Omni Pod Readiness
#1
Posted 25 September 2014 - 07:02 PM
#2
Posted 25 September 2014 - 10:59 PM
#3
Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:42 AM
Pods by itself are a great advantage already giving you flexibility when seting up your mech. You cant change your mech after they were selected for the dropship, thata what I got from the update though.
#4
Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:46 AM
#5
Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:56 AM
Edited by SaltBeef, 26 September 2014 - 01:57 AM.
#6
Posted 26 September 2014 - 04:09 AM
SaltBeef, on 26 September 2014 - 01:56 AM, said:
Clans being overly powerful was a mistake made by the BT creators in the first place. Thankfully PGI has broken the cycle.
As for omni pods, without access to the mech lab after hitting launch, no one is able to modify anything on their mechs. But, shouldn't be that big of a deal since it appears we'll only drop on CW specific map(s). Once you hit launch, you're dropped into a long game not "regional" maps or anything.
Now, if you are suggestion Clanners should be able to modify the mechs in their Dropship after they have been killed in one mech and before they come back to the battlefield in another, I'm guessing not going to happen. Being able to change your mech after encountering an enemy force would be to much of a benefit.
#7
Posted 26 September 2014 - 05:47 AM
It'll probably be part of the logistics pass in CW - wave 2 or 3 maybe.
#8
Posted 26 September 2014 - 06:24 AM
#9
Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:08 AM
#10
Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:12 AM
Wraeththix Constantine, on 26 September 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:
Pretty much this, the advantage is already in game, in the mech lab.
#11
Posted 26 September 2014 - 07:36 AM
#12
Posted 26 September 2014 - 08:00 AM
LauLiao, on 26 September 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:
there are a lot of reasons this won't happen (although I love the concept), this is the biggest one.
#14
Posted 26 September 2014 - 10:49 AM
Wolfways, on 26 September 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:
Short version, very bad game design and a blatant tactic to force players to buy the newest edition TROs. Modern game theory thankfully has for the most part eliminated these types of power creep moves.
Also, really hurt new player retention at conventions since the established players all choose clans while the new players being introduced we given IS mechs. Since BV was released many years after clans, the 10 v 12 and other arbitrary rules did little to make the game enjoyable for IS players.
Oh, and the original creators have said it was a mistake.
#15
Posted 26 September 2014 - 11:13 AM
Dracol, on 26 September 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:
Also, really hurt new player retention at conventions since the established players all choose clans while the new players being introduced we given IS mechs. Since BV was released many years after clans, the 10 v 12 and other arbitrary rules did little to make the game enjoyable for IS players.
So the problem wasn't actually adding the clans. It was the lack of a BV?
How were matches balanced before BV? I can't even remember because i only played a few matches and it was so long ago.
Quote
That means nothing tbh. Just about everyone who ever created anything later says "I wish I'd done that a little different."
#16
Posted 26 September 2014 - 11:15 AM
#17
Posted 26 September 2014 - 12:38 PM
Wolfways, on 26 September 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:
How were matches balanced before BV? I can't even remember because i only played a few matches and it was so long ago.
You know how clans are set up as stars of 5 mechs each? It was so they could face off against IS as 2 stars versus 3 lances. They also had the restriction of no melee as well as no focus fire until they were shot at be a second mech. All those lore based restrictions that no body played with... well except the 10 v 12 which really wasn't enough.
#18
Posted 26 September 2014 - 01:02 PM
Dracol, on 26 September 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:
In that case the problem is the players not the game. But i see how there are many players who refuse to use rules that aren't enforced...especially since playing MWO
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users