22 replies to this topic

[Jody Von Jedi]

I don't see where anyone mentioned UI2.0 specifically how bad the Mechlab is now. If I missed it above, then, forgive the duplication.

UI1.5 was much more intuitive for customizing your loadout. A "mech overview" button was added recently that allows you to quickly view a loadout and upgrades / modules. This made it much quicker to find a module if you couldn't remember where you left it. But it's still much more time consuming to customize your ride.

Also, consumables have to be reloaded after every match.

If there is a patch, you have to reset your weapon groups for every mech. I think this has always been the case, even in UI1.5, don't remember.

Jody

[Void Angel]

I did - but remember that the current UI is not PGI's intended end state for the mechlab. That reminds me, I should check on my UI feedback thread...

[Void Angel]

Koniving, on 23 May 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

You're missing some things in your analysis - notably that some of tabletop's ECM effects spread out in a wedge behind the 'mech - and that while ECM hard-counters an unlimited number of Beagle probes, it also stacks its effects if multiple units are in range of the spotter. Translated into MWO mechanics, you'd be having that 180m target lock delay stacking with multiple ECM 'mechs in range. Then there's the counteraction of all missile targeting **** in a wedge to infinity behind the ECM 'mech - if your line of sight to an an enemy clips an ECM field, you lose the benefits of any missile **** like Narc or Artemis. These are not insignificant advantages - but it doesn't stop there. Guardian ECM systems also disrupt C³ systems whose lines of sight intersect with the ECM field.

So the advantage granted by some of the TT characteristics are more pronounced than you're considering: just as an example, ECM's disruption of Narc and Artemis systems is not equivalent when comparing Tabletop to MWO. For that matter, one of the primary impacts of ECM isn't actually about ECM at all - it's the requirement for a sensor lock in order to fire LRMs and Streaks. Tabletop didn't have a distinction between visual spotting and sensor lock - they were different rolls to see if you could pinpoint the enemy on the map. If you could pin them down, you could shoot at them. Similarly, TAG wasn't countered by Guardian ECM - because it was (currently in the timeline) nothing more than a laser pointer to guide in Arrow IV missiles. Therefore, a direct conversion to a "TT version" of ECM would counter TAG as well - from any point along the path of the laser.

Of course, any evaluation of ECM has to include the other systems that interact with it; but if we start judging systems based on how they conform to tabletop rules, we run into problems. TAG only has 540m range in tabletop; the situational awareness we take for granted is supposed to be bought with a C³ computer network; called shots practically require a targetting computer if you want to hit; the Beagle's range is supposed to be 1080m; and every 'mech has a seismic sensor as a part of its standard sensor suite. At some point, we begin to judge MWO based on whether or not it tries to be "like tabletop," instead of asking if it functions well - and there's no clear logical stopping point to tell us where the Holy Word of FASA becomes inapplicable.

In essence, what I'm trying to say is that we should be careful to argue mechanics on their own merits, rather than by comparison with an incompatible rulebook. Otherwise, we'll lose the distinction between wanting a well-made game set in a much-loved fictional universe, and demanding that MWO be turned into a Battltech LARP - or Mechwarrior Tactics.

Seriously? The plural of "aid" is blocked? This stupid word filter is silly - at some point you have to make people be big boys and girls...

Edited by Void Angel, 23 May 2014 - 03:09 PM.