69 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

I'm not actually sure why you keep bringing up TT? Battletech is the board game I play with my friend using figures and dice.
In this thread we're talking about Mechwarrior Online. The game where everybody picks one mech and enters the match.

My opinion is that Locust and Commandos are underperfoming. Atlas on the other hand is doing quite well.
And I have statistics to prove it.

What do you guys have? Long time devotion to TT?

Edited by Kmieciu, 19 September 2014 - 05:14 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Kmieciu, on 19 September 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

I'm not actually sure why you keep bringing up TT? Battletech is the board game I play with my friend using figures and dice.
In this thread we're talking about Mechwarrior Online. The game where everybody picks one mech and enters the match.

My opinion is that Locust and Commandos are underperfoming. And I have statistics to prove it. What do you guys have?
Long time devotion to TT?

Thats a complete other story - and adding DHS to the Locust is a problem with internal systems too.
Things should be changed other wise (Matchmaker, Perks Flaws, what ever -but not by defining the bricks)
But PGI did decide to take this Mech Lab - with 12 critical places each side torso - and fusion engine takes 6 in ct - and XL additional 3 in each side torso ....

they could of course have taken another route - for example the MW4 way - Ultra Fast Zeus with HGR in the arms and GR in the other arm...*SHUDDER
and all you have to do is to take a spinner to increase or decrease speed, ammo and heatsinks

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 September 2014 - 05:17 AM.

[Egomane]

Kmieciu, on 19 September 2014 - 05:13 AM, said:

I'm not actually sure why you keep bringing up TT?

Because you repeatedly bring it up as it being an invalid argument, despite that is what mechs in the battletech universe are based upon. All mech constructions in the battletech universe are constructed on those rules.

We are allowed to fine tune some of those things as we play in a a realtime environment. That's why we can have a more granular allowance of reactor ratings on our mechs.

But fine tuning is not the same as crushing them with a ten ton hammer, like the thing you are proposing here. If you refuse to accept the base of the battletech universe as a valid argument for a game based in said universe, than what is?

[WonderSparks]

Face it, guys, this argument is only proving that nothing will change about the rules.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
Just accept what we have, and do not challenge it. It is a futile effort that will only end in unnecessary stress and frustration. Which is bad for your health, trust me.

LET IT GO. If you do not like the way the game works, either stop playing or stop thinking about it.

[Savage Wolf]

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

In the tabletop you can't select engines that do not have ratings that are multiples of the mechs tonnage. So in the TT you can't use a 170 engine for a locust.

Nice! Another place where MWO did the right thing and simplified something that didn't make sense or balance in the context of a shooter. This is what we like to see. But I presume you hate this change as well? It broke all sorts of things?

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

That you do not care for explanations, shows me that you do not care for the universe behind the game. The ten minimum heatsink requirement is not only in the rules, it is part of the lore. You want a lore change, because you can't perform well in specific mechs? This is by name a game based in the batteltech universe. How many times do you believe we can ignore the lore, until it no longer is one? How many changes until it is just a generic shooter with mechs leased from the battletech universe?

You yourself expressed dislike for ghost heat, a mechanic added to make the less like a generic shooter and more like a game of battle of attrition. This is a perfect example of a change that actually improves upon what makes battletech special and what we want from it. And none of us wants this to be a generic shooter, but you are also actively working to prevent it from being even less of that.

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

You want the mech to be be better, no matter what!

If I wanted the best mech ever, I would just take a Timber Wolf. Your accusations of me just being a power player are pretty far fetched considering I am trying to improve upon a lacking mech that even with the boost wouldn't be able to compete with the best mechs in the game. I'm just trying to even the playing field a little.

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

I have seen no such proof. Only assumptions!

You assume, because you do not want to believe that the mech can perform well, without such a boost. I know that it can perform well, because I mastered mine and I did well in them.

Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about me having any proof. I actually said neither of us have. And we cannot get it either without testing and only PGI can do that. And yes, I have assumptions, but at least I have some. You cannot even conjure up a single example or sign that shows there might be something to this breaking the system.

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:59 AM, said:

Just because it is a tough to learn and hard to master mech, doesn't make it a bad mech. It just makes it a mech not suited for everyone.

Quite right. But the Locust 3V isn't just a mech that is harder to master, because no matter how masterful you are at it, an Ember would still do the job better. And an Ember isn't an easy mech either, it needs mastering as well, but it has so much more potential for mastering.

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2014 - 05:00 AM, said:

YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE BRICK

Should I find a brick, cut it in half and post a picture of it?

[Savage Wolf]

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 05:33 AM, said:

But fine tuning is not the same as crushing them with a ten ton hammer, like the thing you are proposing here. If you refuse to accept the base of the battletech universe as a valid argument for a game based in said universe, than what is?

An example of TT where things actually improve balance. And an explanation of why. All the examples I gave of TT not being balance was to show to you that just because TT has the rule, doesn't make it balanced nor at all good. But I'm sure there are good things in TT and those we have kept.

[Savage Wolf]

WonderSparks, on 19 September 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

Face it, guys, this argument is only proving that nothing will change about the rules.
I have said it before, and I will say it again:
Just accept what we have, and do not challenge it. It is a futile effort that will only end in unnecessary stress and frustration. Which is bad for your health, trust me.

So you are saying that MWO from this day, never changes? Sure hope the balance is right then. Hope your underpowered IS mechs don't rust in the hangar.

WonderSparks, on 19 September 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

LET IT GO. If you do not like the way the game works, either stop playing or stop thinking about it.

Soo... this Feature Suggestions forum only exists for giggles and wasted space?

[Egomane]

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

You yourself expressed dislike for ghost heat, a mechanic added to make the less like a generic shooter and more like a game of battle of attrition.

I did what? I did that where?

Sorry, but you are starting comparing apples to oranges now. Both are round, have about the same size and grow on trees. They are still different things!

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

If I wanted the best mech ever, I would just take a Timber Wolf. Your accusations of me just being a power player are pretty far fetched considering I am trying to improve upon a lacking mech that even with the boost wouldn't be able to compete with the best mechs in the game. I'm just trying to even the playing field a little.

I didn't say you want the best mech, I said you want the mech to be better because you can't perform well in it. Again, two different things.

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about me having any proof. I actually said neither of us have. And we cannot get it either without testing and only PGI can do that. And yes, I have assumptions, but at least I have some. You cannot even conjure up a single example or sign that shows there might be something to this breaking the system.

it is breaking the system, because you are creating free tonnage where there should be none. Just because a different math is used that allows you to even make such a suggestion. Why is it so hard to come up with another solution, that does not break the system? Some perks for the chassis or some of it's variants, are much more within the realm of explainable to the BT-Universe then creating free weight out of thin air.

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Quite right. But the Locust 3V isn't just a mech that is harder to master, because no matter how masterful you are at it, an Ember would still do the job better. And an Ember isn't an easy mech either, it needs mastering as well, but it has so much more potential for mastering.

But the Ember is quite easy to learn. Most mechs are hard to master.
If you compare a locust to a firestarter and want equal performance out of both, we can get rid of all mechs below 35 tons completly. And of those below 55, below 75 and finally below 100. One mech for each weightclass. While we are at it, we can even simplify that. One mech for all! Now we have absolut equality. That is your argument brought to the final consequence.

There need to be differences or the game would be horribly boring!

Edited by Egomane, 19 September 2014 - 07:38 AM.

[M0rpHeu5]

The majority of the players has spoken and the discution has turned into a loop. Ego you can lock this thread.

[Egomane]

M0rpHeu5, on 19 September 2014 - 07:52 AM, said:

The majority of the players has spoken and the discution has turned into a loop. Ego you can lock this thread.

Moderator note: As you wish, it is your thread!