220 replies to this topic

[Teralitha]

I am against cross teching - for the simple reason of balance. Being able to cross technologies will unbalance the game in a horrible horrible way. But, I know this type of thing had a huge following in MW4, as did PURE TECH.

But I think it might be good for the devs to know where the populous stands on the issue before they bring in the clans.

Ok it seems alot dont know what cross teching is... I will explain. Its when you have clan weapons, placed on inner sphere mechs. or vice versa. Like placing clan er lasers on your atlas. And clan LRMS> Or placing light guass rifles on your kodiak. Mixing the technology between clan and inner sphere.

Edited by Teralitha, 20 June 2012 - 08:57 PM.

[gregsolidus]

People were against the mechlab because they thought it would unbalance the game.I'm sure it will be fine.

[Project_Mercy]

gregsolidus, on 20 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

People were against the mechlab because they thought it would unbalance the game.I'm sure it will be fine.

Well, that wasn't everyone's reason. I'm against mechlab because I feel people min-max their way around the quirkiness of certain mechs. A Charger isn't a Charger when you strip off the lasers, drop the engine down and turn it into a PPC boat. It's just a Warhammer with an ugly face. With cross tech it turns into a Timber Wolf with an ugly face.

I feel part of the joy of BT and the wonder of certain pilots to be special, is their ability to maximize a sub-optimal setup. Cross tech makes this even worse.

It just turns mechs into vanity avatars. It's a fine line between that, and loadouts in Modern Warfare. It's also why most MMOs don't allow costumes to show up in PvP, because WYSIWYG. While hardpoints helps that somewhat, it's not fully there (IMO).

Take that, horse corpse!

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 20 June 2012 - 09:01 PM.

[Teralitha]

gregsolidus, on 20 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

People were against the mechlab because they thought it would unbalance the game.I'm sure it will be fine.

Oh here we go.... thinking about something, and having actual experience are 2 entirely different animals. From my actual experience in MW4, cross teching made a huge difference balance wise. The truly balanced format was pure tech, which the most popular and successful MW4 league used. Cross tech leagues also existed, but they werent very popular....

[Suralin]

Crossteching is fine -- as long as access to Clan tech is *very* limited for IS players. Perhaps limit it to salvage only -- in which case taking Clantech to a fight will make you a big fat target. Everyone will want to take you down to salvage your gear. >:]

'Course, I prefer going puretech IS myself.

Edited by Suralin, 20 June 2012 - 09:05 PM.

[Teralitha]

Suralin, on 20 June 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Crossteching is fine -- as long as access to Clan tech is *very* limited for IS players. Perhaps limit it to salvage only -- in which case taking Clantech to a fight will make you a big fat target. Everyone will want to take you down to salvage your gear. >

Yea... salvage wont be in the game... so now what?

[gregsolidus]

I'm not seeing the problem here.The Charger has some variants that are pretty far off from the original design,if I just want to through a few PPCs on to it energy hard points and not try anything crazy like putting an LRM 20 in the legs who cares if I'm turning the Charger into a Mauler,mechs aren't wholly distinctive to begin with.

Teralitha, on 20 June 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

Oh here we go.... thinking about something, and having actual experience are 2 entirely different animals. From my actual experience in MW4, cross teching made a huge difference balance wise. The truly balanced format was pure tech, which the most popular and successful MW4 league used. Cross tech leagues also existed, but they werent very popular....

I don't think we should be using MW4 as a point of reference anymore.PGI knows the issues the Clans present and yet are going to add them in anyway.They must have a plan.

Edited by gregsolidus, 20 June 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Teralitha]

gregsolidus, on 20 June 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

I'm not seeing the problem here.The Charger has some variants that are pretty far off from the original design,if I just want to through a few PPCs on to it energy hard points and not try anything crazy like putting an LRM 20 in the legs who cares if I'm turning the Charger into a Mauler,mechs aren't wholly distinctive to begin with.


I don't think we should be using MW4 as a point of reference anymore.PGI knows the issues the Clans present and yet are going to add them in anyway.They must have a plan.

How can you say mechs are not distinctive? That is just silly. Using MW4 is a very valid reference, as the weapons stats were very close, if not identical to BT. I think its very relevant, to how it will affect MWO

Then I will assume that crosstech wont be allowed, because PGI knows what it will do to the game.

Edited by Teralitha, 20 June 2012 - 09:15 PM.

[Ian]

Cross tech is no different than any other customization. If you allow Mechlab you should allow it.

That being said it should be very difficult (expensive) for IS units to maintain Clan weapons and vice versa. However for the balance of the game I believe eventually you need to let it happen.

[Dax Svartulfson]

Forgive me if its been explained elsewhere, but: it depends how the clans are introduced.
If they are just another faction of PCs and the game balances them out, i.e. fewer deploy-able 'mechs per mission against the Inner Sphere then no, but if its one on one then yes [for balance reasons.]
Canon-wise is it any different to weapons engineered from the Helm memory core or Lostechbeing integrated into a mech?

[Chunkymonkey]

(cough cough [muffled "canon"] cough cough)

I remember in alot of novels how people had clan weapons on IS mechs say Archer Chrisofori although he had a advanced mech

[gregsolidus]

Variant upon variants switch mechs between fire support,to infantry hunting, to hunter killer,to gauss toting power houses or close range brawlers.No mech serves only one role with only one loadout.

Edited by gregsolidus, 20 June 2012 - 09:19 PM.

[Teralitha]

Ian, on 20 June 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Cross tech is no different than any other customization. If you allow Mechlab you should allow it.

That being said it should be very difficult (expensive) for IS units to maintain Clan weapons and vice versa. However for the balance of the game I believe eventually you need to let it happen.

It never needs to happen. in MW4, NBT:mercs created a league around puretech rules, and it proved to be a very balanced and tactically/challenging fun game that held the interest of many many players for several years. If they had allowed cross teching... the league would have died out long before, just like all those that had tried it, the same thing that will happen to MWO, if the allow cross tech. it will die.

Edited by Teralitha, 20 June 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[Dagger6T6]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 20 June 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

Well, that wasn't everyone's reason. I'm against mechlab because I feel people min-max their way around the quirkiness of certain mechs. A Charger isn't a Charger when you strip off the lasers, drop the engine down and turn it into a PPC boat. It's just a Warhammer with an ugly face. With cross tech it turns into a Timber Wolf with an ugly face.

I feel part of the joy of BT and the wonder of certain pilots to be special, is their ability to maximize a sub-optimal setup. Cross tech makes this even worse.

It just turns mechs into vanity avatars. It's a fine line between that, and loadouts in Modern Warfare. It's also why most MMOs don't allow costumes to show up in PvP, because WYSIWYG. While hardpoints helps that somewhat, it's not fully there (IMO).

Take that, horse corpse!

this is exactly why I liked pure stock matches... otherwise it ends up with laserboats, missleboats etc.

[abetterpilot]

uh..actually, in mercs4 at the moment, you see clan mechs with IS tech as the configs of choice in servers that allow mix-tech.
The latest cycle in NBT leagues (all pure tech) also saw advantage for the IS.
LRM with artemis, Arrow with artemis, and the mini gauss all being played very heavily, almost forgot the large continous beam laser

[Teralitha]

Dagger6T6, on 20 June 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

this is exactly why I liked pure stock matches... otherwise it ends up with laserboats, missleboats etc.

Oh hell yes, I loved playing stock varient matches... talk about a true test of skill....

[Starne]

I voted Yes for cross-teching. I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. If I can get my hands on clan-tech, why should I be unable to mount it on my IS mech?

[Blackfire1]

Yes, but its not going to be done like other games. And its going to ahve a HIGH repair cost

[CycKath]

All for crosstech, after all who doesn't want to pay 10 times the price for a IS ER PPC for a clan-tech version, if they are even available at the time you buy. Cost difference should take care of it.

[Teralitha]

abetterpilot, on 20 June 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

uh..actually, in mercs4 at the moment, you see clan mechs with IS tech as the configs of choice in servers that allow mix-tech.
The latest cycle in NBT leagues (all pure tech) also saw advantage for the IS.
LRM with artemis, Arrow with artemis, and the mini gauss all being played very heavily, almost forgot the large continous beam laser

Yes, well, the last round of NBT:(hardcore), was a mod of the original game, and IMO< a failure. My pints are only taking account of the original versions of the game. All the mods created later by both NBT, and mektek ran the game into the ground, balance wise.