Wolfways, on 04 October 2014 - 08:39 PM, said:
There are different warhead types for LRM's. ArtemisIV is an upgrade to LRM's just like ER and Ultra are an upgrade to lasers and AC's.
If that was the case I would be able to mix non-Artemis LRMs and Artemis LRMs on the same mech. Currently not possible.
Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:
Go play other TT strategy warfare games using models. Warhammer and WH40K are two of the most popular out there aside from Battletech and their rules are probably 5 times as complex once you add in all the different army books.
Building an army in one of those systems are a lot more simple than building mechs in BattleTech. Playing the game... well that's a different story. But none of the games based on their systems carried over the complexity to the games either, unlike MW.
And you still didn't mention where BattleTech is oversimplified.
Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:
Is that going to be like D&D 4th Edition? See the best version of D&D is Pathfinder. To understand why it would be because they kept the 3.5 core and expanded and corrected imbalance instead of throwing everything out. 2.0(AD&D) was pretty poor. One of the best gaming systems out there is GURPS and 4th edition was not a radical change from 3rd, just more of a balance shift than actual rewriting. Things were clarified. Just like the current "Classic" Battletech rules are clarifications and balance fixes of the original system.
See... you people act like the rules are 20+ years old and have never once altered at all. They have while still keeping all the core things. It was a well built core and has stood the test of time.
No, they built themselves into a corner. They refused to change anything that would break stock mechs and so the only thing they could do was add things. They didn't do this because it was good. Had D&D done this, it would still be AD&D, but with more classes and weapons. What we need is the D&D 3rd edition of BattleTech, and when we see that, then we can consider doing the Pathfinder of BattleTech.
GURPS 4th edition was a good game and has been going for a long time now, but it's age is showing, so new players aren't adopting it and so like everything else that doesn't change, it's doomed to die a slow death. Just like BattleTech currently is.
Mercules, on 04 October 2014 - 09:32 PM, said:
No it doesn't. Every mech is an asset.
All you are saying is that MWO as it exists right now should just have everyone drop in a 100 tonner since no one WANTS to play the 50 tonners or such by your opinion. That is just stupid. Trust me. If a group of 15 mediocre mechs dropped against a group of 10 Meta mechs they would probably have a fun battle. The Meta players would be swarmed from too many sides at once and their high BV mechs would have to deal with being focus fired from multiple lower BV mechs.
Each individual player of lower BV mechs would still be shooting at things and dodging things. It's only E-Peen morons who cry if they don't get their big numbers and need to be the center of attention. Most players would just be happy getting a win.
In a game based on BV there will be a new meta based on what mechs have a lower BV than their actual worth. And players in mechs with high BV would if the system works, be more important than one with low BV. The guy in the high BV mech is also garanteed to stay in the game longer while the guy in a low BV mech is unlucky to be the first to go.
IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:
Not necessarily, you can make them equally viable. If you don't run out, you can equalize firepower. If you do run out, you can make it a choice between initial high damage with low damage later (or none at all) for ammo-based and average damage throughout the match for energy.
But both of those can't be true at the same time. And ammo based weapons always needs to have a higher damage potential than energy weapons because of the risk. Otherwise energy weapons would always be better.
IceSerpent, on 04 October 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:
Why? Being on 5 Atlas team gives you the same influence as each other Atlas. Being on 10 Shadowhawk team gives you the same influence as each other Shadowhawk.
Not to mention that this whole concept only works if your team consists of the same exact mechs. As soon as you allow Atlases and Shadowhawks on the same team, all equality goes out of the window.
Once again my point is made for me. But you also missed the point where I said that you need equal influence compared to anyone in the battle, not just your own team. So we need to make sure that all mechs are as viable as the other, or as close as possible, knowing that we probably will never reach it fully.
Duncan Jr Fischer, on 04 October 2014 - 09:50 PM, said:
The guys who dream of equality. Would you be satisfied to play the game of your dream - EqualWarrior: Online, where you have one mech with one weapon, and fight 12vs12 on a totally flat map? No matter the result, everyone gets the same amount of cash and XP.
Having equal viability does not mean that all mechs are the same. Lots of games pulls this off while giving you plenty of options. Look at League Of Legends. All those champions to choose from and most of them are equal in viability. But that is also because they do different things, unlike an Atlas and an Awesome. They do the same thing, but the Atlas just have more room for guns.
So when you think about it, what we had in earlier MW titles was actually Equal Warrior. Everyone figthing eachother in their selection of 100 ton mechs.
5
