46 replies to this topic

[Biaxialrain]

I don't care about lore, previoius MW games or any kind of script, this is a video game.

So why not?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Zerberus]

If they also get splash damage PPCs, burst fire autocannons, and locked stock engines, heatsinks and jumpjets.

Sure, why not?

What`s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edited by Zerberus, 15 July 2014 - 08:28 AM.

[Belorion]

Because there are a ton of people who do care about lore, and previous MW games...

The loyal fan base is what makes this game what it is.

[Xarian]

Biaxalrain's posts are all troll posts. Every single one.

[Rhaythe]

My guess is the same reason you can't drive a Panzer tank while playing as the Americans in every WW2 game ever. Sure, there's nothing restricting it in the game engine, but logically, it makes no sense. Yes, I get your point. No, the game doesn't *have* to be bound to lore. But what's the point of even having lore if you're just going to outright ignore it?

[Bhael Fire]

Biaxialrain, on 15 July 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

this is a video game.

No, this is a BattleTech game.

[Ultimax]

Zerberus, on 15 July 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

If they also get splash damage PPCs, burst fire autocannons, and locked stock engines, heatsinks and jumpjets.

Sure, why not?

What`s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And also Clan LRMs are ripple/stream fired making them weaker vs. AMS.

[Zerberus]

Rhaythe, on 15 July 2014 - 08:42 AM, said:

My guess is the same reason you can't drive a Panzer tank while playing as the Americans in every WW2 game ever.

Bf 1942, one of my favorite pastimes was to steal german tanks.

Quote

Sure, there's nothing restricting it in the game engine, but logically, it makes no sense. Yes, I get your point. No, the game doesn't *have* to be bound to lore. But what's the point of even having lore if you're just going to outright ignore it?

I agree. Without the lore, it`s not mechwarior, but a slow version of hawken with hitboxes, and many of us wouldn`t even be here.

[Wintersdark]

Zerberus, on 15 July 2014 - 08:27 AM, said:

If they also get splash damage PPCs, burst fire autocannons, and locked stock engines, heatsinks and jumpjets.

Sure, why not?

What`s good for the goose is good for the gander.

And those now no-minimum-range LRM's also ripple fire, making them completely, laughably useless against a mech with AMS. Then sure.

I seriously wonder if OP is just stirring the pot, or sincerely has no clue whatsoever.

Ultimatum X, on 15 July 2014 - 08:45 AM, said:

And also Clan LRMs are ripple/stream fired making them weaker vs. AMS.

Ninja'd!

[M0rpHeu5]

Biaxialrain, on 15 July 2014 - 08:23 AM, said:

I don't care about lore, previoius MW games or any kind of script, this is a video game.

So why not?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Becouse the BT lore is our master and not a usefull tool we can use to balance the game

[General Taskeen]

The OP doesn't seem to be "stirring the pot" - I've posted the same suggestion before (no min range for all LRMs).

Curious though - why the OP didn't mention that previous MW games didn't have min range, and had better targeting/lrms, but says they don't care 'bout previous MW games that thought of ways to balance around Battletech in real time... *Shrug*

[Wintersdark]

General Taskeen, on 15 July 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

The OP doesn't seem to be "stirring the pot" - I've posted the same suggestion before (no min range for all LRMs).

Curious though - why the OP didn't mention that previous MW games didn't have min range, and had better targeting/lrms, but says they don't care 'bout previous MW games that thought of ways to balance around Battletech in real time... *Shrug*

The thing is, the Clan LRM's have no minimum range as a "balancing factor" vs. being ripple fired. The reality, of course, is that even with no mimimum range Clan LRM's are truly terrible weapons against all but the worst players. Note the damage falloff, though, they do half damage at 120m, so while they don't have a hard minimum range, they become effectively useless very quickly anyways.

Hence my (and other's) responses. I'm a battletech fan, but I appreciate the need to alter things to make a balanced video game. I'm fine with things being different "from the lore" when necessary, but this basically takes the objectively better IS LRM's and makes them even better yet. It's really, really not necessary.

[mogs01gt]

Belorion, on 15 July 2014 - 08:30 AM, said:

The loyal fan base is what makes this game what it is.

What is that? Boring, redundant, P2W, no Depth, no content.....I could go on.. Catering to "loyal" fans causes games to fail.

[Dazzer]

becuase they want to give the pay-to-win clanners they moneys worth.

[Solahma]

BECAUSE INNER SPHERE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS

[Kraven Kor]

They'll add MRM's somewhere around 2036 or so.

Real world date, not BT timeline date.

[verybad]

Beacause Futbol?

[Mechteric]

Well technically you could fire with IS PPCs and LRMs inside minimum range, it just got extra modifiers to miss. If they were to apply this exponential damage curve inside the minimum range for these IS weapons, I think that would be ok with me.

[Solahma]

7 - 1
Clans

[3rdworld]

Because people care more about it being a "battletech game" than it being a balanced one?