28 replies to this topic

[Durant Carlyle]

cRaZy8or5e, on 26 December 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

Should have left Clan Mechs as true omnimechs.

Actually, the OmniMechs as they are in MW:O are VERY close to being TT OmniMechs.

TT Omnis:
Cannot change internal structure type or slots.
Cannot change armor type, slots, or point distribution.
Cannot change engine type or rating.
Cannot change fixed weapons and/or equipment.

If you were thinking those things could change, you were confusing the OmniMech customization rules and OmniMech construction rules. This is the same mistake MechWarrior II made with OmniMechs, MechWarrior 3 & 4 made with standard BattleMechs and OmniMechs, and MW:O makes with BattleMechs. Neither OmniMechs nor BattleMechs are anywhere near as customizable as the computer games have made them out to be.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 09 April 2015 - 09:37 AM.

[990Dreams]

Yes, but penalties invoked. Just to see how balancing could/would work.

[MechWarrior849305]

Well...maybe case COULD be some lifesaver for IS XL engi, if with destroying side torso mech would lose 60% of it's current moving speed (legged mechs inclusive), as well with double heat generated, as it is with clan XL engis. SO, for a light with 150kmh - 60% = 60kmph, and, while legged even more so -50% = 30 kmph.
That's the only way I can see it acceptable.

[VinJade]

actually true omni mechs unless the tech was stated to be hard mounted(like the pos flamer on the Adder) then for example the Adder, as long as you have the spare tonnage & the Crits you can mount anything you want on it.

like lets say you want to place two ER Large Lasers in the side torsos & the Arms you can.
if you want Jump Jets then you can have them, they are all pod capable so as long as you are not changing anything other than equipment that isn't hard mounted then they should be able to do so.

anyways to the engines:
The XL I always hated, they cost more then they are worth, they make any mech with it more of a liability, Light Engines, though not as light still allows the mech to stay on the field longer.

Whenever I design a mech for TT I never use an XLE in anything bigger than a ultra light.

Edited by VinJade, 26 September 2015 - 06:37 PM.

[Lolo van Trollinger]

honestly, that level 3 stuff already broke CBT, having it on horizon is a reason not to buy mechs IMHO and wait n see wether it breaks balance in here. it already f... up the tabletop. why repeat that f... up ?

[Nesutizale]

I know people won't like it but I would prefere less customability.
IS would get Hardpoint sizes that limits what weapons could be mounted and Clan omnipods would keep their weapons as is. You can still swap pods but you have a fixed array of weapons/equipment in each pod.

[IraqiWalker]

Nesutizale, on 04 May 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I know people won't like it but I would prefere less customability.
IS would get Hardpoint sizes that limits what weapons could be mounted and Clan omnipods would keep their weapons as is. You can still swap pods but you have a fixed array of weapons/equipment in each pod.

We already have hardpoint sizes. They're called slots. Why put sizes, inside sizes? Especially when the lore, and rules of the game allow you to put whatever you want?

[Nesutizale]

That is not what I meant. A Hardpoint size is that you can't fit in a weapon that is bigger or smaller then the port allows.
So a ballistic Hardpoint might only allow for a swap between an AC10,20 or Gauss but not smaller calibers or the other way around MG, AC2 or AC5.

Or you could make any hardpoint an universal one but restrict the weaponzises like in the example above. To exxagerate it a bit, while you might be able to put a Gauss in your light mech it dosn't mean that the mechs arm can hold it. Think of a Spider with an Gauss in the arm.

Reason for this idea? More diversity in mechs beeing used.

[IraqiWalker]

Nesutizale, on 05 May 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

That is not what I meant. A Hardpoint size is that you can't fit in a weapon that is bigger or smaller then the port allows.
So a ballistic Hardpoint might only allow for a swap between an AC10,20 or Gauss but not smaller calibers or the other way around MG, AC2 or AC5.

Or you could make any hardpoint an universal one but restrict the weaponzises like in the example above. To exxagerate it a bit, while you might be able to put a Gauss in your light mech it dosn't mean that the mechs arm can hold it. Think of a Spider with an Gauss in the arm.

Reason for this idea? More diversity in mechs beeing used.

I completely understood what you meant. Which is why I gave you the previous response. We don't need sizes inside sizes. We already have size restrictions in place.

Btw, the light mech arm can definitely hold the GR. You seem to forget that we have lights without a lower arm actuator. They can pack a GR in that arm just fine. Both in lore, and in gameplay.

For the record, this is not the first time that hardpoint sizes were brought up. The won't promote any diversity in mechs being used. Literally every single iteration results in fewer, and fewer mechs being used, because any variant that ends up with a short end of the HP size stick is out of the game instantly, as everyone moves to the better one.

Let's take a proper example from one of the mechs in game. Back during the poptart meta days, if only ONE of the SHD variants could fit a GR in the torso, then ALL others would be out of the game, and not be used, since only the GR one was viable.

If they change the meta, we end up with the same result: Out of an entire line of mechs, only one, possibly two, will be used.

I say this as someone who used to play the old MW games in multiplayer, and I still remember half the decks from back then. Literally a handful of mechs, out of the entire bunch. Even fewer than MWO now percentage wise.

By the way, we have a spider with a gauss rifle in the arm. It's the Urbanmech (both JJ using, 30 ton lights).