20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Kin3ticX, on 26 March 2017 - 07:56 PM, said:

MRM-40 and Heavy Gauss might finally give me a better build to put in my atlas-k

AS7K are supposed to be bad. It's like an MWO rule or something.

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 02:45 AM, said:

So were Night Gyr or Huntsman. But they not only sold well, they are also very powerful in the game and thus a common sight in matches. Nostalgia Mechs like Rifleman - of which the IS has many, and is still getting more - are rarely seen, because people understand that even the greatest nostalgia does not make up for being shot like a dog in the long run.

Again, MWO is a BattleTech-game and it thus should embrace the full range of BattleTech. This is not only to do BT justice and to honour the spirit of previous MW-titles, this is also healthy for a balanced game in the long run.

I'd say as much of it has to do with the playerbase... I think a goodly number of those playing are not traditional btech fans (just reading the forums and talking in chat reveals that) which makes nostalgia moot. The more important question is what percentage of SALES is tied to nostalgia machines and traditional Btech players, though? Because end of the day, game balance or not, PGI is smartest to choose what actually sells for IRL money, not MC or Cbills.

But that's hard to tell.

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

Because end of the day, game balance or not, PGI is smartest to choose what actually sells for IRL money, not MC or Cbills.

But that's hard to tell.

I'm pretty sure there would be a Civil War Reinforcement package - including variants of the current Mechs.

It is extreme easy money for PGI. Because they need to do the work anyhow.
For example thanks to the Misery they need to model all ballistics and energy and missile weapons for the Stalker.
So its cheap to take the efford mirroring the LT to the RT and call it 8S and sell it for real money.

Ok you need to rethink the crit splitting - but again it would be the best and they might get the support by the community or at least the not clams part of the community to make the IS LBX 20 and IS Heavy Gauss 10 rather 11slots.

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 27 March 2017 - 05:53 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure there would be a Civil War Reinforcement package - including variants of the current Mechs.

It is extreme easy money for PGI. Because they need to do the work anyhow.
For example thanks to the Misery they need to model all ballistics and energy and missile weapons for the Stalker.
So its cheap to take the efford mirroring the LT to the RT and call it 8S and sell it for real money.

Ok you need to rethink the crit splitting - but again it would be the best and they might get the support by the community or at least the not clams part of the community to make the IS LBX 20 and IS Heavy Gauss 10 rather 11slots.

Think we were talking mech models, overall, but while one might get traction on the LB20x, being as with current mechancis, it's flat out inferior to the AC20, while bigger, etc.... but Hvy Gauss? Sorry, I see zero reason to make that monster even more accessible.

Of course, perhaps this will finally be the impetus PGI needs to make LBX not suck? (increase dmg per pellet, screen shake, etc)

[Karl Streiger]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 06:00 AM, said:

Think we were talking mech models, overall, but while one might get traction on the LB20x, being as with current mechancis, it's flat out inferior to the AC20, while bigger, etc.... but Hvy Gauss? Sorry, I see zero reason to make that monster even more accessible.

The question is were does accessible ends and were DoA starts
The Heavy Gauss is compared with the standard Gauss much better balanced. reduced range, more heat leass ammunition and the weight.... i don't think we will see many Heavy Gauss when the day is done - last not least every single critical hit in that side torso location will blow your mech into heaven

[Bishop Steiner]

Karl Streiger, on 27 March 2017 - 06:15 AM, said:

The question is were does accessible ends and were DoA starts
The Heavy Gauss is compared with the standard Gauss much better balanced. reduced range, more heat leass ammunition and the weight.... i don't think we will see many Heavy Gauss when the day is done - last not least every single critical hit in that side torso location will blow your mech into heaven

Has room for CASE. and is 25 PPFLD, for.....2 heat? Pretty sure we don't want them multiplying like rabbits. Also the range reduction is pretty minimal.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 27 March 2017 - 06:26 AM.

[FLG 01]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 05:29 AM, said:

Because end of the day, game balance or not, PGI is smartest to choose what actually sells for IRL money, not MC or Cbills.

I think the Night Gyr did well in terms of RL money, seeing the high number of Night Gyrs in the teams after its release; that is what I wanted to say. It surely did not worse than, say, a Cyclops. I am very doubtful when it's claimed an 'unknown' Mech always and automatically sells worse than a 'classic', even though dark horses obviously have an uphill battle. If it is good enough, it has a chance though. (And even the darkest of dark horses have their fans who'd be very happy).

Also, every single so-called 'icon' had a start. What would people here cheer for if MW:4 did not have the guts to introduce the Mad Cat MkII or the Fafnir? Who knows, perhaps in 15 years people will call for that 'iconic' Mech from MWO - the Nightstar (or whatever Mech you want)?

Anyway, I just cannot imagine driving an Avatar would be fun in MWO. Unless it is quirked to the max it will be Clan cannon fodder. ...for the first three weeks. Then noone will be driving it anymore. Here is the central problem: there are famous Mechs which would also be good performers. Osiris or Fafnir come to mind. But as long as we pretend performance does not matter,
trash like Avatar and Strider will be what we get.

[Bishop Steiner]

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 06:42 AM, said:

I think the Night Gyr did well in terms of RL money, seeing the high number of Night Gyrs in the teams after its release; that is what I wanted to say. It surely did not worse than, say, a Cyclops. I am very doubtful when it's claimed an 'unknown' Mech always and automatically sells worse than a 'classic', even though dark horses obviously have an uphill battle. If it is good enough, it has a chance though. (And even the darkest of dark horses have their fans who'd be very happy).

Also, every single so-called 'icon' had a start. What would people here cheer for if MW:4 did not have the guts to introduce the Mad Cat MkII or the Fafnir? Who knows, perhaps in 15 years people will call for that 'iconic' Mech from MWO - the Nightstar (or whatever Mech you want)?

Anyway, I just cannot imagine driving an Avatar would be fun in MWO. Unless it is quirked to the max it will be Clan cannon fodder. ...for the first three weeks. Then noone will be driving it anymore. Here is the central problem: there are famous Mechs which would also be good performers. Osiris or Fafnir come to mind. But as long as we pretend performance does not matter,
trash like Avatar and Strider will be what we get.

and if you sell all the meta first... what do you have after? Pacing. Mixing Metasticks and Nostalgia is good for the longterm health of the game, whether you like the mechs, or even if they are "good" or not.

[FLG 01]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

and if you sell all the meta first... what do you have after? Pacing. Mixing Metasticks and Nostalgia is good for the longterm health of the game, whether you like the mechs, or even if they are "good" or not.

Please tell me of all the "metasticks" the IS got in the last months? Assassin? Cyclops? Archer?

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 06:58 AM, said:

and if you sell all the meta first... what do you have after? Pacing. Mixing Metasticks and Nostalgia is good for the longterm health of the game, whether you like the mechs, or even if they are "good" or not.

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Please tell me of all the "metasticks" the IS got in the last months? Assassin? Cyclops? Archer?

There is a fine line between "metasticks", decent, and bad... I'm all for everyone getting their pet units, but something doesn't need to be a metastick, even the much vaunted Fafnir isn't going to be that great, it's going to have big ST's and tiny arms that will not provide much side protection. What it does offer how ever is cockpit level weapon mounts, the most ideal weapon mounts to have.

At the other end of the spectrum we have things like the SR1-0 Strider, with a hard locked engine and SHS, yet with potentially solid hit boxes depending on the direction PGI would go with it.

Where as in the middle ground we have units like the Templar, solid hit boxes (would have Battlemaster shield arms), but even she's got low weapons mounts, tons of pod space (44-ish tons), but her major problem is lack of crit spaces thanks in large part of an IS-XL, Endo and FF on an IS platform...

Where I am going with this, is most IS mechs have a lot of compromising to do to be strong, how ever the ones that are currently being sought after, are being based off of previous games that didn't work the same way that MWO does, Mechs like the Annihilator are going to be truly hampered in MWO due to engine size caps, while the Uziel is going to be ham strung thanks to how JJ's work, ultra high weapons with a low cockpit and the inability to use Clan spec equipment to save it's hide...

What the IS needs right now, are gap fillers, like the Stinger/Wasp 20t humanoid jumpers for example.

[Odanan]

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Please tell me of all the "metasticks" the IS got in the last months? Assassin? Cyclops? Archer?

All those 3 mechs are pretty decent. They are not easy mode, but that's not the same as mediocrity.

I don't know what you guys want anymore. Apparently, no IS omnimech should be added ever because: if they have XL Engine, they are too fragile. If they have Std. Engine, they are a waste of weight. If they have ES, they don't have room - if they don't have ES, they are not optimal... come on... when do you stopped being Mechwarriors and became MechLabWarriors?

Except for Omnimechs and more ECM, I don't see any new IS mech being different from what we already have, except for the nostalgia and looks.

And what the heck the Nightstar has to be praised so much? It would probably be inferior to the Cyclops hero.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

All those 3 mechs are pretty decent. They are not easy mode, but that's not the same as mediocrity.

I don't know what you guys want anymore. Apparently, no IS omnimech should be added ever because: if they have XL Engine, they are too fragile. If they have Std. Engine, they are a waste of weight. If they have ES, they don't have room - if they don't have ES, they are not optimal... come on... when do you stopped being Mechwarriors and became MechLabWarriors?

Except for Omnimechs and more ECM, I don't see any new IS mech being different from what we already have, except for the nostalgia and looks.

And what the heck the Nightstar has to be praised so much? It would probably be inferior to the Cyclops hero.

Never said I didn't want the Templar, I very much do... But I am not blind to it's weaknesses, crit space lay out.

The Nightstar would have Marauder like hit boxes, ability to boat Guass rifles/AC+energy weapons all at cockpit level or clustered near it... the down side is, not a massive engine cap with Marauder hit boxes, all in all a very respectable assault mech.

The Sunder has very solid chance to be decent to good, depending on how they model it, it lacks End and FF, but uses a 360 series XL, so it has a very cavernous internal space for weapons and equipment. Her Achilles heel will be the hit boxes, going by offical art, it shouldn't be that hard to isolate the ST's... But PGI has been known to change how mechs look, point in example the Battlemaster looks nothing like the original art.

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

All those 3 mechs are pretty decent. They are not easy mode, but that's not the same as mediocrity.

That may be right (it is definitely right in case of the Archer which I love to pilot), but we were talking about "Metasticks" and those three are far away from that, as are most Mechs the IS got in 2016 and 2017. The Warhammer and, to a lesser extend, the Marauder came close to it before their quirks got reduced. But that's it. I do not see those masses of new IS MetaMechs. I see a lot of Nostalgia-boats, though.

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

I don't know what you guys want anymore. Apparently, no IS omnimech should be added ever because: if they have XL Engine, they are too fragile. If they have Std. Engine, they are a waste of weight. If they have ES, they don't have room - if they don't have ES, they are not optimal... come on... when do you stopped being Mechwarriors and became MechLabWarriors?

I never said every OmniMech with XL-engine is bad. I was specifically addressing the Avatar with its huge, easily identifiable STs, its lack of shield arms, and its low speed – those factors combined mean death for the design.
In fact, there are potent IS OmniMechs in the second and third generation, even with XL engine, but they are often unfairly derided as 'Metasticks' or a priori discarded because - oh shock - they have not been in MW:4.

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

And what the heck the Nightstar has to be praised so much? It would probably be inferior to the Cyclops hero.

That is a cheap shot. Actually it is one that does not concern me very much as the Nightstar is not even in my top3 assault Mechs list, much less my top10 overall list.

And in case you really don't understand the potential of the Nightstar... well. Right.

[Requiemking]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

And what the heck the Nightstar has to be praised so much? It would probably be inferior to the Cyclops hero.

Nigghtstar would probably be better than the MK2 will be. Nightstar has well-placed weapons coupled with Marauder hitboxes, while the Knockoff is an overweight EBJ standing on his tiptoes with a wart growing on his back.

[TheArisen]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 08:45 AM, said:

All those 3 mechs are pretty decent. They are not easy mode, but that's not the same as mediocrity.

I don't know what you guys want anymore. Apparently, no IS omnimech should be added ever because: if they have XL Engine, they are too fragile. If they have Std. Engine, they are a waste of weight. If they have ES, they don't have room - if they don't have ES, they are not optimal... come on... when do you stopped being Mechwarriors and became MechLabWarriors?

Except for Omnimechs and more ECM, I don't see any new IS mech being different from what we already have, except for the nostalgia and looks.

And what the heck the Nightstar has to be praised so much? It would probably be inferior to the Cyclops hero.

Cyclops hero better than the Nightstar? Is that a joke? The Slepnir mounts it's ballistics in the torso which makes Gauss extra risky especially with an XL. Also, in general the Cyclops has bad hitboxes that are easily distiguishable. So Nightstar = Tanky Cyclops = Tissue paper. Also the Nightstar's weapons are mounted at cockpit height, not below or above, and there isn't much mech above the cockpit. Since the arms stick out to the sides that also allows it to twist off dmg, something the Cyclops can't do. Another thing is the only high mounts on the Cyclops are it's torso mounts but the Nightstar has only cockpit height mounts so it can fire dual erppc or even Hppc with it's Grifles or ACs.

Metus regem, on 27 March 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

Never said I didn't want the Templar, I very much do... But I am not blind to it's weaknesses, crit space lay out.

The Nightstar would have Marauder like hit boxes, ability to boat Guass rifles/AC+energy weapons all at cockpit level or clustered near it... the down side is, not a massive engine cap with Marauder hit boxes, all in all a very respectable assault mech.

The Nightstar does have it's 9SS variant which would have a 400 cap easy with it's 380 stock engine.

And yeah the Templar makes me sad as it's a favorite of mine but the FF holds it back because it eats too many slots.

Edited by TheArisen, 27 March 2017 - 02:09 PM.

[TheArisen]

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 09:18 AM, said:

That may be right (it is definitely right in case of the Archer which I love to pilot), but we were talking about "Metasticks" and those three are far away from that, as are most Mechs the IS got in 2016 and 2017. The Warhammer and, to a lesser extend, the Marauder came close to it before their quirks got reduced. But that's it. I do not see those masses of new IS MetaMechs. I see a lot of Nostalgia-boats, though.




I never said every OmniMech with XL-engine is bad. I was specifically addressing the Avatar with its huge, easily identifiable STs, its lack of shield arms, and its low speed – those factors combined mean death for the design.
In fact, there are potent IS OmniMechs in the second and third generation, even with XL engine, but they are often unfairly derided as 'Metasticks' or a priori discarded because - oh shock - they have not been in MW:4.




That is a cheap shot. Actually it is one that does not concern me very much as the Nightstar is not even in my top3 assault Mechs list, much less my top10 overall list.

And in case you really don't understand the potential of the Nightstar... well. Right.

For the Avatar I'd also add that it's locked engine is a tiny 280xl. It won't even have speed or agility to compensate for it's bad hitboxes.

[Bishop Steiner]

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 07:07 AM, said:

Please tell me of all the "metasticks" the IS got in the last months? Assassin? Cyclops? Archer?

Did I say they did? Let's keep the conversation on what has actually been said, kindly?

What I said, and I'll repeat, because I'm nice like that, is if we do as you said and focus on the Meta first, what do we do when the meta runs out? Stop Selling robots? Or do you pace things and lay out a mix of meta and non? As for what IS Meta stick? TBH; it's irrelevant. Because the people buying solely for performance, mostly don't care if it's clan or IS. It's nostalgia grognards who care.

[FLG 01]

TheArisen, on 27 March 2017 - 12:03 PM, said:

For the Avatar I'd also add that it's locked engine is a tiny 280xl. It won't even have speed or agility to compensate for it's bad hitboxes.

When was the last time someone ran a 70 ton Mech with less than 70 kph on an XL-engine?
The hitboxes are only the final nail in the coffin of that Mech.

Bishop Steiner, on 27 March 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Did I say they did? Let's keep the conversation on what has actually been said, kindly?

What I said, and I'll repeat, because I'm nice like that, is if we do as you said and focus on the Meta first, what do we do when the meta runs out? Stop Selling robots? Or do you pace things and lay out a mix of meta and non? As for what IS Meta stick? TBH; it's irrelevant. Because the people buying solely for performance, mostly don't care if it's clan or IS. It's nostalgia grognards who care.

I was originally referring to your "Mixing Metasticks and Nostalgia", however to mix something you need both. And I don't see any releases of high performance IS Mechs in the mix. I also never wrote anything about meta first, so that is really going nowhere; I am merely pointing out how horrible some nostalgia choices can be in terms of in-game performance (--> Avatar), and I am advocating not to ignore performance entirely.

I am a grognard myself. Unlike some vocal people in this thread I own a load of actual BattleTech source books, novels, scenario packs etc. Of course I do have my nostalgia picks I would take over any metamonster; it is just that they are not limited to some 17-year old video game of the franchise.

And I am aware of their in-game limitations.

[Odanan]

FLG 01, on 27 March 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

Of course I do have my nostalgia picks I would take over any metamonster; it is just that they are not limited to some 17-year old video game of the franchise.

Hey, I more hate than love MW4, but many people started in Mechwarrior/Battletech through MW4, so, iconic mechs, for them, mean Uziel, Mad Cat MK II, Fafnir, Nova Cat, etc...

It took MWO 5 years to announce the first 2 mechs from MW4 - don't you think it's their turn?

[FLG 01]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

Hey, I more hate than love MW4, but many people started in Mechwarrior/Battletech through MW4, so, iconic mechs, for them, mean Uziel, Mad Cat MK II, Fafnir, Nova Cat, etc...

It took MWO 5 years to announce the first 2 mechs from MW4 - don't you think it's their turn?

No disagreement here.

I for one don't hate or love MW:4. It is just a game I liked back then. And some of its Mechs, if not most of its Mechs deserve to be in a BattleTech-game set in the FCCW, because those Mechs are not just from MW:4. The Fafnir for example (sorry that I come back to it so many times) was the ride of an Archon, whose fight for the throne in this very Mech was a central piece of BattleTech-narration.

However that does not mean I would not happy for people getting their favourite Mechs, no matter why those Mechs are their favourites. On the contrary, I love to see passion for a Mech and respect it greatly.

I just fear that an overly strong focus on MW:4 as the one-and-only criterion means many deserving Mechs get ignored in favour of some decidely less impressive Mechs (both, in terms of lore and performance). Don't get me wrong, you can have your MW:4-stuff, but there should be more to them.
Btw., we already have many Mechs which were featured in MW:4, and one of them is my current favourite in-game.

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 27 March 2017 - 01:54 PM, said:

Hey, I more hate than love MW4, but many people started in Mechwarrior/Battletech through MW4, so, iconic mechs, for them, mean Uziel, Mad Cat MK II, Fafnir, Nova Cat, etc...

It took MWO 5 years to announce the first 2 mechs from MW4 - don't you think it's their turn?

No issues with that, I just want the people that want them, to be aware of any possible short comings of those chassis that are present in TT, as MWO operates closer to TT rules than MW/4 did. While at the same time, having them keep in mind of the realities of MWO's game play, that will hurt mechs like the Annihilator and Uziel due to their geometry.