202 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Burktross, on 04 October 2014 - 04:40 PM, said:

As for damage values? Those of course can't be nearly as conservative. BT was a board game. MW is an Real Time Walking Tank Sim. Things will need to change for balance.
(Not saying everything that has changed is a peachy improvement, but there needs to be room for it)

They should change for balance... back to TT values. ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat per shot and shooting 3 times per 10 seconds is not TT values. TT values would be the ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat over a period of time of 10 Seconds no matter how fast it fired.

[Koniving]

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

Apparently you haven't looked into the lore. For example from Sarna:

AC5 is a weapon class. It's like "50-cal", "Automatic Rifle - AR", "Heavy Machine Gun - HMG", "Squad Automatic Weapon - SAW", or "Designated Marksman Rifle - DMR". These are real life designations for weapon classes similar in nature to "Autocannon 5".

Gotta remember when you quote from Sarna, you have to select all the text and "remove formating" or "paste as plain text."

That said.. From the list I've been making:
Imperator-A = 80mm (Price of Glory) -Riflemen (automatic chain-fed, 10 shot / rating.)
If a Dragon variant is also sporting an Imperator-A, then it's a fully automatic weapon with approximately constant rate of fire.

At 10 shots per rating (5 damage per 10 seconds) and 20 ratings per ton of ammunition, that's 3 minutes and 20 seconds of continuous fire for 1 ton of ammunition. 200 HEAP rounds at 80mm.

Imagine how cheap repair and rearm would be if one ton of ammo lasted you that long?

Of course the Shadowhawk's Armstrong J11 is an 80mm burst fire. Magazine (cassette is the proper term) feeds in. Trigger gets pulled. 10 shots fired in rapid succession. Cassette gets ejected. Long reload time. Of course one needs to remember this is 40mm autocannon.


So now consider this '10' shot AC/5 is twice that caliber.

Another thing I'd like to mention is the recoil. The AC/5 range isn't actually "540" meters. That is the generic 'long range' that a mech using the AC/5 is likely to hit most to all 'shots' on target in spite of the recoil. Note that the 540 meter is the 'long range', too, the extent. Extremely long range comes with some hefty accuracy penalties making it likely that none hit. Tabletop has an issue with pinpoint (laugh it up but it's true) where all shots hit or none hit in regards to this. A slower shooting AC/5 is likely to have much better ranges due to less recoil. A burst fire AC might actually have a few shots 'miss' at 540 meters even if the target and the attacker are stationary due to recoil.

To Battletech, a 3 round burst of 80mm is 1.5 damage. A single round is 0.5 damage. Of course the damage per caliber varies as well, as can the shot count. After all the "5" damage of an AC/5 is loose. It can be as high as 7 and could be quite low as well if there are a lot of misses.

The 40mm is only 0.25 damage. It is also the highest caliber that a stock Blackjack uses on its AC/2, with 30mm being the typical caliber.

An LBX is summarized as firing X number of 'cluster-shot' in tabletop due to the strain of rolling for each piece. It's simply easy and practical to do them in solid numbers. However some LB-2X ACs are described as having more than 12 pieces to a single round of clustershot (Defiance Shredder LB-2x, 25mm). There was an LB-20X that only had '13' pieces of Clustershot (Defiance Disintegrator 120mm).

So there is quite a bit of variety.

Typically AC/10s range from 80 to 120mm and are simply given the trait of shooting twice as many shots as an AC/5 in the same span of time. Now, the Hunchback 4G has a 5 shot 180mm AC/20, burst fire. That's 4 damage per shot, delivered really fast. But say it takes 2 seconds to pump out the full 5 shot burst. Now that's 8 seconds of changing out magazines before it can be used again.
But if it were an automatic variant, it would feed 1 shot every 2 seconds with no 'extra' periods of time spent without being able to fire.

Edited by Koniving, 04 October 2014 - 05:55 PM.

[Lefty Lucy]

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

They should change for balance... back to TT values. ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat per shot and shooting 3 times per 10 seconds is not TT values. TT values would be the ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat over a period of time of 10 Seconds no matter how fast it fired.

TT balance is not good. There are some balance concepts we can take from TT that help MWO, but just making everything the same as TT would be a very unbalanced game where PPCs, AC20s, and MLs are basically the only weapons worth using.

[Koniving]

terrycloth, on 04 October 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

I thought it was based on the number of tons of ammo it expended every X seconds? An AC/20 expended 20% of a ton of ammo with every trigger pull.

Not necessarily true. It expends 20% of a ton of ammunition per rating (damage over unit of time which includes reloading, aiming, etc). Not necessarily on the trigger pull. (That's true for burst fire AC/20s but automatic AC/20s really vary).

The burst fire...
The Pontiac 100 is the Victor's AC/20. It is a 100 shot, magazine fed burst fire weapon. It spends 100 shots in a very short time and the rest of the time is spent reloading after the Victor has used it's twin-shot medium lasers, missiles, what-have you. It also has a secondary feed in case if the left arm is destroyed so it can still reload despite the external reloading mechanism. In this case it folds the arm up so it can be fed from the shoulder pauldron to the secondary feed. This secondary feed is almost never used, but is known to jam.

In total it is usually between 6 and 10 seconds before it can be fired again. Depending on the book the burst is either a single trigger pull expending the entire magazine or stores several smaller bursts to be expended when desired. Either way only 100 shots does the full 20 damage. Of course this particular AC/20 isn't firing tank rounds, either. It is essentially a high velocity explosive-round machine gun.

Now, the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm 10 shot AC/20 where each shot does 2 damage. There are two sub-variants. Two versions of this weapon have different 'burst' styles with cassette (magazine) systems for rapid, overwhelming impulse (less than 1 second burst, you're gonna knock something over). The reasoning behind the two different burst styles is one churns the rounds out as fast as possible, but the recoil makes it extremely inaccurate even at the 270 range. The recoil on the other one is more manageable but the burst time is longer requiring longer time on target and longer exposure. The third is more stable and known for better long range. The third is also a slower-firing chain-fed automatic, where one squeeze expends 2% of its ammunition.

The Deathgiver 100mm of an Atlas D fires 16 shots one at a time in much the same way an AC/2 fires. It gets out 16 shots in a 10 second period and is known for a DPS-style weapon within the lore.
This is a fairly accurate depiction here.

Perhaps a bit faster, though you can control your firing rate. A single shot is thusly 0.8% of one ton of ammunition.
The RS has a 120mm AC/10. Its shots are more upfront and higher damage than the Atlas D's AC/20. However, the Atlas D's deathgiver is going to trump the AC/10 over time.

Edited by Koniving, 04 October 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[Jeon Ji Yoon]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yup. I'm sad because I think BattleTech is holding the MechWarrior franchise back from being as cool as it should be.

You play other Mechy Stompy games, and they have lots of cool features, and so does this game. However, the features of this game are limited to a build-set from a Table Top game that's not being dynamically-expanded for the current application. For instance, we have these weapons called "AC/10" and they deal 10 damage. Wow, what a super-original naming system.

If I were a soldier in the field, and was told that my weapon was an AC/10, I would ask something like "Does that mean it's a 10mm?"

And the response would be "No, it deals 10 damage."

"What do you mean, 'It deals 10 damage' ? What is 'a' damage?"

"Don't ask questions, Soldier, you will accept that it deals 10 damage and you will like it!"

And that's the Lore this game is based on - a Universe where that conversation actually happens.

I mean, there is no immersion whatsoever when the weapons of the game are literally named after the number of "points" they deal. There is no such thing as "damage points" in war, so the weapons should not be named after the damage points they inflict. That is just CHEESY!

Also, the limited number of weapon systems in the game based on the Year of the Lore is something that should only be implemented in a game that's designed for pre-existing BattleTech fans. If this game is really being marketed to non-BattleTech fans in an effort to expand the playerbase, then we should not be adhering to the Lore's technology limitations. A non-BattleTech fan has 0 appreciation for the "reason" why the Inner Sphere forces have no LBX-AC/5 or UAC/10s. Zero appreciation at all, and it's harming the game.

Why would you enforce rules like that if their only existence is to create a situation where the game gets more exciting by waiting 10 years for additional content? We don't need to wait 10 years for additional content. I'm sure you can find ways to make the game more exciting over the course of the next ten years other than by slowly releasing additional IS Tech that's not around until 3060.

__________________

What I am saying is... basically... MekTek had it right when they made their own non-cannon weapons systems. The canon of BattleTech is only as holy as the Developers intention to make this game specifically for pre-existing BattleTech fans, and not to market it to a greater audience.

We need better names for equipment. "Large Laser" Oh, how impressive, tell me how large it is...

As far as the calibre of autocannons it is actually talked about in the original rules. But honestly if u take the Battletech from this game it would take most of the ppl here.

[IceSerpent]

Louis Brofist, on 04 October 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Does your mind not compute the dramatic differences between those two mediums and the compromises that need to be met to make them fun and playable? I suppose not.

Does your mind not compute the dramatic differences between topic of this thread and that gibberish you've posted? I suppose not.

[Burktross]

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Does your mind not compute the dramatic differences between topic of this thread and that gibberish you've posted? I suppose not.

Topic:


I Am Sad Because I Think Battletech Is Holding This Game Back

Though OP was elaborating on weapon naming, the topic also encompasses adherence to TT values, rules, and gameplay, as well as lore/features all together.

[Savage Wolf]

What I would really wish happened was that someone rebooted the franchise and took a totally new and updated look on the rules and mechanics of the series and started from there. Should of course still be inspired by the old lore, but try to do it like we would do it today.

Battletech includes balance factors such as ammunition which we know today is a terrible balance factor if there isn't a reliable way to restock ammo, like having ammo pickups. But ammo pickups just doesn't make sense in a mech game. And going back to base is terrible because you would be out of action for too long.

And almost all Battletech weapons do one thing: damage. It's all they do, so very little variation. Sure there are LBXs for crit seeking and NARCs for synergy but other than that, nothing special really. No weapons that stun, one useless weapon that heats (until the plasma rifle perhaps), the only indirect weapon is frowned upon.

And why are all mechs built equal. The only thing that makes a scout mech a scout is speed. Why doesn't the scout make have anything that makes it more suitable as a scout? Like better sensors or some such. The only difference between brawlers and support mechs are engangement ranges.

The whole system for building mechs are also convoluted and complex. Why is Artimis an upgrade instead of just a different type of LRM weapons?

Generally BattleTech is complicated and dull by modern standards and this is also the case for MWO despite trying to spice things up with Modules and such, but Battletech severally limits what can be done. Just changing the weight of one weapon and everything falls apart.

A rebooted Battletech could introduce more interesting weapon mechanics, could make mech customization more simple without losing depth. It could even include a built in mechanic to prevent high pinpoint damage in a simpler and more balanced way than ghost heat. It would also help balance the game better for being an FPS than a TT.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 04:44 PM, said:

They should change for balance... back to TT values. ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat per shot and shooting 3 times per 10 seconds is not TT values. TT values would be the ML doing 5 damage and 3 heat over a period of time of 10 Seconds no matter how fast it fired.

Changing to the balance of TT would just mean that Assault mechs would be the only thing worth piloting, because TT was balanced so that the Atlas was better than a Shadowhawk. But in a FPS game of 12v12 all mechs needs to be equally useful and that's why MWO has different values. Also in TT the AC/2 is a joke.

[IceSerpent]

Burktross, on 04 October 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Topic:


I Am Sad Because I Think Battletech Is Holding This Game Back

Though OP was elaborating on weapon naming, the topic also encompasses adherence to TT values, rules, and gameplay, as well as lore/features all together.

What makes you think that term "Battletech" refers only to TT game and not to, let's say, BT novels?

[Pika]

Prosperity Park, on 04 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

We need better names for equipment. "Large Laser" Oh, how impressive, tell me how large it is...

You really think that's what's wrong with the game, the naming conventions? You're biggest complaint is the names vs functionality of the weapon. Let's ignore that, in setting, they're branded by manufacturer and have different performance profiles.

Hell, If that's the only negative you can come up with then I say this game is doing pretty damned good!

[Burktross]

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

What makes you think that term "Battletech" refers only to TT game and not to, let's say, BT novels?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I'm fairly certain Battletech is a game first, books second. Halo has books too you know.
Not to mention if someone talks about Battletech when talking about a Battletech based game, they're talking about game mechanics.
(Even so-- whatever? Is the Battletech novel lore not more or less compliant with its game? What is your point?)

Edited by Burktross, 04 October 2014 - 06:00 PM.

[Mercules]

Lefty Lucy, on 04 October 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

TT balance is not good. There are some balance concepts we can take from TT that help MWO, but just making everything the same as TT would be a very unbalanced game where PPCs, AC20s, and MLs are basically the only weapons worth using.

I don't get why you would say that. I've never found TT to be particularly unbalanced as long as the mech creation rules were not used by johnny-munchkin to take advantage of every possible rule loophole in the books.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

What I would really wish happened was that someone rebooted the franchise and took a totally new and updated look on the rules and mechanics of the series and started from there. Should of course still be inspired by the old lore, but try to do it like we would do it today.

So... "Make Battletech but don't use Battletech." ?????

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Battletech includes balance factors such as ammunition which we know today is a terrible balance factor if there isn't a reliable way to restock ammo, like having ammo pickups. But ammo pickups just doesn't make sense in a mech game. And going back to base is terrible because you would be out of action for too long.

This is because Battletech isn't supposed to be a 12 man arena fight. It is sometimes played that way, but in reality it shines when played as a campaign where supplies can be an actual issue. Then the beauty of energy based mechs shine.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

And almost all Battletech weapons do one thing: damage. It's all they do, so very little variation. Sure there are LBXs for crit seeking and NARCs for synergy but other than that, nothing special really. No weapons that stun, one useless weapon that heats (until the plasma rifle perhaps), the only indirect weapon is frowned upon.

Because that is realistic? How many weapons systems do armies have that do damage and how many that stun the enemy? Ratio is likely about the same as BT armies. Why? Because it is easier to design a weapon system that just does damage to one that stuns without doing damage.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

And why are all mechs built equal. The only thing that makes a scout mech a scout is speed. Why doesn't the scout make have anything that makes it more suitable as a scout? Like better sensors or some such. The only difference between brawlers and support mechs are engangement ranges.

Like Beagle Active Probes?

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

The whole system for building mechs are also convoluted and complex. Why is Artimis an upgrade instead of just a different type of LRM weapons?

Because it adds in a sensor suite for each launcher that links with the missiles in flight and directs them?

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Generally BattleTech is complicated and dull by modern standards and this is also the case for MWO despite trying to spice things up with Modules and such, but Battletech severally limits what can be done. Just changing the weight of one weapon and everything falls apart.

Actually it is a fairly simplistic system as a TT battlefield game goes. Overly simplified sometimes.

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

A rebooted Battletech could introduce more interesting weapon mechanics, could make mech customization more simple without losing depth. It could even include a built in mechanic to prevent high pinpoint damage in a simpler and more balanced way than ghost heat. It would also help balance the game better for being an FPS than a TT.

So... Not Battletech?

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

Changing to the balance of TT would just mean that Assault mechs would be the only thing worth piloting, because TT was balanced so that the Atlas was better than a Shadowhawk. But in a FPS game of 12v12 all mechs needs to be equally useful and that's why MWO has different values. Also in TT the AC/2 is a joke.

No it wasn't. Because unlike MWO where things are limited to 12 on 12 in TT you could bring 2+ Shadowhawks for every Atlas the other side brought. Suddenly 4 Atlas facing 9-10 Shadowhawks meant a balanced game. In TT Clan vrs IS was extremely balanced because if one side brought 10k in BV then the other side brought 10k in BV. Done. PGI has this stupid idea of Battletech being an arena battle of 12 v 12 and that screws most of that possible balance up right there. Asymmetrical battles would be so much more balanced.

Edited by Mercules, 04 October 2014 - 06:05 PM.

[That Dawg]

whoa, TLDR

[ice trey]

Well, exactly how much of the Battletech lore is holding you back?
The naming of the weapons systems? I don't think anyone really gives a damn. Mechwarrior Tactics gave a nod to all the details about things like the Lords' Light ER PPC and Diverse Optics medium lasers, but I don't think it was a game changer.

The reason why we're limited is because PGI decided to set this in 3049. It's like you're asking for Plasma Cannons in a World War 2 sim. The era was chosen so that new players wouldn't be overwhelmed with the choices in weapons systems.

Changing the mechs? To what degree? One or two new ones, or do you throw the lore right out the window and make a bunch of mechs with arms at the top of their torso and wafer thin CTs. How many Canon mechs are you planning on keeping? Just the cool ones? Just the ones that you were comfortable with using in Mechwarrior 4? You want to disregard the lore so that you can pull a Street Fighter and never change the roster from the Microsoft days?

Changing the lore? Not that the lore seems to be having much effect on the game right now, but in a franchise with factions that have been developed and fleshed out over the decades, do we really want some ham-fisted attempt at writing from people who aren't even motivated to make a single player option?

Mektek didn't do anything to improve the game. All they did was create a bunch of mechs that nobody used, save for a tiny handful which boated a bunch of clan ER LLs and gauss rifles. 100 ton jump sniping was the name of the game. Rather than trying to fix things, they overwhelmed the game with a bunch of overpowered stuff so that you had the choice of exactly which assault class jump sniper you wanted to field.

Long story short. What you want isn't a Mechwarrior game. Mechwarrior is Tied to Battletech. Even the name "Mechwarrior" comes from the Tabletop RPG addition that allowed you to play as a Mechwarrior rather than the commander moving pieces on a board. At it's roots, that's what Mechwarrior is - a way for you to experience the Battletech universe from the ground. If you don't want this game to be tied to Battletech, then you don't want a Mechwarrior game. A robot game? Maybe. Not a Mechwarrior game, though. Go look into the Heavy Gear game made by the old Mektek crew, though you might quickly find yourself limited to what's available in the Heavy Gear lore. Maybe you can cross your fingers that someone will start working on an new Starsiege game, you know... the one where they were trying to ride on Battletech/Mechwarrior's popularity without being "Tied down by the lore"?

Edited by ice trey, 04 October 2014 - 06:30 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

I don't get why you would say that. I've never found TT to be particularly unbalanced as long as the mech creation rules were not used by johnny-munchkin to take advantage of every possible rule loophole in the books.

But johnny-munchkin also plays this game. Every game would be balanced if everyone just agreed not make imbalanced builds, but I highly doubt that will ever happen.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

So... "Make Battletech but don't use Battletech." ?????

There are plenty of systems out there that had the guts to try and improve itself and created new editions of itself, sometimes making drastic changes to avoid stagnation and those systems are still called the same. Warhammer is still Warhammer when a new edition arrives. So is Dungeons and Dragons even when some races are removed and new ones added.
But BattleTech should have had several new editions by now so there is a lot to catch up on.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

This is because Battletech isn't supposed to be a 12 man arena fight. It is sometimes played that way, but in reality it shines when played as a campaign where supplies can be an actual issue. Then the beauty of energy based mechs shine.

So Solaris is a lie?
Even TT is at it's core an arena fight between two armies. And even with a campaign the balance factor is the same. Do I or do I not have enough ammo for this fight. It's do or die and by no means fun in an FPS. And it's supposed to be balanced against heatsinks for energy weapons.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Because that is realistic? How many weapons systems do armies have that do damage and how many that stun the enemy? Ratio is likely about the same as BT armies. Why? Because it is easier to design a weapon system that just does damage to one that stuns without doing damage.

Not even BattleTech as it is now is even remotely realistic. Gauss shots that only fly 660 meters? Even the ones we build today can reach several miles. And we are talking 1000 years into the future, they should have come up with something we haven't already got today. And I'm not asking for teleporting mechs or something like that, just something a little different than just bullets of various sizes. Something that adds options, synergy and fun to the game.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Like Beagle Active Probes?

But why isn't that built into the scout mechs? All mechs can carry BAP and most mechs just do it to detect ECM mechs. All chassis are the same in the game, only different in tonnage and in MWO they at least added hardpoints to make them different. Quirks help too, but they just adjust something that was already there. Why hasn't the Raven some unique sensors or ECM abilities built into the chassis?

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Because it adds in a sensor suite for each launcher that links with the missiles in flight and directs them?

And this is better? How does this explanation of Artemis add anything to the game that wouldn't also have been there by just making Artimis LRM launchers. Other than unnecessary complexity.

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Actually it is a fairly simplistic system as a TT battlefield game goes. Overly simplified sometimes.

Overly simplified? Where?

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

So... Not Battletech?

Battletech evolved!

Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

No it wasn't. Because unlike MWO where things are limited to 12 on 12 in TT you could bring 2+ Shadowhawks for every Atlas the other side brought. Suddenly 4 Atlas facing 9-10 Shadowhawks meant a balanced game. In TT Clan vrs IS was extremely balanced because if one side brought 10k in BV then the other side brought 10k in BV. Done. PGI has this stupid idea of Battletech being an arena battle of 12 v 12 and that screws most of that possible balance up right there. Asymmetrical battles would be so much more balanced.

You just made my point. This is a shooter where 12 people is going up against 12 people. To make this fun, everyone must have equal opportunity to help his team achieve victory. Only way to ensure that is to make all mech equally able to help the team in some way. With TT rules, the Atlas means more to the team than the shadowhawk.
If instead we somehow magically made the Matchmaker able to match unequal mechs into assymetric fights, the shadowhawks on one team would still contribute less individually than the Atlas on the other team. Not fun at all for the Shadowhawks. Most would still want to pilot Atlas' just have a bigger influence on the game.

[Burktross]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

You just made my point. This is a shooter where 12 people is going up against 12 people. To make this fun, everyone must have equal opportunity to help his team achieve victory. Only way to ensure that is to make all mech equally able to help the team in some way. With TT rules, the Atlas means more to the team than the shadowhawk.
If instead we somehow magically made the Matchmaker able to match unequal mechs into assymetric fights, the shadowhawks on one team would still contribute less individually than the Atlas on the other team. Not fun at all for the Shadowhawks. Most would still want to pilot Atlas' just have a bigger influence on the game.

Have to agree with you 100% there.

[IceSerpent]

Burktross, on 04 October 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I'm fairly certain Battletech is a game first, books second. Halo has books too you know.
Not to mention if someone talks about Battletech when talking about a Battletech based game, they're talking about game mechanics.
(Even so-- whatever? Is the Battletech novel lore not more or less compliant with its game? What is your point?)

The point is that Prosperity Park was correct in using that title, although wrong about BT not having weapon names. The names are generally used in literature (novels and TROs), while TT game goes by weapon type only. All different AC20s act the same from TT rules perspective, so extra fluff is not really necessary there. By the way, Mechwarrior is also a "Battletech game", it's just played from a perspective of a pilot instead of a unit commander.

[Burktross]

IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 06:48 PM, said:

The point is that Prosperity Park was correct in using that title, although wrong about BT not having weapon names. The names are generally used in literature (novels and TROs), while TT game goes by weapon type only. All different AC20s act the same from TT rules perspective, so extra fluff is not really necessary there. By the way, Mechwarrior is also a "Battletech game", it's just played from a perspective of a pilot instead of a unit commander.

You, I, or both of us must have really misunderstood each other because I agree with everything you wrote. XD

[IceSerpent]

Savage Wolf, on 04 October 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

So Solaris is a lie?
Even TT is at it's core an arena fight between two armies. And even with a campaign the balance factor is the same. Do I or do I not have enough ammo for this fight. It's do or die and by no means fun in an FPS. And it's supposed to be balanced against heatsinks for energy weapons.

Solaris is a very small part of TT. You're also not entirely correct about the "core" - it is a core mechanic for sure, but it's intended to be used as a part of a bigger game. Kind of like combat in Total War series is intended to work in conjunction with things on global map.

Quote

You just made my point. This is a shooter where 12 people is going up against 12 people. To make this fun, everyone must have equal opportunity to help his team achieve victory. Only way to ensure that is to make all mech equally able to help the team in some way. With TT rules, the Atlas means more to the team than the shadowhawk.

We only have 12 vs. 12 because PGI made it so. There are no inherent limitations or rules governing how one can split 24 players into teams. We could have had 5 vs 19 (or any other 2 team sizes that add up to 24 total players) just as easily as 12 vs. 12. Heck, there's really nothing preventing having those 24 players split into more than 2 teams - you can have 4 teams of 6 if you want to.

Edited by IceSerpent, 04 October 2014 - 07:00 PM.

[Xanquil]

Flash Frame, on 04 October 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Let's say they made a game based on Harry Potter, but gave you an AK47 as the main player and told you to go mow down wizards. That would be fairly lore breaking. And while it would "Appeal" to the average gamer out there, it completely craps on the lore of Harry Potter.

This is one of the funniest images put in my head in a long time.

I usually use the like button to answer for me on most treads,(because I hate typing) but I have to agree with several of the people here. Without Battletech this wouldn't be MechWarrior. Although it has a few major issues to fix before I'll consider it "A BattleTech Game" as it states under the Mechwarror online logo.