had a throttle system, independant torso to leg motion, multiple weapons, user designated weapon groups, heat management (though made far easier due to coolant flush but we can blame Microprose for that in MW3 as well), and mech component specific destruction. The pacing felt a little off, more arcady, but the core concepts were absolutely there, and are here in MWO which is why I still consider the game fun and a true MW game, despite whatever oddities PGI seems intent on inventing.

[Odanan]

101011, on 26 October 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

Well it's a good thing I also happen to love TT and MW3

Rehab. That's good.

[pbiggz]

Odanan, on 26 October 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

What about keeping the Clan weapons exactly as they are?

Clan weapons are OP - that's what make them different of the IS weapons. They are technologically more advanced! If you are going to "balance" them with the IS weapons, why have the trouble to add Clan weapons in the first place?

Nerfing Clan weapons is heresy! Is unnatural! Is offensive! Is abominable!

You don't need to touch the Clan technology. Add it as it is. So why should someone play as IS?
- Have you heard about asymmetrical warfare?

You're cute. Really. And I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but if you are... stop.

Edited by pbiggz, 26 October 2013 - 12:59 PM.

[Odanan]

pbiggz, on 26 October 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

You're cute. Really. And I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but if you are... stop.

Maybe I was too subtle?
What about "Take your filthy hands out of the Clan stuff!"?

Clan vs. IS is like USA vs. Vietcong.
Clans are superior in everything, except numbers and subterfuge (or desperate tactics).
If you make a Vietnam War game, you don't simply nerf the hell of the American Cobras, carriers, tanks, grenade launchers, etc. just for the barefooted Vietcong to have a fighting chance. That's poor game design and lack of imagination.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

Odanan, on 26 October 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

BTW, I can't even talk with these players raised with the MW4. They think they know something about Battletech.

Hello, I was raised on the TT and MW2, and I know something about Battletech.

For example, how game breakingly bad Clan Tech was in TT when it was introduced. You're bias towards keeping it as OP was it was in TT is wrong.

[Odanan]

mwhighlander, on 26 October 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Hello, I was raised on the TT and MW2, and I know something about Battletech.

For example, how game breakingly bad Clan Tech was in TT when it was introduced. You're bias towards keeping it as OP was it was in TT is wrong.

If you put a warship against an aerospace fighter, the warship will be OP. Should you nerf the warship? Something says me you was playing the game the wrong way...